Vimarsana.com

Latest Breaking News On - John sheehan - Page 1 : vimarsana.com

Transcripts For CSPAN2 Book TV 20140317

the first is you have to have a legitimate government you can't have these power-sharing agreements very at peac people n government are there to enrich their clan and there has to be a lot more people sen people cento there has to be some point where people are allowed to vote to select their own leaders and have a lot better situation. the second thing is to reduce the amount of violence. the main priority is if you're into violence in somalia you can have some political development and economic development as well. with guest host author mac of the forgotten man. this week herbert hoover expert in his latest 1933 to 1955. the hoover institution represents what is referred to as the missing link in the memoir he provides the 31st philosophy and a analysis of the depression he was blamed for and the sentry's most historic conflict. this program is about an hour. >> hello. the book is the crusade years. the editor is the most esteemed scholar of herbert hoover today. herbert hoover from 1929 to 1933 which means he saw the worst years of the depression ended the great depression was so bad that a lot of our modern history is about assigning blame for it and figuring out whose fault that depression was. many people blame hoover and down the decades increasingly so. the president of the united states was ranked 37 out of 43 in the recent u.s. news poll magazine wrote. he was known as a poor communicator that exacerbated the depression. so not only those on the left but some on the right assigned the blame and we are here today to talk about that specifically. at president hoover's on and i was us and work that blames other people as well including his successor franklin roosevelt and his predecessor calvin coolidge. so, we want to welcome the viewers to this revision. he's a frequent guest on this channel and richard norton smith introduced him and interviewed him for another book and this time we are going to give license to this depression subject. we are going to break the hour into three parts. the first is to remind ourselves who hoover was and to talk about the production of this tremendous book and its many pages and much editing and a detailed and the third part would be to talk about why it matters. what about the great depression and today's c-span viewers, welcome. hoover's identity really began in college and you have written a whole book about that. where did hoover go to college and how did it affect him? he was born in 1874 as the son of quakers and a blacksmith and he was orphaned before he was ten. eventually with an uncle in oregon he never had more than a middle school education and then applied for entrance into the newly formed stanford university in the summer of 1891 and got admission and was told to take some additional tutoring with the help of which he passe passf his entrance exams. he was literally the first at the stanford university in the fall of 91 getting his dormitory rooroom ahead of anyone else and that became his alma mater. you have to remember he was trying to make it in the world. he was only 17 when he entered college and was rather shy but he blossomed in college and became the treasurer. about 25 years or so after that after world war i, hoover literally built his own home on the stanford campus. and that's a fair as the official residence of the president of the university. >> host: what did he do with his education that he got when he studied engineering? >> guest: his official nature was geology and he had an interest that quickly became his career after he graduated in the class of 1985 and after a year or two in the united states he got a break and was hired as the mining firm that was preeminent in the world at the time and he was sent as a very young man to australia and before he left at the age of 23 he was already manager of one of the great gold lines of the gold rush and it was from there he got married to a stanford women who also was a geology major and possibly the first such woman in the united states to have that nature, but she was certainly the pioneer and they went to china for a couple of years and eventually hoover used london as the space during the mining engineering career that took him up to world war i. he became very successful, took it all over the world to live in places like burma, australia and so forth and had a great success in that career. >> host: imagine you have a son or daughter and he goes to college and that being the world needs most at that point getting minerals out of the ground into the growing economy needs minerals especially when it's on a gold standard and george is the best educated in that area who studied with his masters and he is also the most able. so hoover was the best paid man of his generation and certainly one of the most successful. he was into just any. >> guest: you're quite right. he became the outstanding engineer of his time and was recognized for that. he was earning probably in excess of $100,000 a year which was a lot of money and it was before income tax. he didn't want to stop there. by the time he was 40 he was probably a modest millionaire. i'm not a rockefeller but he punted to do more with his life. having done well in his profession he wanted to do something more creative to give back in the circumstances that led to the second career as a cemetery in. >> host: that's right. and professor nash has written about these early days of his life. first wartime to getting americans back to the u.s. in world war i and defend a great rescue to the people of belgium and then to also be the food administrator; is that not right? that was the beginning of american politics. >> guest: yes. hoover was in world war i during the month of his 40th birthday he already had these notions he was going to return to the united states and get back in public life in a big way. i think that he thought he would become a newspaper owner. but at any rate, circumstances turned his life in a different direction and as you pointed out, he had american tourists stranded in europe and then was asked to organize what was a temporary emergency relief mission to help the distressed people of belgium who had just been overrun by the german army at the start of the war. they didn't have enough food and that turned into something that was without precedent in the history of humanity feeding an entire occupied nation of several million people almost over 9 million people if you count the couple million in northern france that fell into that sphere. that made hoover an international hero and a symbol of force of american benevolence here was the new world coming to help the old and its tribulations. hoover was doing this not by conducting war but fight dealing with the problem of war as a humanitarian. that made him as i say an international hero. it made him an american hero as well and he entered the administration and became the food administrator. now he's kind of a world authority on food and food relief, humanitarian relief. himself the accolade of the great humanitarian he was called the master of emergencies come of the napoleon of mercy, and at the end of the war he went back on will send's instructions to organize relief in europe, many countries over 20 countries received food assistance that hoover orchestrated and facilitated and truly tens of millions of people were dependent. >> host: at that time he had the opportunity to form opinions about the revolution going on in europe whether it was germany or russia. tell us a little bit about russia because he had investments and he saw what happened in the russian revolution. >> guest: hoover as an american traveled all over the world and was a very perceptive observer and was constantly comparing the america that he knew with these other social systems many of which were failing and as you mentioned there was a great turmoil in the aftermath of world war i and the communists had taken over russia in the pol polls show that revolution of 1917 and hoover had basically pulled out of the russian mining interests before these revolutions. but he lost a prospective fortune when they came in and seized the minds and general chaos ensued and he saw one of the great lessons from that wartime and postwar experience he saw what he regarded as the failure of the control the economy is as we would say he used the word socialism and so forth. especially in russia. and he saw that as a great failure but also as a great challenges of philosophically to the americans way of doing things. so after his humanitarian episode, which probably resulted in saving more lives than any person that ever lived that's been said of him as a remarkable achievement. after that he returned to the united states and and heard american public life. >> host: that's right. and we are going to move for his career very quickly just to brief the reader so that we can get -- the listeners so we can get to the controversy. he was such a success that both parties vied for his affection. >> guest: yes indeed. >> host: at the end he went republican. he was commerce secretary to president harding and president coolidge. he didn't get along very well with president coolidge, did he? >> guest: eventually he did but it became a tense relationship partly for reasons of temperament and partly hoover was much more aggressive in terms of wanting to build public work expenditures and so on and that graded against coolidge's more fiscal conservatism, so there were tensions but they were both party loyalists and so coolidge did endorse hoover ultimately in 28 and again when hoover ran for the re- election so it's a complicated story but you're right it became a tense relationship underneath. >> host: that's right. so coolidge was no longer president. hoover was president and as hoover becomes president, within a year of the stock market crashes, so hoover is stuck with the albatross of a downturn, and this is why there's so much emphasis and focus. what did hoover do in the depression. a as president in his first year; find out the highlights. >> guest: hoover didn't believe in the philosophy a lot -- philosophy of laws a fair. by the historic standards of the presidents he was an activist at the start. what he tried to do is bring in the leaders of industry, the laborers and bankers and so forth and have a kind of cooperative approach that would hopefully stimulate recovery through the greater public works spending and the like. there were phases to what hoover did and he did some things he's been criticized by conservatives like agreeing to the smoot-hawley tariff for example. >> host: there was a great tariff which he signed a call to smoot-hawley. some of us have seen a little scene about it" ferris bueller's day off." that was at the time the business could ill afford it. >> guest: hoover was reluctant to sign it but it was through something his party stood for historically, the high tariffs of the republican party. and he did hope that in the law as written, he could turn into a better advantage by setting up the tariff commission that would presumably be more impartial and perhaps lower as well as raise the terrorist so we had a hope that scientifically things would work out better. but that was probably a forlorn hope. >> host: what about wages? >> guest: the leaders in the industry had the view that they should remain where they were. the argument being that this would create a purchasing power for people who were stumbling. perhaps the unemployed and so forth. that has been much deviated. >> host: he's not alone. henry ford believed in paying high and buy back the car. so it isn't keynesianism because keynes wasn't around in this way that it's an idea that is very popular now. consumer spending is good for the economy. >> guest: and hoover was kind of a keynesian at that point in the sense that he deleted in stimulating the economy through a countercyclical public expenditure on public work. remember hoover was an engineer so he had a certain interest in that kind of thing so that was a part of his early policy. i think what happens to hoover as the depression deepens -- and people know it wasn't the great depression on day number one they thought it was a typical cyclical event. but when the pattern didn't hold and the depression deepened, he then found himself facing increasing pressure from the left for the greater expenditures and intervention on the economy and he's started to hold the line against that and became very much a fiscal conservative balance the budget save the gold standard republican in the last year or two of his life and that perceived rigidity on his part is part of the reason that he got attacked as supposedly not doing anything. he was activist in his time including some of the policies that might not have been all that effective and on the other hand he was valiantly struggling against a total statist term such as he saw coming in the new deal. >> host: there are so many clichés about hoover but they are so different. some people blame him for being too active and some people blame him for doing nothing. laissez-faire and neither is entirely correct. and this is why your writings about hoover are so important. there is a third-rate measure. it often discussed which is they had an enormous tax increase in the later part of hoover's time. and i often think what do you think doctor nash said it's kind of blamed wrongfully because in today's terms to go to a very high tax like in the 60% range from the 25 or 24 that they had when he started seems like a watch that he walock that he waa gold standard world, and in the gold standard world washington must balance its budget or the rest of the world does it and the recession upon taking the gold away. what do you think about this tax increase and whether he is wrongly blamed? >> guest: there was a consensus among economists and politicians of both parties in late 31 and early 32. it was deficit spending that there had to be tax increases to balance the budget because as you say, balancing the budget was presented to be critical to recovery. the question was do you have a national sales tax were a lot of miscellaneous taxes were the income tax. they favored but was caugh whatt the time the manufacturer sales tax. but eventually what happened is that there was a whole bunch of taxes. but the census of the economic thinking of the time is that this is a wise idea. this isn't something that he placed it onto the congress. there was a bipartisan consens consensus. if you look at the results of the tax increase even after the raids were raised people didn't pay the income taxes. and i am inclined to think whether it was a good idea or bad idea if it wasn't a catastrophic explanatory idea for the late phase of the depression and some on the right would say. so i tend to think that the tax increase while as a mistake by our understanding of the policy was and as merelwasn't as merelr in that context you might say what choice did they have? so i think that hoover has too much criticism on that. >> guest: postcode you think of that sort of in an emotional arc. the stock market went down in the 40s to $3.81. the country is very angry. so who had they chosen to blamed? he is the most blamed president and elway. quickly to move on a little bit before we talk about your book in his own, the work of a biographer and editor, he's out in 33 kind of help on his rear end unfortunately. it goes back to california, and you had said he invente have sae ex- presidency because he lived very long after the presidency and held a record until jimmy carter surpassed him with more than three decades. can you tell us what he did in that post-presidency. go? >> guest: he was a pariah when he left office and hated as much as any person in american history that he didn' but he diy away. he did two -- went to california where he stayed out of sight for about a year and a half so he gave roosevelt a chance. hoover didn't just want to start about roosevelt at the very start. he wanted to permit a genuine change of administration. that hoover then became partly for reasons of temperament and the desire to vindicate himself and because he saw a great threat in merging he became very active as an ex-president. it's been said maybe theodore roosevelt had some inclinations along that line. hoover became really the leader of the opposition. he fought back and he wrote a book in 1944 which is kind of his return of the scene called the challenge to liberty. perhaps we will talk about that in a minute. he ended up becoming a vigorous critic of the new deal. he actually really i think wanted to be president again and there is considerable evidence that in 1940 he was angling for and hoping for the republican nomination so he wanted to return to stay in public life of a visit he was the influential leader of the republican party during the perco from 1943 until the end of eisenhower's administration return of republican presidency in 1953. and then in a period, hoover became a man of the right because even though he saw himself as a sort of aggressive republican and historical liberal he was battling against what he saw as a greater challenge from the left and that pushed him towards the right. during all these years he is writing books, he's doing all sorts of philanthropic work. people forget for almost 30 years he was the chair of the boys club movement and he made it into a major philanthropy for urban boys and he did a huge amount of travel, so he was an extraordinarily activist ex-president and that is something people tend to forget. >> host: and this is a story that is not told, especially the part about the republican party. we sort of forgot it if we ever knew it that he buys for example william f. buckley or he was around when the conservative free-market journal the freeman was created that he was a the counselor to many conservatives or out of power republicans. they didn't always take his advice and heat gave it out often that he was there and that father figure is underappreciated in modern history as well. what did that mean for the new deal? >> guest: that was his term for the new deal. a number of variants of what he called state control of the economy and society into socialism, communism, fascism. he sai said the variants that he some relationship to the others was the regimentation. that is msn's dot economy would have to be a free economy regulated by the government empire which hoover said of his approach but it would become a top-down managed economy dictating to the business or even behaving as a leader of this organizing business, so he argued the individual is him was the proper alternative to what he called the sheer socialism. >> host: speaking of communism in russia in a sense he wasn't for the recognition of communist russia burussia that he is also complaining about the regimentation of the new deal just related to what we would call the mandate, unfunded mandate for example, to many rules. too many rules. it would be too much control and this is all in his mind. i want to move briefly because it's very important and interesting to you and your own career and our art of working on hoover. you are from new england. you went to amherst college where your class of 67 it was the class. in 1945 that was my doctoral dissertation. >> host: an and this had an effect on many conservatives or free marketeers. as a writer at "the wall street journal" learning about it lately you did a revision of what you think what did you say that dan and what's changed. >> guest: i kept this after world war ii and more recently the book of writings called for reappraising which i bring up to date some of the more current happenings and while doing that i worked as a historian and biographer on several volumes produced on the life of herbert hoover and i got in by invitation. it wasn't something that i expected to do after getting my dissertation completed and looking for a job on the academic job market and so i have the commission to write a biography of hoover. many of those embattled and the weaker conservatives in the new deal period. how they are today is not as bad as it was in the 70s or now at least there are some conservative magazines who don't see hope in the political process. >> guest: into the 70s there was the conservative presence and william f. buckley junior was a major figure. they put the conservative intellectuals into the united states into the room of modest size the conservatism and it's been a formulations is a richer. go for the conservative to live to cause the movement has grown and matured but there was a time there was a lonely occupation and in that era it was a figure of rectitude and fighting the good fight. >> host: i want to ask you very briefly to see why di say e do with the hoover institution backs before we come to the break. >> guest: herbert hoover founded what is called today the institutional revolution of peace. it started in world war i and its aftermath as he began to collect documentation relating to the war with the mission. the material that might otherwise be lost or overlooked what documented this tragedy. so it started with a collection and archives and it's grown over the years to a broad institution with a think tank characteristic as well. >> host: on the soviet material especially the premier archive. >> guest: export from the union he ended up at the institution to research his later writing. it wouldn't have been in the soviet union. >> host: you said this might be the institution with the library because it's very interesting to say a few words about that and then we will close for a break. >> guest: in this phenomenal years in the public eye, for him to say that i thought was a remarkable statement. and i think that illustrated his concern that history to be understood and the lessons of history to be assimilated by people and that this great archive that he founded could make a singular contribution to the understanding of the world of revolution and communism and the national socialis socialismn is tremendously tumultuous and here he was collecting from all over. the documentation that they could go into into that was the greatest contribution. it is one of the think tanks. we will be back shortly after the break. >> we are back with the premier scholar of herbert hoover and we are going to spend some time now talking about the job of the hoover biography. i want to mention some of the names of people we've built our works on because there is a lot of work. there are many other biographers committed forgotten progressive, kendra clemens wrote in perfect visionary and bill lautenberg wrote a book in the arthur censure series. the wonderful scholar recently passed an and david berner, robt wrote about the presidents and did some interesting work on how elliott the fishing president about hoover and fly fisherman of richard norton smith and the other common man and hoover that wrote a book not about hoover directly but about his ideas on the individualism. is there anyone to add? have we left anyone out? >> guest: there are many monographs we probably didn't have time to list but i knew all of them and know all of them except mr. lyons that passed away so many years ago. one of the things that has happened in the generation is the scholarship has taken off. up to that point people have to rely on newspaper articles and so forth and now they got to see the story from the inside. so there has been a kind of boom if you will in the scholarship and maybe more detachment as time passes and the sum of the imo should. i'm happy to be in the company of those scholars and many other presidential library in iowa. >> host: >> guest: as we said earlier it was founded by herbert hoover and that is effectively in 1919 with stanford university. >> host: i want to say doctor is wearing the tie and it is quite beautiful. we are all very proud of the hoover institution. it is a dominant landmark in the stanford landscape. there is a system of presidential libraries in the united states administered largely by the archives. and one of those in the system is that herbert hoover presidential library in west branch on iowa and that was my basic operation for years working on the civil operations and i think i spent many months every minute i've enjoyed at the hoover institution because if you are a hoover biographer you end up having to draw u upon the archives resources of both places so that gives you a bit of background into the context in which i work as an independent scholar and both of those places and elsewhere over the years. >> host: the keywords "-begin-double-quotes to branch might want to know there are other papers including of the y. old family, rose wilder maybe laura ingalls wilder about the writing of the famous little house books. and that's important to a lot of americans, too. too. how did the daughter of laura and doctor herbert hoover? >> guest: the papers of rose wilder lane went to a man named roger mcbride who i was a libery and candidate at one point or at least an active libertarian and he donated the papers to the library in iowa so that is how the papers ended up in the presidential library. through mr. mcbride's donation as i understand. roosevelt was a friend and actually wrote one of the first campaign biographers way back in 1920 and it was pretty good she went around and interviewed people and i don't think that he cared for the buck and hired away. she felt like he was glamorizing her too much. >> host: this is very exciting how friendly he was and, you know, for whom he was a figure people we never would have imagined. here is your book. perhaps it is your sixth or seventh and related. he wrote so much after. where does this fit in? >> host: it was previously unknown to exist in all of my years of study i've never known. >> host: it's a dramatic discovery. >> guest: it is part of a set of memoirs that he began to write after wendell wilkie got the nomination for the republicans and he realized that was his last chance so he said he is taking a new turn of immense energy into writing what turned into six volumes of memoirs. there were two left but of which they referred to in other places but hadn't yet seen. after hoover died in 1964, this manuscript called the magnum opus that was used in world war ii and its aftermath and his critique of what you saw as roosevelt's foreign-policy id the great. that was put in storage by his heirs after he died in 1964 and as far as i can determine if the peoplthatthe people that made te decision are long deceased, they were concerned it would be lengthy to cause the controversy and open the political battles if manuscript published after the state funeral at that point in his life he's 90-years-old and that didn't seem like the right moment so they put it in storage and it was actually not until another generation to bring that into the publication. that cannot freedom betrayed. i give you all that prelude because while working on that other book i found in the 200 boxes of papers relating to it the manuscript of this book and this is a companion volume. it was on the foreign-policy decisions the account of what he called the crusade against collectivism in the united states during the new deal period and has some charming factors and interesting chapters as well on his philanthropies. the twofold gems that have recently been published is post-presidency with only one of them was known to exist and then i discovered as i mentioned before this one and with the permission of the family and the hoover family foundation this book has been released. >> host: so many books he seems to have written the autobiography a number of times and you can see his edits where he says hoover changed this or that. is it more like frederick douglass that wrote the biography why did he feel the need to go back. >> guest: he wrote my favorite statistic that had the ages of 85 to 90 when he died, he published several books not including -- everything he wrote was by pencil and then he would send it off to a typist and he would revise it and send it back again and again and he would get to the point he would like to see what it looks like so then he would have it set up and would keep tinkering. it was perfectionism he wanted not only his style to be perfect but also the facts to be perfect because he saw both of these books as having a purpose. freedom betrayed and the crusade years like the new deal and its socialism and regimentation and all that. the great value for people to learn lessons from, so he also thought that because of his unique stature and with the resources and access that he had any people with inside information, he thought that he was in a unique position to bring out to the american people some very important lessons about the recent history. so, i think that drove him to death all the more carefully. but he didn't quite let it go. he finished the other book before he died and -- >> host: you want to picture a man with tremendous energy with a lot to do -- i think you have a description of him going into his kitchen opening a can of campbell's soup and he is alone and then going off to write a little bit before anyone else he was correcting and writing the great philosopher that spoke of the road to serfdom. >> guest: they were hoping they would give the magnus opus but i haven't been able to find much beyond that and i can't find the correspondence that has been lost. there was at least a couple of correspondence but beyond that, i don't know. >> host: we come ou come out ofe third part which is about the controversy because if you read the papers today on the great depression or who was at fault or not roosevelt but this is why this book is timely, again, or for the first time it was discovered because it is about what happened in that and i wanted us to mention one thing that you discovered that i was able to write about in the discovery the professor finds lots of interesting new things. people often blamed calvin coolidge for his statement that he allegedly made as early as 29, right? the statement is that the market was just fine. what did you discover? >> guest: he said that prosperity was absolutely sound and cheap in the market. it turns out that the only source that i've been able to define and others were able to define as herbert hoover. he makes that point in his memoirs. but what i did a year or so ago doing some research and so forth and we discussed this before, hoover wrote several drafts and i found the drafts and it turns out in the initial draft he made that statement just before he came into office as president before coolidge left he made these statements that he didn't put quotation marks around the original draft and then in the types revision whether it was the secretary putting in quotation marks added by the time the book gets published into the passages published in the memoirs of 1950, 1952 or so it looks like he said this precisely and we haven't been able to find at that time he may have had a little slip of his memory or he may have been thinking of an earlier episode a year before when coolidge asked comments abou,it's about the st. and -- >> host: we all have a natural eagerness to shift the blame over to someone else and in that case maybe he shifted a little too much to coolidge. he shifted a little too much to coolidge but didn't live as long. but both themselves had a tremendous burden of being assigned a blame game for the terrible motion in the business cycle, quite interesting. since we have been studying hoover, there has been some revision that's important to point out. one piece of the revision relates up to the soviet union. when you began writing he says the union was a bad history didn't always say the soviet union was bad. since then, the discovery in the papers have seen the reality reported by the soviet refugees who came over. we came to see for example regarding the new deal that there were many new people in the new deal who were communists or some who were reporting to moscow. and that is a big change since you've become a historian and i've begun to look into it. and a part of that is possible because of hoover's work in the archives. not everyone reported to moscow but some day the -- but some of them did. so he was not exactly wrong the soviet union was evil. >> guest: he regarded one of the great mistakes of roosevelt, that being the recognition, diplomatic recognition of 1933. he gave respectability and much easier access into a american public life and in the 30s they are developed in what is called at the popular front. perhaps at one point there were 100,000 members of the communist party so that might seem small l but they were concentrated and effective and energetic and so forth and hoover was worried about this and he thought that this was pulling the new deal to the left. >> guest: >> host: he was not inaccurate on some of those and we want to give him credit. he was also not an accurate about the economic and social process of the soviet union. >> guest: he argued if we were not careful in our proper description of the evil empire, we would have another evil empire in its place and that stalin would win the war and that was a part of the argument that crusade years that roosevelt had a very naïve feeling about his ability to domesticate joseph stalin to make him into a gentle man after the war and hoover was critical anand saw that the book freedom betrayed as what you've got to understand the mistakes that we made, and we must eliminate these notions so he didn't think he was a communist. >> host: tha >> host: but as controversial today and important when you look at the current policy. david davenport and former pepperdine university with george lloyd of recently published a book to say it is the paradigm for the modern debate. you are for government expansion and if you are against it, the 1930s deal then you have other positions about the current policy. they think hoover therefore is a definer. they think that coolidge is kind of retro and out of it. what i enjoy very much about your book is that you show that, hoover is thinking about the new deal and things that could be articles today. you said we cannot extend the mastery of the government without making it a master of people's soul and thoughts. can you say a word or two more about what is in this book and how it might be perceived? >> guest: yes i'm glad you mentioned gordon lloyd into the new deal on the conservatism just out a few months ago. same publisher i might add. neither of us knew that we were writing the separate volumes but we had a great deal of convergence and recognizing and hoover this figure and leader in the deployment of arguments and the anti-statist arguments that have now become an trouble to the conservatism into some of the arguments that hoover because in the 1930s that we are having still as kind of a permanent issue in our politics. of the economy which is the problem and which is the solution and how far should we go in regulation and deregulation and so forth, so he raises issues in this book which are very defining as you say of the american political landscape. in fact he gave a talk at the madison square garden on the campaign. he said that this is more than a contest between two men and two parties. it's between two philosophies and the outcome will dictate the course of american life for 100 years to come. and he regarded that as one of the prophetic speeches he ever gave so what he is doing in this book is documenting his battle against the new deal all through the 30s and 40s and the aftermath and he regarded this as a critical buying less of the america that he knew into the america of the more individualistic philosophy that might be lost and we would move towards a more regimented society come a managerial state. >> host: there would be a gradual expansion step-by-step and to a very large state. just to recall the new deal with in the 1930s into the great depression was unfortunately unemployment did not come down and the stock market did not recover. those are the two main facts that make it a depression. it was the duration that made the depression. so sometimes underwent too far. you do have a wonderful item i be leaving one of your appendices where he wrote a letter to the justice asking can you tell us about that? >> guest: yes. in 1940. briefly linda loki was running against roosevelt as a fairly tight election and he was afraid that roosevelt would get his third term. hoover went to the chief justice of the united states and asked him to resign from the court in the middle of the campaign and campaign against roosevelt. roosevelt had a big battle a few years ago. the court packing scheme that cost him a lot of political support. he had been an opponent -- >> guest: it was a political change of the court. >> guest: he came up with this idea that this gesture might turn the tide of the campaign. and he couldn't put them in jeopardy that way by using the position to leave it and then do this. and he would appoint a new deal in this place especially if roosevelt got elected. he didn't stay on the court much longer tha but this was one of e documents i found that hoover doesn't talk about in the regular book that it belongs in an appendix because this is a rather sensational or would have been more sensational had it happened. >> host: you talk of a man wrestling with urgency thinking he's right and with his own sense of importance and how to conduct your self i worked with president bush for several years and one of the things i noticed is his incredible graciousness as pulling back. he was a less active president because he was more on the statesmen and that it's hard for anyone to be an ex- president. you have an anxiety about the future and about how the past is perceived. what do you think is the single most important thing in this but? >> guest: i think that hoover was unusual among the political figures of his time and ours in that he be leaving the importance of the proper narrative of understanding of the past in order to avoid the mistakes of the present and future. the future. so he did not want to go quietly into the night or elected the new deal monopolized the argument so he fought back and rather energetically sketched out a counter narrative which meant the new deal came under criticism and i think that argument whether or not one accepts that on every detail or its fundament was, it is part of a constant argument that we still have about the place of government in our society and whether the government can be a menace as well as a help. and hoover saw the collectivism in the 30s and he is worried about the totalitarian liberals. it was a rather striking phase they thought we can keep the other freedoms but still have state control of enterprise. he said you can't have that combination. i was made a few years before. there are some interesting comparisons. >> host: that's right and it must be a little painful because some don't like hoover. this is a controversial area. this is the way that americans think about themselves and their politics through these figures. so here is the gospel according to palo alto where hoover is issuing from stanford. what might hoover have thought about china now what do you think? >> guest: he was of course highly disturbed at american policy in his view had undermined the late 40s and to take power. >> host: again thinking about communism. >> guest: there are several books about china among others. i think that he would read those bookbooks it is a look at the horrible cost from 1949 until the turn towards the greater economic freedom in the 80s. so hoover would probably say, and i'm speculating of course, think about what was lost before china found its offense started in some ways to move in a more prosperous and free direction, still not a totally free society by hoover's standards. standards. the thing of the tens of millions of people that lost their lives because of the utopian fantasies and terrible policies fortunately china has gotten beyond that so i think that hoover would be pleased that he's coming back to say we might have avoided all of that if we had not been so naïve in thinking that he was just one more agrarian reform. >> host: to put it simply if you were in undergraduate in 1960 or 67 or you were graduating china was different and it was their culture and then he went and said it is terrible, it's a bit hysterical. and we didn't really learn about the great famine of the professor described in that book or wrote about this incredible famine where the tens of millions died and and i would guess to the gulags and what hitler did and someone warning about it didn't get more time or much more attention. so, that is what he would have said in the parallel. china, russia -- >> host: >> guest: hoover was concerned because he was trying to bring out the history and the dangers of the historical trends before people learned about the cost. so i think that he would have been frustrated to think that we have these illusions about the period in china and it was only much later that we found out or that we find out from the papers in the 1990s about the extent of the espionage much of which he figured it 50 years or 40 years before. so i suspect tha suspected thate feeling a little out of sorts when do you take so long to reach the conclusions that should have been played at you been studying the history early on said he's trying to be a historian and a teacher in this book. >> host: what you'r you were geg at are the facts. what is your advice to the young scholars but i follows you were you might teach. what should they look at and what method should they use? >> guest: they shouldn't pay attention to all of the historiography that is developed and take a fresh look. that's always important. i would like to quote a phrase that said nothing can deceive like a document. i urge don't take what seems to be the face value of the documentation. you have to have skepticism and therefore not accept just the standard narrative or the conventional wisdom. much of the conventional wisdom has turned out in the communist period and the new deal period in the salon and the heroic interpretation of those events that's turned out to be terribly wrong or at least in need of revision. so i would urge the young historians to do that. >> host: he's very factual and very magnanimous. he sees others may do some useful work and rather than be selfish and only interested in his own name, that is one reason beyond of the accuracy and the academic contribution that he is admired so much. herbert hoover you know he was right and sometimes as the doctor shows he was. thank you very much c-span viewers come audience and doctor nash for this time. .. >> we are focused on making sure we can eliminate carriers to getting those networks in place, building out these networks as their priority so sometimes there are local side issues and sometimes there are federal rules that might affect how we deploy things are the impacts on historic sites or the environment. we want to make sure we are sensitive to those issues and at the same time we want to make sure we move forward on deployment has our customers, those that use these devices every day in their lives, depend on having a good strong connection and getting the data they want when they wanted and wherever they wanted. that means having a robust wireless network. >> up next author john judis presents a history of israeli and palestinian relations. the author focuses on the truman administration foreign-policy decisions between 1945 and 1949. this is about an hour. [applause] >> thank you for having me. i spent months at the truman library five or six years ago and the last time i stayed in kansas city was in 20004 at the carnahan ashcroft election. [laughter] one of the strangest events in the history of american politics. glad to be back here again. i know that this is talking about german and israel is like talking about the last time the kansas city royals won the world series. i have to warn you that i am a disappoint because i'm going to go-round this and that kind of secure this way. we will get to truman at the end that we are going to start much further back about 70 years before. let me say first something about how i came to write this book because i kept having to ask myself as i was doing it why i was writing it. i wanted to write a book about the arab-israeli conflict. i was concerned that i hadn't been a reporter and done the daily work but i also worry that in writing about that conflict and about how we were in the conflict in the present i would get into a kind of he said she said dynamic that you sometimes find in divorce hearings where you get into a question of who fired, whether the rocket was fired before the assassination, who started the second intifada, who screwed up kant david. in other words where there's no resolution in the argument just goes back and forth and i thought the way around that was to look at the history. in particular to look at the truman years because that is really the beginning. that is when america became involved in the arab-israeli conflict. i thought that i could see from their how it came to be that the conflict itself lasted 50 or 60 years had not been resolved in the united states had not been very effective in trying to reconcile the two parties. perhaps i thought in looking at the truman years i could find that in that is how i started and i started with a pretty blind slate of what happened there. the only thing was that as i proceeded to what i found that in those years, and we are talking about 1945 to 1948, those were the years when people learned about the holocaust. those were the years that people learn that the nazis had killed 6 million jews and that fact alone deservedly so overshadowed everything. it made it very hard for the people at that time and it's made it very hard for historians ever since to understand those sides of the conflict and particularly the arab side of the conflict and why they were so angry and that period. so what i thought it doing and what i was driven to do was go backwards and to try to provide a setting in which truman himself found himself in 1945 when he took office. i want to say a little to begin with about that, what the setting was and how this conflict began. to do that you really have to go back to the 1880s. zionism starts in the pale of settlement which is the area on the edge of the russian empire where jews were allowed to live in the greatest concentration of jews was in europe. jews were treated as an alien nation and zionism really a rose is a movement with the idea that insofar as jews were in million nation they would be better off having a real nation to which they could go, to which they could find refuge so that they could no longer be lodged within these various countries as aliens. that was really the heart of the idea the original idea of zionism. there was an idea of national liberation in that sense but it was an idea of national liberation for people that didn't yet have a nation. that is the positive side of zionism. the problem was that the country that the zionist movement which begins in the 1880s and immigration starts in the 1890s, the country that the zionist chose to emigrate to us one where somebody else already lived. in palestine in 1898 all these demographic things are in dispute but i will give you a rough estimate that a lot of demographers would agree with. there were about 500,000 people in palestine. it was an agricultural area. the jewish population was about 4% or 5% at most. about 10% arab christian and the rest are of muslim. arabs have lived there since 600 years. the three people got along reasonably well but what happened was that when scientists began immigrating not with the idea of let's say the average coming to boston but with the idea of not just settling there but establishing a jewish state, that created the races for a conflict. in 1917 the british decide that they are going to sponsor or champion a jewish homeland in palestine. at the same time woodrow wilson and also linen the russians pressing this idea of self-determination for colonized people. the arabs in the middle east thought it was their turn. they had been living under the ottoman empire. the arabs in palestine so they should have a country of their own so at that point you get an enormous conflict and you get agreements on the side of the arabs that has lasted ever sense. they want a state, they won't self-determination of their own. these other people are coming in and one to establish a jewish state a state in which they will either be a minority, unable to determine their own destiny or have to leave. so that is the basis and if you look at that period you will understand a lot of the arab grievance. it goes on of course. you can go back to 1947 when the united nations decides to partition palatine -- palestine. it's about 30% jewish, 70% arab and the proposal is 40% arab and the rest 4% under u.n. control. after the award in 1948 it 78-22. after 1967 the west bank and gaza are occupy its so in that grievance remains. now what about the zionism. if you look now at that period up to let's say 1924, 1925 or ss for a people settling in palestine are either the buckle, you have to believe that people lived someplace hundreds and thousands of years before to reestablish their own state or they are of the kind that they jews are going to bring civilization to a barbarous people. what changes in 1925? what gives the zionism a moral justification that to some extent it really didn't have a four? two things happen. the first thing that happens is immigration to the west gets cut off. 1924 and united states immigration laws, the same things happen over the next 10 years in europe, south america, south africa. from 1880s to world war i when,e in to jewish settlements and kill people and burn down synagogues there was tremendous immigration. 2.5 million people left the settlement. 1.2 million came to the united states area to 30,000 went to palestine so what i am trying to say is that up until my team 24 the united states was in effect is real. it was the place where jews who were oppressed in europe could go. that gets cut off. that is incredibly important event. the second thing that happens as you well know in 1933 the nazis take power. not only to the nazis take power but in the surrounding central and eastern european countries anti-semitic parties gain a foothold inspired by the nazis. so get over the next six years as jews attempting to flee central eastern europe but not having anywhere to go and looking towards palestine at that point as a safe haven as a refuge. so now jump up to the period of 1945 or so. on the one hand arabs grievances the arabs at this point have gone to war against the jews and gone to war against the british. they failed. they were decimated in the late 30s by the british during the arab rebellion. their leaders exiled. immense bitterness. a feeling that the leaders at this point what they wanted was not some kind of, not just just simply an arab state and not simply to stop jewish immigration but there were proposals to basically deport everyone who had come after world war i. that is one side. the jews at this point feeling a tremendous urgency that they had to have some place where other jews could go and that included the refugees from nazism but it also included the possibility which in 1946 didn't seem so far-fetched. it's starting all over again someplace else so those sides were locked in to a kind of mortal kombat. now up until 1945 the british were in charge. palestine was a british colony. they created palestine and they were responsible in effect for holding the two sides apart. the british come out of world war ii incredibly weak and they lose most of their fleet. they have enormous debt. there are problems in india. they basically have to get rid of their empire. and palestine is part of their empire so they want to get out of this point. who is left? who is stuck as the major outside power trying to do something? the united states. the united states before that completely deferred to the british. under roosevelt it was a british problem. 1945 harry truman comes to office in april and suddenly it's an american problem. america becomes responsible along with the british and then solely responsible as the main outside power just trying to resolve this conflict between the arabs and the jews. that is the kind of incredible dilemma that truman inherited when he comes into office in 1945. now how did truman approach the issue? there were two things i think and one is pretty obvious and the other isn't. the first thing was that truman was always, he was always the guy who saw the world in moral terms and who sought international relations and bullies and underdogs and he was was -- there was no one he saw more of a bully than the nazis. if you read most of his speeches, he was not a grade a raider. i hesitate to say that in kansas city you know, but i came upon a speech he gave in 1943 about the nazis and what they had done to the jews and there is a passage that you just don't find in a lot of his other speeches. he felt that and in 1945 he passionately believed that the refugees called displaced persons at the time, the jewish refugees in europe should be allowed to go to palestine. that is one side. the other thing that truman believed, and this is the thing that is not i think fully appreciated is he was not in favor of the idea that oven to jewish or an arab state. he was a jeffersonian democrat. he believed that different races and religions should get along with each other even if it was difficult. he attributed all the wars and chaos in europe to a religious rivalries. he wanted, he wanted in palestine something where both sides would be reconciled. what he favored was a confederation where they would be different parts that were jewish and different parts that were arab but then they, and legislature or a bi-national state. he didn't have, he didn't have let's say in august of 1945 any specific scheme in mind but what he did insist upon was that he didn't like the idea of a jewish state or an arab state. when the zionist leaders came to visit him he would say that to their dismay. what he tried to do during that period was to work out with the british the idea of and arranged arranged -- the british would remain in control of foreign-policy until such a time you know five years and 10 years where the two sides could get together and it a point would become a federated commonwealth if you want to put it that way, and that was to be done through something called the british american committee. and the report that came out of that that truman himself took a hand in devising was called the grady morrison proposal. that was a proposal for federating palestine. i say those words because it's going to come up and i'm going to read you different passages where he refers to that. so let me repeat once more so i get this straight what truman's reasons were, what his worries were, what his qualms were about a jewish and arab state. he thought it wouldn't be fair that if those sides should have their due but the second was the call that now geopolitigeopoliti cal. he was worried that if such a state, if they jewish or an arab state were imposed it would lead to conflict in the conflict itself would have inevitably drawn in the united states and might also draw in the soviet union. at one point he accused the zionist leaders of wanting to start world war iii so those were his two words. now let me talk about what happens then to truman after he devices this idea. truman's idea was that if he could condense the british 20 allow the the jews into palestine and the displaced camp it would have let off the steam. it would take all the energy out of zionism in palestine. this is completely mistaken of course and the jews in palestine would no longer want a jewish state. they would no longer care. that was his strategy. so august 1946 you get the grady morrison proposal. let the jews into palestine but no state confederation. truman encounters at that point immense opposition in the united states and particularly from the zionist movement. now the zionist movement in the united states was quite strong in that period. the jewish vote was much more important than it is now. new york was the most important state. new york was like california is now and the jewish vote was decisive in new york. it was also important in maryland, ohio, pennsylvania and illinois. elections were coming up in november of 1946, critical elections as it turned out. those were the congressional elections where the democrats got swept out of office. truman was very worried about that. the pressure comes in early august and he just gives up and he says i can't do it. i don't have sufficient support. and he gives up the idea of the grady morrison planned. what happens at that point is you look at truman and you get a kind of bifurcation. you get to harry truman's. one harry truman continues to operate on a practical level and the other harry truman on a psychological level. let me talk about first the practical. in practical terms truman to a great extent uses -- loses interest in 1946. i hate to tell you this but it's true. he cedes control over the state department. the state department makes up proposals that are anathema to the zionist movement so you get truman is dragged in and truman makes various decisions but he himself is making decisions and then trying to withdraw. he keeps trying to stay out of the conflict. he gives up on the idea practically speaking of the federated palestine but he still tries to apply the same principles. the united nations when the proposal for partition comes up in 19478 partitioning palestine into a jewish and arab state he tries to make the proportions fair to the arabs than they were. not 56-40 but something closer to 50/50. after this date is recognized the same thing on the refugees and borders. he will make attempts to try to resolve conflict and then withdraw. so it's not, it's not a kind of picture you would get if you look at the truman of the cold war the decisive luck stops here are truman. the other side of it is the side that is really peculiar and we are talking about the psychological side here. throughout this whole period truman remains wedded to the idea of a federated palestine the grady morrison planned. he keeps telling people to come visit him and i'm going to read you a few things just to convince you that i'm not making this all up. he recognizes the state of israel on may 14, 1948, okay? may 15 he writes a newspaper man who had been pressuring him to recognize israel. he says u. of cores are familiar with all the effort put forth by me to get it peaceable and satisfactory settlement of the palestine question. i'm still hoping for just that. i think the report of the british american commission on palestine was the correct solution and i think eventually we are going to get it work out just that way. so you know what he's talking about there. may 18, four days later. he writes another person who was pressing him named dean alfonse. my sole objective in the palestine procedure has been to prevent bloodshed. the way things look today we apparently have not been very successful. nobody in this country has given the problem more time and thought than i have and here we go. in 1946 when the british american commission on palestine was appointed and the foreign secretary of -- the british foreign secretary had made an agreement with him that he would accept the finding at that commissiocommissio n. i thought we have the problem solved at the emotional views of the united states and the equally emotional arabs in egypt and syria prevented that settlement from taking place. i sincerely hope sanity will come to both sides and a peaceful approach can be made through settlement which should have been worked out by the british some 20 years ago. truman flames different parties for this. one more and do. so september that is five months later, he gets a visit in the white house from the jewish war veterans and the leader was a guy named general julius klein. truman expected a kind of routine visit where he would be asked to appear at a conference and he would say yes and he would shake hands and out the door but to his surprise they presented him with a list of demands that he wanted determined to do including ending the arms embargo on the israelis. and i will just read you what happens from my own book. truman was taken aback. he said he was the best friend the jews had in america and then he said something that clearly shocked klein and the delegation. he complained to the jewish war veterans that he and the british foreign secretary ernest bevans had agreed on the best possible solution for palestine and it was the zionist and killed that plan by their opposition. now i'm not confirming his judgment. i'm not saying that he was right or wrong but i just want you to understand that truman was a very divided man and after august 1946 he approached the issue in a very bifurcated way operating on two levels. on one level he continued to want a federated paula stein and thought that was the just solution and a solution that would be the least likely to lead to war and rebellion over the next 40 or 50 years but on a practical level he kept a seating to basically what the zionist movement wanted. whether that was right or wrong, that is truman. now what can we say finally about that and about his decision? on the practical level of truman really had no choice but to recognize israel. the only way conceivable in which he could have achieved a federated palestine or even a different kind of partition in 1947 was to agree to send american troops to palestine to in force an agreement. there was just no other way. american troops would have had to replace the british. they would have had to stand between the jews and the arabs. they might have had to stand there for a decade and maybe they would still be there for all we know. truman was absolutely not willing to do that. in 1945 he wasn't willing to do that because america was demobilized. in 1948 the berlin airlift the middle of the cold war completely preoccupied by europe, not my palestine of that point. completely unwilling to contemplate sending troops to the middle east when the possibility loomed looms of the major war in europe with the soviet union. so without that it's hard to imagine. the state department had this fantasy that they could get the british to stay there and kept sending people over to convince the british to stay. the british kept saying well listen to it and we tell you before that we are not willing to do it? if you look at the papers it's almost, cool because he keeps happening every few weeks. the state department didn't see any other alternative. if not that then it would have to be a state. so there really wasn't any realistic alternative to the outcome that occurred which was a jewish state at the time that the heat of the decimation of arabs. the king says the word palestine has to disappear from all textbooks. i just don't see, i don't see either the recognition was a mistake or that truman's idea of a federation was realistic. but, now let me look at it from another standpoint. if you look at truman's underlying principles and what he was worried about and his clones, they resonate down the decades. first of all he wanted a settlement leave aside the federation question or whatever. he wanted a settlement that was fair to the arabs as well as the jews. that was very important. secondly he feared that if there was a settlement like that there would be war, there would be riots, there would be rebellion. that had been happening since basically 1920 in palestine. i think he was right in both of those respects. i think his impulses and his initial impulses were absolutely correct. his practical sense of how to do it, well it didn't work in the circumstances. the lesson i draw from this history has nothing to do really with 1948. it has to do with now which is to say that we are now in a situation where a recurring situation where both on a moral and a geopolitical basis it's important for us to do something about the conflict between the israelis and the palestinians. morally it's important to do something and i think again going back to what i said at the beginning about the sinus and in the 1880s and 1890s it's important to understand the arab side of this and to understand that they have legitimate grievances and the jews have a state in the palestinians don't. i would like to see american policy recognize that and take that seriously. second the geopolitical side. we could argue in certain times in the 1980s for instance that israel was an important ally in the cold war. maybe during the war on terror. no question the united states can be friendly to israel but it's in our interest at this point to resolve that conflict. it just breeds instability in the region. it's a kind of organizing tool for terrorists to end up coming here and trying to do stuff so it's very much not only in our moral interests but are geopolitical interest to do something and that is the lesson that i draw from the truman years. thank you. [applause] >> the there are microphones on either side of the four i else. come up and ask your questions at the microphone. that would be great. >> it i guess there are mics so speak up. i'm not good on male voices. i'm better on female voices. my daughter is in theater and we would go to plays. i was always come out and say i thought the female actresses were great but the men all mumbled. so anyway. >> clearly. >> i take issue with a few things you said. >> we can't hear you. >> oh good. i was getting really worried. >> i think when you said zionism started in 1880s in the pale of russia it was really theodore holtz will -- hurts all in austria became after the dreyfus situation that came up with the idea that maybe after 2000 years the jews should have a place to go where they are not persecuted just because they are jews. it was actually and everyone should read the book 1919 which really speaks about the ottoman empire and how after world war i when the ottomans lost world war i it was the americans, the english and the french that divided up the middle east and made the countries that we know today that are the problem today in iraq syria and lebanon and jordan and took king faisal from saudi arabia and put him and all of his relatives in positions of authority. >> i got it. >> you wait, excuse me. you don't have it. >> i can answer. >> it would just like to say that as you were saying, and it was the zionists who brought -- from the arabs and created the state after world war ii for some of the moral reasons. truman was the first president and the first country to recognize the state of israel. it isn't as if the zionists came to this piece of land and there were jews living there for the last 2000 years so wasn't that they just came over there and there were these people that were living there and they overcame it. >> oh eight, thank you. keep the questions brief. i can usually pick up what you are asking in the first 20 sentences. [laughter] let me make two points. first of all, they were actually zionists for hundreds of years but the zionist movement itself starts in russia where some of my relatives took the boat about that time and a guy named pinsker and that is where the first émigres come from. theodore hurts so is incredibly important. that's 10 years or 15 years later. 1919 i know the book by margaret macmillan. it's a wonderful book and it's absolutely true. if you look at the conflicts that are happening now in the middle east including israel and the palestinians it's all previewed in a settlement after world war i but what you have then is france. you have france and syria and france elevates the aluise to power and what's going now is an incredible civil war and iraq same problem. saddam hussein was the air up and the sunnis that the british put in power so yes and palestine existed as a holy land but it didn't exist as a country people thought about palestine. they what about palestine but the actual geographical boundaries get set by the british after world war i. so as you think about what's happening now in the world the two most important events or what happens after world war i and then what happens after world war ii the soviet union and the ukraine and all that stuff that goes right back. in fact ukraine goes back to world war i in the russian revolution. we are still living through that period. should i go over here? >> thank you. could the result of the situation we have today had been different if after may of 48 and a war for independence the united states have put more pressure on israel or the surrounding arab states to do something about the refugee situation from the beginning? could that have made a difference today? >> you know i would love to say yes to that question that i am skeptical and the reason i'm skeptical was that the arab states that attacked israel egypt jordan lebanon and syria and iraq were as divided among themselves as they were divided from israel at that point. and i think to a great extent the objections wanted to use the refugee issue is a kind of that are in ram both against the jordanians and against the israelis. i'm just not sure. it's a good question but i lean on the side that they probably could have been resolved at that point. >> it i just wanted to clarify the record real quick. i think he said at the beginning the arabs came into the area around 600. believe the palestinians actually have heritage in and does -- ancestry going back to the philistines and that's an ideological record. >> thank you. i'm interested in the archaeological questions myself and these are very thorny issues. there is a big issue about the canaanites. my resolution for those is that you can't resolve these questions on the basis of the bible or the koran. i might be at the center. >> the british are getting blamed for everything in the world. [laughter] i am interested in the way --. >> speak up. cm interest in the way the truman makes policy and i'm interested in the idea that he is a bifurcated attitude towards things psychological and practical but the key thing that he does the whole issue he recognizes israel. if you didn't recognize israel we wouldn't be talking about truman and the palestine. what i want to know is what where the pressures that pushed him into doing that? was this entirely coming for him or was it outside and other people telling him that you need to recognize it as well? was a people outside of this administration? was that leaders in congress or is it kind of lobbyists who are concerned about upcoming elections? >> there are two different kinds of questions. along the way from 1945 to 1948 truman faces a whole host of decisions where lobbyists and things like that are very important. the decision to recognize israel on may 14, truman's decision to do it exactly when he did it ,-com,-com ma 15 minutes after david ben-gurion proclaimed a new state was political. there were rallies planned that evening. he did to face a situation where he was being denounced around the country but the decision to recognize israel would have happened anyway. it would have happened in a week maybe or in two weeks. really he and the state department had no alternative. they had run out of alternatives. truman again at this fantasy about it that are rated palestine. the state department was trying to insist on a trusteeship where the british would stay around. the british refused so in effect it would have happened anyway. that the particular time at which it happened was because of political pressure. >> you the bulk of your presentation is without mention that they are arab muslim states in that region. there is no country for arab muslims to go to and they should have a piece of up what could have been a jewish state. i think that's an unfair presentation because the region is pretty much arab muslim with many states in many countries most of which deported the jews when israel was established. i think it's unfair not to mention that and i also think it's worthwhile to mention all the benefits that have come to the united states of america through the israel united states relationship. >> it okay, thank you. beginning in the 1920s and i think the first person to make this argument was the founder of revisionism and wanted not only palestine but jordan to be part of the jewish state and to some extent netanyahu. he made this argument and it was widely adopted that let me put it this way the arabs were fungible people and palestinian could as easily live in iran as palestine or move to jordan or what have you. they didn't feel that way. you know i was amazed as i was doing the research in the mid-1930s. louis brandeis is enforced in american liberalism and he is. it would be a good idea to transfer the arabs to iraq to resolve the conflict. you would have the jewish mid--- minority. this was the time the germans were trying to move the sub three out of germany so it's a transfer population is not a good idea. i don't think that's a proper framework to understand what was going on prior to 1948. >> at one point during the 1940s the king king of jordan tried to portray himself as a middleman who would be glad to be in charge of the confederation of israeli and arab citizens. to truman or the grading more so than people did they support that at all? >> there were secret negotiations that went on between the jordanians and it was a jewish agency. i think golda meir was involved in those negotiations. they are like the negotiations now almost because at one point they were going to work and then there was a massacre and the jordanians pulled out but there was always a kind of implicit deal because the jordanians wanted the west bank. so their troops didn't go beyond that during the 1948 war. there was that kind of the deal. i will mention one other thing about it. there was a window from september 1946 to february 1947 when it might've been possible to work out some kind of transitional federation as truman wanted. it was a very narrow window. the zionists were worried that the issue would get thrown to the united nations. they expected wrongly as it turned out that the soviet union would he on the arab side in the united nations. the arab states were willing to make some kind of the deal but they told the british that in order to make it yield they would have to work out all the arrangements in secret and then have these public negotiations because if they tried to do the negotiations in public they would get tremendous opposition from their own public and from what existed of the palestinian leadership. the arab states announce them and so on. it's just an interesting sidenote because john kerry, one of the things he has tried to do with his negotiatinegotiati ons is to keep things absolutely secret and not allow them to get out. then it becomes impossible. the british did not heed the lesson. there was a slight possibility but you know it was gone. >> it i was in wishing to d.c. earlier this month at the global u.s. conference and i asked one of the ambassadors, how do we solve the conflict? his answer was we just get them to talk to each other. i would like to ask you the same question since you gave us that at the end of your talk you said it's our moral obligation to work on solving this conflict. how would you solve the conflict? >> oh boy i have no idea. [laughter] i tried to stay away from this in my book. i'd -- i'm leaving it to john kerry. [laughter] i think the main point i would make is you remember when obama came into office. we thought that the republican senate democrats could sit down together and you saw what happened there. i think it's the same thing, without our intervention nothing was going to happen articulately without kerry's intervention in 2013 in july, think nothing would have happened. i'm not sure obama had the stomach to go through that again so again the negotiations take place. you know, i would expect it that if they succeed the palestinians will probably get a bad deal. they will probably have to allow israeli troops along the jordan river which will prolong the occupation. certainly no refugees coming back but at this point and i'm glad i don't have any power. even if that deal is better than no deal because if the situation continues as it is it's going to become impossible and you will get a one-state solution there but it will be a nightmare one-state solution. >> i have a history question for you. >> i'm going to fail this one. >> you have done a lot of research and that's good. i'm reading a lot of world war i books right now and there's a sentence in the back of my mind that at some point someone had come up with the idea of finding a homeland for the jews in africa. i'm not familiar with that. >> it 1903 theodore wurtzel was negotiating with the british. his idea was imperial sponsorship for the homeland from the turks and that failed and then he tried the british and they british came with this idea of giving the jews uganda. the uganda used for whatever it is. they weren't so happy about that and neither were the zionists. at the zionist organization in 1903 that proposal got beaten down. in fact i think lloyd george became the prime minister and was involved in those biggish asians as a lawyer. >> you mentioned the friendship between israel and the united states government at the end of your talk and touched on during the question and answer period or a flea. rattu mina quote and i will paraphrase this room father john sheehan. he said whenever i hear that israel is their only friend of the middle east i can't help but think before friendship with israel we have no enemies in the middle east. >> that is pretty tricky. [laughter] i can't answer that directly. i will just say this. i think they ran negotiations -- negotiations are incredibly important and if those work out they will not only benefit the united states but israel as well because they will have one less enemy in the region. israel and iran used to be allies under the shah. it's not like those countries have a history of antagonism. i think that's very important and i personally have been disturbed that the main lobbying organization in washington a pac has been trying in my view to undermine those negotiations at putting impossible conditions on them. i think if you ask about other things that's a nightmare. i don't see any light in that. >> it i'm sorry but i have another historical question. >> i keep warning you that i'm going to flunk when you ask me these questions. >> i think you will get this. he will be able to explain this to me. what was the motivation between between -- behind the british issuing the bell for? >> sigmund freud's theory of dreams, he had this concept that dreams were overdetermined and what he meant was we have numerous causal elements intercepting and he couldn't say one thing caused it. there were a number of things. that is the case with the bell for declaration. number one the british wanted a buffer between turkey -- turkey which they fight in world war i and the suez canal. palestine was right in between. it was a passage. they wanted also to protect that group through the middle east from india. these were all, you could save these were imperial concerns. they were worried that the germans would beat them to the punch and make a deal with the jews and when their allegiance. to some extent they encourage that idea and i didn't think was ever going to happen. finally some of the high officials in the british government lloyd george, belfour and sykes were christian zionists. they believed that the jews in biblical term should he able to return and reclaim the state of israel. i think if you look at those three different things intersecting. finally that is what sold it to the entire cabinet at the time. yes. >> i was surprised to learn over years of breeding that there is a strong voice within the jewish community of anti-zionism couched in ultra-orthodox religious belief. one name that comes to mind in the organization is card to. their basis of being opposed to zionism is they reject utterly on spiritual terms the achieving of the homeland under forest law because it violates the place spiritually that the jewish community in their view, in their devout view once to arrive in terms of evolution of moral perfection. so it's a message from deep within israeli and the jewish community. it's an astounding message of peace and reconciliation. >> let me respond to that. there always has been a strain of orthodox judaism that believes the way in which israel will be established is becoming the messiah and anything else is not acceptable. that especially if you look at american politics and american zionism is a very small minority. it's not a large voice. before 1946, 47 i would say the majority of jews in america were either a nonzionist or maybe even anti-zionist but as the news about hitler and the final solution came up that transform things and really had i don't know 95% in favor of israel. there is a group called the american counsel for judaism that still exists that was the name -- main group but they have no problem. >> it another history question. i would go back in truman's early history when he had the haberdashery in kansas city and he added partner by the name of betty jacobsen and betty jacobs and was a jewish gentleman that he was a staunch zionist. i was wondering in your research did you find eddie jacobsen that close to truman, business partners here in kansas city did eddie jacobsen pushed truman do you think more than anybody toward going with israel or getting behind israel? ..

West-bank
Australia
Turkey
China
California
United-states
Austria
Syria
Jordan-river
Israel-general-
Israel
Russia

Transcripts For KCSM RTE News Six One 20140219

because not too silly. i am honored to represent detainees radiance of the floor in the another american school of irish groups. there are fifty palace. undocumented irish meaning in the united states because of their status. they are on a boat returned to ireland to visit family friends and neighbors immigration reform initiative in the us senate and u s house of representatives is a real opportunity to transform the start line. my great grandfather left here in time of stress. seeking to better himself his family. so many irishmen and women from every walk of life played a role in creating three of them. i'm certainly proud to be part of the great irish american tradition. o bond between our two countries runs deep and strong and i'm proud to be here. in recognition and celebration. part time slip by. the irish tommy for immigration reform and all of irish american hope that the laws and life with and who was living in the shadows to reach their potential into between the united states of america the british on speaking as an irishman summed up in approach to life other people he said see things in statewide. but i dream things that never were can i say why not the bad quality. it is the quality of the irish. remarkable combination of both confident and imagination. that is needed more than ever today moreover error i. it is six one. what she knew was with brian got some time to blog all taken. a judge to investigate all the obligations of the guard all the fun. the t shirt says the decision was made after further information was brought to cabinet today the decision taken by government. he's a decision in the interest of finding something to write a note of all of the documentation. one of the comments. all of the students of today the opposition is critical of mr allen shutters role in setting up the inquiry. why is this he said. minister for justice. it was as those terms of reference is my copics sapping the ring true and it's so. one year old man is charged with the merger of some new plants in thailand the warning from the revenue commissioners pay the property tax by the end of march. what penalties will apply. we're trying to do is encourage property owners to come to us in the midst of getting those ashes from a new context for what he does which makes full use of the six weeks. you do welcome to six one. having resisted calls for an independent inquiry into the alleged bugging of the card on with mom the government today decided to call in a retired high court judge to investigate the affair. the terms of reference for the party have injected work guys the petition said the judge to be given eight weeks to inquire into the controversy enough of those luckily by the garda commissioner who publishes opera fully with the investigation the further development the office justice committee has been asked to examine the possibility of extending the powers of the ombudsman with no soul into this controversy going to the government sold to take the initiative approving an inquiry over a retired high court judge. it also upstage patient a motion calling for just such an investigation which is due to be too basic to notice that prompted him to welcome from the opposition. i welcome the fact that the government has signed a name that recognizes the need for an independent inquiry. at this and that means that the spores in our motions far reaching and salt. whether it is therefore an ed davis and you know i'm on the process we need to hear so much more in addition to its catwalk with a resourcing around the inquiry be that women have the availability of suitable experts in to two wonderful sons of the justice minister with tina for taming the sean problems on other joggers watch the administration of justice something fundamentally wrong no peace i've been very full identity to minnesota. the number of other issues. bolton very heart of the administration of justice in this country. a few of the traditional tobacco what you've just go sit in this post as the date of your proxy. the view of the juicy to bring it to the notice of the minister for justice and to do so the pulpits to mr turner's involvement in the inquiry neither of us that the appointment of a retired high court challenge to review all the documentation on all of the reports that in the juice and it's not for two days. for the don't completely independently. of reference set by that by the minister for justice. it received from the opposition benches to welcome for the post party this evening the commissioner or income than to go though buzzwords of the city will be making no comments. some sources say that this inquiry was prompted in part by fresh information received by other in cheddar was passed down from the original booking names whatever about that is true to go that his colleagues were growing impatient with the steady stream of pains and distortions of this controversy at the time had come to standards the guardian welcomed the inquiry. gasol will feel happy with plans to extend the reader's soul to something here for both protagonists a package which explodes with ease tensions between them. did the double cohort to the news dancer us for more political correspondent mike fitzgerald attacked government buildings might seem that this is a complete u turn by the government is it not the goal line to fourteen eighteen carries and watch a difference on sunday the boys to lose out under week in politics and whether they should be an independent inquiry he said they would await the work of the joint iraq does commission tec is the key is the magic touch with the government position full stop. just hours before it gets in a private member's motion calling for an independent and white which is supported by clean it all the government the cabinet has decided to refer to high court judge in for his part the minister for justice said in a statement today that he had received information from the ombudsman commission and also technical information. i was on the basis of the city decided to upgrade to a judge to sources are saying that this information will not be in agreement with the information provided by a british security firm to carry debt securities people we simply don't know because we have included information we don't know where it has come from country to milk when the minister got it but no dad mimi get more information on this when he takes it for the donation this evening. an inquiry would be. we simply don't have the terms of reference yes but what do we know we know that the retired high court judge is going to have access to documents and statements and expertise is required and that he or she is going to report back with eighty eight weeks the irish council for civil liberties were among the goods calling for an investigation. oh and did the commissions of inquiry act two has been four which has substantial eight carries for the preservation of documents which direct witnesses to attend a basic piece had to be effective in the past in terms of the murphy report but they don't know what we don't notice the week the terms of reference. now the asb me know which night. probably tomorrow is the official government line to answer to the identity of us hop retired high court judge it's going to carry as is routine. if you're thinking ford chief financial officer lionel irish bank mass moron has confirmed to the dublin circuit criminal court. he's been granted immunity from prosecution. to mourn has begun giving evidence at the trial of the bank's former chairman sean fitzpatrick and two four directors of the bike path between them and when the fifty year old cream and unlike in the league of those sixteen people to buy shares in the back. smaller and has been granted immunity from prosecution in relation to the masses at the center of this case and other matches in which prosecutions may be taken to court was told senior pencil color he can stick this was after discussions between mr moore and sellers of the director of prosecutions. in his evidence mr moore and at the time to try multiple options and two cousins and eight tied to the celebrates taking the time of his best buddy and the share price none of them worked on the eighth of july that year mr lawrence said his boss would it not to tear. till den the bank's executives have decided to approach ten clients of the time to ask them to buy shares. he set the next day and those then chief executive david trump told him he had spoken to the pan to make it a shove that the proposed transaction and the disapproval of mr tom made a thumbs up gesture to them he said. mr maher said he had been a shareholder in and the end of the irish banks. he too is of course he sold all his irish bank shares in the summer of two test and seven. except is eyeing those shares. he was asked not to sell them by mr drum. they are the core take the tent of e mails between the bank's head of ending and the uk deck and quit again mr drummond unite two thousand and eight. just a quick and said this to tom told him he was meeting at the monterey give a to go through to make a ten pounds auction is at the next day mr thompson seventeen and to state regulation squares just a quick and applied tea helps the reggae she was grateful to tom said excited i would say. i think he's lying awake at night like the rest of us is to quit again said the deal to lend money to the bank's customers was eyeing those beasts perfect option. he said the bank that has options let's not talk to and i rejoice from there the court to what the kaikoura gomez outs with the benefit of hindsight twenty twenty until the thing differently what we have to say. what he said that he wished he had been rising from all participants said the deal was done to stabilize. i know that not just learned that the entire banking system. he said to solve the problem the queen brought to the door as he wished all the participants in the deer had signed off on the fact that the deal was done for the good of the irish banking system. he treated the opera and it was nationalized in two thousand and nine keep a stash to pop off her see that kind of up to the donors have consulted with anybody as hoppers taken any advice he said before the bank was nationalized at the divas compote and aware of the deal against six months they shared it with the head of the us example of core of governance by an astute critic of us politics the witness box as you head thereby not nor the former chief financial officer and he's going to continue his evidence tomorrow crime. you can. thirty one year old man has appeared in court charged with the merger of some new kind to mother of one who was trying to pass it up in hotel of the week and every block of st johns park east congo and was remanded in custody to appear in court again next tuesday. derek lowe was bowled by detectives from time ago the station the local district court this morning to face a charge of murder. the thirty one year old from st johns park east include open in dublin is accused of the martyr on sunday about the group three for six of the plaza hotel in taiwan last sunday the mother of a three year old boy checked into the hotel on saturday night her body was found by cleaning stuff on sunday afternoon. she had been strangled. guard the jennifer brogan is evidence of arrest charge and caution. she told the court today that she arrested and a cloak of five pounds warm this morning asked how the garda station and fight minutes later when he was charged with the murder of sunny abound he replied no. joe johnson the health and explains to result in court today. he couldn't apply to the district court for bail and that he was tough to go to the high court. plus he told him that it's in no way impacted on his presumption of innocence. erik locke didn't speak during the brief hearing. he stood in the dock with his head down. he was granted free legal aid the judge directed study of access to his medication and be afforded medical attention if required. the forum on to him in custody to appear again. covert hill district court. just a week paul reynolds fourteen news outlet district court. carney can see all three were invented during patrons at a bar and a shawl pin meat and dairy as they tried to establish the last known movements of sixty four year olds almost all the dewey who was murdered at the weekend. he said the father of three adult children had been in the company of a number of local people in the hours before he was violently attacked his home in sr said in court. detectives have also examine cctv footage and renewed an appeal for anyone with information about the murder to come forward the revenue commissioners had to get the individual stephanopoulos not pay the property tax on household charge until the end of march to comply with the net based attacks of darcy's it is now a six week window for people to pay outstanding amends before interest charges and penalties will apply. years of business or certificate the key dates for those who've not yet paid property taxes are the sole charge its march the thirty first. those who've not paid for either twenty twelve or twenty thirteen when the interest that beat at eight percent from them. but will be a day since the first of july last year. individuals who are not final. in other words not yet agreed to pay where people who've not paid star twenty fourteen property tax with an interest that the eight percent on a day since january of this year revenue hopes people will pay before it bites them. we're trying to do is encourage property owners to come to us in advance of getting those ashes from revenue and eye contact with you to make full use of the six week window to rate their eyes their parents but it's not just people who cannot pay it. who will be targeted to those who have undervalued their properties are claimed in the tension with entitlements are also being told to pay the full amount. but after controversy i've had a revenue tumbled property tax payments last year. politicians will be watching closely to be concerned with the good news and notes that today is that the meeting great people like you do not think of him in the end of the tax doesn't make the cinema could be taken place even if so why quilt that can make your two people that the rakyat people have and if i need to resort to last informed him that the median between exemption are a different doctor. after next month's revenue would begin. debt collection and enforcement auction. it will also impose penalties on top of interest where people continue to resist paid despite controversy is that the property tax ninety three percent of paid so far the sixty five year old financial advisor has pleaded guilty to mold remotely following the northern bank robbery almost ten years ago ted cunningham of flew by and large town in county cork and tonight a token of nine counts of money laundering but today pleaded guilty to two of those charges the development came on the fourth day of his trial the court at the start that the criminal courts sometimes he sits in the pound sterling was taken in the beginning and the newer than pink accents here and the colts grand list in belfast in december two thousand and four the centrist open to cork circuit criminal court last week to cutting him off with linux you can even come to court pleaded not guilty to nine counts of money don't treat me and told that just over six hundred and five thousand pounds sterling today on the fourth day of his time. the sixty five year apprenticeship nice indication that he wants to be guilty to two charges prosecution counsel tom o'connor said the case for acceptable to the director of prosecutions. william tv can't eat alone two hundred thousand to fourteen pounds sterling and yen yee seventh to tenth time constraints john douglas and tullamarine county on the heels of bbq tea to run to hundreds of planes thousand three hundred and sixty pound sterling and hit the reset in two thousand and nine. censoring john sheehan and kylie can come to court and is seeking three chicks talking to her cousin's heroes. turning to state the kind you can use the money don't include two key scenes. but theres this week at least the proceeds of the door to bank robbery just chillin in the middle and granted it to kentucky to teach and sentencing them to eureka seven weeks cunningham on continuing bail. jenny o'sullivan rte news cork circuit criminal court. they'll go away were forced to close a nightclub in the city after a night spread of students gathered for an unofficial unlikely event last night officers were called to the panel sits on the gate streets at about eleven o'clock at night the same decision was made to close the venue for health and safety reasons the client and it starts there is no reports of any engine. correspondent eileen magnet join just from coldplay. i leave. this has happened around eleven o'clock last night to see said there is was becoz there were concerns about safety for motorists and patrons in the cup but it was actually evacuations and knows that the reason there were so many people and that's nice is because this is unofficial and rack weekend goal weight this week and i say unofficial because it's not supported or recognized by either and you might see archie m i t r by the student union bodies in either of those college years so they have no association with what's going on here this week seems to happen as often as our nightstand on social media. i knew things like today for instance is a tonic on tuesday. that said has a cabin of a lot of people and it has something like dirty fork as unlike some facebook so you have people as in there johnny color jerseys for about half the night queueing at certain parts this morning and as the day went on to recuse excise other boats. i had people meeting and get into pubs as others came at the refunds capacity. so i did and i love people wandering around the streets and andy have stories of people coming in fossils from other towns other colleges tidying in the practice as a signal that this is officially recognized are officially organized categorically say that there were a number of arrests last night for order incidents and that but there's been no major incidents at but there are concerns that the anti social behavior that this could be too because in fact in two thousand and eleven rack week officially wisconsin's the cause of all the anti social behavior and the cause of all the complaints from residents the students in both college is here. both sets of two kinds of ugly as i say it's being resurrected on over the last couple of years to have unofficial bright week weekdays i don't eat on tuesday but there are serious indications that serious on that for students and non students who perhaps they see things getting a bit of the best of times and today we had sean burns president of the students' union in and you might be wanting students to mind and says they're not supporting this but they say it in a series indications for you in the future the letter sent out all season residences to say that the coffee auction in lines of code of conduct the university here and we can strongly advocating for the last few weeks. well not seem dangerous behavior the kind of repercussions if you're like the ten oz ball on it much thought and the strings on your job opportunities in the future i meekly mail to me maybe i can each a one hour away for the summer. yet the all the organization here in bali which is concerned that the implications of unofficial ripe week is the galway city business association. i spoke to see ryan are here this afternoon he was saying that students are so important in this city there's something like seventeen hasn't happened here and is a great relationship and grace to go to wally between businesses and students. but they're very concerned at the past relationship will be damaged in some and also that the image of god like a very positive image of the city could also be damaged by what's going on here by the anti social behavior and he's hoping that the weekly pass off the bed and since most these days he's asking people to please behave yourself this week on a headset. some people have been arrested as part of an investigation into the systematic sexual abuse of a child over a prolonged period of time. guardian some dr wrote until being arrested five men and two women in a series of early morning raids in dublin and wexford the ten year old girl isn't that stupid abuse over a five year period. men arrested are aged between nineteen forty seven. the women are in their forties scarred the old investigating if the child's mother was involved. for margot says stacey and county code errors become home to mall and thirty families fully a deal between emma and the housing association code of new residents have been waiting seven years on average on the social housing is. i hear ago most of these houses were derelict. today is the county boroughs station at night is finished and i'll get nights. when you're at it and package in a three x gas spent six years of the social housing waiting list. new temporary new home in just three days after the arrival of baby finance at a dumping my house. very few if you think of it but at the bottom of the house after the heights that i could the fact that he can. the not for profit housing agency to it cost thirty five has this year from now mac which in turn pay for the roads to be finished before hundred dwellings in the study of thirty five units is such a thing it's pretty small so it mixes well with the other defendants have different views in a new tool from the current council went into several mobile to the area there is quiet and then you know of the prednisone open for the kids to know and that you don't see in the garden going up and down because there's nobody given a new front in its old briton know i think im going home in on the court agreed my iphone the searing nominated around six hundred has a new nest of a double for social housing the steelers helped to deliver around five hundred sq ft with emma and ninety thousand people on how to sing its nationwide is still a huge gap between what now my current supply and the demand for social dancing in fact we identified over for hern has a preference is given of social housing. look at rtc having meal that dose has is when i interviewed donors and cutting policy coverage and i can laugh about two times and still so we make all the tools available to invest in short i dare use for corpses which would make them available and it is soap spent a bomb from the dinner as is the treatment available draft happy to charge appeared in. thing moved ten times in nine years paying higher rents from suitable accommodation package and his family now feel they are home shower until the north sea news that i had to consider six when is a very pretty good bye for now. cz the early. early. early hugh. i was the eye. i had a chat. after the attack. i do i do. u. i was the word. and err. the essence. you all. i am. it's. eight. i live john gray. free on tuesday the eighteenth of may

Kentucky
United-states
Congo
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Monterey
Dublin
Ireland
Wexford
Taiwan
United-kingdom
County-cork

Transcripts For CSPAN2 Book Discussion On Genesis 20140322

>> thank you for having me. i spent, oh, months at the truman library about five or six years ago. i think the last time i stayed in kansas city was in 2000 for the carnahan/ashcroft election. [laughter] one of the strangest events in the history of american politics. [laughter] glad to be back here again. i know that this is talking about truman and israel is like talking about the last time that the kansas city royals won the world series. [laughter] and i have to warn you that i may disappoint you, because i'm going to go around this in a kind of circuitous way. we'll get to the truman at the end, but we're going to start much further back, about 70 years before. let me say first something about how i came to write this book, because i kept having to ask myself as i was doing it why i was writing it. [laughter] i wanted to write a book about the arab-israeli conflict. i was concerned that i hadn't been a reporter and done the daily work, but i also worried that in writing about that conflict and about how, about the conflict in the present i would get into a kind of he said/she said dynamic that you sometimes find in divorce hearings -- [laughter] where you get into a question of who fired, whether the rocket was fired before the assassination, who really started the second intifada, in other words, with there really is no resolution, and the argument just goes back and forth. and i thought the way around that was to look at the history, and in particular to look at the truman years, because that's really the beginning. that's when america became involved in the arab-israeli conflict. and i thought that i could see from there how it came to me that the conflict itself had lasted 50, 60 years, not been resolved, and the united states had not been very effective in trying to reconcile the two parties. perhaps i thought in looking at the truman years, i could find that. that's how i started, i started with a pretty blank slate of what happened there. the only thing was that as i proceeded, what i found was that in those years -- and we're talking about 1945-1948 -- those are the years when people learned about the holocaust. those are the years when people learned that the nazis had killed six million jews. and that fact alone, deservedly so, overshadowed everything. and it made it very hard for the people at that time, and it's made it very hard for historians ever since to understand both sides of the conflict, and particularly the arab side of the conflict and why they were so angry in that period. so what i thought of doing and what i was driven to do was going backwards and to try to provide a setting for the truman, a setting in which truman himself found himself in 1945 when he took office. so i want to say a little to gun with about that -- to begin with about that, what the setting was, how this conflict began. to do that, you really have to go back to the 1880s. zionism starts in the pale of settlement which is the area on the edge of the russian empire where jews were allowed to live and where the greatest concentration of jews was in europe. jews were treated as an alienation, and zionism really arose as a movement with the idea that insofar as jews were an alienation, they would be better off having a real nation. a real nation to which they could go, to which they could find refuge so that they could no longer be lodged these various countries as aliens. that was really the heart of the idea, original idea of zionism. it was an idea of national liberation in that sense. but it was an idea of national liberation for a people that didn't yet have a nation. that's the positive side of zionism. the problem was that the country that the psi itemmist -- zionist movement which begins in the 1880s, immigration starts in the 1890s, the countries that the zionists chose to immigrate to was where one already loved. i'll give you a rough estimate that a lot of demographers would agree that it was an agricultural lawyer in palestine. jewish population's about 4% or 5% at most. about 10% arab-christian, the rest arab muslim. the arabs had lived there since the year 600, so for 1300 years. the three peoples got along reasonably well, but what happened was that when zionists began emigrating unable to determine their own destiny or have to leave. so that's the basis. and if you look at that period, you'll understand a lot of the arab grievance. it goes on, of course. you can go back, you can go up to 1947 when the united nations decides to partition palestine to. it's about 30% jewish, 70% arab. the proposal for partition is 56% jewish, 40% arab and the rest,4%, under u.n. control. after the war, 19 t 48, it was 78/22. after 1967 the west bank and gaza are occupied. so, in effect, that grievance remains. now, what about the zionism? if you look now at that period up to, let's say, 1924, 925 or so -- 1925 or so, the kind of justifications for a people settling in palestine are either biblical, you have to believe, again, that people who lived someplace in the hundreds and hundreds and even thousands of years before have the right to settle there and reestablish their own state, or they're in of a kind that the jews are going to bring civilization to us, to a barbarous people. what changes in 1925. >> what givers zionism a moral justification that to some extent it didn't happen before? two things happen. the first thing that happens is that immigration to the west gets cut off. 1924 in the united states immigration raws -- same things happened over the next ten years in europe, south america, south africa. and there 1880 -- from 1880 to world war i when to poe grams and the czar would come into jewish settlements and kill people and burn down synagogues, there was tremendous immigration. 2.5 million people left the pale of settlement. 2.55 million jews in that time. 1.2 million came to the united states. 30,000 went to palestine. so what i'm trying to say is that up until 1924, the united states was, in effect, israel. it was the place where jews who were oppressed in europe could go to. that gets cut off, and that's incredibly important event. the second thing that happens, as you all know, is in 1933 the nazis take power. and not only the nazis take power, but in the surrounding central european and eastern european countries, antisemituck parties gain a foothold -- anti-semitic parties gain a foothold. you get, over the next six years, jews attempting to flee central, eastern europe but not having anywhere to go and looking toward palestine at that point as a safe haven, as a refuge. so now jump up to the period of 1945 or so. on the one hand, arabs' grievance, not wanting -- the arabs at this point have gone to war against the jews, they've gone to war against the british, they've failed. they were desolated in the late 1930s by the british during the arab rebellion there. leaders exiled. immense bitterness. a feeling that the leaders at this point what they wanted was not some kind of, not just simply an our wrap astronaut and not just -- arab state and not just stop immigration, but there were proposals to basically deport everybody who had come after world war i. that's one side. jews at this point feeling a tremendous urgency that they had to have someplace where other jews could go. and that included the refugees from naziism, but it also included the possibility -- which in 1946 didn't seem so farfetched -- of another hitler, of another, you know, starting all over again someplace else. so both sides were locked into a kind of mortal combat. now, up until 1945 the british were the many charge. palestine was a british colony. they created palestine. and they were, they were responsible, in effect, for holding the two sides apart. the british come out of world wd war ii incredibly weakened. they lose most of their fleet, they have enormous debt, they have problems in india. they basically have to get rid of their empire. and palestine is part of their empire. so they want to get out at this point. who is left? who is stuck with as a major outside power with trying to do something? the united states. the united states before that completely deferred to the british. under roosevelt it was a british problem. 1945 harry truman comes to office in this april, and suddenly it's an american problem. and america becomes responsible, along with the british and then solely responsible as the main outside power to try to resolve this conflict between the arabs and the jews. so that's the kind of incredible dilemma that truman inherits when he comes into office in 1945. now, how did truman approach the issue? there were two things, i think, and one is, one is pretty obvious and the other isn't. the first thing was that true 23457b was -- truman was always afy who saw the world -- a guy who saw the world in terms of underdogs and bullies, and there was nobody more of a bully than the nazis. if you read his speeches in the '40s, most of them were put wooden. he was not a great orator. i hesitate to say that in kurtz -- [laughter] but -- kansas city. but i came upon in 1943 about the nazis and what they'd done to the jews. and there's a passage there that you just don't find in a lot of his other speeches, felt that passion thoughtly. and in 1945 passionately believed that the refugees of the -- they were called displaced persons at the time. the jewish refugees in europe should be allowed to go to palestine. so that's one side. the other thing that truman believes -- and this is the thing that's not, i think, fully appreciated, is he was not this favor of the idea of a jewish or an our wrap state. he was -- arab state. he was a jeffersonian democrat. he believed that different races and religions should get along with each other, even if it was difficult. he attributed all the wars and chaos in europe to a religious rivalry. he wanted, he wanted in palestine something where both sides would be reconciled. what he favored was a confederation where there would be different parts, there were jewish and different parts were arab but then a common legislature, or a binational state. he didn't have a, he didn't have a say in august of 1945 any specific scheme in mind. but what he did insist upon was that he didn't like the idea of a jewish state or an arab state. and when jewish -- zionist leaders calm to visit him, he -- came to visit him, he would say that, to their dismay. what he tried to do during that period was to work out with the british the idea of a arrangement by which the jews spotlight arabs -- and the arabs could live in a federation, the british would remain in control of foreign policy until such a time, you know, five years, ten years when the two sides could get together, and at that point it would become ad the rated commonwealth d fed rated -- federated commonwealth and that was to be done through something called the british-american committee. and the report that calm out of that -- that came out of that was called the brady-morrison proposal. and that was for a federated palestine. it's going to come up, i'm going to read you different passages where he refers to that. so let he repeat once more so i get this straight what truman's reasons were, what his worries were, what his qualms were about a jewish wish/-- jewish/arab state. the first, he thought it wouldn't be fair, that both sides should have their due. but the second you'd call it now geopolitical. he was worried that if such a state, if a jewish or arab state were imposed, it would lead to conflict, and the conflict itself would inevitably draw in the united states, might also draw in the soviet union. at one point he accused the zionist leaders of wanting to start world war iii. so those were his two worries. now, let me talk about what happens then to truman after he devises this idea. truman's idea was that if he could convince the british to allow the j is ews -- the jews into palestine, the jews in the displaced camp, it would kind of let off the steam, it would take all the energy out of zionism in palestine. this was completely mistaken, of course. and the jews in palestine would no longer want a jewish state, they would in longer care. that was his strategy. so august 1946 you get the grady-morrison proposal. let the jews into palestine, but no state con federation. truman encounters at that point um -- immense opposition this the united states, particularly from the zionist movement. now, the zionist movement in the united states was quite strong in that period. the jewish vote was much more important vote than it is now. the jewish vote was decisive of in new york. it was also important in maryland, ohio, pennsylvania, illinois. elections were coming up in november of 1946, critical elections as it turned out. those were the congressional elections where democrats got swept out of office. truman was very worried about that. pressure comes in early august, and he just gives up. he says i can't do it, there's too much -- i don't have sufficient support. and he gives up the idea of the grady of morrison plan -- grady-morrison plan. what happens at that point as you look at truman is you get a kind of a bifurcation. you get two harry trumans. one harry truman continues to operate on a practical level, and the other harry truman on a psychological level. let me talk about, first, the practical. in practical terms, truman to a great extent loses interest in the issue after august 1946. i hate to tell you this, but it's true. and he cedes control over the issue to the state department. the state department makes proposals that are anathema to the zionist movement, so what happens is you get a clash between them, truman is finally dragged in, and truman makes various decisions. but he himself, he's making decisions and then trying to withdraw. he keeps trying to stay out of the conflict. he gives up on the idea of, practically speaking, of a federated palestine, but he still tries to apply the same principles. in the united nations when the proposal for partition comes up in 1947 for partitioning palestine into a jewish and an arab state, he tries to make the proportions fairer to the arabs than they were. not 56/40, but something more closer to 50/50. pressure come, he gives up. after the state is recognized, psalm thing on -- same thing on the refugees and borders. he starts -- he makes, he will make attempts to try to resolve conflict and then withdraw. so it's not, it's not a kind of picture that you would get if you look at the truman of the cold war, the decisive buck stops here truman. the other side of it is the side that's really peculiar, and we're talking about the psychological side here. throughout this whole period, truman remains welded to the -- wedded to the idea of a federated palestine and to the grady-morrison plan. he keeps telling him who come visit him, and hume going the read you a -- i'm going to read you a few things to convince you i'm not making this all up. he recognizes the state of israel on may 14, 1948. okay? may 15th he writes bardly crumb, a newspaper man who had been pressuring him to recognize israel. he says: you, of course, are familiar with all the effort put forth by me to get a peaceable and satisfactory settlement of the palestine question. i am still hoping for just that. i think the report of the british-american commission on palestine was the correct solution, and i think eventually we are going to get it worked out just that way. so you know what he's talking about there. may 18th, that's four days later. he writes dean -- another person who was pressuring him named dean alfonse: my sole objective in the palestine procedure has been to prevent bloodshed. the withdraw things look today, we apparently have not been very successful. nobody in this country has given the problem more time and thought than i have. then he goes, and here we go. in 1946 when the british-american commission on palestine was appointed and mr. bevin who was the british foreign secretary had made an agreement with me that he would accept the finding of that commission, i thought we had the problem solved. but the emotional jews of the united states and the equally emotional arabs in egypt and syria prevented that settlement from takes place. i sincerely hope that sanity will come to both sides so that a peaceful approach could be made to a settlement which should have been worked out by the british 20 years ago. truman blames different parties for this happening. well, one more anecdote. so september, that's, what, four or five, five months later. he gets a visit in the white house from the jewish war veterans, and the leader was a guy named general julius klein. truman expected a kind of routine visit where he would be asked to appear at a conference, and he would say, yes, and they would shake hands and out the door. but to his surprise, klein presented him with a list of demands that he wanted truman to do including ending the arms embargo on the israelis. and i'll just read you what happens from my own book. truman was taken aback. he said defensively that he was the best friend the jews had in america. and then he said something that clearly shocked klein and the delegation. he complained to the jewish war veterans that he and the british foreign secretary, ernest b be evin, had agreed on the best possible solution for palestine, and it was the zionists when killed that plan by their opposition. now, i'm not confirming his judgment. i'm not saying that he was right or wrong, but i just want you to understand that truman was a very divided man. and after august 1946, he approached the issue in a very what i put a bifurcated way, operating on two levels. on one level he continued to want a federated pal student and thought that was the just -- palestine and thought that was the just solution and is solution that would be least likely to lead to war and rebellion. but on a practical level, he kept acceding to, basically, what the zion u.s. movement wanted -- can zionist movement wanted. that's truman. now, what can we say, finally, about him and about his decision? on the practical level, truman really had no choice but to recognize israel. the only way conceivable in which he could have achieved a federated palestine or even a different kind of partition in 1947 was to have agreed to send american troops to palestine to enforce an agreement. there was just in other way. american troops would have had to replace the british, they would have had to stand between the jews and the arabs, they might have had to stand there for a decade, maybe they'd still be with there, for all we know. truman was absolutely not willing to do that. in 1945 he wasn't willing to do that was america was demobilizing from the war. 1948, berlin airlift middle of cold war, worried to death, completely beoccupied by -- preoccupied by europe, not by pal student at that point. -- palestine at that point. and completely unwilling to contemplate sending troops to the middle east when the possibility loomed of a major war in europe with the soviet union. so without that it's hard to imagine. the state department had this fantasy that they could get the british to stay there, and they kept sending people over to convince the british to stay. and the british kept saying, well, listen, didn't we tell you before that we're not willing to do it? really, if you look at the papers, it's almost comical because it just, it keeps happening every few weeks. the state department wouldn't take no pause they didn't see -- because they didn't see any other alternative. if not that, then there would have to be a state. so there really wasn't any realistic alternative to the outcome that occurred which was a jewish astronaut at the time, the -- state at the time. the decimation of the palestinian-arabs. they become part of jordan, and the king says the word palestine has to disappear from all textbooks. so i just don't see the, i don't see either that the recognition was a mistake or that truman's idea of a federation was realistic. but now let me look at it from another standpoint. if you look at truman's underlying principles and what he was worried about and his qualms, they resonate down the decades. first of all, he wanted a settlement. leave aside the federation question or binational or whatever. he wanted a settlement that was fair to the arabs as well as the jews. that was very important. secondly, he feared that if there wasn't a settlement like that, there would be war, there'd be riots, there'd be rebellion. i mean, that had been happening since 19 -- basically, since 1920 in palestine. i think he was right in both those respects. i think that his impulses, his initial impulses were absolutely correct. his practical sense of how to do it, well, it didn't work this the circumstances. the lesson i draw from this history has nothing to do really with 1948, it has to do with now; which is to say that we are now in a situation where, a recurring situation where both on a moral and is a eye yo political -- geopolitical basis it's important for us to do something about the conflict between the israelis and the palestinians. morally it's important to do something, and i think, again, going back to what i said in the beginning about zionism, the 1880s, 1890s, it's important to understand the arab side of this and to understand that they have legitimate grievances and that the jews, the zionists got a state, the palestinians don't have it. and i would like to see american policy recognize that and take that seriously. second, the geopolitical side. you know, we could argue in the certain times in the 1980s, for instance, that israel was an important ally in the cold war, maybe during the war on terror, no question that the united states should be friendly to israel. but it's in our interests at this point to resolve that conflict. it just breeds instability in the region. it's a kind of organizing tool for terrorists who end up, you know, coming here and trying to do stuff. so it's very much, it's very much not only in our moral interests, but in our geopolitical interests to do something. and that's the lesson that i draw from the truman years. thank you. [applause] >> setting up the microphones on either side. they'll be in the far aisle. you can come up and ask your question at the microphone, that would be with great. >> i guess there's mics, so speak up. i can occasionally -- i'm not good on male voices. i'm better on female voices. [laughter] my daughter is in theater, and we'd go to play, and i'd also come out and say, well, i thought the female actresses were, they were great, but the men all mumbled. [laughter] so anyway, speak clearly. [inaudible conversations] >> we can't hear you. >> no. oh, good. i was getting really worried. >> we'll repeat the question. >> okay. i think that when you said that zionism started in the 1880s in the pale of russia, it was really theodore herzl in austria that came after the dreyfuss situation that came up with the idea that maybe after 2,000 years the jews should have a place to go where they're not persecuted just because they're jews. and it was actually, and everyone should read the book "1919" which really speaks about the ottoman empire and how after world war i when the ottomans lost world war i, it was the americans, the english and french that divided up the middle east and made the countries that we know today that are the problem today, iraq, syria, lebanon and jordan and took king faisal from saudi arabia and put him and all of his relatives in positions of authority. >> with i got it. >> wait. >> i got it. >> excuse me, you don't have it. >> because i can answer -- >> so i would just like to say that as you are saying, and it was the zionists when bought the land from the arabs so that -- and created the state after world war ii for the, for some of the moral reasons. and, you know, truman was the first president and the first, we were the first country to recognize the state of israel. so it isn't as if these zionists came to this piece of land, and they were jews there for the last 2,000 years. so it wasn't that they just came over there and there were these people that were living there and they overtook everything. >> okay. thank you. [laughter] you know, just keep the questions brief with. i can usually pick be up what you're asking from the first 20 sentences at least. [laughter] let me make two points. first of all, you know, there were actually zionists, you know, for hundreds of years, but the zionist movement itself starts in odessa, in russia where some of my relatives took the boat about that time. and the people are a guy name lillianbaum and that's where the first emigres come from. theodore herzl's incredibly important. that's 1835, that's will have 10 years, 15 years later. 1919, i know that book by margaret macmillan. it's a wonderful book. and it's absolutely true if you look at the, if you look at the conflicts that are happening thousand in the middle east -- including israel and the palestinians -- it's all, it's all previewed in the settlement after world war i. well, what you have then is france, you have france takes syria, france elevates the alawites to power. what's going on now is an incredible or war waged, civil war. in iraq, same problem. saddam hussein is the, was the arab, the sunnis that the british put in power. so, yes, that -- and palestine existed as a holy land a, but it didn't exist as a country. people thought about palestine, and they wrote about palestine, but the actual geographical boundaries get set by the british after world war i. so, you know, as you think about what's happening now in the world, the two most important events are what happens after world war i and what happens after world war ii, the soviet union, ukraine, all that stuff. you can, you know, goes right back to the -- so it's all, in fact, ukraine goes back to world war i and the russian revolution smtion so it's all, that's -- we're still living through that period. next. you know, should i go over here? >> yeah. >> thank you. could the result, the situation that we have to be have been different if after may of '48 and the war for independence the, the united states had put more pressure on israel or the surrounding arab states to do something about the refugee situation from the beginning? could that have made a difference today? >> right. you know, i would love to say yes to that question, but i, i'm more, i'm skeptical. and the reason i'm skeptical was that the arab states that attacked israel, you've got, what, egypt, jordan, lebanon, syria, iraq were as divided among themselves as they were divided from israel at that point. and i think that to a great extent the egyptians wanted to use the refugee issue as a kind of battering ram both against the your jordanians and againste israelis. i'm just not sure. i mean, it's a good question, but i lean on the side that it was, out probably couldn't have been resolve ised at that point. resolved at that point. >> i just wanted to clarify the record real quick. i think you said at the beginning of the lecture that the arabs came into the area around 600. >> uh-huh. >> i believe you may have meant to say the muslims came to -- >> yes. >> the palestinians have heritage going back to the philistines, canaanites, and that's documented in the bible and archaeological -- >> thank you. i'm interested in the archaeological questions myself, and these are very thorny issues, and there is a big issue about the canaanites and things like that. my resolution for those is that you can't resolve these questions on the basis of the bible or the koran. but i'm, i might be a dissenter in this world. [laughter] >> what response do you have for the british getting blamed for everything that's wrong in the world? [laughter] yes. i'm interested in the way in which -- >> speak up. >> i'm interested in the way that truman makes policy, and i'm interested in this idea that you say he's kind of got a bifurcated attitude towards things, psychological response and racket call. but you fail to kind of mention, and i'm sure you do in your book, that the key thing he does is he recognizes israel. if he didn't, we wouldn't really be talking about truman and palestine and that problem. what i want to know is what were the pressures that pushed him into doing that? was this entirely coming from him or was with it outsiders, other people telling him this is the way you need to go, this is the way you need to recognize israel. and is it people in the administration? is it congress? people, you know, leaders in congress or is it kind of lobbyists and his concern about the jewish vote in upcoming elections? >> well, there's two different kinds of questions. along the way from 1945 to 1948, truman faces a whole host of decisions where lobby withists and thing -- lobbyists and things like that are very important. now, the decision to recognize israel on may 14th, truman's decision to do it exactly when he did it, 15 minutes after david ben-gurion proclaimed a new state, was political. there were rallies planned that evening. he didn't want to face a situation where he was being denounced around the country. but the decision to recognize israel would have happened anyway. it would have happened in a week maybe, or it would have happened in two weeks. really he had no, he and the state department had no alternative. they had run out of alternatives. truman was, again, had this fantasy about a federated palestine that was not going to come to be. the state department was trying to insist on a trusteeship where the british would stay around. the british refused. so in effect, it would have happened anyway. the particular time in which it happened was because of political pressure. >> yeah. the bulk of your presentation is without mention of, that there are raich-muslim -- arab-muslim states in that region, as if there's no country for arab-muslims to go to, and they should have a piece of what could have been a jewish state. and i think that's an unfair presentation, because the region is pretty much arab-muslim with many states, with countries -- most of which deported the jews when israel was established -- and i think it's unfair not mention that. and i also think it's worthwhile to mention all the benefits that have come to the united states of america through the israel/united states relationship. >> okay, thank you. you know, beginning in the 1920s and i think the first person to make this argument was the founder of revisionism and he wanted not only palestine, but jordan to be part of a jewish state. to some extent, netanyahu is the heir of revisionism. he made this argument, and it became widely adopted, that -- let me put it this way, that the arabs were find of a fungible people and that a palestinian could as easily live in iraq as could live in palestine or could move to jordan or what have you. they didn't feel that way, and i don't buy that argument. you know, i was just, i was amazed as i was doing the research in the mid 1930s, louis brandeis who you think of as a force in american liberalism, one of -- and he is -- probe poses to truman that it would be a good idea to transfer the arabs to iraq, because then you could resolve the conflict. you'd have a jewish majority. you know, this was at a time when the germans were trying the move the jews out of germany. so a transfer of population is not a good idea. and i don't think that that's a proper framework to understand what was going on prior to 1948. >> at one point during the 1940s, the king of jordan tried to portray himself as a middleman who would be glad to be in charge of a confederation of israeli and arab citizens. did truman or the grady-morrison people, did they support that at all? >> the, there were secret negotiations that went on between the jordanians and the, it was the jewish agency, it wasn't the israelis yet. and i think as i remember gol da meyer was involve inside those -- involved in those negotiations. and they, they're like the negotiations now almost because, you know, at one point they were going to work, and then there was a massacre, and the jordanians pulled out. and so there wasn't an agreement. but there was always a kind of an implicit deal, because the jordanians wanted the west bank. and so their troops didn't go up beyond that during the 1948 war. so there was that kind of, there was that kind of a deal. i just mention one other thing about it. there was a window from about 19, oh, about from september 1946 to february 1947 when it might have been possible to to work out some kind of transitional federation as truman wanted. it was a very, very narrow window. the zionists were worried that the issue would get thrown into the united nations where they expected wrongly that soviet union would be on the arab side, so they didn't want it in the united nations. and the arab states were willing to pick some kind of a deal -- to make some kind of a deal, but they told the british that in order to make a deal, it would have to, they would have to work out all the arrangements in secret and then have these public negotiations, pause if they tried -- because if they tried to do the negotiations in public, they'd get tremendous opposition from their own public and from the, from what existed of the palestinian leadership. and the british made a big mistake. they did it in public, and so the arab states denounced them and so on. it's just an interesting side note because john kerry, one of the things he's tried to do in his negotiations is keep things absolutely secret and not allow them to get out because, or you know, then it becomes impossible. the british did not heed that lesson. there was a slight possibility then but, you know, it was gone. yes. >> i was in washington, d.c. earlier this month at the global ties u.s. conference, and i asked one of the ambassadors how do we solve the conflict? and his answer was, we just get them to talk to each other. and i would like to ask you the same question since you gave us that, at the end of your talk you said it's our moral, you said it's our moral obligation to work on solving this conflict. how would you solve the conflict? >> oh, boy, i have no -- [laughter] i try, i tried to stay away from this in my book, because i'm leaving it to john kerry. [laughter] i think the main point i'd make is it's -- you remember when obama came into office, he thought that the republicans and democrats could just sit down in a room and talk to each other. is what happened there? [laughter] i think it's the same thing. i think without our intervention, nothing was going to happen. and in particular without kerry's intervention in 2013, in july, i think nothing would have happened. i'm not sure that obama had the stomach to go true that again -- to go through that again. so, again, the negotiations take place. i, you know, i would expect that if they succeed, the palestinians will probably get a bad deal. they'll probably have to allow israeli troops along the jordan river which will prolong the occupation. certainly no refugees coming back. but at this point even, and i'm glad that i don't have any power when i say even a bad deal is better than no deal. because if the situation continues as it is with settlements growing, it's going to become impossible, and you will get a one-state solution there, but it'll be the nightmare one-state solution. >> i have a history question for you. >> yeah, okay. i'm going to fail this one. [laughter] >> well, no, you've done a lot of research, and that's good. i've been reading a lot of world war i books right now, and there's a sentence somewhere in the back of my mind that at some point someone had come up with the idea of finding a homeland for the jews in africa. >> yes, that was -- >> and i'm not familiar with that, so i wanted to you to address that a little bit. >> in 1903 theodore herzl was negotiating with the british. his idea was to get imperial sponsorship for a homeland from the turks. that failed, so then he tried the british, and the british came up with this idea of giving the jews uganda, you know? [laughter] might not have been so happy about that, but neither were the zionists. and at the sue onist organization in -- zionist organization in 1903, that proposal got beaten down. in fact, i think lloyd george was, who became the prime minister, was involve inside those negotiations -- involved in those negotiations. he was a lawyer. so -- >> you mentioned the friendship between israel and the united states government at the end of your talk and also touched on it, i think, during the question and answer period briefly. >> right. >> it brought to mind a quote, i've got to paraphrase this a little bit from jesuit father john sheehan a. he said whenever i hear that israel is our only friend in the middle east, i can't help but think before our friendship with israel, we had no enemies in the middle east. [laughter] >> that's pretty tricky. [applause] i can't answer that directly. i'll just say this, that i think the iran negotiations are incredibly important, and if those work out, they'll be not only to the benefit of the united states, but of israel as well. because they'll be one, you know, they'll have one less enemy in the country in the region, and, you know, israel and iran used to be allied under the shah. it's not like those countries have a history of antagonism. so i think that that's very important. and i personally have been december turned that -- disturbed that the main lobbying organization in washington, aipac, has been trying, in my view, to undermine those negotiations by putting impossible conditions on them. so i have a lot of hope for that, and i think that if you ask about other things, syria, i don't, you know, that's a nightmare. i don't see any, any light in that. yes. >> i'm sorry, but i i have another historical question. >> i just keep worrying that i'm going to flunk, you know, when you ask these questions. >> no, i have complete confidence you'll get this, you'll be able to explain this to me. i've always wondered, what was the motivation behind the british issuing the balfour declaration? >> oh, that's a good question. you know, sigmund freud's theory of dreams, he had this concept that dreams were order determined, and what he meant was that you'd have numerous causal elements intersecting, and you couldn't say, you know, one thing cause -- [inaudible] it was a number of things. and that's the case with the balfour declaration. number one, the british wanted a buffer between turkey can they'd been fighting if world war i and the suez canal. al stein was right in -- palestine was flight between, it was a passage. they wanted also to protect that route from the middle east -- through the middle east from india. these were all, you could say these or were imperial concerns. they were worried that the germans would beat them to the punch and make a deal with the jews and so win their allegiance. to some extent, i'm weitzman encouraged that idea. i don't think it was ever going to happen. and finally some of high officials in the british government, lloyd george, arkansas fur balfour, a guy named sykes were christian zionists. they believed that the jews should on biblical terms be able to return and reclaim the state of israel. so i think if you look at it, you have those three different things intersecting. i think finally the imperial things, reasons were the -- that was what sold it to the byer cabinet at the -- the entire cabinet at the time. >> yes. i was surprised to learn in over years of reading that there's a strong voice within the jewish community of anti-zionism couched in ultra orthodox religious belief. one name that comes to mind of an organization is -- [inaudible] okay. and their basis of being opposed to zionism is they reject utterly on spiritual terms the achievement of a homeland under force of arms, that it violates the place spiritually that the jewish community, in their view, in their devout view, wants to arrive in terms of an evolution of moral perfection. >> right. >> so it's a voice, a message from deep within israeli and jewish community that is, it's an astounding message of peace and reconciliation. >> let me respond to that. >> yeah. >> so there always has been a strain of, as you say, orthodox judaism that believes that the way in which israel will be established is through the coming of the messiah. that's it. and anything, anything else is not accept is bl. but that's -- acceptable. but that's, especially if you look at american politics and american zionism, it's a very small minority. it's not a, it's not a large voice. before 1946-'47 i'd say the majority of jews in america were either nonzionists or maybe even anti-zionists. but as the news about hitler and the final solution came up, that transformed things, and you really had, oh, i don't know, 95% in favor of israel. there was no, there were no, there was no -- there was a group called the american council for judaism that still exists that was the main dissenting group if 1948. but they -- in 1948. but they had no power. >> yes, sir. another history question. [laughter] i would go back in truman's early history when he was, had a haberdashery in kansas city, he had a partner by the name of eddie jacobson. >> right. >> and jacobson was a jewish gentleman, and he stayed close to truman over the years. and i was just wondering in your research that eddie jacobson who was very close to truman, close friends, they were in the war together, business partners here in kansas city, did eddie jacobson push truman, do you think, more than anybody toward going with israel or getting behind what israel wanted? >> you know, i've read eddie jacobson's papers at the library, and, you know, his partner said that he didn't, that he was a late comer to the issue. i don't, again, i'm not sure, but here's the point i think i'd make is that his central role was not as an ideological influence on truman, it was as an intermediary. he got heym weitzman in the door. weitzman was, again, from the peal of settlement odessa, from that whole group that went to britain, became a chemist, and he had magical powers as a diplomat. .. [applause] >> we are selling dennis

Arkansas
United-states
West-bank
Turkey
Austria
Syria
Jordan-river
Israel-general-
Israel
Russia
Washington
District-of-columbia

Transcripts For CSPAN Key Capitol Hill Hearings 20140527

always taking advantage of that. >> thanks and thanks for the opportunity to speak about the amazing young people that, as the president and ceo of student veterans of america, that i get to represent. and so to start with a little bit of background on student veterans of america or sva, started six years ago on 20 campuses because when student vets were transitioning they saw that the college environment or higher ed was not prepared for student vets. we were older, we were much more mature. we had a different world view than just coming out of high school than say the traditional student. and so these vets met in chicago and we started on 20 campuses six years ago and today we are on more than is,000 campuses representing those 1,000 chapters with more than 400,000 student vets being serviced by our policy, our advocacy and the work we do in delivering programs. i was very fortunate to be helped by general pace and katy who is here with wall street war fighters and i had a personal sitdown opportunity with leda but what i realized is that the majority of individuals will not have that. and we're about 25 years old and transitioning at least those that we represent and they don't have that transitional point. so there are gaps between where do i and how do you transition that to the workplace. also joining us is john. head of merrill lynch. i know with you talked a earlier about the private sector but what challenge are you seeing and what are you doing in terms of veterans hiring veterans doing whatever you can that's working? >> sure. thank you. we heard what the challenges are. there's a lack of preparedness. we know about the stigma. there's an ongoing stigma. we end up trying to make veterans fit our structure and we're trying to recognize that that doesn't work and bend our structure to the way they think and act. it requires, let's take hiring. it requires a different approach. now, one -- my example might be internships so if you're going to try to get an internship on a firm like marle lynch or bank of america is very competitive. the way that we go after the most talented folks the veterans is we created a different internship track that allow them the access and the exposure to see what life is like. so they get sort of a no-risk free look at what a career might look like. the onboarding process is different as we bring our veterans in to about how they're going to transition into the workforce and we recognize some of those challenges. we don't have ault answer. this is sort of our attempt to do it. we have unique training for those folks as well. but i think most importantly the answers all lie within our people. we have 6,000 veterans that work for bank of america-merrill lynch and they've formed a military support advisor's group. the peer to peer interaction and learnings are probably the best approach that we have to continuing to evolve the process and how we can make sure that we have -- this be a successful transition. the one thing that wasn't talked about that i think is important is we're doing this because this is a business opportunity for us as well as doing the right thing. merrill lynch, for instance, has had a 45-year history of hiring veterans very successfully. they transition very well into our roles as advisers for clients with the maturity, the perspective, the leadership that they have. so i look at this as an enormous opportunity. i think the challenge and maybe we talk about it at some point is how do we gather up all the resources to make it more seamless? i've met four people over the last 24 hours that are going to help me do this a lot more effectively and one is sitting here next to me. >> that is exactly the point i want to make. you've got all these people up here, all these great ideas. but connecting those dots and making it work, how do you do that? it seems to me just from the conversation and experience that this all starts while they're still in the military. they don't really get that transitional help or they get two days of transitional help and maybe nothing more that some people fall through the cracks. so each of you just talk about your ideas, if you will, about how you connect the dots to what you're all concerned about. do you want to start? >> sure. so i will say two things. one, while they're in the military we have this military support advisory group. we have full-time staff steams -- teams assigned to working with the military, working with support organizations to identify that talent that's coming out of their service. and so we have a structure around that. that's one way to do it. the other way for us is to plug in to wayne's organization as we think about these campuses. and i happened to go to florida state university which has a robust veterans center and i'm proud of what we do. that's a great opportunity for us to identify talent. so the combination of the structure to attach directly to the military as well as our just ongoing recruiting efforts with the on-college campuses especially those that have established veterans centers give us a big advantage. >> let's go down the order. >> what i'll say is as i look at the issue and we talk about the greatest generation, right? and we know that the stats exist. e can talk about the 500,000 scientists and engineers that were -- that came out of that generation. 14 noble laur yet, three presidents. three supreme court justices. but if you peel that back they look just like our vets. they look -- they were guys from small town america. and so when i look at that picture and i look at the picture of vets, i see connection being the issue. and so we're actually redoing our it infrastructure. so what we want to be able to do is have employers that are interested in reaching out to vets -- and this is something that john and i talked about last night. interested in connecting with vets, be able to connect with them directly on campus. at the end of the day the recruiters need to be able to directly access those vets at florida state, purdue university, to be able to have that robust and dynamic conversation. so about four months we'll have that infrastructure and -- in place and that way we're out of the conversation. they will be able to reach out directly. and then the vet will be able to put a face to the name of the organization. >> we've been hearing a lot about the veteran and the transition process into the private sector. imagine if the veteran is wounded. imagine what happens to that veteran that service man or woman's life. they still now have to overcome their wounds which they do with magnificent grace and dignity and i see it every day. but they have additional challenges. and so do their families. so in my mind, while they are doing their rehabbing, while they are still receiving treatment is to get to them at that point. mentor, let them know what's available. make them aware of what they need to do. because they do have additional challenges now. it's not just walking out of the military and into the private sector. for these men and women, the additional challenges are many. so get to them. we used to say there is still this benefit gap as we're all aware. that during the transitional process from the d.o.d. to the v.a. that's the time i would like to see the mentoring process begin. let them know what's available, let them know what will be expected of them. give them an idea as to how they can brand themselves. how to put a resume together. use that time while they're improving themselves towards making them competitive, giving them an equal leveling the playing field, if you will, for that particular service man or woman. >> general, you have seen some very specific things of the transition not only to civilian life but just what ken fisher is talking about, the transition from d.o.d. to v.a. is not that simple. >> no, it's not. and those are some of the things we need to -- we need to fix. and you don't know when you're in d.o.d. that the transition to v.a. is going to be difficult because you've never been in v.a. before. we have things like drug form lairies that aren't the same between d.o.d. and v.a. so a kid has post traumatic stress that's treated with an anti-depress nt that's 40 years old. finally gets on the right dosage and the v.a. has a dint drug form lairie and tells them that can't prescription you that drug. we don't have that drug in stock because our form larry is different. d.o.d. has a much more expansive than v.a.'s. and it's got nothing to do with the v.a. dock thinks one drug is better. it's those are the drugs that they have to provide. so we have disconnects like that. we have disconnects like the great place that arnold and ken fisher have built at walter reed national medical center at bethesda i will be politically correct how i state that. nd they do an amazing job at the national intrepid center of excellence for the study of traumatic brain injury and post traumatic stress of putting together a treatment plan for a young man or woman. and they leave there after four weeks with a treatment plan much of it being experimental or really cutting-edge things, go back to a place like west point where they're relying on a try care network they go out and that network says we won't cover 50% of that which is on your treatment plan. now, think of that. we send them to a d.o.d. facility, they get a treatment plan, they move to the insurance provided by d.o.d. where doctors aren't available to cover them and they're told i'm sorry 50% of what you are being prescribed we cannot provide you. so there are some huge bureaucratic issues here if we're really going to provide care where we need to do an end to end assessment, not in d.o.d., not in v.a., but a total end to end assessment from the time you enter the army until the time you are buried. to understand how to ensure that these two huge organizations are together and are totally focused on the service member. man or woman. throughout their career. >> imagine if you will when if they live in a rural area and they have this prescription and they go to their v.a. -- because the plan is to get them home as quickly as possible to aid in their recovery. but imagine if they go back to their v.a. in a rural area and they get the response towards the pharmaceutical treatment, what happens then? they kind of vanish. we kind of lose track of them. >> i didn't even know this existed when i was vice. i was in charge of army medicine in a weird kind of way. i had no idea that this problem existed. but most veterans when they're faced with that because of the pain they went through in getting the right ant depressant at the right dosage or the right pain medication or the right suite medication they have, walk out of the v.a., find a civilian provider, get them to write the script and pay for it out of pocket. that's what they do. because they don't want to go through that again. >> i want to touch on also what president bush was talking about in the pee ginning and -- beginning. it's media coverage and it is and i certainly have done this myself. we cover the homecomings and the heroes but we also cover what you're talking about. we cover challenges or we cover things that make all of the people watching think these people are victims. they don't want to be victims. we don't want them to be victims. i'm going to remove myself because i think i do understand these issues quite a bit. but how do you convince the country, how do you draw that line that you want people to be aware of pts, you want people to be aware of the wounds, you want people to be aware of the challenges. yet you don't want to paint people as victims. but we want to raise awareness but don't want to paint them either as just heroes or victims? >> well, you start in forums like this, i hope, and you hope that the people who hear this in here will take it out and tell it to their constituent sis but i don't really have the best answer because it is really a difficult question. i really appreciated the first panel because i think it takes somebody from the top to force veterans employment. but when you get to the middle manager, the h.r. person who is faced with two files and one person is deployed six times and another person who hasn't deployed, and if you don't have a push from the top, i can't help but think that that middle manager h.r. person is going to float on over to the person who hasn't deployed because they read a story about some veteran that had some problem with his or her brain and they're afraid. they're afraid and they move over. it really does in my opinion take pressure from the top to get down and say no we're going to do things differently. >> how do you talk to your employees about that? how does merrill lynch do this? and how do they do away with those stereo toops? >> it's education. we know that communicating with a lot of people is very hard. i could say happy holidays and not everybody will hear what i say. so it's really on this relentless education. one of the things we've identified is a program called unconscious bias which we all carry with us which sounds like this really does fit in this category that we all walk around with news bits that we file away that all of a sudden inform. so you've got to be aware of it, one. so we are taking our leadership team through this. this would be in the category of it. but i think it's education. and what president bush did for me really helped me because he talked about diabetes. and i think about that. my aunt suffered from it. she went in a lot of comas in front of me. and my assistant had really severe childhood diabetes and one day she went into a coma and i recognized it and we were able to call. and i think about that as a work issue. no one talked about it. she has an incredible leadership career with our organization now. but why is it different? so i think the statistics that you share about head injury and post traumatic stress isn't unique to combat. it's unique to life. and i think that education process will be one way we would go at it. >> when we talk about a bridge from military to civilian life, i know i end up talking to my military friends and i will often say do you have any civilian friends? so what responsibility -- and i'm going to ask you this way -- does the military have to sort of bridge that gap as well? to help you reintegrate, to help you say i am part of this, i had an incredible experience that none of you may be able to understand but i also need to take responsibility for that reintegration? >> i could actually speak on that for quite a while. when you look at the investment, when you say we're going to take america's best sons and daughters and we're going to put them through a process and we're going to make them the absolute best warriors where they can deploy anywhere around the world, be self-sufficient, hit the ground, and if they're ten steps only be able to answer one of them and figure out the other nine once they hit the ground, that's pretty amazing seeing as how they came in at 18 or at 22 from, as an officer, and then so after that huge investment to turn them into this amazing warrior that that is able to support the country fight anywhere around the world and win, that's very important, and then we look at the investment when it's time for them to come out. so if you compare the two investments, then obviously there's a lot more that we can do. so how do we as ken spoke earlier, how do we rebrand that 22-year-old that we just told nothing was impossible to him or her that we can do all of these things? if i could also address the previous question about conversation. what we want to be able to do is to change the conversation for the veteran in higher education. and we want to do that quantitatively. and we want businesses actually to be selfish when they approach us and ask what is the r.o.i. for hiring a vet? and so when we're working with -- >> return of investment. >> return on investment. >> i got it. >> what is the return on investment for hiring a vet. the n we look at organizations we partner with military family research institute and bept to prove quantitatively that if you hire a vet this is your return. so if we look at world war ii we know that for every $1 that was invested in a vet, $7 was returned to the economy. so that's the conversation we want to bring to business to reshape how student vets or how vets are viewed. >> anecdotally i can tell you that we have a higher success rate with veterans than with nonveterans in our development program so we can talk about it later but we have some data. >> and that's what we want to be able to get out. >> there's also the data of unemployment is higher and general can you address that? >> the unemployment issue? i really -- i think d.o.d. is doing its best because it costs them money when people come out of the service and are unemployed for a period of time they have to pick up the unemployment benefits for one year. that was about an $800 million i had when i was vice. i think it's gone down a little bit now but they are working very hard on the transition assistance plan with v.a. to prepare better. i'm very, very pleased when i hear things like that data base and data is being turned over to employees. that is -- that's huge. i sure couldn't make that happen or i couldn't find the right lawyer to make that happen when i was where i was. so those things are all great steps forward. but i think we need to go further than that. i had a discussion with a friend of mine in here before why don't we require everybody to do a linked in profile? and my good lawyer training said i can't do that because that is a privately owned rganization and if we were see ing favoring anybody we would be in trouble. but we need to make sure that we get them into the hand of the veteran and the hands of that h.r. person far earlier in the process than we do today. >> so if you all had to prioritize right now what you should do first to help make this process work better of transition or employing or of reaching out to students to get to veterans who are students to get an education, what would you -- how do you prioritize? it's hard. right? >> to me it's -- we've hired 4,000 veterans over the last 3 years and plan on hiring another 10,000. my priority in achieving that outcome for our business and for those veterans is really to connect better with the organizations that can provide me that talent pool, that can associate us and can point out those skillsets. because it just saves a ton of time for everybody to do that. so my priority walking out of here is to do a very good job of connecting with some of the people i've heard here, put our team in place to put together a much more efficient approach. >> i want to eliminate the 20%. i'm focused on the minority. i'm focused on those who are affected. so i'm kind of different in that way. i want to understand post traumatic stress. i want to be able to tell with certainty that someone has post traumatic stress not by asking them 20 questions. and i want -- demand -- that we treat today's veterans better than we treated other veterans who we know had post traumatic stress and traumatic brain injury from every war we fought in. and we're about 40 to 50 years behind in doing the research and connecting the dots that need to be connected to find answers too help that 20%. and if we did that and could really clear up this mystery and it really is a mystery. it's a mystery to everyone, even the professionals. and don't let them tell i-otherwise. if we could clear up this mystery we would go a long way in helping veterans unemployment by taking away this aura of uncertainty of people having traumatic brain injury or post traumatic stress doing thing that is we don't want them to do. >> and how much improvement do both of you think there has been in terms of removing the stigma? because it's certainly still there. >> it's still there and i don't think -- i think you're going to have to stand this forever. but this is a society. society's problem. and we take your young men and women. you don't like talking about suicide. we concentrate on military suicide. i have 160, 170 active component soldiers commit suicide every year. 38,000 americans commit suicide every year but we were focused on that 160 to 170 in my case army soldiers. we ought to be focused on the large numbers. we ought to be focused on the 3.4 million people that are going to have head trauma every year, on the $78 billion in direct medical costs that traumatic head trauma costs this country every single year and getting rid of it. and we've got to increase a research budget to researchers who are going to research the right way by sharing their data. we've got to increase that budget because i know with all the great ceo's in here that if you had a $78 billion problem and you were only spending $82 million a year to get at that problem you would not be a ceo for long. >> i think you want to say something about that. >> i think as the general just said, the stigma still exists. but there has to be a starting point everywhere. and we've made this -- we've made this issue, we brought it out to the forefront that there is a stigma. so now it's up to the veteran, it's up to the service man or woman to come forward and get the help that's there. i think that it's time that we started working and focusing on what works instead of what doesn't work. i'm so tired of hearing about everything that's wrong. we know what's wrong. but let's start looking at what's right. let's see what works in this country. let's see what works as it relates to veterans best practices and bring that to light. and let's also remember that through this whole thing is the military family. and with sequestration and budget cuts it's this segment of military society that will get hit the hardest. this is where we as philanthropists, where we as foundations need to do a better job of hitting the issues, eliminating redundancies, honoring the donated dollar, fulfilling the mission that we have to fulfill. because i think in the end i think with everything that's going on with all the cuts, with all the issues, be it stigma, wounded, jobs, it's the private sector that's going to make the difference, that's going to eliminate the gaps, that's going to lead the way forward. it's up to us to do a better job, to spend more money on our programs, and not on promotion, on salaries, so forth. we can do it. we just need to be more vigilant. > if i could tag along to what ken was just speaking on. what we are doing and the issue that we think is very prevalent in the student vet area or arena is that for -- if you were to ask anyone in this audience or outside of this audience what are the graduation rates of student vets at a particular university across the country, each year. so between 2009 and 2013, there was $34 billion invested into student vet education through the g.i. bill. so if you ask the graduation rate no one could tell you what those graduation rates are. as a matter of fact, no one could tell you for the last 70 years what the graduation rates are. so very low data existed. so we at s.v.a. are determined to partner with the best, the brightest organizations that are committed to supporteding student vets and bringing them out of the shadows, bringing them out from just the portion of nontraditional students. so we partnered, we're funded by google is stepped forward, lume in a, a couple of foundations, and what we're doing is a project called the million records project. and we're actually competing -- computing the graduation rates from 2000 to 2010 of student vets. and we're going to release that. the first time in 70 years on march of this year. and then afterwards we're going to compute the persistance rates and we're going to demystify student vets. we're going to show you how well student vets are doing. so those of us up here on the panel understand this but this is what we're going to get out to the american public so we can get away poor vet portion of the conversation and the handout and put us into the of investing in the country. with the research we are doing here. i want to open up to questions from the audience. we are going to wait for the microphone. right there. name and your affiliation. if you want to direct your question to a particular person. >> father john sheehan, i am a jesuit. that is latin for troublemaker. i run the xavier society for the representingm the association for blind veterans. we have heard about post-traumatic stress and brain injury. ken talked about wounded warriors who carry their weapons woundsem -- carry their with them. employers tend to back off when shows up in a wheelchair or with one arm. a blind guy does not get to show up. blind people can do almost anything a sighted person can with proper equipment and training. i have ridden in a car driven by a blind guy. my challenge is -- what are we doing for blind vets? that is a small segment but in the last 20 years combat injuries that affect the eyes have skyrocketed. unity has created a separate department to deal with this. companies have got to find ways to incorporate this. >> john, do you want to take this? >> i will take this as a challenge. i cannot address that as specifically as you would want. if that is a bias, we will just it. -- we will address it. >> i don't think you're going to get anyone who will disagree with you. you will do that, others in the room will do that. thank you for bringing that up. [indiscernible] >> thank you. behind you. will go to you. good afternoon. my name is kevin, director of interest initiatives -- director of veterans initiative for the walt disney company. very big numbers. numbers in the thousands and hundreds of thousands. the veteran employment is one veteran at a time. with this this room brilliant crowd if each person towardsone veteran completing college. one veteran towards finding employment, we will move free hundred to 400 veterans to a better life. to the group, it is not a question, it is a statement. panel, thank you for your time. >> thank you, kevin. i think that is another one we agree. to that point, is getting to know veterans. is out there and who can offer their services. there are so many veterans who are so extraordinary who can do so many things. and just need a little push. right there. thank you. my name is nakema, i am the chair of the veterans coalition of north central texas. we are a nonprofit comprised of 70 plus organizations that meet every month. from nonprofit organizations to the federal government. he talked about what are you doing, that is what we are doing on the ground. we come together every month to talk about the issues of our service and veteran organizations that support them. you mentioned a couple things i have a question. he talked about research and the economy. increasing the funding for research, the gap and prescriptions and after care. all that goes back to coverage for veterans. tri-care is one of the most -- i am sorry -- pathetic of around.s i have providers that call us and say we can no longer be in your network because you do not pay anything. we can no longer see your pay lessbecause you than medicare pays. that is embarrassing. what are we doing -- before we talk about increasing funding for research or prescriptions. if we do not have doctors who will see them how can they get prescriptions? how can we talk about research? what are we doing to say we need to provide better medical care, better dental, better vision -- all around health care for our veterans. i am talking about -- >> let me take that question. sorry, general chiarelli, you are going to get this one. one of the issues with tri-care is the payment rate. we are trying to establish where that is having an impact. i am on a commission now looking at this whole thing. dod paid out $16 billion last year in indirect medical costs on the tri-care network. they only did a billion dollars -- they only did $8 billion worth of care in our facilities. ontof our care is going the network. there are a bunch of things happening in health care today making it difficult. a $16 billion bill is something we are being asked to i promise you that. i do not see a movement afoot to raise tri-care payments. i really do not. there are things that could be done. one, they are normally five-year contract. the contract is set and services are set for five years. that is why you have problems with nico -- >> nico? >> national intrepid center of excellence. >> i am just reminding. >> that is a problem i mentioned earlier. ,he plan is set for five years it is difficult to change. you have to wait until the next contracting phase five years later to include things like cognitive behavioral therapy for people with the strikes stress -- people with posttraumatic stress that it is covered across the board. i understand your issues. the committee i am looking -- the committee i am sitting on is looking at all those issues. >> sir? hello, my name is david, executive director of the greater dallas military foundation. i wanted to touch on mr. fisher's point about best practices and sharing what is working. the commission you are working on, general, defines best these problems. that is where we need to spend time. one organization i am involved with is helping children's medical, a private organization, address a shortfall of $60 million in their budget. there are an enormous number of people around the country that would be very happy to dedicate their time and effort to operational do excellence, improvement projects, etc. for the v.a. if we could gain access to stop for tri-care. the ability for people in this , to to volunteer, to give give their time and their talents is a challenge. >> volunteering is not always easy. it is not always easy for companies to take volunteers. >> or for the government. >> i thinkfor all these people -- they would love to help if we could. if we could find access and we were given -- when i heard that the dod was giving up data on veterans, is pat was stunned. we did a project with 3000 sailors to help them get a job. the biggest problem was how do we get to them and engage them? the issues around privacy was a big block. the issue of pay, we are from the private sector and here to help. >> let's let ken fisher talk about. about volunteering, first of all. about people wanting to help. i think volunteers are very relevant, especially when it comes to fisher house. the lifeblood of our program is those who want to serve in any way that they can. they do not always have treasure, they have services. it is these kinds of foundations. therenot really know if was a question -- forgive me if i am not answering or hitting it. when it comes to volunteering at the relationship to tri-care i was not sure about the correlation. what i would like to say is that there are many ways we can make a difference. i know there is a lot of anger about tri-care and potentially raising fees and so forth. i know that there is a lot of anger about the quality. let me rephrase that, because i think the quality of care that has been administered to those who have been wounded with the 95% or 96% battlefield survival rate is pretty hard to argue with the quality of care they are getting. focusing on best practices and what is working. that is worth your time and your effort and volunteer. there are many of organizations that really need you. it is not just treasure, it is time, too. i do not know what your question was. when i hear the word volunteer, and theit to what we do amazing volunteers that we have. >> [indiscernible] leaders -- >> do you have a quick question? >> how do we get connected? privatee considered a organization, that is something that frustrates us all. throughout my time as the vice for four years, i am sure general paes had similar experiences. private organizations would come with one intent and that was to help wounded warriors. it was very hard because of regulations for us to be seen as favoring one private organization, even though it was solely directed at helping individuals, over another private organization. >> you cannot fund raise. tell you how difficult it was to get the process in place. the hardest thing in the world is to get the government anything. >> that was my point. it is hard to volunteer than you think. you said it better. less itore we do, the falls on the government. what we do, we have to do well. >> i just want you to each wrap up, if you can. some final thoughts on how we take what was announced today and the initiative and the research being carried out. and what they want to happen and how do you make that happen. i learned a lot today. there is research and it is accurate. it came from the people trying to serve. that has tons of credibility with me. i learned a long time ago that none of us are as smart as all of us. i challenge us to take the challenges we have today and then do something about it. it can be one person one at a time. i am walking away saying i have much more information. and we have better data and more facts to fix the problem and we will do that as an organization. >> i will just say if we look at what can we do with those sitting in the room, help us to fund research. number two, to be able to reach chapters in your local community. asked to serve as mentors. it might be tough initially are busy,udent vets with families -- they are older. once you break down that barrier the first thing you will realize is that they do not know the question to ask you. and justith resources saying i am here to help, to support, what do you need? on a local level that will help the student vet be in power. >> ken? >> 1% of this nation raised their right hand and took an oath to defend this nation. we as americans also need to raise our right hand and take enough to take care of the military family. take care of those who have given so much to this nation, whether it is a mental or physical injury. remember the military family. do what you can to help employee our wounded. do what you can to employ the blind. do what you can to employ those in wheelchairs and so forth. remember what sacrifices have been made on behalf of this nation. >> i would like to build on president bush's lost lede. >> he buried the lede, yeah. >> that we end the stigma associated with these issues. depression, post about it stress or brain -- depression, posttraumatic stress or brain injury. creating the environment in your own space. be that a large corporation or a small group of people. that tells people it is all right to go get treatment for these problems. that is absolutely critical. that, we will go a long way in helping the great group of people that are out there that really need to get some help. i am sometimes criticized for winning to drop the d. people say i have talked to all kinds of people and they say they had no problem with the d at all, they called the disorder. that is the wrong group of people to talk to. talk to soldiers who say at 19 years old i do not want to be told i have a disorder because i had to pick up my friend in pieces on the side of the road and put him in a body bag so i could bring him home. i do not want to be told i have a disorder because of that. ending the stigma and getting that we to get the help can give them and over time improving that help is what i hope we can all do. only improving that helped but also educating the country to know that there is and they can that be great contributors to society and the workplace. we thank you very much for those thoughts. we leave it up to you to connect those dots and help others as well. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] up next on c-span, a hearing on the u.s. postal service. then, some topics on "washington the secondncluding amendment, the conservative movement, and foreign policy in the middle east. "washington journal" is live every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> nearly 40% of european union gas imports come from russia, much of which goes through ukraine. a panel looks at the implications of russia's growing influence in european and asian energy market. live coverage from brookings starts at 10:00 eastern on c-span. donald trump will address the national press club. beginning at 1:00 eastern on c-span. >> up next, a panel looking at the future of the u.s. postal service and new innovations and delivery. with postal officials and business executives. this house oversight subcommittee hearing is one hour 40 minutes. >> good morning. i would like to read our mission statement. americans have a right to know the money washington takes from them as well spent. americans deserve an efficient, effective government that works for them. our duty is to protect these rights. our responsibility is to hold the government accountable to taxpayers because taxpayers have a right to know what they get from their government. we will work tirelessly and partnership with citizens reform. groups to bring this is the mission of the oversight and government reform committee. i would like to recognize myself for an opening statement. which is in a different book. i edited it. the staff suggests one is not always 100% right. we will examine recent efforts by a number of private sector companies and startups to develop innovative postal products. while the internet has been a boon for the national and global economy, it has been a mixed blessing for the postal service. first-class mail volume is down more than 33% from its peak in two thousand one and continues to drop. package volume is growing rapidly thanks to e-commerce. americans are changing how they communicate with one another and the postal service has struggled to adapt. that does not mean we are living in a post-postal service world. the postal service still has a vital role in our economy and our nation, affording and connecting even -- affordably connecting even the most remote parts of the country. that is why innovation is so important. we need infrastructure for moving matter, not just bits of data. the postal service and private sector companies have begun efforts to create new, innovative products to preserve existing mail volume or create new demand for mail and possibly streamline the way of mail is handled. these efforts target every aspect of the postal service's current operation and includes innovations into new mail design, online postage purchasing, e-commerce, return logistics, and greater consumer targeting for advertising. i am looking forward to hearing from private sector companies and discussing efforts to develop new products and services. statistically -- specifically, what problems have encountered working with the postal service to develop and implement these products. now is the time for the postal service to embrace innovations by the private sector. companies are more than willing to spend millions of dollars to test and then, new products that could bring future revenue to the postal service. in the tech community they use the word "disruptive." it is not necessarily a bad thing, it is a change. my wife and her junior league days use to refer to the way we have always done it. we have got to be wary of falling into the trap of the way we have always done that will stop if companies keep being steamrolled by bureaucratic red tape, animators will look elsewhere to present ideas. i hope to hear success stories from private sector companies that work with the postal service and how future entrepreneurs and innovators can create a more marketable and open environment in the postal service. there is need for innovation. whether it is cluster boxes for package delivery or access to databases like changes of address, there are many areas nation. my fear is that a government , americans taxpayer are going to be left footing the bill for a taxpayer bailout of the postal service. that is the last thing we need. i look forward to hearing from our panel and i believe there are smart ways to lower costs and improve service. i hope we can bring them to light today and find a way to move the postal service closer to internet speed. before i recognize mr. lindh for his opening statement, i ask unanimous consent that our colleague from texas be allowed to participate in the hearing. without objection it is so ordered. your opening statement. >> thank you. i want to think you for holding this hearing. to examine the development of innovative postal products and services by the usps. i would like to thank our witnesses, some very innovative individuals, for helping the subcommittee. in november 2013, the postal service entered into a strategic partnership with online retailer amazon.com to test sunday package delivery in select markets otherwise known as "seven-day delivery." the program has proven wildly successful and is the primary reason why the postal service has recently demonstrated the ability to grow revenue in the face of the most difficult financial conditions. in its quarterly financial report released may 9 of this year, the agency reported a revenue increase of $379 million of the same reporting period last year, its third straight quarter of growth. due in large part to an 8% increase in shipping and package revenue. sunday package service is expanding to other cities across the country and the agency is working to establish partnerships with other companies. illustrate that the agency can experience positive financial results when it capitalizes and builds upon what it already does best -- utilizing an unparalleled and universal mail network that is driven by a hard-working, dedicated workforce to deliver the mail to american people seven days a week. it is an example of innovation rather than degradation of existing products and services. we would be well served to take a similar approach as we take the task of reforming the postal service. as evidenced by yesterday's markup and powerful committee, chairman issa continues to put forward misguided proposals that presume that we can enhance the postal service by degrading the services that had come to define the agency in the eyes of the american people. i do not agree that we can reform the postal service for the better by eliminating the current six-day mail delivery by mandating a wholesale conversion of toy delivery addresses to curbside + luck delivery. or by asking -- curbside and sidewalk delivery. or by asking customers to pay a legacy feature retained door delivery service. this would place the postal service at a greater disadvantage and damage long-term viability. stead, we can encourage the postal service to build upon its existing products and services to set itself apart in the mailing industry. i command ranking member cummings for his leadership in this area and i am proud to sponsor -- cosponsor -- his regislation, hr 2690, the innovate -- the innovate delivery act. this would lead the development of innovative products and services in line with emerging information technologies and changing market trends. it would require the chief innovation officer to ensure these products maximize revenue. postal innovation will be a key component to reform. i understand there are a variety of perspectives on how best to facilitate that innovation in a manner that will place the on a morervice solid footing. i look forward to discussing issues with our witnesses. i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you. members will have seven days to submit opening statements for the record. recognize our panel. mr. james cochrane, chief information officer and executive vice president for the united states postal service. mr. david williams as inspector general of the united states postal service. mr. will davis is chief executive officer of outbox inc. is chief legalrg officer of stamps.com. mr. patrick eidemiller is director of technology at amtech systems. mr. todd everett is chief operating officers of new logistics incorporated. the witnesses will be sworn in before they testify. please rise and raise your right hand. you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth -? all witnesses answer in the affirmative. be seated.nd you may a housekeeping matter -- it is my understanding that the house will have votes around 10:40. that'll be a long series of votes. so i want to get everything covered by 10:40 so you do not have to sit around for over an hour while we go vote. an i might be able to make earlier flight back to texas. it would be a win-win if you abided by the timer here that gives you five minutes for your testimony. we will then ask questions. your entire written testimony is a part of the record and is available for this committee and others to review. so we will start with mr. cochrane, you are recognized for five minutes. >> good morning, chairman farenthold. thank you for calling this hearing. i name is james cochrane, serve as chief information officer and executive vice president of the u.s. postal service. i oversee the integration of technology innovation in our business. during my 39 years with the postal service, i have developed a perspective on the business, how we serve the market, and our customers. this business acumen is essential. technology plays a foundational role in every postal product and service. emerging technology often challenges us with potentially disruptive effects. effectively traversing this emerging disruptive continuum is my responsibility and a matter of survival for the postal service. postal service operates one of the largest technology infrastructures in the world. it is supported and codeveloped by something most respected technology companies and many small businesses. our goals our simple. every day we focus on how we can innovate with technology and partnerships to generate revenue, reduce expenses, deliver reliable service and a world-class customer experience. though our goals our simple, our business model is complex and diverse. programs have shared the responsibility for efficiency and innovation with business partners. this model is guided by the premise that our profits and brand are enhanced when our partners are profitable and our joint customers received an increase fight proposition. printers, software vendors, mail service providers, transportation companies, and parcel integrators play a role. together we have built an industry around market needs. disruption in the competitive package market is an excellent example of how customers demand and evolve and we adapt. driven by e-commerce and free shipping, there has been a shift to ground based solutions. parcel select is an innovative product develops to answer that demand. it is a program that leverages the processing and transportation network of csnsolidators such as newgisti with our delivery network, providing a customer solution. parcel select enables the cooperation, ups and fedex provide logistics and the postal service provides last mile service, creating a win-win for shippers and consumers. the new normal is same-day delivery, sunday delivery, delivery customization, and constant real-time tracking. consumers are demanding these new services without increasing costs and requiring that we adapt or face irrelevance. the postal service is helping businesses make mail more valuable coming and gauging, and interactive. through intelligent or codes and financial incentives, from mobile optimize mail, we are creating a digital reflection -- and a digital response. we are leveraging our brand of property, security, and trust. fromlcome ideas entrepreneurs. our program provides a public venue to submit new ideas to advance the mailing industry. in order to be a doctor, these ideas must align with the postal service -- in order to be adopted, these ideas must postal and generateues profit. the postal service receives idea from a variety of sources. some of these are not new concepts, some are being pursued internally, and some cannot be adopted because of restrictive laws. the role of the postal service is changing at a rapid pace. citizens are using a wide range of technologies to communicate, transact business, and shop. ever-changing technology presents the postal service with opportunities but our success is dependent on how we can evolve. we remain guided by our charter to bind the nation together and our commitment to provide value and service upon which american businesses and consumers depend. the postal service continues to make strides in adapting to the countries changing mailing and shipping needs. our efforts are limited by an outdated, legally restricted business model. we have the responsibility to provide and find universal service for our nation but we do not have sufficient authority or flexibility to carry out that mandate. we absolutely need comprehensive postal reform legislation to return us to financial viability. such legislation should provide us with clear authority to offer new products and services that allow us to take full advantage of our current infrastructure and competencies. to make theress not postal service's task more difficult by placing further restrictions on our ability to innovate and compete. the postal service competes vigorously but we also compete fairly. instant with our legal obligations. forward ton, we look working with you and the rest of the subcommittees to accomplish postal reform legislation and to continue to deliver innovation to the american public. i am pleased to answer any questions you might have. >> thank you. mr. williams customer >> mr. chairman, members of the subcommittee -- >> bring the microphone closer to your mouth. there. they do not pick up as well -- has a postal industry long history of working with the private sector to spur innovation. historically, mail transport sealed the railroad and airline industries. as applications stimulated advances in handwriting recognition technologies. they acted as a platform for the private sector innovators and postage,ronic pre-sorting, and mail order industries. imposedpostal service the overlay of the zip code across the country to the benefit of businesses and researchers. innovation is more important in today's age of digital globalism. the ungovernable internet has changed the world. great opportunities and enhanced capabilities exist alongside awkwardness systems and unfamiliar risks. the forces of creative destruction have ravaged traditional communications and logistics systems. in this environment, the job of and into structure like the postal service is to support citizens and businesses as they try to compete and position themselves. it also takes care to ensure that market forces prevail and are not undermined. to continue in this role, understanding the changing world and rapid adaptations, our increasingly critical endeavors. the postal service faces the challenge of modernizing traditional products as it provides services for emerging technologies. success will depend on its ability to innovate and embrace innovations of others. as a result, continual strengthening of the postal processes for innovation will be needed. that includes seeking to understand the frustrations and supporting emerging needs of people and commerce. developing a comprehensive innovation strategy. clarifying the entry point for innovators. providing staff to join innovators in navigating the postal structure. to remain with them until the proposal is resolved. strengthening these skills and assessing the financial viability of proposals. developing the ability to engage in rapid prototyping of new products and operational innovations. and protecting intellectual property and respecting that of others. when pursuing innovation, partnerships with the private sector and the government are important. bringing in new ideas and specialist competencies, sharing risks, and leveraging the costs of research and development investment. there are several areas where innovation opportunities seem particularly rich. support for e-commerce and e-health and government transactions at the front end for providing a portal for identity verification for individuals and e-businesses and providing digital currency exchange instruments. on the back end, assisting with shipment of parcels. using e platform services to help small businesses with logistics and shipping solutions. providing digital access to postal service networks for the public and commerce by linking together its website and post offices and digitally enabled carriers. in conducting digital analysis of the vast data now generated throughout the network through operational efficiencies, revenue ideas, and business intelligence. these opportunities can tighten the integration of data streams and their supporting matter streams. the internet, smart devices, search engines, and cloud storage have laid the foundations for a changing world. an aspect of what will come next top this foundation will likely be an ecosphere that continues to be ungovernable and chaotic with endless changes, learning curves, and substantial creative destruction. the ability of society to propel inher than retard progress this area will depend in part on the competency of the postal infrastructure to support american commerce and citizens through the coming era that will combine and employ a major new technologies that include additive manufacturing. also known as 3-d printing. the internet of things linking ubiquitous sensor nets. augmented realities and smart devices. big data analytics. advanced robotics and nanotechnology. to world post were slow adapt their role in the early phases of the digital age. and were partially constrained from doing so legally. the next phases of the age of technology will be more disruptive than we have seen today. the postal service must be highly agile and develop an intuitive sense of the changing role and the new challenges facing american businesses and citizens. a key aspect of the postal service's ability to transform must include stronger competencies for embracing and implementing innovations. thank you, mr. chairman. we will move to some of our private sector folks, mr. davis from outbox. -- it is in the title of today's hearing. we have heard it spoken about at least a dozen times. offel the need to go script. a movie is the only thing that comes to mind, one of my favorite and one of my daughters favorite -- "the princess bride." whereis a scene in their up neil montoya is caught with a band of criminals and the criminal mastermind keys using the word inconceivable when all his plans to not go as planned. saysya looks at him and "you keep using that word, i do not think it means what you think it means." that is how i feel about the word "innovation," i do not think it means what you think it means. the reason for this is because innovation at its heart is disruptive. it destroys things. it kills jobs. that is too bold of a statement? 1926der this fact -- in the s&p index was formed. the average tenure of companies on the index was 60 years. today, the less than 15 years. since its inception, there's only one company that remains on the s&p index, that is general electric. one single company. all those other companies are gone. they are destroyed. for all of its destructive capabilities, there is almost another effect of pursuing innovation. it is the narrow road -- the narrow path of putting off old business models and secure cash flows and grasping for something that is uncertain. the promise of innovation comes in the form of new jobs, new job,tplaces for every every company, every market that is destroyed for embracing innovation, two more pop up in its place. ideas, newand concepts and work forces that could not have been fathomed. what happens in the destructive process is incumbents usually die off and go the way of the other companies on the s&p 500. talking about innovation and the postal service, we have to understand that embracing it means a fundamentally different postal service. it means that in 10 years, it looks almost unrecognizable from the postal service today. that does not mean it is worse off. in fact, it does not mean that jobs have to be destroyed within the postal service. it means new ones can be created. make no mistake, innovation will -- disruption will come. in that regard, it is a bit like junk mail. it is coming whether you like it or not. and so as we talked about innovation and embracing it, we need to understand that it means hard, fundamental, core changes to the business model. embracing it means destruction. it also means a new market, new jobs, new opportunities. thank you. >> thank you. mr. weisberg? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i am from stamps.com, the leading pc postage company. pc postage is internet-based software that allows companies to print their own postage using their existing computer and printer. stamps.com serves over 500,000 registered customers, primarily small businesses. in 1999, we became the first company to offer a software only pc postage solution. enabling customers for the first time ever to print real postage from any internet connected pc and standard printer. just seven years ago, pc postage 5 billion inr $.2 annual postage sales. last year and accounted for over 3.25 billion in postage sold. stamps.com's growth alone was more than 30 5% year-over-year. that is consistent, double-digit roads every year. even through the heart of the recession. virtually all of the priority and express growth surged in recent years is generated through the pc postage industry. a study showed that revenue through the industry pc postage dollar ofst $.2 per revenue compared to $.47 through a usps owned retail outlet. pc postage produces secure, sender identifiable mail, which is important for security against biological or other attacks. pc postage provides customers with cutting edge technology without the postal service having to pay for research, development, support, or maintenance. anmps.com has launched enterprise service targeted to organizations with multiple geographic locations. it features enhanced reporting that allows a central location such as a corporate headquarters greater visibility and control over postage expenditures across their entire network of locations. an e-commerce merchant with multiple stores can use stamps.com to consolidate all their orders so they can ship them out with these. with one click, they can directly import all their order data from the most popular online marketplaces and shopping cart software and then automatically print the shipping labels. although shipping data, including usps tracking, automatically posts back to their web stores. stamps.com also automatically keeps the buyer informed. orders the carrier pickup, sends an electronic manifest to the generates ace and scam forum. all the carrier does is in the form once and all the packages are in the postal service's computer systems. is based on a public-private partnership with the postal service regulating participants. our products must complete extensive testing and evaluation in the areas of operational reliability, financial integrity, and security. the postal service also partners with the industry to achieve ofual, win-win goals improving the customer experience, increasing revenue, and minimizing costs. io sitting on this panel, and so many of the dedicated postal veterans who have ably worked with us for many years deserve much credit for the success story that is the partnership between the postal service and the pc postage industry. we believe public-private partnerships are the best path forward as technology innovation becomes increasingly important for the future. having the postal service create its own technology is not the best approach. instead, it should provide incentives for industry innovation. this allows customers to pick the best technology solutions for their needs. provides jobs, both in industry and the postal service. every package produced is ultimately delivered by a city or rural letter carrier. growth in pc postage means more packages to deliver, more letters to the lover, more volume to surface. thank you for the invitation to testify today. >> thank you, mr. weisberg. mr. eidemiller, am i pronouncing that correctly? >> that is correct. >> my radio days come back. >> good morning. my name is patrick eidemiller, i am director of engineering and technology for m-pack systems. we're are a small, startup m-pack,that produces the future of prescription packing. apack was created by 71-year-old navy veteran from a small town with a population of 85 people. this is m-pack, a flat pharmacy file. this is a traditional round file. m-pack has many advantages. the most important are this vial is temperate resident, this is not. iss bottle of water temperate evident, this is not. for an entire supply chain, we have more security in this than in this. hard to believe. we also have more label space so it is easier to read. lastly, much more space efficient and compact. m-pack is made in the united states in erie, pennsylvania. we are adamant about u.s. production and producing onshore. advantage, ther reason i am here. the usps provides a favorable rate for what is called a machine will flat. thisis a machinable flat, is a parcel. the rate for this is $2.22, the 29% saving to the taxpayer. realizing what we had with a flat vial and considering the u.s. government is one of the largest users of prescription by mail. we want to save money and provide a better, safer vial through the post office. working in new york, we developed this envelope, which meets all the mechanical machinables of a flat. in fort worth and received our approval june 17, 2011. of the next 18 months, we continue to improve our product. and refine and refine it. we came back to a product that looks like this. smaller, lighter, cheaper. more weight is more cost. we took two ounces out of this envelope. we put a package together that 50 per second, this one was 15 per minute. 18 months of work to go from this to this. we resubmitted our package, this package plus some of the internal improvements that appeared. we wanted to retest and us. our packages or rejected. not only this new package, but the existing form factor as well. we were shocked. this had been approved once. for a different reason. it was not a fact that it does not meet mechanical requirements of a machinable flat, bend like this, the dimensions. it was that a box in an envelope is not a machinable flat. that is why we were rejected. we were surprised, shocked -- it already been approved. we solicited, a sent a letter to the father of the flat rate box. we thought we had a synthetic ear. we were referred to mail standards and got a curt response that basically said " thank you, especially for your persistence. unfortunately the piece, with its current contents, qualifies as a partial. if you change the contents, please contact us again." if we change the contents from gustavus. best,tire point is not the point is this. this is a better, safer vial because of its shape it can ship through the mail 29% cheaper. that is the point. frustratedng very with our experience. we went to the post office for a reason. the post office provides value. the post office is the only agency that him lately put prescription drugs through a mail slot in a mailbox and not leave it on your door stop. factor in important safety. we want to work with the post office. we baked, we will change our package and test at our expense. use the postal service. it fell on deaf ears. we went to the private sector, ups and we will take it. no questions asked. because we know how many of these we can put on an airplane. get secondary service at a dollar apiece -- get second day service at a dollar apiece. that is what i am here. thank you, members of the committee. >> thank you very much. today i will describe for this subcommittee how the u.s. postal service has partnered with and helped make it possible s, toy company, newgistic .evelop innovative products thank you, mr. chairman and members of the subcommittee for allowing me to speak on behalf newgistics. held companyately based in austin, texas and we have over 400 people on our payroll. we were formed in 1999 to develop a better way for consumers to return merchandise to retailers. our success is due in no small part to the postal service and its willingness to listen and work with private entities like solutions.to develop we also offer a national integrated parcel delivery and return service for our customers. we are able to provide cost-effective, reliable, and convenient shipping solutions by working with the postal service to provide last mile delivery and first mile pickup. when newgistics we view ourselves as a technology company that would provide information to retailers regarding return packages. soon we involved into a return logistics company, handling returns for retailers making use of innovative technologies. we concluded that customers wanted to be able to return packages easily and retailers wanted to make returns more efficient and cost effective. we developed a proprietary intelligent return solution making use of barcodes embedded smart label.tics those barcodes provide us and customers with information that enables customers to manage their transportation and returns processing resources. as we evolve, we discussed with the postal service the possibility of creating a new process for handling returns of large shipments of merchandise that made use of the newgistics smart label. based upon our collaboration with the postal service, usps developed one of its most innovative products, the parcel return service, also known as prs. prs is a postal service program under which providers like newgistics are allowed to retrieve return parcels from facilities. this allows us to provide advanced data and customized return services to retailers wil. we found that the postal service was very receptive. in late november 2001 we began having meetings with the postal service. in may 2003, the postal service sought permission from the postal rate commission to test prs, testing began in october 2000 three. after two years of successful testing, in october 2005, the postal service sought permission for prs to become a permanent class of mail. in 2006.proved from that point we were able to implement our return solution, including newgistics smart label introduction -- in conjunction with prs. the return process by offering prepaid returns via postal service pickup at home, workplace, or drop-off edi at any mailbox. yet our solution, -- our solution gives consumers returning products complement their return will be handled expeditiously. our solution has enabled newgistics to expand offerings to include parcel delivery, fulfillment, and e-commerce solutions to our customers. been andl service has continues to be a willing an important partner in our efforts to develop innovative solutions that bring value to our customers and their consumers. likewise, prs has been successful we believe from the postal service's perspective. based on recent data, prs continues to grow. in fiscal 2013, the handled more and 50 million prs packages generated more than $120 million in postal revenue. thank you for the opportunity to testify. >> we are going to break with tradition and little bit. normally i would ask the first round of questions. mr. lynch has a vote in another committee so i am going to allow him to go ahead and ask his questions. you, mr. chairman. thank you for your indulgence. i think the members of the panel for them help. it has been a very interesting discourse thus far. ofn i think about the future the next iteration of the united tend toostal service, i think about what they have going on in switzerland. of our local one companies, has a system over there they have rolled out. it is called a digital mail scam. i can pull up my e-mail as it mailes at the regional facility. i can go on my secure website and see my mail before it is delivered. if i do not like what is there, i can click on it and say do not deliver. junkavis, when you say mail is coming, not necessarily. it is not as inevitable as you would think. you can click on it and tell them not to deliver it. that is sort of a new iteration of the postal service that is out there. i think that is going to be coming to the u.s. at some point. really disruptive. it would be a great thing for the environment because of the huge drop in mail volume. because people will not be getting mail that they do not want in their mailbox. down here in d.c., at my apartment that is 90% of what i get. circulars and stuff like that. if my wife and the girls did not the sale information that they get every single day i would be saving a ton of money. the volume will drop because stop. will be able to that'll be a good thing for the environment and a terrible thing for the u.s. postal service's national letter carriers. that is really disruptive change. that is what we're are going to have to deal with at some point. what the chairman of the full committee has in mind is putting out about 1.5 million of these still boxes -- of these steel boxes. he wants to change 15 million door delivery addresses to cluster boxes so that even if there is 100 addresses in a box, it comes to one point 5 million. if you make them bigger, you can drop that. 700 33,000. that is a huge expense. huge expense. even where it is feasible. one point 5 million steel boxes all over america, how much flexibility do we have. putting things in a neighborhood and telling senior citizens you can walk a quarter of a mile to get your mail, it is disrupted in a way, but that is not innovation. townis going backwards in -- time. that is not created. that is extremely costly and inefficient and reduces flexibility. >> with the gentleman yield? >> i will have to leave. you can talk about me when i am gone. >> with pleasure. so when i think about the idea of going to five-day delivery, which is another bad idea, the president supports it, chairman supports it, i uphold it, most of the it nation tries to tie in with what society is doing, tries to answer a need out there. where i live, which is common in america today, we operate on a seven-day schedule. be the stores that used to open, they have gone to seven-day. office will close for two days every week. i just think that is the wrong direction. example ofa fabulous citizens in switzerland being able to unsubscribe from junk mail. that technology existed in the united states for two years. we brought that technology to the united states without box. we unsubscribed over one million pieces of junk mail for our users. we were able to do it through the digital delivery and resentment of postal mail. what we found is even though they unsubscribed from volume, we can measure intent. intent is the holy grail for advertising. intent, we can know what they prefer, and tend to prefer. it is sohy unfortunate. toall i am saying is i want empower the customer. the taxpayer is not involved. the postal customers picking up the tag. survive on the money we get from the state. i want to empower the customer. they do not have to go to any company. they can see the mail when they arrived at the postal center and click off if they do not want it delivered. -- is disruptive change, innovative change. that would lower the cost. i am going to yield. i have gone beyond my time. thank you. have boats as well coming right up? -- votes coming up? >> the gentleman from missouri is always welcome to speak in the committee. general11 the inspector for the postal service released a two-part report on postal service role in the digital age in part a human report that the idea that the postal service was expanding to hybrid and diverse mail service. mr. williams, can you reflate explained what the brief -- can you briefly explain what it is and why it may be beneficial to expand these areas? ability tove the print a letter at the point of a lot of thed keep system. of saving on transport and fuel and crowding through the network of sorting would be a very good idea. allowing variation among the regions so you could print different letters for different zip codes. as the postal service per cart before the horse by closing and distribution centers? plan tohey have a real go forward to lessen the volume of mail. >> i do. i think there is excess capacity. inside the sorting centers. i do not believe it should spring up in advance of what the impact of this would be. picking the timing for innovation is the officially ethical. -- is difficult. if we pick something that is not immediately embraced and have closed off the possibility of using the other network, it would be a very serious thing. the hybrid and perverse hybrid mail system sounds similar to the business model today. mr. davis, your company outbox was a fee-based service that customers had as a choice to bypass physical mail, correct? >> yes. and if i am correct to our business model is dependent on this for sure. infrastructure and customer participation, correct? this year outbox announced it would terminate digital mail operation. about theed customers outbox setting them as service. mentioned the initial test show positive signs of success and operational simplicity but the deal did not work out. is that correct? >> absolutely. additionally you decide your visit with the senior leadership as mr. smith goes to washington moment where senior leadership made it clear they would never participate in any project that would limit junk mail, and were immediately shutting down the partnership, correct? >> correct. in developing your business plan, were you aware advertising mail fraud presented a significant portion of the postal service volume? >> yes. as a self-sustaining industry that has to generate revenue. were you aware the postal service has a right to choose who it works with based on the bottom line? >> absolutely. >> mr. cochran, the postal service has been quiet on this issue. is there is any -- is there anything you would like to add? >> the concept of football collect ink mail and digitizing has been out there for 10 years. the approach is one where people go to a receding agency. it happens in buildings all the time. very common in new york and washington. the challenge was the outbox approached it a little bit differently. they did not want a receding agency. that required us to go to the mailbox and pick it up. there are business models out there and providing a digital image to their client on a day-to-day basis. >> thank you for that. >> although i commend mr. davis and company for innovative solution, i think it is unfair to use the hearing to criticize the postal service for not being innovative and at the same time and operate with the business mindset, which is what it was doing in this case. in addition, i asked where he unanimous consent to article the may 8 2014 letter from arid edge foundation entitled why the purse -- postal service was right to find with geoff davis over outbox. >> would the gentleman yield? with youd like to side in this case surprisingly that although it is a shame to see a for-profit entity close because they are not making a profit am i do agree with you that's when this is an innovation that should be on the list of innovations of the postal service the cousin falls squarely within the basic requirement, just as stamps.com is an innovation that the post to their peril. one of the thing -- strange things we agree on is at a minimum the post office should do the core job of revenue -- revenue and revenue savings first. i think we have two witnesses hear from one for-profit. they are both core functions of the post office. i share with you in the comprehensive postal reform bill, we increased innovation fund specifically because we hope the post office will innovate within the core. cryyour opinion, doesn't out for a public-private partnership? >> i believe there are core businesses. >> they may use private enterprises as their contracts but i will say on the record here today that the job that if embraced as, a core function could far exceed the benefit. and including we apparently electronics industry. that is a first for my calling. the fact is, that when he talks about digital delivery in switzerland being inevitable, he talks about a version of mr. davis business plan that switzerland has gotten ahead of. he is right that this will happen within the postal system or the postal system will be fighting for the core right to decide not to participate. i could not agree with you more that your point was right on. >> i agree that we may have an outer body experience. agreeing with you so much. i see why time is up. i yield back. >> thank you very much. he will get back to the regular order here. i will go ahead and start with some of my questions. knownk most of us up here the story of outbox. you took your time to give a very passionate speech about innovation, which i have enjoyed listening to, but can you roughly tell us about what inbox did and what happened the elevator speech version. we allow users to view it from anywhere, whether it is iphone or i've had and could tell us exactly what they wanted and did not want physically. so a hybrid approach in that regard. thisssa is correct in that is a fabulous idea that should be adopted by the postal service. we started in austin, texas, with the idea that we would ask for this before we ask for permission because the rules and regulations are so onerous. in that meeting we had a fundamental misunderstanding of who the customer is of the postal service. he said your customer is not my customer. i said mr. general, what do you mean? my customer is a sender of mail that allows me to place mail on the kitchen table of every american every day. while true, that is not where the inherent value of the postal service lies. the value lies with the connection of every single american. that large belief organizations and governments of which the postal service is in part both is not -- does not naturally tend to adopting innovation. so it was my hope and business but we were not allowed to. the only way we can do this is if we have a safe harbor. something within the postal service that allows me to be disrupted on a small-scale and localities around the country of testing new ideas, and issa mentioned to give customer service -- choice lead to higher value, lead to increased understanding of who the real customer is, the american people and let the value opportunities that were beneficial for the end user and beneficial for our company and ultimately the postal service. >> thank you very much. should you were unable to get your project classified and would take a parcel. >> unclassified and magically became a parcel. >> that is more a competitive service for the post office. i think you mentioned the amount your flat would take. >> yes. this is a parcel rate for poor -- for prescription vials, two dollars 18 two cents. this is the over counter rate. >> your new readers is you want to ups. they made an offer to put it on the table at roughly a dollar. the challenge we have when i brought them up is we are a young startup. we are investing when we have opportunities to generate revenue. so we have a lot of interest in bringing this to market. a have had discussions and couple of potential customers. ups will not officially put it on the table until they have volume and unit and cost. they say including the package, we know we can do it for about one dollar. the post office can put this envelope into every pillbox in the united states. ups can do that. the volume is there, the businesses there. this is a regular standard business. this is $.90 over-the-counter. drugs by mail for $.90. two dollars $.22. hundreds of millions of dollars on the table. the only plausible reason that we want it classified as this verse is best is top line revenue. the top line revenue of a parcel is higher than flat. year's plan 2013 i got this online. what this says is the post office makes three times more money on a flat in a parcel. 3-1. the post office actually makes more money. doing this at lower cost. three times more revenue. very simple. it is easy to automate. we have proven we can automate this. their only case is a square box is a a machine. requirement.y we have volunteered to work with the post office. it. appreciate i will not draw you into the debate whether or not secure delivery location ford parcels would be of benefit to your company. took to on your side of the aisle first. if you do not mind, we will recognize chairman issa and come back to you. mr. chairman. >> thank you. this is an interesting turn of says there mr. lynch is inevitability we will do what switzerland has done. i was madder than hell at your proposal. are trying idea you to be chief innovation officer and promoting thinking within the ig's office is it worth had -- it are hence a bowl. i was shocked but it you would go from waste, fraud and abuse promoting aency to specific agenda. notwithstanding that, the post office has every right for innovative activities, including postal money orders and other items some of which are historic and postal systems here and around the world. however, i would hope in the future that you would be much more of an advocate, including people like mr. lynch. allows the post office to breakeven and be more customers, which as stated earlier, are the shippers. mr. lynch is not here and i've probably said i would talk about him after he left. he will never be my partner and anything that reforms the post office and makes it more efficient because that will reduce labor. he is a lost cause on that. mr. clay is not. the fact is it avoids another story -- three cents per letter costincrease in similar across the board, doesn't it? .> i understand the principle >> looking at $2 billion what the rate increase did. >> i think that is america opposition. need to find out what happens in reality, but i certainly follow the train of thought. >> that is why the president has proposed that. plan on having this be a lynch issa, but it looks like it will be. he has spent a lot of time bashing steel containers. isn't it true 91 million homes do not receive in the door delivery while 37.8 plus or minus million do? allthat is the curb/cluster over america, rural livery and so on, 91 million plus or minus to not get into their door while only 37.8 do. lex yes, i agree that is the .atio >> it is amazing for that ratio of more than two out of every three, who are already part of not having to walk all the way through the door, less labor, and has been proven and calculated by the post office in cbo, the labor savings for less than one third of america is billions of dollars and ultimately a question for you. those billions of dollars per year scored at the modest 15 million, less than half of those converted, escorted over $20 billion in savings in cost to the post office. let's just go through the numbers. your customer is a shipper am a whether you like it or not. the shipper gets a value in secure storage and in avoiding cost. >> correct. i can have at no cost delivered to my door today cap gertrude? >> it is true. we did a study as well on this topic. we saw the amount of savings was , depending on whether you pick an extreme model or one that was very moderate, there was a huge amount of savings. your proposal, as i understand it, is on the moderate side. >> we toned it down a lot so we can save more than half of americans can't get to the door. we believe communities will over time brush to have secure storage, not necessarily cluster boxes, often two or four in the cluster, just practically at your front door. in fact the ones we showed yesterday during the hearing, we one that are ase little larger because we want to be fair in neighborhoods where it is hard to place a box, you tend to have larger boxes. >> both were places where the difficult tol is fit people with special needs. we saw there was a waiver and model considerations for waiver and think that is important to do. we think it could be a real game changer. we think it will save an enormous amount of money. also want to note those 37 million you pointed out are not designed for people with special needs or special requirements or that are special to deliver. it is a historic accident. we like the fact that this imposes a comprehensive plan for the placement of those in the facilitation of people with special needs and neighborhoods where the model cannot work with classic. >> can i have your indulgence for two more minutes? thank you. a couple of quick things. ishink your end, the fact the post office, in my opinion is uniquely positioned to provide a postal digital delivery system. for a feenal feature to the shipper. that it is opinion completely doable. the risk side of that is what we discussed earlier, catalog mailers that are paying to get into the mailbox. if you are disrupting that, it does threaten a very extensive revenue stream for us. >> for example come and these are hypotheticals, you looked at a lot of the efficiencies. if the shipper says i am going to give you x amount of these things and if a person declines, i will pay half as much. it could be a win-win. i could deliver you two thirds as many pieces of material. visible and usable by someone digitally. let's just say i want the coupon or whatever. to your customer shipping, you are expanding his option. you could also have a no delete option and must be delivered and have to pay full price. those options are not available today. i am in the district. but i would love to know digitally everything proposed to be sent to me so i know to expect it and if it does not, and in the invoice of something, i would be prepared to say i mail. lot use of huge advantage to that. i happen to be to the door delivery here in the district and i often get my next or neighbors mail. so i take the mail and put it in my neighbor shoot. my neighbor does not know she is missing her mail until it shows up and i am gone for weeks at a time because i do not actually live here. so they lose three or four weeks sometimes of mail. if they had a digital picture, they would know the intent. all of these and more is what the chairman is a -- what the hearing is about. i want you to continue pushing for the innovation. our broad proposal has innovation dollars. i would like to close with one thing, i was in business for more than two decades exclusively and then in business very modestly for the past 14 years. the one thing i know about business is the topline and bottom-line are not easily different. you can increase topline but if it does not flow to the bottom line, it is of no value and you could make cuts and never get to profit. it is a combination of the two. the post office has the current volume comment millions of dollars of excess innovation -- inefficiency we all know we can cut. innovation in your case and others, depends on efficient delivery. the more efficient, the more promising for innovative brownts. it amazes me trucks go to any suburban areas. i think they go there to kiss they cannot quite get a good a deal as they will be to get them the post office if these innovations happen. so i appreciate the extra time. there is

New-market
Pennsylvania
United-states
New-york
Missouri
Texas
Florida
Russia
Washington
District-of-columbia
Ukraine
Erie

Transcripts For CSPAN Key Capitol Hill Hearings 20140527

they need to develop programs to worker, retain, and graduate eterans. i would like to introduce you to a korean who -- marine who got a degree in accounting, but after he got a job he did not uite work. it is hard to go to from liberating baghdad to being an accountant. so he went to syracuse university. entrepreneurship, boot camp for veterans with disabilities. it's a program that helped the colonel and helped a lot of others. using the skills he learned along with his accounting degree, john founded patriot contractors in waxahachie, texas. it's one of the fastest growing private companies in america. john is not only providing for his family, but some of his employees are fellow vets. where are you, john? are you here? john, thank you, welcome. glad you're here. [applause] his is an important story of how a university committed to veterans can facilitate a meaningful and productive transition to civilian life. but his story also highlights another challenge facing veterans today. when he returned from iraq he was diagnosed with the condition known as ptsd. posttraumatic stress disorder. a problem with post-traumatic stress is not the condition itself, the problem is the stigma surrounding the condition. partly because it is mislabeled as a disorder, and partly because many people are not aware of treatment options. some veterans suffering from posttraumatic stress are reluctant to seek help. as a result of public misunderstanding among employers sometimes cite it as a reason for not hiring vets. one of the missions of the military service initiative is to help end the false stigma surrounding posttraumatic stress and help veterans get the treatment they need. as most doctors today will tell you, posttraumatic stress is not a disorder. osttraumatic stress or pt -- p.t.s., is an injury that can result from the experience of war. like other injuries, it is treatable. the military and medical communities have made great strides in developing effective ways to overcome this. like depression, it can be controlled through medication and therapy and other treatments. like most serious injury, it really goes away on its own. those affected must get help. we will use this platform to make clear that veterans receiving treatment for posttraumatic stress are not damaged goods, they are not mentally shattered, they are people who got hurt defending our country and are now overcoming wounds. employers would not hesitate to hire veterans with high blood pressure, or diabetes, and they hould not hesitate to hire veterans getting treated for profit traumatic stress. one of the leaders in this area is a retired general who is with us today. pete's made it his mission to spread the word about the science behind p.t.s. and the medical tree. that veterans can receive. -- medical treatments veterans can receive. the center for brain health in dallas, address the challenges of traumatic brain injury and other wounds of war. in helping connect and wounded veterans to the care they need we hope to eliminate pts as a barrier to employment and to empower veterans to reach their full potential. dave smith, i got to know him the near amarillo when we rode the mountain bike race. he's originally from akron. he served in a team corps. he was a team leading during two deployments to iraq. he took part in heavy fighting and he saw his friends suffering from wounds and death. when he came home he experienced severe posttraumatic strells. he had nightmares, trouble maintaining relations and so this is a guy who stands up in fronts of a bunch of amarillo cowboys telling his story. he said, one night he came home drunk and he pulled out a shotgun and looked right down the barrel. fortunately he put the gun into another room, locked the loset, went and got therapy. last year he graduated from u cal berkeley with honors. he interned at the new york stock exchange. i don't know why he did that. [laughter] he volunteered with team rube con to deliver disaster relief. we invited him to join us today but he's in swaziland. he went from looking down a shotgun to traveling around 11 countries in 11 months to build bible schools, teaching english, math, science, working in the fields and digging water wells. he's an inspiration to our vets and he should be to our fellow americans. is he living proof that p.t.s. does not have to be an obstacle o a successful life. his story also highlights one of the most uplifting aspects of veterans returning home. many veterans have devoted themselves to helping other vets and others not wearing the uniform are equally as passionate. according to our initial research, more than 46,000 organizations have a mission at least partly related to serving veterans. that is a huge number, and is a great testament to our country -- country's strong support for veterans. but it can be overwhelming to those returning and looking for help. while these organizations have good intentions, i suspect some deliver better results than others. the bush institute is undertaking a project to help measure their effectiveness. we're going to look at data like numbers of veterans served and quality and consistency of outcomes produced. we will conduct case studies on some of the leading, most effective organizations. our goal is not to pit one group of n.g.o.'s against another. our goal is to improve effectiveness. to help our veterans. we are going to share measures of effectiveness, and create a roadmap and assessment tool that all organizations can use to hold themselves to higher standards, to be able to match good intentions with good results. we will lay out this tool next fall at our next military service initiative summit. in sum, the goal of the military service initiative is to empower veterans, to make a smooth and successful transition into successful life. we will do that by spreading information to reduce the civilian-military divide, and breaking down barriers and opening new opportunities for employment. and help organizations deliver better results for veterans. there's no doubt in my mind that this generation of veterans is just as good as any group of veterans before. there's no doubt in my mind it will be the leaders in the years to come for our nation, and there's no doubt in my mind that as a result of their leadership, we will continue to be the greatest country on the face of the earth. thank you for coming. >> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome colonel miguel. united states army retired. director of the military service initiative at the eorge w. bush institute. [applause] >> good morning. president bush has charged us to empower veterans to make a smooth transition to veteran life. while some integrate seamlessly, some feel disconnected or isolated with the very people they serve in uniform. many post9/11 veterans and military families return home to face transition challenges that include employment, education, housing, health and wellness, family or unique women's veterans issues. and so the george w. bush institute seeks to bridge these gaps by uniting and empowering the work of communities, onprofits, businesses, academia, philanthropy and individual citizens. empowering with presidential leadership, convening power and leading research and resources. our work is grounded in the research that the president mentioned. this year our work will include those three resources. the full research study that will cover the experiences, concerns and needs of the povet 9/11 veteran and military family -- post-9/11 veteran and military family. we'll perform that analysis on issues related to jobs, to identify those specific barriers that keep veterans from getting jobs and identify how we close the post-9/11 employment gap and start those meaningful civilian careers. we'll create that tool that this fall will will allow veterans and service nonprofits align their resources to those organizations that are having impacts. and to provide information for veterans to help them assess which organizations to turn to for assistance. our research also informs today's summit, empowering our nations warriors. the convening of the distinguished leaders from across the private, nonprofit, and public sectors at the national and local level, on the stage, in the audience and those watching online. coming together to examine how americans can more effectively support our transitioning warriors and their military families. and so our agenda includes a conversation, serving those who serve america. with two prominent national leaders, a distinguished veteran and a distinguished business leader who rose to the top of their professions and represent those who need human capital to flourish and a profession who has already leveraged that talent to ensure our freedom and security. after a short break we will hear from two distinguished panels, the first will address transition and reintegration issues for this generation of veterans and military families, and set the conditions for how the private and nonprofit sector can help. our second panel will address how the private and nonprofit sectors can effectively support those transitioning warriors and their families on the perspective of communities, nonprofits, business, education nd philanthropy. we are glad that we will be moderated by a very distinguished journalist and recognized expert with direct experience in the war zone and here at home with our warriors and their families, abc's senior foreign affairs rat spondent, ms. martha its. as we heard from president bush, our government has rightly made supporting our veterans a top priority. the department of defense or the department of veterans affairs, the department of labor and others, all of whom are represented in this room today, make herculean efforts to support this population. and commitment of our government is also embodied in the leadership and work of joining forces out of the white house. as second laider, dr. jill biden works to bring attention to the sacrifices made by our military families, she is a military mom, and so dr. biden also understands firsthand how hard it can be to have a loved one deployed overseas. her children's book "don't forget: god bless our troops" speaks directly to military family issues. through the joining forces initiative about dr. jill biden and michelle obama have issued a national challenge to all americans to take action and find ways to support and engage our military families in their own communities. ladies and gentlemen, please join me in welcoming the second lady of the united states, dr. jill biden. [applause] >> good morning everyone. it is wonderful to be here in dallas and it's my first time visiting this institute and it's truly beautiful. thank you for that kind introduction and for all you do for military families, our service men and women, and most importantly for your service to our country. president and mrs. bush, that you for your leadership and the discussion about how we can best empower our nation's post-9/11 veterans as a military mom. -- post-9/11 veterans. as a military mom, that is something that is close to my heart. you can probably tell i am a military mom because of my camo cast, although you might not have seen it because it's camo. [laughter] and general pace, thank you for being here. one of the best particulates as my role as second lady is the time i get to spend with military veterans and their amilies. while the troops serving our nation may be only 1% of our population, as the president said, we want to make sure that 99% of americans are supporting them. our military families have done so much for our country, and each of us can do something in return. that is why nearly three years ago the first lady michelle obama and i created joining forces, to encourage all americans to support and honor our military families. since that time, america has stepped up in our workplaces, our schools and our communities and what we have seen has been truly inspiring. businesses are making it a priority to hire veterans and their spouses, like the president said, from mcdonald's where more than 50,000 veterans have been hired since launching joining forces, to citibank, to at&t, companies are answering our nation's call. just last week the first lady announced that more than 100 companies in the construction industry have committed to hiring more than 100,000 of america's veterans over the next five years into high-paying, long-term careers. companies big and small are stepping up not just because it's the patriotic thing to do but because it's the smart thing to do. they know that our service men and women are some of the highest skilled, hardest working employees they will ever have. educators are stepping up to help our military kids. there are military children in every school district in our country and often teachers, counselors and other students really have no idea that these children have a parent who is serving in the military. that is why efforts like operation educate the educators are so important. it is the joining forces commitment, signed by more than 100 colonels of education to train future -- colleges of education to train future teachers on the unique needs of military kids in schools. on average, and i'm sure most of you know this, military children attend six to nine different school systems. through each transition, they have to leave their friends, adjust to a new school and once again try out for a new sports team. so that's why raising awareness about the inner state compact for military children is so important. the compact helps ease some of the many challenges military children faced when transferring schools due to a parent's reassignment. including simple actions like making sure parents have access to a copy of the student's records or giving the children a month to -- from the time of enrollment to get the immunizations that they need. this is also about making sure our veterans who return to campus communities like mine succeed. more than one million people have been able to use the post-9/11 g.i. benefits to further their education. as an educator, it's so important to me that we provide the tools and resources our service members and their families need in order to succeed on campus. but just as importantly, we all need to tell the story of what they bring to the classroom. i have seen in my own classroom veterans bring the same determination and focus to their studies that they did -- that they brought to serving our country. and i have seen, when i've met with student veterans during my business to campuses -- visits to campuses over the past few nths, we need to highlight and make sure that all schools understand the tremendous value of our -- that veterans bring to the classroom. also, our nation's doctors, nurses and social workers have stepped up to make sure they are prepared to meet the unique needs of our returning service men and women. organizations representing nursing colleges, medical schools and family physicians have all pledged their support to enhance the preparation of our nation's medical providers to support veterans and their families. while these efforts i have mentioned aren't always in the headlines, they are offering support in real and meaningful ways. our family experienced this firsthand when my son deployed to iraq for a year. that year was very tough and i certainly don't need to tell anybody in this audience what that feels like. it was tough for me and joe but it was especially tough on his wife and their two small children. i learned just how much it means when members of the community reach out to support a family with loved ones overseas. sometimes it's the littlest things that matter most. like a neighbor shoveling your driveway, a friend dropping off a warm meal or your church putting your name in the bulletin and the members of the church praying for your family. that's what joining forces is all about. commitments that might reach through of veterans single acts of kindness, to make all the difference to a military family. as we continue to wind down these wars and more and more of our troops return home, many have served multiple deployments, i'm sure many of you have. dealing with wounds both seen and unseen, we have and will continue to have much more work to do in the years to come. in my role as second lady there are so many stories that stand out. but there's one in particular that really i will never forget. in 2010 my husband joe and i visited iraq. we were visiting the troops on the fourth of july. and while we were there a general told me a story that really i'll never forget. he told me about the story of his 6-year-old daughter who was attending a christmas play and one of her classmates burst into tears and the teacher ran over and said, what's the matter, what's the matter? they were playing the "ave maria" and she said, that's the song that they played at my daddy's funeral. he died fighting in iraq. her teacher was unaware that she was a military child. so of course that story is heartbreaking to anyone who hears it. it was also the moment for me as a teacher that crystalized what i knew that we had to do to ensure a greater understanding of the military child experience. the morning after i heard that story, i talked to my staff about how we had to find -- what we had to do. we had to find a way to raise awareness both inside and outside the classroom about what military children experienced. shortly after we returned home from iraq, we began to work on what is known as operation educate the educators. which as i mentioned earlier is the commitment made by teaching colleges to prepare future teachers. that type of effort is exactly what we were trying to do across every pillar of joining forces. because as more and more americans have a real understanding of what it means to serve, the more that they are ready to step up and do their part. we are also doing our best to reach out to military children and also to the many care givers who give so much love nd support -- to our wounded soldiers. advances in our care for our wounded warriors have significantly impacted this generation returning home. in one of the books i teach in my classroom, it's called "better," he describes how there has been such a tremendous, remarkable drop in the number of deaths of wounded soldiers. now there are entire surgical teams who travel in humvees, and i quote him, directly behind the troops, right out onto the battlefield. there immediate trauma care is given before wounded soldiers make the long trip to germany or facilities like walter reed or brook army medical center. these advances in care also mean we have a new challenge and that is how to best help recovering warriors over a lifetime. this also means we are seeing a new type of caregiver. young spouses, siblings and parents caring for their loved ones. which brings me to the story of two brothers, kyle and brett of rochford, michigan. kyle, an army specialist, was injured during his first deployment to afghanistan. sustaining multiple pelvis fractures and ankle injury, and nerve damage to most of his right leg. when kyle first came to the white house in 2013 he was in a wheelchair. when he came to our home, the vice president's residence, just a few months later, he was walking. kyle will tell you that much of his progress is due to the fact that his older brother brett was able to help serve as his care giver and brett will tell you that the reason he was able to help his brother kyle was because of the v.a.'s care giver rule which was signed by president obama in 2011. the v.a. caregiver rule provides training, counseling, supportive services and a living say to pend to post-9/11 -- say to pend to post-9/11 caregivers. that kept his job open so brett could fill this important role for his brother. now, brett is back in chicago at his job and kyle is doing great. and they both credit the care giver rule as critical to kyle's recovery. that example gives us the entire picture. government doing its part, business doing its part and one person doing his or her part. that's what this is all about. americans stepping up to do their part. there is no greater priority that we as a country have than to fill what my husband joe calls our nation's most sacred obligation, serving our returning troops and their families as well as they have temb served us. so for wounded warriors and their care givers like kyle and brett, for the returning service men and women trying to complete their college education or embark on a new career, and most of all, for the families of those like the 6-year-old girl that i told you about whose loved ones are never coming home, there is so much that we can do as a country, as americans to support them. that's why all of you are here today. thank you for participating in this important discussion and for continuing to drive the conversation forward into real, meaningful action on behalf of our service men and women, our veterans and our families. thank you, may god bless our troops and their families. thank you. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome martha radusz. chief global affairs correspondent, abc news. [applause] general peter pace, united tates marine corps, retired. [applause] and steven schwartzman, chairman, c.e.o. and co-founder of blackstone. [applause] >> hello everyone, i am so proud to be here. i know i am announced as a reporter, but when the subject is our veterans, i am not objective about service and sacrifice. i am very pleased to be here but i do want to pick apart president bush's speech. i think he buried the lead. ok? did you notice he dropped the d from ptsd? thank you, president bush. [applause] and that is a really, really great first step to have a former president say it's not a disorder. that helps remove the stigma. i'm very honored to be with these two gentlemen today. and i want you to just look here. they are representative of what can be done, what can be done to employ our veterans, to help them make that transition. we have supply and we have demand. steve schwartzman employs one million people in blackstone. peter pace, as former chairman of the joint chiefs, 2.5 million returning veterans already and a million more to come and i want to start with you, general pace. who are these veterans, what do they have to offer? >> thanks very much. first of all, thank you to you and steve for being here today. mr. president, mrs. bush and everyone here at the institute. this is terrific. thank you. dr. biden, god bless you are joining us. all of you in the audience, i know many of you. each of you love your fellow countrymen serving the country right now. who are the veterans we are trying to empower? they are patriots, first of all. every single one of them has enlisted or re-enlisted multiple times since 9/11. they know what they were doing. they volunteered to enter the united states while their nation was at war and they fully expected and knew that they would be deployed to war. they're incredible pate rots -- patriots. they also know how to grow where they're planted. meaning, they have their own personal desires but these are men and women who subordinate themselves to what an organization needs. whatever you ask them to do, they're going to do to the best of their ability. their decision makers. the admirals and generals plan the battles but the lieutenants and the captains, the lance corporals, corpses and sergeants, they're the ones who make -- corporals and sergeants, they're the ones who make the decisions on the fly, they take the commander's intent and turn it into victory. you understand how it can translate in today's business environment. to have a great moral compass. you don't go into the ugliness of war and come out the other side without having a measure of yourself. and these men and women know where their left and right limits are so to speak with regard to their own moral compass and what they will do in the military and in bills. they are certainly courageous. clearly the valor kind of courageous. t equally important, and especially, is the courage to speak their mind, to know who they are, to question authority when it should be questioned and to help the leaders understand how best to lead and the direction in which they should lead. they are very, very comfortable with uncertainty. after battle -- that's what battle's about. they are men and women of incredible integrity. someone said, if you have integrity, nothing else matters. if you don't have integrity, nothing else matters. these men and women have integrity. they are team builders. they are team players. and they are team builders and they are leaders of the first order. and they know how to take care of their people. i don't care whether they're in business or in military service, all of us want to work for a caring leader. that's what these young men and women are. they're caring leaders. that leads them to what i would call three imperatives for our nation. imperative number one is the moral and social imperative. yes, we should have a discussion about 1% defending the 99%. but more important i think for where we're going and for their future is how they fit into the social structure of the united states. they are the next best generation. they are the leaders of the future. they are the entrepreneurs, they are the c.e.o.'s, they are the men and women who our grandchildren and great grandchildren are going to look to for leadership and are going to take this country on a path the president described which is to remain the best nation on he planet. there's a national security imperative. we have the world's finest armed forces. not just because we have incredible machines which we do , but more importantly because we have incredible young men and women who volunteer to serve. it is the knowledge that their fellow countrymen respect what they do, it is the knowledge that when they do serve, that all of new this room and all who are watching on television right now are out there ready to welcome them home and help them transition. that empowers them, that empowers our best and our brightest. to volunteer for military service. a last imperative is that of global competitiveness. since i'm sitting next to an expert on global competitiveness, i'm going to stop and let him take it. >> he's done rather well with. that you set a goal at blackstone stone to hire 5,000 veterans. tell us your experience, how that's going and what you have seen in these veterans. including that transition and whether there's a difficulty in that transition. >> this is an interesting program. i was at the white house when jill and michelle were talking and i've never seen two usbands fall in line faster. it was a terrific introduction of the forces initiative. the passion that you've heard from her and from mrs. obama and actually from the president and the vice president it's really sincere, it's really important and my hat's off to it. i'd also like to say before i answer your question, i'd like to congratulate president bush. we've known each other for 47 years, even though we look like we're in our 30's, and -- or we say we feel that way, and it's terrific to see him with such a command presence and talking about such important things in a great way. he and laura as well. really a wonderful, wonderful facility, doing great things. it's hiring of veterans, an interesting thing. we would not have gotten involved with this program without the white house initiative because we like leading our own normal lives and i was at a business round table meeting with this group of the largest corporations in the country and the first lady came by and basically laid out the program that we have really high unemployment for this group of people and that you are having 20 suicides a day and i was sitting there sort of listening saying, what in the world is this? what's going on here? she asked, like any good salesperson, i mean, president bush was doing it, joe was doing it, you know, can you people help us? and we'd like to get commitments from you. to hire veterans. i remember leaving the meeting, there were other speakers at the meeting, i flew back to new york and i got in my car, do my normal reading, i got to my apartment, i was making pretend i was going to be relaxed when i got home and i kept thinking about it and usually in the business world we do things with cooperation, not just one person rule. this one i decided to change the decision making process and i was sitting in my car and i'm not very good at tech -- good technologically so i dictate things to some machine in my office and they send it around as an email and i said, you know what, we're going to -- you know, we have a lot of people who work for us. i think just doing some numbers in my head, we could easily hire 50,000 people, so why shouldn't we do it? i just set the thing off. the next day i came to work and i told my partners, congratulations, we're going to be hiring 50,000 vets. [laughter] they sort of looked at me. i could see that look that says, why are we doing this? and without the question actually being asked i said, look, this is just the moral thing to do. these are people who go and do amazing things for the country, they come back, think about it. why should they be able to get jobs -- shouldn't they be able to get jobs? as the president said, look at their qualifications. one of my friends was a sniper in vietnam and he was talking to me about what it was like coming back, he said, steve, i wanted to kill people full-time. -- i didn't want to kill people full-time. that's not what i wanted to do, that's just what i did because i was in the military. i climbed up treeps. i don't want to be on swat teams, i want to be just re-entering society. so i said, look, we're just sandy, do it and i got the head of our human resources group, and we're not quite as accomplished as you said, we committed to this a year ago, we had 740,000 employees, not a million. i mean, even in politics we can't round up like that. [laughter] >> we just do that on tv. that's close enough to a million. >> that's tv rounding maybe. but we sort of looked at it and said, ok, how do we organize ourselves? because we have roughly around 80 separate companies comprising this large group with like $120 billion in sales. so what we did is we used the white house people. by the way, they are terrifically well organized. do not underestimate this, the people at d.o.d., the people at department of labor. this is like really a real deal. ok? so we sort of plugged into that and got our companies altogether and we had the military people and the people come up and basically talk to all the heads of our companies and say, ok, this is what we're doing and here's goals for each of our companies. now, what we learned is that there's like real friction here, right? because think about it. you get demobilized, you just are some random port and they let you out. that's not necessarily what the jobs are. in these particular areas. and the people are not trained for -- i would call it, i guess should say the civilian world. so the first thing we encountered is what do we do here? how do we increase the probability of success? and so what we said to the forces that be is, look, we have to have access to these people before they get dumped out into the real world. the commercial world. and so now this is why i say the group of people who are working on this are really terrific. they've basically given us access to military people a year before they're demobblized. that is like amazingly good because you can help train them and natch them and now we've gone -- match them and now we've gone back to the government and said, look, why don't we use the g.i. bill to get in effect on the job apprenticeship training to help these people even more? because whether you come into a company and your skills are generalized, unless they happen to be specific, how do you know what the right fit is for anybody? they're just like humans. they may be smart, they may be -- have all the characteristics you said, but that doesn't mean they're going to fit. so what you need is some kind and that's rotation something that we're working on. is we we've gotten committed for 50,000 over five years. in the first nine months, the commitments by the way are very specific. they're supposed to start january 1 of this year. we started as soon as we sort of sent the letter in and we've hired 10,000 people in nine onths and now our commitment starts so we're almost a year ahead of time. so we've got three dallas that are here today and we brought in a little washington reinforcement and that's half of our 50,000 commitment, just those four companies. i can tell you that the companies themselves are really enjoying this. it's helping to change culture, it's bringing in people who are really terrific. >> let's talk about the companies. i want to open up to questions in just a minute. but if you would both briefly before we talk about that, what the issues are that we have to solve from your point of view on the transition, from your point of view, for the companies that aren't doing this, for the people we want to reach out to and say, hire these veterans, if you would start, general pails. >> i think the biggest problem side of body is on one this wall you've got millions of veterans who want jobs. on the other side you have great companies that want to ire them but understandably we cannot share databases from the military side to the corporate side. and vice versa. some of that's starting to change but the major positive event would be to be able to to , respecting the soldiers and sail -- soldiers' and sailors' privacy, but to be able to, for those who elect to, to have their names furnished, to american corporations that want to hire them so that we can do this. you've got three million, i think the number is three million, jobs in the united states right now that are vacant. but what those jobs are, where they are and the individuals who are capable and have the capacity and want to fill them, there's no consecutive tissue there. if we can find a way to deal with that nationally, to allow for maintaining privacy, but sharing information that the veteran desires to share, i ink we can go a long way to, maybe not 50,000 but 100,000 over time, of folks who are going to do great for his business. this is not about veterans who are victims, this is not about veterans who are charity cases. this is about veterans who are national resources and if you want to be selfish about it as a business leader, why wouldn't men ire these incredible and women who are exactly the kind of folks that you and ir? >> steve, biggest obstacle to you? >> some of this is just sort of sensitivity to how do you do the match? , i 't know why, frankly think it was something like 12 companies who happened to be bigger and then you've got the construction companies that look like they were hiring 1,000 people, a company, over a five-year period. there's no reason why frankly every company of significant size in the country isn't doing this. i don't know why they're not doing this. if the people who run these contrary to what you may read or hear in the press, are actually pretty nice people , and they're well intentioned. and i think a little door-to-door sales wouldn't be a bad thing. tuck get in and talk with these -- if you can get in and talk with these people, they'll help you. there's actually no net cost of doing this other than a little inconvenience of focusing on something because you're hiring people who are really good and so i think absent the technical stuff i was talking about, the mismatches and people in wrong locations, how do you get people who are let out in one state to get to where the jobs are? i think we just need more people stepping up and i think -- >> and talking about it in a dialogue like we're having today. >> that's why this really makes a different -- difference. if we're just talking to urselves it's interesting. you really have to talk to the people who aren't in the church, right? >> but i do want to open it up for questions. we have about 10 minutes for questions. if you will wait for the microphone, raise your hand first. and then state your name and your affiliation, if you would, please. want to wait for the microphone? unless you have a really loud voice. >> i'm pretty loud. >> ok. [laughter] >> [inaudible] i'm an army widow. i'm part owner and principal part owner for a company who is moving their manufacturing from mainland china back to the united states. [applause] thank you very much. we purchase golf products and when everything is said and done, there are going to be very few golf products made in the u.s.a. but what we have foubds is very valuable is we go to the recruiter, i know every one of my local recruiters in the houston area. i've asked them to ask their recruiters to let us know when . ey know people the gap is that these young men and women need to continue to feel good about the fact that they've made the decision to get out. because they're very worried about what their future brings. >> let's have general pace talk about that. >> thank you so much. >> thank you. >> thanks for what you're doing. you hit on a very important fact which is there is uncertainty for the military families that are transitioning. they are proud of their service , they've made the decision to return to the corporate life to civilian life. but they're nervous. especially a young guy or gal who started out, maybe went to high school and enlisted or went to college and then went into a commission service, but they're mid to late 20's and they have served the nation incredibly well. they have all those skills i mentioned when i first started talking but they've never had the experience in civilian life in corporate life, in corporate america. and it makes you nervous. look, i was nervous about that at age 62 when i transitioned. [laughter] >> probably more nervous. come on. >> so i get that. but i really applaud what you're doing. wouldn't it be great, though, say, look, i'm going to leave next year, six months from now, i want to go back to teaneck, new jersey, wherever, and i'm interested in these things. and if that could be put into a database, where then the corporate world can go into that and say, ok, we're looking for x number of people in new jersey to do these kinds of things, you see where i'm going. if we could just break down that one major barrier between this enormous supply of very talented people and the need on the part of the nation for very talented people, so they can get it linked together much more efficiently. >> that transition really starts early. that you really have to start that transition much earlier it sounds like. another question. over there. i think we will wait for the mike there so you don't have to shout. >> thank you. i'm with the navy league. as a veteran and then a worker, manager in the defense industry, my observation is that even though the defense industry very much wanted to hire veterans and we had veterans-skills-type jobs, we had other type jobs and from an industry point of view, my biggest problem as a manager there or as a division director was convincing my h.r. that in fact they recognized the skills of people coming in and of course when you go out and do an advertisement and you own a corporation, h.r. is the people who control the entry. so my question is, how do we educate our h.r. people to recognize the skills that veterans bring and the underlying capabilities they have? i think they are not in this church. i believe that they are somewhere else. thank you. >> by the way, i want to congratulate the lady who spoke previously. if i had a voice like yours, god knows what would have happened. >> maybe you would have had a hello jobs -- you would have had a million jobs. ok? >> you didn't need that mike. i think the h.r. question, h.r. departments work for companies and they have a c.e.o. and they actually want to please the c.e.o., this may surprise you. and so they basically do what they're told within the limits of human beings following orders who aren't in the military. you have to do this from the top. this is not a bubble-upper. and the c.e.o. of the company has got to say, this is a priority, this is what we're doing, this is why we think it's a good thing and you can loop in with the white house, i know it's a small place, and it's focused, and you can have somebody come out and talk, you have to have a meeting, somebody's got to be selling somebody on this concept, and you can't just do it yourself. it has to be from the top, with the coordination and then you can use other companies as references. what we do is we set up within our little orbit, you know, the h.r. people knowing the h.r. people, we have meetings just sort of generally by function among our 80 companies. we have one meeting for c.e.o.'s, we have one meeting -- this is not all at the same time during the year -- for h.r. people, we have one for general counsels, where have we come to in america? but you need a separate meeting for general counsels. at this is like a subject that meeting and if you organized that way, it will happen for you. if you're just a free-floating molecule trying to make it happen, it's just too hard. so there is a support system that the white house has put in place and if you see sandy later, he's a tall guy with white hair, those of us are envious as we have less hair, that he can tell you how we're doing it and looping in and it really works. it really works. but you have to be part of the system. >> one more question. >> if i could just chime in. >> you see that clock too, don't you? i live by that clock. >> this is one place though where this forum can really have a major impact. it is the intent of not only this conference but the one in the fall and the ones to follow to share best ideas and to capture those best ideas and publish them. so that over time, prenchy, just using your example, have a manual, perhaps, that aimed at h.r. personnel and what it is is about military people so the leader can say what i want done but the folks who make it happen have the resources to do ing to -- resource to go to. >> thank you, hi. i'm cynthia gilman with the henry m. jackson foundation for the advancement of military medicine. you've spoken about the need to be able to break down the barriers to be able to connect the data from the d.o.d. to the v.a. to the civilian side. and so you've mentioned that you're actually able to get in a year prior to separation. i'm wondering, how did you do that and what do we need to do to break those barriers down? >> great question. how did you do that? >> do you have a microphone? hat we can use in the front? >> i think exactly what steve said, about the different parts of the government. we had the conversation with the d.o.d., we expressed the need and they were on it. it's done. anyone has access to it. and anything we're doing, we're doing on behalf of everyone. we're not doing things just on behalf of blackstone. >> sandy, do you have -- >> they're going to hire him for the budget now. next. >> give them the name of the person they coordinate with at the white house or d.o.d. or d.o.l.? >> rich morales is here from the white house and he's running the program on behalf of the first lady. >> rich, why don't you stand up so people can see you? [laughter] [applause] >> all further questions go right to rich morales. yes. all right. >> the reason why it's important for him to stand up, i don't you know why he doesn't like the visibility, but he's the coordination point and he'll get this stuff done. really. the lure is that government isn't efficient and i'm not going to take a positionen that publicly -- position on that publicly but i would say in this area they're terrific. and you should really use them. what i'd also say is, as long as i'm sort of free forming up here which is i guess what you're allowed to do this these things, to make this sale, to companies that can hire a lot of veterans, it's got to come from authority figures, it's got to come from the top as well. it would be hard for me to imagine if president bush visited some friends and talked , because this is clearly a major priority here, because it should be, and talked to them and said, hey, you know, i'd like you to just meet with the people in this program and sort f see what you can do. it's not pressure it's just laying it out. i think he's a good salesman. he's gotten a lot of votes in his life. and he's totally persuasive, right? and he could do that. the same way that the bidens and the obamas, if they actually met with people as they have with people like us in a large group, if you do it in a smaller group when you're going to just some place for a political event and go off and see one or two people and just lay your case out for 15 minutes, i think the chance you'll make that sale is 50%. . if you can make 20 of those successful, you've got a million people hired. it's pretty amazing. there is the capability, whether it's on the front row or others of us in the general community, to be able to help do that. i'm quite optimistic about doing this. >> general pace, final quick thought, an then we'll take a break. >> thank you. to the men an women in audience who are military members, family members, especially to those watches -- watching on the broadcast, thank you for your service to the nation. you have done us proud and you have kept us safe and free. i would say to you, as you look at transition and you look at the uncertainty, embrace this like you would any other mission. take responsibility for the transition. your responsibility. you and your family's, to transition your life to the life you want it to be. and understand that there are many, many organizations that are ready, willing and able to help you and to those organizations who are here in the room, this is about being globally competitive. it's about using all the resources of the united states to remain the best nation on the planet to live and work and we have in the 2.5 million post-9/11 veterans who are already transitioned and the million who are about to transition over the next five year, we have an incredible national resource that we should empower and take advantage of for our good and their good. thanks. >> thank you very much. we'll be back. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> more on the forum on veterans' issues in a few moments here on c-span. now a look at our programming tomorrow. president obama gives an address at the u.s. military academy at west point, live at 10:00 eastern on c-span. on c-span2, texas congressman macthornberry, in line to become the next chairman of the house armed services committee in january. he speaks at the heritage foundation at 10:30 a.m. eastern to outline his priorities. ben carson. oon, a group called run, ben, run, is trying to draft dr. carson to run for president. you can see that on c-span2. >> one of the stories that resonated with me was the moment when they're dithering about whether or not they need to .nject sea water into they're just about down to the wire. yoshida, the plant superintendent, who in the end would have to make the final call, knows that he's desperate. they need to get water in there quickly. and meanwhile, everybody wants a say. and the officials and japanese government officials are hemming and hawing. yoshida gets an order from a supervisor that the government hasn't signed off on this yet. he's got to hold off. he's already started. and so he basically calls one of his staff p people over and says, aisle going to give an order but ignore it. and so he very loudly proclaims so everybody in tokyo can hear, halt the sea water injection, when in fact they didn't. to me that was a human element in that story in which, in japan, where ignoring the rules and kind of acting on your own is not rewarded, here was a moment where a guy knew that if he didn't act, things would go even worse than they were going. >> more about the zunino and results meltdown at the ukushima nuclear power plant saturday at 10:00 p.m. ian on c-span2's book tv. more now from the george w. bush institute on veterans transitioning to civilian life. martha raddatz of abc news monoed or the discussion with army chief of staff peter chiarelli. this is almost an hour. >> we want to talk in this panel about some of the obstacles our veterans face. some of the obstacles certainly the wounded face. and the opportunities to empower those veterans. i want to start with general pete cell lee, who i will say -- pete chiarelli, who i will say i have known since early in the iraq war. we went through a lot together. we have visited the wounded together. and pete chiarelli, since retiring as vice chief of staff of the army where he was deeply involved in issues of post-traumatic stress, traumatic brain injury, i truly think no one cares more than pete chiarelli about the future of our wounded veterans and he is now with one mind, where they and he dedicates his time to continue to help those same veterans. general chiarelli, i want you to talk about those obstacles and the health and wellness of our veterans as they go forward into civilian life. >> well, martha, this discussion is a double edged sword because we tend to in fact slap a label that anyone who is deployed for any period of time has either post-draw mat exstress or traumatic brain injury and nothing could be fourth from the truth. according to the president's report, there have been 265,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen, marine, coast guard who have come back from these conflicts with traumatic brain injury. there are 3.4 million americans every single year that suffer some kind of head trauma. you saw the numbers of 2.5 million, at 20%, that ends up willing probably 500,000 folks. if you take those numbers as being gospel with post-traumatic stress. 8% of our population is expected to have post-traumatic stress at some time in their life. it's not just caused by combat. most of the work that's been done to understand post-traumatic stress has been done on folks, ladies, who have been sexually assaulted. 74% of women who are sexually assaulted develop post-traumatic stress. that's why i'm so happy that president bush dropped the d. i can't even imagine telling a woman who has been sexually assaulted, because she has a reaction to a relationship after that, that she has a disorder. [applause] but as we talked about this, i started talking about it because i didn't know what they were. i came back and a doc showed who have an hose injury are draw mat exbrain injury or post-traumatic stress disorder. i didn't know what they were. i knew what my football coach told me about con cugs, shake it off and get back in the game. so i began this process of trying to learn about it and i found out even the professionals don't know that much about it. the only way we, in fact, diagnose these two things are with tests. 20 questions for post-traumatic v and a test dsm- for concussion if you bump your head. the numbers are great, yes they affect service members, but the large majority of service members coming back from iraq and afghanistan don't have post-traumatic stress and don't have traumatic brain injury that doesn't mean we don't need to highlight it and talk about it because that's how you get people in and get the help they need. >> for them to talk about it as well. ken fisher who is chairman and c.e.o. of the fisher house foundation, i think everyone in this room knows what the fisher house foundation does for our veterans and especially during that government shutdown, when you were just amazing with the families and supporting those families for those who lost loved ones. i want you, ken fisher, to talk about how important it is for the support of those family the work you do and the support that the families give the veterans in terms of success when they transition. >> we kind of get the veterans or the service man or woman and their families when their lives have been flipped upside down. too often, a call comes in, the family has to mobilize very quickly, they've got to get from point a to point b because that's what's done. that's what needs to be done. can you imagine being in the hospital and not having your family there? so at fisher house, we kind of facilitate getting to the bedside of the loved one through a myriad of our programs and services that we provide. you know, the familys -- the families bear burdens and are subject to sack fies that the average american has no concept of. we average americans don't have any clue as to what happens to these families, especially at this time. when you think about what's going on in their lives, the world does not come to a grinding halt. bills still have to be paid. mortgages have to be paid. children have to be raised. schools. there's multiple trips back and forth that families have to make. the whole soldier, you've heard that term, that includes the family. so the family plays have very vital role in the rehabbing of the soldier. of the service man or woman and even the veteran. so fisher house plays a role there. we have seen the families, we have seen the impact that the family has, we get them very early on. and it's always very gratifying to know we played a role when the veteran comes out ultimately and does enter the private sector and does get employment. the ones that don't, we try and play a role there. we try and provide mentoring wherever it's possible. i make myself available as much as i can to do that. but then you know, remember that there are other issues too. the veteran does have post-traumatic stress, the family suffers as well system of what we need to do is, when we talk about education, we need to educate the families. we need to make them aware of the signs, of the early signs of post-traumatic stress. so that we don't get into substance abuse, so we don't get into domestic violence and the other issues that have become very, very -- very much a part of the picture. >> thank you. also with us is wayne robertson. you are a post-9/11 veteran yourself, retired command sergeant major, but more importantly for you right now, director of student veterans of america. talk about your work and particularly educating those returns vets. the g.i. bill is amazing. some of those benefits are amazing and people aren't always taking advantage of that. >> thanks, martha, and thanks for the opportunity to speak about the amazing young people that as the president and c.e.o. of student veterans of america that i get to represent. so, to start with a little bit of background, student veterans of america, s.c.a., s.v.a. started six years ago on 20 campuses because when students were transitioning they saw that the college environment or higher ed was not prepared for student vet. we are older, much more mature, a different world view than just coming out of high school, than say the traditional student. and so these vets met in chicago and we started on 20 campuses six years ago and today we're on more than 1,000 campuses, represent those 1,000 chapters with more than 400,000 student vets being serviced by our policy, our advocacy, and the work we do in delivering programs. so some of the issues that are faced by student vets is, number one, being able to transition. when i transitioned in 2011, i had a team. i was very fortunate to be helped by general pace and others and i actually had a personal sit down opportunity with others. what i realized is the majority of individuals will not have that. we're about 25 years old, we're transitioning, at least those vets we represent, and they don't have that transitional point. so there are gaps between, where do i study? what do i study? and the arrival actually on a campus system of what we've done heretofore is to be able to represent them once they get to a campus and in and through their education. but the issue is the huge gap that exists between those that transition and never make it to a campus. i'll talk more about that. >> a little bit of what president bush was saying earlier about how do you transition somebody out of, my last job was in a humvee or tracking down terrorist, how do you transition that to the workplace? also joining us is john seal, head of meryl lynch wealth management which represents bank of america and meryl lynch. i know we talk -- and merrill lynch, i know we talked earlier about the private sector, but what challenges are you seeing and what are you doing in terms of hiring veterans, doing whatever you can that's working? >> sure, thank you. we heard what the challenges are. there's a lack of preparedness, we know about the stigma. there's ongoing commitment to the guard and reserve. we design -- every corporation designs benefits based on people who don't always look like returning veterans. you've got to -- we end up trying to make veterans fit our structure and what we're trying to do as an organization is recognize that that doesn't work. like wayne has, we bend our structure to fit them. it requires a different approach. one example might be internship. if you're going to try to get an internship at a firm like merrill lynch or bank of merck, it's very competitive. the way we go after the most talented folks, the veterans, is we created a different internship track that will be held off to allow them the access and exposure to see what life is like. they get a no-risk free look at what a career might look like. the onboarding process is different as we bring our veterans in, about how they're going to transition into the work forest and we recognize some of those challenges. we don't have all the answers, by the way. this is our attempt to do it. we have unique training for those folks as well. i think most importantly, the answers lie within our people. we have 6,000 veterans that work for bank of america and merrill lynch. they formed a military support advisors group. they have the answers. the interaction and learning is probably the best approach we have to continuing to evolve the process and how we can make sure that we have this will be a successful transeducation. one thing that wasn't talked about that i think is important, we're doing this because this is a business opportunity for us as well as doing the right thing. merrill lynch, for instance, has had a 45-year history of hiring veterans, very successfully. they transition very well into our roles as adviseors for clients with the maturity, the perspective, the leadership that they have. so i look at this as an enormous opportunity. i think the challenge, and we may talk about it at some point is how do with gather up all the resources to make it more seamless? i have met four people over the last 24 hours that are going to help me do this a lot more effectively and one is sitting right here next to me. >> actually that's exactly the point i wanted to make. you've got all these people up here, you've got all these great ideas but connecting those dots and making it work, how do you do that? it seems to me, just from the conversations and experience, this all starts, while they're still in the military. they don't get that transitional help or they get two days of transitional help and maybe nothing more that some people fall through the cracks. each of you, just talk about your ideas if you will, about how you connect the dots to what you're all concerned about. do you want to start, john? >> sure. i'll say two things. one, while they're in the military, we have this military support advisory group, we have full-time staff, teams assigned to working with military, working with military organizations to identify that talent that's coming out of their service. and so we have a structure around that, that's one way to do it. the other way is to plug into wayne's organization, as we think about these campuses. i happen to work with florida state universe -- university, which has a robust veterans center and i'm proud of what we do, but that's a great opportunity for taos identify talent. so we put structures to attach directly to the mill air and our ongoing recruiting efforts with on college campuses, especially those with veterans centers, give us a big advantage. >> let's go down the order. >> what i'll say is, as i look at the issue and we talk about the greatest generation, right, and we know that the stats exist, we can talk about the 500,000 scientists and engineers that were -- that came out of that generation, 14 noble ureates, three presidents -- nobel laureates, three presidents, supreme court justices, but if you look at it, they look just like our vets. they were guys from small town america. when i look at that picture and i look at the picture of a vet i see connection being the issue. and so at s.v.a. we're redoing our i.t. infrastructure. what we want to be able to do is have those who are interested in reaching out to vets, and this is something john and i talked about last night, interested in connecting with vets, be able to connect with them directly on campus because at the end of the day, the individuals, the recruiters, need to be able to directly access those vets at florida state or pursue university to have that robust and dynamic conversation. so in about four months we'll have that infrastructure in help the hat will conversation, they'll be able to reach out directly and then the vet will be able to put a face to the name of the organization. >> you know, we've been hearing a lot about the veteran aned the trap -- and the transeducation process into the private sector. imagine if the veteran is wounded. imagine what happens to that veteran that service man or woman's life. they have to overcome their wounds, which they do with magnificent grace and dignity and i see it every day. but they have additional challenges and so do their families. so in my mind, while they are doing their rehab, while they're receiving treatments, it's to get to them at that point. mentor. let them know what's available. make them aware of what they need to do. because they do have additional challenges now. it's not just walking out of the military and into the private sector. for these men and women, the additional challenges are many. so get to them you know, we used to say, there is still a benefit gap, as we are all aware, that -- during the transition process from the d.o.d. to the v.a. that's the time i'd like to see the mentoring possess begin, let them know what's available, let them know what's -- what will be expected of them. give them an idea as to how they can brand themselves, how to put a resume together. use that time while they're improving themselves toward making them competitive, giving them an equal, leveling the playing field if you will for that particular service man or woman. >> you have seen some specific things on the transition, not just civilian life, but the transition from d.o.d. to v.a. is not that simple. >> no, it's not. it's not. and those are some of the things we need to -- we need to fix. and you don't know when you're in d.o.d. that the transition to v.a. is going to be difficult because you've never been in v.a. before. we have things like drug form lairs that aren't the same between -- formularys that aren't the same between d.o.d. and v.a. the is on a drug with right dosage and right drugging and they have a different formulary, they say, we can't prescribe that drug. we don't have that drug in stock because our formulary is different. d.o.d. has a much more expansive formul rambings y. it's not that think think one drug is better than another, but it's whea drugs they can provide. we have disconnects like that. or the great place like arnold and kent fisher have built at walter reed, walter reed national medical center at bethesda, i'll be politically correct how i state that. and you know, they do it and -- they do an amazing job, center of excellence for the study of brain injury and post-traumatic stress of putting together a treatment plan for a young man or woman. and they leave there after four weeks with a treatment plan, much of it being experimental or really cutting edge things, go back to a place like west point where they're relying on the tricare network they go out into the network and the network says we won't cover 50% of that which is on your treatment plan. think of that. we send them to a d.o.d. facility, they get a treatment plan, they move to the insurance provided by d.o.d. when doctors aren't available to cover them and they are told i'm sorry, 50% of what you are being prescribed, we cannot provide you because it's not covered by tricare. so there are some huge bureaucratic issues here, if we're really going to provide care, we need to do an end-to-end assessment. not end-to-end in d.o.d. or end-to-end in v.a. but a total end-to-end, from the time you enter the army until you are buried to understand how to ensure that these two huge organizations are together and are totally focused on the service member, man or woman, throughout their career. >> imagine, if you will, when -- if they live in a rural area and they have this prescription and they go to their v.a. because the plan is to get them home as quickly as possible. to aid in their recovery. but imagine if they go back to their v. namplet a rural area than i a -- and they get the response toward the pharmaceutical treatment. what happens then? they kind of vanish. we lose track of them. >> you know, i didn't know this existed, i was in charge of army medicine in a weird kind of way. i had no idea that this problem existed. but most veterans, when they're faced with that, because of the pain they went through in getting the right antidepressant at the right dosage or the right pain medication or the right sleep medication, to hand they will symptom they was from traumatic brain injury or post-traumatic stress, walk at of the v.a., go to a civilian provider, get them to write the script and pay for it out of pocket because they don't want to go through that again. >> i want to touch on something president bush was talking about in the beginning. media coverage. and it is, and i'm certain -- i've certainly done this myself. we cover the home comings and the heroes but we also cover what you're talking about. we cover challenges or we cover things that make all the people watching think, these people are victims. they don't want to be victims, we don't want them to be victims, i'm going to remove myself because i do think i understand these issues a quite a bit -- these issues quite a bit but how do you convince the country, how do you draw the line that you want people to be aware of p.t.s., you want people to be aware of the wounded, you want people to be aware of the challenges, yet you don't want to paint people as victims, but we want to raise awareness, but don't want to paint them either as just heros or victims? >> well, you start with forums like this, i hope. you hope that people who hear this here will take it out and tell it to their constituencies. i don't have the best answer for that question because it is really, really a difficult question. i really appreciated the first panel because i think it takes somebody from the top to force veterans employment, but when you get to the middle manager, the h.r. person who is faced with two files and one person is deployed sex times and another person hasn't deployed and if you don't have a push from the top, i can't help but think that that middle manager, h.r. person is going to float on over the person who hasn't deployed because they read a story about some veteran that had some problem with his or her brain and they're afraid. they're afraid and they move over. it really does in my opinion take pressure from the top to get in there and say, no, we're going to do things differently. >> john, how co-you talk to employees about that? how does merrill lynch do that and do away with thestero types? >> it's education. we know that communicating with a lot of people is very hard. i can say happy holidays and not everybody will hear what i say. so it's really on this relentless education. one of the things specifically we've identified, it's a program called unconscious bias. which we all carry with us. which sounds like this really does fit in this category, we all walk around with tidbits, news bits we file away that form. so you've got to be aware of it. we are taking our leadership team through this, this would be in the category of it, enge it's education. what president bush did for me realy helped me because he talked about diabetes. i think about that. my aunt suffered from it, she went in a lot of diabetic comas in front of me and my assistant i worked with had severe childhood diabetes. one dishe went into a coe mark i recognized it, we were able to call. i think about that as a work issue. no one talks about it, she has an incredible leadership career now with our organization but why is it any different? i think the statistics about head injury and post-traumatic stress isn't unique to combat. it's unique to life. i think that education process would be one way we'd go at it. >> when we talk about a bridge from military to civilian life, i know i end up talking to my military friends and i will often say, do you have any civilian friends? so what responsibility, and i'm going to ask you this, does the military have to sort of bridge that gap as well? to help you reintegrate, to help you say, i am part of this, i had an incredible experience that none of you may be able to understand, but i also need to take responsibility for that reintegration. >> i can speak on that for quite a while. when you look at the investment and you say, we're going to say america's best sons and daughters, and we are going to put them through a process and make them the absolute best warriors, where they can deploy anywhere around the world be self-sufficient, hit the ground, take 10 steps, only give them one of them and they'll figure out the other nine when they hit the ground. that's amazing when they came in at 18 or maybe 22 as an officer and then after that huge investment, to turn them into this amazing warrior that they will support -- that's able to support the country, fight anywhere around the world and win, that's very important. and then we look at the investment when it's time for them to come out. and so you compare the two investments, then obviously there's a lot more that we can do. so how do we as when spoke earlier, how to we rebrand that 22-year-old that we just told nothing was impossible to him or her, that we can do all these things? if i could also address the previous question about conversations. what we want to be able to do is change the conversation for the veterans and higher education. we want to do that quantitatively. we want piss actually to be selfish when they approach us and ask, what is the r.o.i. for hiring a vet? and so when we -- when we're working -- >> return of investment. >> yes, return on investment. >> i got it. sorry. >> what is the return on investment for hiring a vet. ibms, we look at partner with mfri, military family research institute from purdue university and we want to prove quantitatively that if you hire a vet, this is your return. if we look at world war ii, we know that for every $1 invested in a vet, $7 was returns to the economy. so that's the conversation we want to bring to business, to reshape how student vets, or how vets are viewed. >> anecdotely i can tell you we have a higher success rate with veterans than nonveterans in our development program. we can audiocassette about it -- we tan talk about it later but we have some data. >> that's what we want to get out. >> and the data from unpliment is higher and general cell lee, can you -- chiarelli can you address that? why that would be? >> i really -- i think d.o.d. is doing its best because it costs them money when people come out of the service and are unployed for a period of time, they have to pick up unemployment benefits for a year, that was about an $800 million a year bill i had, i think it's down late bit now. they are working hard on a transition assistance plan, known as path, with veterans. i'm pleased to hear things like database and data is being turned over to employees. that is huge. i sure couldn't make that happen or i couldn't find the right lawyer to make that happen when i was -- where i was. so those things are all great steps forward. but enge we need to go further than that. i had a discussion with a friend of mine in here before, why don't we require everybody to do a linkd-n profile before they leave. my good lawyer training said, can't do that, that's a privately owned organization, if we were seen as favoring them over anybody else we'd be in trouble. but it's those kinds of modern things that are available today we need to make sure that we get them in the hands of the veterans but more importantly in the hands of the h.r. person far earlier in the process than we do today. >> if you all had to prioritize right now what you should do first to help make this process work better of transition or of employeing or reaching out to students to get -- to veterans who are students to get an education, what -- how do you prioritize? it's hard, right? >> to me, we've hired 4,000 veterans over the last three years and plan to hire another 10,000. my priority in achieving that outcome for our business and for those veterans is really to connect better with the organizations that can provide that talent pool, that can associate us and can point out those skill sets because it just saves a ton of time for everyone to do that. so my priority walking out of here is to do a very good job of connecting with some of the people aye heard here, put our team in place so we can operationalize a much more efficient approach to recruitment and identification of veterans. >> i want to eliminate the 20%. i'm focus thond eminority. i'm focused on those who are affected. i'm kind of different in that way. i want to understand post-draw mat exstress. i want to be able to tell with certainty that someone has post-draw mat exstress, not by asking them 20 questions, and i want, demand, that we treat today's veterans wret better than we treated other veterans who we know had post-draw mat exstress and traumatic brain injury from every war we ever fought in. we are about 40 or 50 years behind in doing the research and kecking the dots that need to be connected to find answers to help that 20%. and if we did that and could really clear up this mystery, and it is a mystery, it's a mystery to everyone, it's a mystery to the professionals and don't let them tell you otherwise. if we could clear up this mystery, it would go a long way, i think new york helping veterans unemployment by taking away this aura of uncertainty of people, you know, having traumatic brain injury or post-traumatic stress doing things we don't want them to do. >> how much improvement do you, both of you, think there has been in terms of removing the stigma? because it's certainly still there. >> it's still there. and i don't think -- i think you're going to have to stay on this forever. this is a society -- this is society's problem. we take your young men and women. you don't like talking about suicide. we concentrate on military suicide every year. i had 160, 170 active component army soldiers in the four years i was vice commit suicide every year. 38,000 americans commit suicide every year, but we were focused on that 160 to 170 in my case army soldiers esm we -- we ought to be focused on the large nurs, the 3.4 million people that are going to have head trauma every year. we ought to be focused on the $78 billion in direct medical cost that traumatic head trauma cost this is country every single year and getting rid of it. we've got to increase a research fwouget researchers who are going to research the right way by sharing their data, we've got to increase that budget because i know with all the great c.e.o.'s in here that if you had a $78 billion problem and you were only spending $82 million a year to get at that problem you ould not be a c.e.o. for long. >> i think you want to say something? >> as the general said, the stigma still exists but there has to be, you know, there has to be a starting point everywhere. we have made this issue, we brought it out to the forefront, that there is a stigma. so now it's up to the veterans, it's up to the service men and women to come forward and get the help that's there. i think that it's time we started working and focusing on what works instead of what doesn't work. i'm so tired of hearing about everything that's wrong. we know what's wrong. but let's start looking at what's right. let's see what works in this country. let's see what works as it relates to veterans, best practices and bring that to life. and let's also remember that through this whole thing, is the military family. and with sequestration and budget cuts, it's this segment of military society that will get hit the hardest. this is where we as philanthropists, where we as foundations, need to do a better job of getting the issues, eliminate regular dun dancy, honoring the donated dollar, fulfilling the mission that we have to fulfill because i think in the end, i think with everything that's going on, with all the cuts, with all the issues, the stigma, be it wounded, be it jobs, it's the private sector that's going to make the difference, that's going to eliminate the gap, that's going to lead the way forward. it's up to us to do a better job, to spend more money on our programs and not on promotion, on salaries, and so forth. we can do it, we just need to be more vigilant. >> if i could tag along to what ken was just speaking on, what we are doing and the issue we think is very prevalent in the student vet area or arena is that if you were to ask anyone in this audience or outside of this audience what are the graduation rates of student vets at the university, across the country, each year, so between 09 and 2013, there was $34 billion invested into student debt -- student vet education, into the g.i. bill. if you ask the graduation rate, no juan can tell you what the graduation rates are. as a matter of fact, no one can tell you for the last 70 years what the fwradge ration -- graduation rates are. very little data exist. we at s.v.a. are determined to partner with the best, the brightest organizations that are committed to supporting student vets and bringing them out of the shadows. bringing them out from just the portion of nontraditional students. with funders, a couple of foundations, and what we're doing is a project called the records project and we are computing the graduation rates of student 2010 vets. we're going to release that. the first time in 70 years. in march of this year. and then afterwards, we're going to compute the persistence rates, we're going to demystify student vets. we will show you how well student vets are doing so those of us up here on the panel understand this. this is what we are going to get to the american public so we can get away from the poor vet portion of the conversation and the handout and put us into the proper business of investing in the country. >> coupled with the research we are doing here. i want to open up to questions from the audience. we are going to wait for the microphone. right there. state your name and your affiliation. if you want to direct your question to a particular erson. >> father john sheehan, i am a jesuit. that is latin for roublemaker. i run the xavier society for the blind and i am representing the association for blind veterans. i'm their national chaplain. i'd like to refine the focus is a little bit. we have heard about post-traumatic stress and brain injury. ken talked about wounded warriors who carry their wounds with them. employers tend to back off when a vet shows up in a wheelchair or with one arm. a blind guy does not get to show up. or if he does, he is quickly dismissed. blind people can do almost anything a sighted person can with proper equipment and training. i have ridden in a car driven by a blind guy. the car did not drive itself. so i guess my question, my challenge is, what are we doing for the blind vets? now that's a small segment, but in the last 0 years, combat injuries that affect the eyes have skyrocketed. d.o.d. has created a whole separate department to deal with this. companies have got to find ways to incorporate this. >> john, do you want to take this? >> i will take this as a challenge. i cannot address that as specifically as you would want. i promise you, if that's a bias we'll address it. i agree with you. we have to check it out. >> i don't think you're going to get anyone who will disagree with you. so hopefully you'll do that, others in the room will do that thank you very much, thank you or bringing that up. [inaudible]>> thank you. behind you. then we will go to you. >> good afternoon. my name is kevin, director of veterans initiative for the walt disney company. i am a simple soldier wearing a suit. one thing i want to comment on that we discussed today. we have heard very big numbers. numbers in the thousands and hundreds of thousands. the veteran employment is one veteran at a time. i offer to this room with this brilliant crowd if each person assists one veteran towards completing college. one veteran towards finding employment, we will move free hundred to 400 veterans to a better life. i offer that to the group, it is not a question, it is a statement. panel, thank you for your time. >> thank you, kevin. anybody want to say anything on that? i think that is another one we agree. it's true, it's one at a time. to that point, is getting to know veterans. knowing who is out there and who can offer their services. there are so many veterans who are so extraordinary who can do so many things. and just need a little push. right there. >> thank you. my name is nakema, i am the chair of the veterans coalition of north central texas. we are a nonprofit comprised of 70 plus organizations that meet every month. from nonprofit organizations to the federal government. he talked about what are you doing, that is what we are doing on the ground. we come together every month to talk about the issues of our veterans and veteran service organizations that support them. you mentioned a couple things i have a question. he talked about research and the economy. increasing the funding for research, the gap and prescriptions and after care. private sector. all that goes back to coverage for veterans. tri-care is one of the most -- i am sorry -- pathetic of coverages around. i have providers that call us and say we can no longer be in your network because you do not pay anything. we can no longer see your veterans because you pay less than medicare pays. that is embarrassing. what are we doing -- before we talk about increasing funding for research or prescriptions. if we do not have doctors who will see them how can they get prescriptions? how can we talk about research? what are we doing to say we need to provide better medical care, better dental, better vision -- all around health care for our veterans. i am talking about -- >> let me take that question. sorry, general chiarelli, you are going to get this one. in your past role. there you go. unless general pace would like to. >> one of the issues with tri-care is the payment rate. we are trying to establish where that is having an impact. i am on a commission now looking at this whole thing. dod paid out $16 billion last year in indirect medical costs on the tri-care network. they only did $8 billion worth of care in our facilities. 2/3 of our care is going onto the network. there are a bunch of things happening in health care today making it difficult. and a $16 billion bill is something we are being asked to look at, get at, to lower. i promise you that. i do not see a movement afoot to raise tri-care payments. i really do not. there are things that could be done. one, they are normally five-year contract. the contract is set and services are set for five years. that is why you have problems with nicoe -- >> nicoe? >> national intrepid center of excellence. > i am just reminding. >> martha, come on. >> i'm the acronym police. >> that is a problem i mentioned earlier. the plan is set for five years, locked in con concrete for five years, very difficult to change. you have to wait until the next contracting phase five years later to include things like cognitive behavioral therapy for people with post-traumatic stress that is covered across the board. i understand your issues. they are issues. the commission i am sitting on is looking at all those issues. >> sir? >> hello, my name is david, executive director of the greater dallas military foundation. i wanted to touch on mr. fisher's point about best practices and sharing what is working. the commission you are working on, general, defines best practices to fix these problems. that is where we need to spend time. one organization i am involved with is helping children's medical, a private organization, address a shortfall of $60 million in their budget. there are an enormous number of people around the country that would be very happy to dedicate their time and effort to volunteer to do operational excellence, improvement projects, etc. for the v.a. if we could gain access for tricare. the ability for people in this room to volunteer, to give, to give not only their treasure but their time an talent cents a challenge. >> volunteering is not always easy. it is not always easy for companies to take volunteers. or anybody. >> or for the government. >> or the government. >> i think for all these people -- they would love to help if we could. if we could find access and we were given -- when i heard that the dod was giving up data on how to access veterans, i was stunned. we did a project with 3000 sailors to help them get a job. we cut the time required in half. the biggest problem was how do we get to them and engage them? the issues around privacy was a big block. the issue of hey, we're from the private sector, we're here to help. >> let's let ken fisher talk about. about volunteering, first of all. about people wanting to help. >> i think volunteers are very relevant, especially when it comes to fisher house. the lifeblood of our program is those who want to serve in any way that they can. they do not always have treasure, they have services. it is these kinds of foundations. i did not really know if there was a question -- forgive me if i am not answering or hitting it. when it comes to volunteering at -- and the relationship to tricare, i wasn't sure about the correlation. what i would like to say is that there are many ways we can make a difference. i know there is a lot of anger about tri-care and potentially raising fees and so forth. i know that there is a lot of anger about the quality. let me rephrase that, because i think the quality of care that has been administered to those who have been wounded with the 95% or 96% battlefield survival rate is pretty hard to argue with the quality of care they are getting. focusing on best practices and what is working. find something that is worth your time and your effort and volunteer. there are many of organizations that really need you. it is not just treasure, it is time, too. i do not know what your question was. when i hear the word volunteer, i apply it to what we do and the amazing volunteers that we ave. >> do you have a quick question? >> how do we get connected? >> you're considered a private organization, that is something that frustrates us all. throughout my time as the vice for four years, i am sure general paes had similar experiences. private organizations would come with one intent and that was to help wounded warriors. it was very hard because of regulations for us to be seen as favoring one private organization, even though it was solely directed at helping individuals, over another private organization. >> you cannot fund raise. >> ken can tell you how difficult it was to get the process in place. the hardest thing in the world is to get the government anything. >> that was my point. it is hard to volunteer than you think. you said it better. >> the more we do, the less it falls on the government. what we do, we have to do well. >> i just want you to each wrap up, if you can. some final thoughts on how we take what was announced today and the initiative and the research being carried out. and what they want to happen and how do you make that happen. >> i learned a lot today. there is research and it is accurate. it came from the people trying to serve. that has tons of credibility with me. i learned a long time ago that none of us are as smart as all of us. i challenge us to take the challenges we have today and then do something about it. it can be one person one at a time. i am walking away saying i have much more information. and we have better data and more facts to fix the problem and we will do that as an organization. >> i will just say if we look at what can we do with those sitting in the room, help us to fund research. umber two, to be able to reach out to sva chapters in your local community. asked to serve as mentors. it might be tough initially because student vets are busy, with families -- they are older. once you break down that barrier the first thing you will realize is that they do not know the question to ask you. come in with resources and just saying i am here to help, to support, what do you need? on a local level that will help the student vet be in power. >> ken? >> 1% of this nation raised their right hand and took an oath to defend this nation. we as americans also need to raise our right hand and take n oath to take care of the military family, take care of those who have given so much to this nation, whether it's a mental injury or a physical injury. emember the military family. do what you can to help employ our wounded, do what you can to employ the blind, to what you can to employ those in wheelchairs and so forth. remember what sacrifices have been made on behalf of this nation. >> i would like to build on president bush's lost lead is that what you called it? >> pe he buried the lead. >> that we end the stigma associated with these issues. depression, posttraumatic stress or brain injury. when someone is suffering, create the kind of environment, that's what it means, create the kind of environment in your own space, be that a large corporation or, you know a small group of people, that tells people it is all right to go and get treatment for these problems. that is absolutely critical. by doing that, we will go a long way in helping the great group of people that are out there that really need to get some help. i am sometimes criticized for wanting to drop the d. people say i have talked to all kinds of people and they say they had no problem with the d at all, they called the disorder. that is the wrong group of people to talk to. talk to soldiers who say at 19 years old i do not want to be told i have a disorder because i had to pick up my friend in pieces on the side of the road and put him in a body bag so i could bring him home. i do not want to be told i have disorder because of that. ending the stigma and getting folks in to get the help that we can give them and over time improving that help is what i hope we can all do. >> not only improving that help but also educating the country to know that there is treatment for that, and they can be great contributors to society and the workplace. we thank you very much for those thoughts. we leave it up to you to connect those dots and help others as well. thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> c-span's new book "sundays at eight" includes an interview with malcolm gladwell. >> when you write, you can't sit down to write a bestseller. you shouldn't think about that issue at all. when you sit down to right. what you should do when you sit down to write is to write what you find interesting. and to follow your own curiosity. so when i was writing "tipping point," for instance, i can honestly say i never for a moment tried to imagine how well that book would sell. i thought i was -- i just wanted to write something cool. i was interested in it, i wanted to write something that my friends would read, you know, that my mother would leek. >> read more of our conversation with malcolm gladwell and other featured interviews from our book notes" and "q&a" programs in former commerce and barney frank in christopher dodd discussed the 2008 financial crisis. later, the supreme court argument for moss. the l a times story -- l.a. time s story about the supreme court releasing new decisions about secret service agents at that had the authority to present -- to protect the president. one of the oral arguments in the case here on c-span at 9:25 p.m. eastern.

Vietnam
Republic-of
New-york
United-states
Japan
Tokyo
Germany
Texas
Afghanistan
Amarillo
China
Florida

Transcripts For FOXNEWSW Outnumbered Overtime With Harris Faulkner 20200925

today. ginsburg lying in state, 39 years to the day that sandra day o'connor was sworn in as the first woman justice on the u.s. supreme court. we are now just a little bit more than 24 hours from president trump announcing his pick to replace justice ginsburg. many analysts say they believe it will come down to judge amy coney barrett, a conservative favorite, and judge barbara lagoa, a cuban-american from florida. here is white house chief of staff mark meadows. >> i can tell you that we have been fully venting a number of candidates, trying to make sure that we have the best pick going forward. and then what happens on capitol hill is a partisan battle. they are already gearing up. no matter who the pick is, to say that this person, this female judge, is not qualified. it's all about politics, it has nothing to do with a resume. >> harris: chad pergram live on capitol hill now. chad? >> a there. as you say, ruth bader ginsburg just left the capital. after she departed it started to sprinkle a little bit, her hearse leaving the u.s. capitol. now the battle to fulfill her seat sometime over the next month. it was thought just a couple days ago that republicans might not have the votes to forge ahead and try to do this in the next 3-4 weeks, but that is not the case here. they have everybody, all but two senators on the republican side of the aisle on board, including cory gardner, from colorado, he faces a competitive election bid this fall. >> we had a process under brett kavanaugh that was an embarrassment. we had people pounding trying to tear down the doors of the united states supreme court. we had people who were calling and leaving some of the most vicious and vile comments that i have ever heard as a policymak policymaker, seeing things being done that were shameful. i expect the same thing. >> expect a raucous month with confirmation hearings for ginsburg's success are starting about two weeks. keep in mind the capitol complex is still close to the public, that's because of the pandemic, so the protest and will. democrats say republicans are wrong to push this nominee through so close to an election. they note that other presidents have left seats vacant in a down like election year. >> i they have the decency and 8052 to say it was wrong and they tabled it. i just would hope, i hope you understand what you are about to do. never been done. you are setting a precedent that has never been set before. >> we are thinking the confirmation vote will come at the very end of october, maybe right around the time of halloween, but i was told by a senior in administration source yesterday that they thought it might bleed over past the election in which case you could have a lame duck senate considering the nominee. harris? >> harris: chad pergram, thank you very much. for more on this i want to bring in andy mccarthy, former assistant u.s. attorney in fox news contributor. andy, thank you for being with me. have a lot of questions to get to. you know, the president is not the president for three and three-quarter years. it's for four years. we have seen this political battle before. we saw it in march of 2016 when republicans said they weren't going to sit with a democrat president's pick, merrick garland, that was farther out than now. but why do we see this? isn't the constitution okay with the president doing this, or do politics upon that? >> it's not a question, harris, of politics stepping on it. it's that the constitution anticipates that politics will govern it. the constitution has basically two things to say about this. the president has the power to make the pick and the senate has the advice and consent role that is spelled out in the constitution. that's it. what that means is, if you have a situation where the president and the president's party is in control of the senate, and the president can go ahead with the nomination, they go ahead with the nomination and get it through. i would suggest, harris, it's inconceivable that, if you have a democratic president at the end of his first term, and the democrats running the senate, they wouldn't do exactly what the republicans are going to do. in fact, i think they would do it with probably a lot less debate and dispute over it. it's a matter of politics. when the president's party doesn't control the senate, that means it doesn't have what you need under the constitution to get the nomination through. that's why the nomination might not get through. it is the political -- it is anticipated by the constitution to be political. >> harris: i learned something new every time i talk to you. those are two very simplistic points. when the democrats say -- some of them, it is being reported, in forbes and other places today -- are looking to put together a bill that would cause an 18-year term limit on a justice. i don't know how much you've done reading about that this morning. it is fairly new. what does that do to the court? does it give it more or less power? if you know you have a job for life, that's a lot different, isn't it, then 18 years? i don't know. what does it take? >> i would say the idea of term limits is attractive to me. i would doubt i would like the democrat proposal if they are going to make it, unless what they are talking about is a proposal where you would grandfather the justices who are currently on the supreme court. if that were to happen, but they would be doing is, in short order, getting rid of justices thomas, roberts, and alito, and the only one the liberals would use would be justice breyer who is 82 and could be nearing retirement if biden were to be elected. that is a loser from the conservative perspective, but i like the idea because the supreme court very often acts more like a political institution than a legal one. if they are going to act that way, we might as well treat them more like legislators. >> harris: interesting. meanwhile, joe biden has yet to answer questions on whether he favors packing the supreme court as some democrats have suggested. he's also refusing to release a list of judges he would nominate to replace justice ginsburg, saying they would be subject to unrelenting political attacks. what is your take on all of it? >> i think, for conservatives and republicans, the supreme court is a winning iss issue. right wing or conservative or, at best, originalist justices supportsupport stability in thed i think that's why president trump is happy to tout his list. on the other hand, on the left, the courts are used as kind of an agent of social change, to impose change that hasn't been legislated. and the reason joe biden doesn't want to release a list is because prominent progressive jurists or lawyers who would be on the list will have a track record of pushing for all kinds of things that i think the country probably isn't ready f for. >> harris: interesting. packing the court, expanding it out, and putting your party's friendly-type judges or justices on that court is what we are talking about. the battle has ramped up, as you may know, andy, over ginsburg's replacement now. a liberal group reportedly urging democratic senators to boycott a confirmation hearing. "the strategy outlined in a letter of the group plans to send to all democratic senators would involve gumming up the senate works in several ways in order to cause a massive headache for republican senators." meanwhile, a conservative group is launching an ad on televisi television, a big blitz today, using ginsburg's own words to argue for replacing or quickly. watch and i will get your reaction. >> how do you respect ruth bader ginsburg? remember her wise boards on supreme court nominees in an election year. >> the president is elected for four years, not three years. the powers he have continue into year four. >> she is quite right. look, i think justice ginsburg was an iconic figure. today's a day to celebrate her, not to take up my political or jurisprudential differences with her. she was in the midst of politics, too. when she made that statement, the idea was president obama should be able to get his pack onto the court. this is one of those "what's good for the goose" type of situations. i'm sure a lot of people -- she would not be the first person who didn't take an exactly consistent position depending on who is in charge. that's politics. this is a political process. >> harris: my example was three and three-quarter years. it is so much closer to the election then her words were with that merrick garland situation, which was back in march of 2016, as you pointed out. a big day for america as we say goodbye to a legislative icon. a judicial icon. andy mccarthy, thank you very much. appreciate your time. president trump, once again, railing against the universal mail-in ballots. now the justice department is opening an inquiry into one pennsylvania county, because of something that happened there. with the doj found that led to this move. plus, police declaring an unlawful assembly last night in louisville, kentucky. protesters raging over the decision in the breonna taylor case. it will bring peace to that city? i will talk to a former sergeant, next. ♪ veteran homeowners: record low mortgage rates have dropped even lower. at newday, veterans can shortcut the refinance process and save $250 a month. $3000 dollars a year. with the va streamline refi at newday, there's no appraisal, no income verification, and no out of pocket costs. one call can save you $3000 a year. xkzmh3px[1k h@i$."è[ people are waking up tog with what's possible with rybelsus®. ♪ you are my sunshine, my only sunshine... ♪ rybelsus® works differently than any other diabetes pill to lower blood sugar in all 3 of these ways... increases insulin... decreases sugar... ...and slows food. the majority of people taking rybelsus® lowered their blood sugar and reached an a1c of less than 7. people taking rybelsus® lost up to 8 pounds. rybelsus® isn't for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. don't take rybelsus® if you or your family ever had medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if allergic to it. stop rybelsus® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, or an allergic reaction. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. tell your provider about vision problems or changes. taking rybelsus® with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases low blood sugar risk. side effects like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may lead to dehydration which may worsen kidney problems. wake up to what's possible with rybelsus®. ♪ please don't take my sunshine away... ♪ you may pay as little as $10 per prescription. ask your healthcare provider about rybelsus® today. >> breonna taylor's family never got their day in court. never got their chance for due process, and, in essence, denied them justice. that's why we are standing here today, united in solidarity, declaring and demanding that he release the transcripts of the grand jury proceedings. >> harris: been crowned, the attorney representing the family of breonna taylor, is demanding justice and transparency, as he heard them say they are, from two kentucky officials as protesters in louisville remain furious. last night police declared an unlawful assembly, arresting some two dozen people. authorities say protesters smashed in windows, spray graffiti on buses, and at one point someone threw a large flare into a library. on a happier note, police were able to welcome back one of their own yesterday who had been shot. [applause] aubrey gregory was 1 of 2 police officers shot during the violent protesting that broke out this week. the man charged with shooting those officers wednesday night pleaded not guilty earlier today. jeff paul is in louisville with the latest. jeff? >> harris, after another lively night here in downtown louisville, it's quite the opposite scene. when the family of breonna taylor showed up here to jefferson square park in downtown, it got really quiet. you could tell that the crowd at the ultimate respect for them as they were about to speak. the focus for them today was on kentucky attorney general daniel cameron. in fact, the aunt of breonna taylor had a statement to read on behalf of her mother. >> you didn't just rob me and my family, he robbed the world of a queen. a queen willing to do a job that most of us can ever stomach to do. a queen willing to build up anyone around her. a queen that was starting to paint her path. >> taylor's family along with attorney benjamin crump are calling for the ag to release the transcripts of the grand jury. they say if cameron did everything to get justice for her he shouldn't have a problem releasing them. they say it all comes down to transparency. >> present any evidence on breonna taylor's pf, or did he make a unilateral decision to put his thumb on the scales of justice to help try to exonerate and justify the killing of breonna taylor by these police officers? >> last night protests once again fired up around downtown louisville. there were far fewer arrests, though. 24 compared to the nearly 130 the night before. one of the arrests involving kentucky's black state legislator, atticus scott, on a felony charge of first-degree rioting and misdemeanors for failing to disperse. meanwhile, both officers shot by recovering. one of them out of the hospital. meanwhile, the men accusing that shooting was just arraigned today. harris? >> harris: jeff paul, thank you very much. john sheehan joins me now, former sergeant and s.w.a.t. officer for the las vegas metro police department. thank you for being with me today. >> of course, great to be here. >> harris: the city and police and leadership are kind of caught here between angry people in the streets and the kentucky ag office. right? it's nothing for the cops on the ground to be able to do it to get the transparency they are looking for. what do you do in that instance, just on the ground, as police leadership? >> police leaders really just have to focus on the crimes that are being committed and remember that protesting is not a crime. we have a lot of looting, burning, you got players being thrown into businesses. these, of course, our felony crimes. these are the people we need to focus on and remove them from the good, well-meaning protesters that are out there. and hey, look, we get it. most of us in the police departments across the nation get why these people are frustrated. there is a lack of transparency. we want to be able to help these people with their protesting. if they'll allow us to do so peacefully. >> harris: i always have this thought as i look at this huge crowd walking through the streets at night. nothing good ever really comes after 1:00 in the morning or whatever the heck time this was. i know they have a curfew so it might have been a little early. but across the summer, for tens and tens of days at a time. i think like 90 in oregon in a row. they have so many problems. i'm wondering, what can be done? what do you envision, in your mind, that is a good, constructive conversation right now between city leaders and clospolice? >> there needs to be a conversation regarding transparency. that's not just city leaders. it's got to go all the way up to the ag office. obviously there are things in the transcripts that people want to see that are elements of that investigation, that people want to understand. you've got one officer indicted that wasn't even the officer that actually fired into breonna taylor's apartment. he fired into two adjacent apartments, one of which was occupied, which is where the charges stem from. there's a tremendous amount of frustration in the community as to, well, what is the fate of the outcome for these other two officers that, because of the lack of transparency, makes it look like they are really not subject to any further review or any further sanctions? >> harris: and now for the police. when those officers were shot, that was really worrisome. however police going to do their job? how are they going to feel in city after city not targeted when they go out to do those things that you started with? that got to go after the criminals who are looting and rioting, so on and so forth. i mean, it is tough to be a cop right now, i would imagine. you would know. >> here's the thing, this is where we get into tactics. the police commander on something like this, as far as the protest situation, would make contact with that protest organizer. 99 times out of 100, that protest organizer wants a peaceful protest. however, their agitators, criminals, anarchists, people that want to insert themselves into that protest and make it something other than it was. what the police tried to do with that protest organizer is say, "look, you need to be strong enough that you and the good people who are here protesting push these people away or distance yourselves from them, and make it less advantageous or desirable for them to go ahead and do what they are doing," which is felony crimes such as arson, destruction of property, and, of course, the assault on the police officers, as well. that is incumbent upon not just the commander of the police who is in charge of this riot for crowd control. >> harris: when you talk about organization out there, there have been a lot of calls for, can you find out who's organizing some of the more violent of it? and the box trucks that are coming in from different locations. something we've seen in other places like ferguson and baltimore and other areas releasing this happen over the years, unfortunately. john sheehan joining me today. thank you for your time and expertise. >> of course. >> harris: attorney general bill barr revealing for the very first time shocking details about a key source for the infamous steele dossier in the russia investigation. plus, this. >> the first question is, is the vaccine safe? frankly, i'm not going to trust the federal government's opinion. ♪ new york is joining the list of state planning to independently that any approved covid-19 vaccine. why governor cuomo is raising doubts about the federal review process and may want to get involved. ♪ res liberty mutual. they customize your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. wow. that will save me lots of money. this game's boring. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ balanced nutrition for strength and energy. whoo-hoo! great tasting ensure with 9 grams of protein, 27 vitamins and minerals, and nutrients to support immune health. "a good education takes you many different horizons" and that sticked to my mind. so, when $1 a day came out, i said, "why not"? why not just utilize that resource. and walmart made that path open for me. without the $1 a day program, i definitely don't think i'd be in school right now. each week for me in school is just an accomplishment. i feel proud every step of the way. is just an accomplishment. alit's just more information; have a dexcom because why wouldn't you want that? being able to see your numbers in real time gives you the knowledge to see the future. it's awesome. dexcom showed me that i was doing a dip and then a spike in the middle of the night, which allowed me to adjust my basal rates i'm not waking up in the middle of the night and my numbers aren't going crazy. now you are in control and that is so powerful. to save you up to 60%. these are all great. and when you get a big deal... ♪ ...you feel like a big deal. ♪ priceline. every trip is a big deal. >> harris: attorney general bill barr has revealed for the first time that the primary source for the anti-trump steele dossier was investigated by the fbi from 2009-2011, and they were looking at it for suspected contact with russian intelligence officers. chief congressional correspondent, mike emanuel, tracking the latest developments from capitol hill on this. mike? >> harris, good afternoon. setting relations in a new letter from bill barr to chairman lindsey graham. "a footnote in the inspector general's report contains information that up till now has been classified and redacted, bearing on the reliability of the steele dossier. the fbi has declassified the relevant portion, that states the subject of the fbi 's counterintelligence investigation 2009-2011 that assessed his or her contacts with suspected russian intelligence officers. christopher steele compiled information for the dossier which was under partial and, know the revelation that it was for contact with moscow. >> it makes me mad that the fbi knew that the primary sub source, a single individual, was a suspected russian agent. they used that persons product to get a war against an american citizen on four different occasions. the never informed the court of this exculpatory evidence. >> this comes as u.s. attorney john durham is leading a criminal investigation into the origins of the russia probe. "mr. durham confirms that the disclosure of that information would not interfere with his investigation and the department otherwise defers to the dni concerning the handling of this information." chairman graham says the attorney general and fbi director are trying to clean up the mess. president trump made reference to the findings earlier today. >> they were the ones who conspired. they got caught. let's see what happens. let's see what happens. we went through three years of -- of crap. let's see what happens now. >> this as we await the findings of the durham probe. harris? >> harris: mike, thank you so much. governor andrew cuomo says new york plans to independently review any coronavirus vaccines approved by the federal government paid the governor of connecticut has taken a similar stance. governor cuomo says he is skeptical about how the process is hurrying along. >> the way the federal government has handled the vaccine, there are now serious questions about whether or not the vaccine has become politicized. on the first question of is it safe, new york state will have its own review when the federal government is finished with their review, and says it is safe. >> harris: and, of course, my first question, jackie deangelis, what does the review process look like? because last time i checked, neither of those governors as the doctor. >> left not good afternoon to you, harris. first i will put this in the market lends to like lens. this on pace for the largest losing streak in more than he one thing that could help calm these fuses vaccine. it says it's going to start phase three trials on 10,000 volunteers in the u.k. and that a trial of 30,000 people could start here in the united states next month, as they show some promise. the issues that you mentioned, governments and blue states are wary of these vaccines. here in newark he says he's creating this independent body to review any vaccine because he says the approval process has become too politicized. he's essentially saying he's not going to trust the fda. as you mention, no, he's not a doctor. a federal regulator and agency we trust, because essentially he feels they are being influenced in some way by the administration. listen to this. >> frankly, i'm not going to trust the federal government's opinion, and i wouldn't recommend to new yorkers, based on the federal government's opinions. we are going to put together a group for them to review the vaccine so i can look at the camera and say to new yorkers that it is safe to take. >> now, and connecticut, governor lamont is also taking a similar stance here, and even joe biden has said he doesn't trust the vaccine. remember, there are a lot of people that could benefit from a vaccine. this could be very detrimental to people taking it in terms of the kind of talk we are seeing right now, and a roadblock to battling the coronavirus, harris. >> harris: all right. thank you very much for looking into it. well, it is being called the apocalypse scenario. what both sides of the political aisle and the presidential race are reportedly bracing for if the election is not decided on november 3rd. plus, the president again raising doubts about whether he will accept the results of that as he continues his attacks on universal mail-in ballots. could all of this talkback fire in any way on the president or republicans down ticket? steve cortes joins "overtime" next. ♪ ♪ ♪ it's official: national coffee day is now national dunkin' day! celebrate with a free medium hot or iced coffee with any purchase on september 29th. with any purchase because record low mortgage rates have dropped even lower. and now you can save $3000 a year. veterans can shortcut the process with newday's va streamline refi. there's no appraisal, no income verification, and not a single dollar out of pocket. rates are at the lowest they've been in our lifetimes. one call can save you $3000 a year. ú?pvg3?ñ >> techand your car., we're committed to taking care of you >> tech: we'll fix it right with no-contact service you can trust. >> tech: so if you have auto glass damage, stay safe with safelite. >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪ >> mr. president, are the election results only legitimate if you win? >> we have to be very careful with the ballots. the ballots, that's a whole big scam. we have to make sure the election is honest, and i'm not sure that it can be. i don't know that it can be with this whole situation. >> harris: the president didn't answer the question there. president trump continues to raise doubts about whether he would step aside if he loses in november as he come again, goes after mail-in ballots. they are ordering a pennsylvania after military ballots were found discarded. mostly casting about for president trump. despite the president's criticism of voting by mail, the fbi director told lawmakers yesterday that he has not seen any evidence of large-scale voter fraud, and that it would be "a major challenge for any foreign adversary to pull it off." joining me now is trump campaign senior strategy advisor steve cortes. steve, great to see you. it's been such a long time. let me ask you this, the president didn't really answer that question about is it only not legitimate unless you win. can you take a stab at it? >> sure, harris. as long as the results are validated, in other words, that it was a free and fair election, of course the trump campaign and the president himself will accept the results. what we are concerned about, and i think we have very valid reason to be concerned, he mentioned that pennsylvania report, is cheating, chicanery, and perhaps plain old incompetence out there regarding the ballots. we have to maintain and preserve the sanctity of the ballots and the integrity of the ballots. that's where the president is not going to -- he will not prepromise today that he will accept the election results that could potentially be tainted. >> harris: i'm hoping we get more facts on what happened with those military ballots, right? why do we know how people voted? why do they put that information in there? what does "discarded" mean? i have a lot of questions, and we want them. >> this is crucial. we know at least seven of the nine votes were for president trump. the others have been resealed so we don't know. i'm going to quote michelle obama, something you probably don't expect from a trim campaign operative. she said in her dnc speech, "in one of the states, to determine the outcome, the winning margin averaged two votes per precinct." by the way, she's exactly correct. in the state of michigan. in elections that are close, and this would make peaks to make close like in some of the states like michigan, nine votes matter. for those to be discarded -- by the way, although that should be counted, of course, but particularly those of the military folks deployed overseas. the fact these were discarded in the garbage is proof positive that we in the trump campaign are not being alarmist, we are not being conspiracists. there are problems even with legitimate mail-in voting. this was legitimate mail-in voting. there are massive problems with the idea of universal vote by mail. >> harris: both political sides bracing for what axios is calling the apocalypse scenario on election night. democratic lawyers are getting ready to challenge any run by president trump, and trump advisors are ready to challenge the legitimacy of the election results, especially with the expected late wave of democratic mail-in ballots. so, we stay on this topic, maybe with just a little nuance here. what is your response? >> first i want to tell the american people, particularly our supporters, that we in the trump campaign are ready for this. we have a team of crack lawyers, and if need be, if we have to have this fight, not just win the election but also proved again that we won the election, we are prepared to do that. i hope we don't have to go down that road, but the very people who are behind these efforts on the democratic side, the so-called transition integrity project, for example, backed by some of the wealthiest titans in america, full of democratic operatives as well as some never trump former republicans, these are the very same people, harris, who have been trying literally for four years to nullify the 2016 election decision by perpetrating the russia hoax on the american people. in this question of who accepts election results, what we know is that the never trumper so so-called resistance has steadfastly rejected the decision of the american people since 2016. including the loser, hillary clinton herself, who continues to blame russia for her loss and says real-time today that, under no circumstances -- that was her quote -- under no circumstances should joe biden concede. we are not the ones attacking the norms and the voice of the american people when it comes to this election. >> harris: you got axios calling it an apocalypse scenario. bernie sanders calling it a nightmare scenario. this is not going to go away. you know what? 39 days, that's what we are doing. we are moving toward november 3rd. steve, thank you for coming on the program. anxious to have you back soon. >> thank you, harris. >> harris: a reminder to tune in for the first presidential debate, moderated by our own chris wallace. we'll have special coverage by bret baier and martha maccallum, live from cleveland, ohio, beginning at 6:00 p.m. eastern on tuesday evening. then, that leads up to the big event at 9:00 p.m. that's 90 minutes of debate. don't miss it. fox news channel, fnc for the cool kids. franklin made history when he became nasa's first hispanic astronaut. his inspirational journey into the record books, and how he is looking to change the future of space travel as we celebrate hispanic heritage month. stay tuned. ♪ i had this hundred thousand dollar student debt. two hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars in debt. ah, sofi literally changed my life. it was the easiest application process. sofi made it so there's no tradeoff between my dreams and paying student loans. student loans don't have to take over for the rest of your life. thank you for allowing me to get my money right. ♪ instwith vicks sinex salineme congnasal mist. oney right. for drug free relief that works fast. vicks sinex. instantly clear everyday congestion. staying at home is more important than ever, especially if you have a chronic illness or just got out of the hospital. kindred at home can come to you. with the help of our skilled, compassionate clinicians, you can learn to manage your illness or regain your strength in the privacy of home. we take every precaution to protect you so your home can be both a comfortable place and a safe place to get the care you need. kindred at home. go online or call the number on your screen. >> harris: the teenager accused of killing two coprotesters days after jacob blake was shot by police in kenosha, wisconsin, is now fighting extradition from illinois. 17-year-old kyle rittenhouse surrendered to police in his home just over the border from wisconsin, charged with homicide now. the next hearing in the case is set for october. coronavirus cases in the united states now nearing 7 million. axios reporting we are now averaging about 43,000 new cases per day. the largest increases are concentrated in the west and midwest, and testing was also up by nearly 22% in that same period. and the pac-12 has set a date for the teams to start playing football, announcing that they will start a 7-game conference only season. they are just going to play each other in their conference. on november 6 that comes after a similar announcement from the big ten last week. the sec and big chill filardi start playing , and the sec will have their first conference game beginning tomorrow. it's been 40 years since franklin chang diaz lifted off into space as nasa's first hispanic-american astronaut. born in costa rica, he immigrated to united states with just 50 u.s. dollars in his pocket. today, the nasa hall of famer is looking to revolutionize space travel. bryan llenas' lives for us in brooklyn with more on his inspirational story. bryan? >> harris, good afternoon. this hispanic heritage month we honor dr. franklin chang diaz, who not only with a nasa astronaut for 25 years, but even at age 70, is continuing to push the boundaries of space exploration. >> they are trying to make transportation in space go fast. >> dr. franklin chang diaz is the founder of ad astra, a rocket propulsion company dedicated to the development of an advanced plasma rocket. >> can you explain in layman's terms what you are doing and what your company is trying to accomplish? >> imagine a mission to mars in the matter of maybe two months instead of the better part of a year that it takes today to get to mars. >> the new rocket engine will be ready to fly within three years, chang diaz says. for the 70 year old, it's the combination dumb acclamation of an illustrious career in space as the first hispanic and astronaut. >> the moment of lift off on first flight was something i will never forget. it's a tremendous ride. >> boy newco street at just 18 years old, chang diaz came to the united states was just $50 in his pocket. he learned english, went on to get his phd at mit, and, in 1980, become an astronaut. he's one of only two astronauts to have flown on seven space shuttle missions. >> we will bake up with smiles on our faces even though we are tired. >> he was the second astronaut to log more than a thousand hours in space. in 2012, chang diaz was inducted into the nasa hall of fame. >> i am today most thankful to this great nation. in 1968, it opened the doors for me, to the american dream. >> dr. franklin chang diaz, an american hero, and someone who paved the way for a live and other latino astronauts in nasa. harris? >> harris: great story. thank you, bryan llenas, for bringing it to us. we have a fox news alert now. we have just learned that former congressman dr. ron paul, 85 years old, has been hospitalized in texas. we are told preliminarily that it is for precautionary reasons, and that the former presidential candidate is lucid and optimistic. senator braun paul, formerly, hospitalized precautionary early. we will stay on the story as it happens. democrats are reportedly concerned about joe biden's campaign style, with some urging to get more aggressive on the campaign trail. the biden time atomic team insist they are on the right track. republicans are making the former vice president's unavailability an issue. but did you know that your va benefit lets you easily refinance to a lower rate? one call to newday can save you $3000 a year. with newday's va streamline refi there's no income verification, no home appraisal, and no out of pocket costs. it's the quickest and easiest refi they've ever offered. call newday now. i will send out an army to find you in the middle of the darkest night it's true, i will rescue you oh, i will rescue you eh, not enough fiber... chocolate would be good... snacking should be sweet and simple. the delicious taste of glucerna gives you the sweetness you crave while helping you manage your blood sugar. with nutrients to help support immune health. with nutrients to help it's just a cold. if you have high blood pressure, a cold is not just a cold. most cold medicines may raise blood pressure. choose coricidin hbp. the brand with a heart. for powerful cold relief without raising your blood pressure. >> harris: 39 days until the election, not everybody is so thrilled with joe biden's campaign strategy. the associated press reports that his campaign style worries some democrats. today, "the new york post" cover asks, "help us find biden. where is joe? "another day of hiding." power panel, former democratic tennessee congressman and former communications director for president trump's transition team. it's becoming a campaign issue, why? >> i think they are nervous about the things is going to say, he's unreliable and some of his comments and he's prone to make these gaffes and they help define and ultimately reinforce a negative view of what people think of joe biden's i think they are going to continue to hide them and use the excuse of covid or any other excuse to hide biden. >> harris: one of the things the campaign, i would imagine, let's pop up the new fox poll. they show us a tight in ohio while biden tops trump in nevada and pennsylvania. is that strategy working for joe biden? >> harris, thanks for having me on. it feels like it is but i can appreciate the concern from the trump campaign directed to the biden campaign. i think joe biden is on a schedule and the pace that he wants, it's a huge night from the country to hear from both candidates but i think one of the things that trump campaign is having a difficult time accepting is that the biden effort and strategy has made this as much a referendum on whether president trump has it handled in a way that is benefiting america and next tuesday will be the first time we will see these candidates side-by-side for an hour and a half with a moderator from this great network who i believe will be fair and balanced and tough on both candidates because of the deserves to hear each reaction. >> dana: has it been smart strategy for the trump campaign, to point out some of the times that there have been those doubts, the slowness that the president likes to joke about and some things other people might joke about and say he needs more energy. >> they have tried to define joe as slow, they are running into difficulties for it to catch the same way it did with jeb bush. it's just the circumstances, i think you have covid which changed the dynamics of a presidential election but i think people expect to have real campaigning taking place. the contrast is pretty clear when you have a rally, on the trump side and then on the biden side you have seven circles of people standing at a distance. at some point the voters are going to look at that and say hey, you know what? we need a leader and i think it's too much for the voters to tolerate. >> dana: i try to show respect by not cutting anybody off. harold, he could do some hard cutting interviews, maybe sure him up in the energy access category paid >> a serious one will be on tuesday night. >> dana: gentlemen, great to see you. i will see everybody on sunday for our special predebate coverage. you will always see "outnumbered overtime" and we have a very great lineup for sunday to take us into that 1st of may. also we mentioned the hospitalization for precautionary measures for a former congressman ron paul who is 85, we wish him the best from "outnumbered overtime." the daily briefing starts now. ♪ >> dana: we will soon find out who president trump is picking to fill her seat. hello, everyone, i'm dana perino and this is "the daily briefing." ♪ the ceremony wrapping up a short time ago, the late justice becoming the first woman to ever lie and at the u.s. capitol, president trump will announce who he wants to take her place. we have fox team coverage in our nation's capital beginning with esther fisher live at the white house. >> dana, less than 24 hours away from president trump announcing his third nominee to

New-york
United-states
Moscow
Moskva
Russia
Chad
Texas
Kentucky
Cuba
Wisconsin
Oregon
Michigan

Transcripts For CSPAN War Veterans Adjustment To Civilian Life 20140602

>> we want to talk in this panel about some of the obstacles our veterans face. some of the obstacles certainly the wounded face. and the opportunities to empower those veterans. i want to start with general pete chiarelli, who i will say i have known since early in the iraq war. we went through a lot together. we have visited the wounded together. and pete chiarelli, since retiring as vice chief of staff of the army where he was deeply involved in issues of post-traumatic stress, traumatic brain injury, i truly think no one cares more than pete chiarelli about the future of our wounded veterans and he is now with one mind, where they and he dedicates his time to continue to help those same veterans. general chiarelli, i want you to talk about those obstacles and the health and wellness of our veterans as they go forward into civilian life. >> well, martha, this discussion is a double edged sword because we tend to in fact slap a label that anyone who is deployed for any period of time has either post-traumatic stress or traumatic brain injury and nothing could be further from the truth. according to the president's report, there have been 265,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen, marine, coast guard who have come back from these conflicts with traumatic brain injury. there are 3.4 million americans every single year that suffer some kind of head trauma. you saw the numbers of 2.5 million, at 20%, that ends up being probably 500,000 folks. if you take those numbers as being gospel with post-traumatic stress. 8% of our population is expected to have post-traumatic stress at some time in their life. it's not just caused by combat. most of the work that's been done to understand post-traumatic stress has been done on folks, ladies, who have been sexually assaulted. 74% of women who are sexually assaulted develop post-traumatic stress. that's why i'm so happy that president bush dropped the d. i can't even imagine telling a woman who has been sexually assaulted, because she has a reaction to a relationship after that, that she has a disorder. \[applause] but as we talked about this, i started talking about it because i didn't know what they were. i came back and a doc showed me that 37% of those who have an injury are draw mat exbrain injury or post-traumatic stress disorder. i didn't know what they were. i knew what my football coach told me about con cugs, shake it off and get back in the game. so i began this process of trying to learn about it and i found out even the professionals don't know that much about it. the only way we, in fact, diagnose these two things are with tests. 20 questions for post-traumatic stress called dsm-v and a test for concussion if you bump your head. the numbers are great, yes they affect service members, but the large majority of service members coming back from iraq and afghanistan don't have post-traumatic stress and don't have traumatic brain injury that doesn't mean we don't need to highlight it and talk about it because that's how you get people in and get the help they need. >> for them to talk about it as well. ken fisher who is chairman and c.e.o. of the fisher house foundation, i think everyone in this room knows what the fisher house foundation does for our veterans and especially during that government shutdown, when you were just amazing with the families and supporting those families for those who lost loved ones. i want you, ken fisher, to talk about how important it is for the support of those family the work you do and the support that the families give the veterans in terms of success when they transition. transition. veteran d of get the or the service man or woman and their family when their lives have been flipped upside down. too often the call comes in, the family has to mobilize very quickly. they have to get from point a to point b because that's what's done, that's what neets to be done. can you imagine being in the hospital and not having your family there? so at fisher house we kind of facilitate getting to the bedside of the loved one through a myriad of our programs and service that is we provide. he families bear burdens and are subject to sacrifices that the average american has no concept of. we average americans don't have any clue as to what happens to these families especially at this time. when you think about what's going on in their lives, the world does not come to a grinding halt. bills still have to be paid. mortgages have to be paid. children have to be raised. schools. there's multiple trips back and forth that families have to make. the whole soldier, you've heard that term. that includes the family. so the family plays a very vital role in the rehabbing of the soldier. of the service man or woman. and even of the veteran. so fisher house plays a role there. we have seen the families, we have seen the impact that is the family has. so we get them very early on. and it's always very gratifying to know we played a role when the veteran comes out ultimately and does enter the private sector and does get employment. the ones that don't, we try and play a role there. we try and provide mentoring wherever it's possible. i make myself available as much as i can to do that. but then remember that there are other issues, too. if a veteran does have post traumatic stress, the family suffers as well. so what we need to do is when we talk about education, we need to also educate the families. we need to make them aware of the signs, of the early signs of post traumatic stress so that we don't get into substance abuse, so that we don't get into domestic violence and the other issues that have become very, very much a part of the picture. >> also with us is wayne robinson. you are a post 9/11 veteran yourself retired command sergeant major, but more importantly for you right now director of student veterans of america. talk about your work and particularly educating those returning vets. the give bill is amazing. some of those benefits are amazing and people aren't always taking advantage of that. >> thanks and thanks for the opportunity to speak about the amazing young people that, as the president and ceo of student veterans of america, that i get to represent. and so to start with a little bit of background on student veterans of america or sva, started six years ago on 20 campuses because when student vets were transitioning they saw that the college environment or higher ed was not prepared for student vets. we were older, we were much more mature. we had a different world view than just coming out of high school than say the traditional student. and so these vets met in chicago and we started on 20 campuses six years ago and today we are on more than is,000 campuses representing those 1,000 chapters with more than 400,000 student vets being serviced by our policy, our advocacy and the work we do in delivering programs. i was very fortunate to be helped by general pace and katy who is here with wall street war fighters and i had a personal sitdown opportunity with leda but what i realized is that the majority of individuals will not have that. and we're about 25 years old and transitioning at least those that we represent and they don't have that transitional point. so there are gaps between where do i and how do you transition that to the workplace. also joining us is john. head of merrill lynch. i know with you talked a earlier about the private sector but what challenge are you seeing and what are you doing in terms of veterans hiring veterans doing whatever you can that's working? >> sure. thank you. we heard what the challenges are. there's a lack of preparedness. we know about the stigma. there's an ongoing stigma. we end up trying to make veterans fit our structure and we're trying to recognize that that doesn't work and bend our structure to the way they think and act. it requires, let's take hiring. it requires a different approach. now, one -- my example might be internships so if you're going to try to get an internship on a firm like marle lynch or bank of america is very competitive. the way that we go after the most talented folks the veterans is we created a different internship track that allow them the access and the exposure to see what life is like. so they get sort of a no-risk free look at what a career might look like. the onboarding process is different as we bring our veterans in to about how they're going to transition into the workforce and we recognize some of those challenges. we don't have ault answer. this is sort of our attempt to do it. we have unique training for those folks as well. but i think most importantly the answers all lie within our people. we have 6,000 veterans that work for bank of america-merrill lynch and they've formed a military support advisor's group. the peer to peer interaction and learnings are probably the best approach that we have to continuing to evolve the process and how we can make sure that we have -- this be a successful transition. the one thing that wasn't talked about that i think is important is we're doing this because this is a business opportunity for us as well as doing the right thing. merrill lynch, for instance, has had a 45-year history of hiring veterans very successfully. they transition very well into our roles as advisers for clients with the maturity, the perspective, the leadership that they have. so i look at this as an enormous opportunity. i think the challenge and maybe we talk about it at some point is how do we gather up all the resources to make it more seamless? i've met four people over the last 24 hours that are going to help me do this a lot more effectively and one is sitting here next to me. >> that is exactly the point i want to make. you've got all these people up here, all these great ideas. but connecting those dots and making it work, how do you do that? it seems to me just from the conversation and experience that this all starts while they're still in the military. they don't really get that transitional help or they get two days of transitional help and maybe nothing more that some people fall through the cracks. so each of you just talk about your ideas, if you will, about how you connect the dots to what you're all concerned about. do you want to start? >> sure. so i will say two things. one, while they're in the military we have this military support advisory group. we have full-time staff steams -- teams assigned to working with the military, working with support organizations to identify that talent that's coming out of their service. and so we have a structure around that. that's one way to do it. the other way for us is to plug in to wayne's organization as we think about these campuses. and i happened to go to florida state university which has a robust veterans center and i'm proud of what we do. that's a great opportunity for us to identify talent. so the combination of the structure to attach directly to the military as well as our just ongoing recruiting efforts with the on-college campuses especially those that have established veterans centers give us a big advantage. >> let's go down the order. >> what i'll say is as i look at the issue and we talk about the greatest generation, right? and we know that the stats exist. e can talk about the 500,000 scientists and engineers that were -- that came out of that generation. 14 noble laur yet, three presidents. three supreme court justices. but if you peel that back they look just like our vets. they look -- they were guys from small town america. and so when i look at that picture and i look at the picture of vets, i see connection being the issue. and so we're actually redoing our it infrastructure. so what we want to be able to do is have employers that are interested in reaching out to vets -- and this is something that john and i talked about last night. interested in connecting with vets, be able to connect with them directly on campus. at the end of the day the recruiters need to be able to directly access those vets at florida state, purdue university, to be able to have that robust and dynamic conversation. so about four months we'll have that infrastructure and -- in place and that way we're out of the conversation. they will be able to reach out directly. and then the vet will be able to put a face to the name of the organization. >> we've been hearing a lot about the veteran and the transition process into the private sector. imagine if the veteran is wounded. imagine what happens to that veteran that service man or woman's life. they still now have to overcome their wounds which they do with magnificent grace and dignity and i see it every day. but they have additional challenges. and so do their families. so in my mind, while they are doing their rehabbing, while they are still receiving treatment is to get to them at that point. mentor, let them know what's available. make them aware of what they need to do. because they do have additional challenges now. it's not just walking out of the military and into the private sector. for these men and women, the additional challenges are many. so get to them. we used to say there is still this benefit gap as we're all aware. that during the transitional process from the d.o.d. to the v.a. that's the time i would like to see the mentoring process begin. let them know what's available, let them know what will be expected of them. give them an idea as to how they can brand themselves. how to put a resume together. use that time while they're improving themselves towards making them competitive, giving them an equal leveling the playing field, if you will, for that particular service man or woman. >> general, you have seen some very specific things of the transition not only to civilian life but just what ken fisher is talking about, the transition from d.o.d. to v.a. is not that simple. >> no, it's not. and those are some of the things we need to -- we need to fix. and you don't know when you're in d.o.d. that the transition to v.a. is going to be difficult because you've never been in v.a. before. we have things like drug form lairies that aren't the same between d.o.d. and v.a. so a kid has post traumatic stress that's treated with an anti-depress nt that's 40 years old. finally gets on the right dosage and the v.a. has a dint drug form lairie and tells them that can't prescription you that drug. we don't have that drug in stock because our form larry is different. d.o.d. has a much more expansive than v.a.'s. and it's got nothing to do with the v.a. dock thinks one drug is better. it's those are the drugs that they have to provide. so we have disconnects like that. we have disconnects like the great place that arnold and ken fisher have built at walter reed national medical center at bethesda i will be politically correct how i state that. nd they do an amazing job at the national intrepid center of excellence for the study of traumatic brain injury and post traumatic stress of putting together a treatment plan for a young man or woman. and they leave there after four weeks with a treatment plan much of it being experimental or really cutting-edge things, go back to a place like west point where they're relying on a try care network they go out and that network says we won't cover 50% of that which is on your treatment plan. now, think of that. we send them to a d.o.d. facility, they get a treatment plan, they move to the insurance provided by d.o.d. where doctors aren't available to cover them and they're told i'm sorry 50% of what you are being prescribed we cannot provide you. so there are some huge bureaucratic issues here if we're really going to provide care where we need to do an end to end assessment, not in d.o.d., not in v.a., but a total end to end assessment from the time you enter the army until the time you are buried. to understand how to ensure that these two huge organizations are together and are totally focused on the service member. man or woman. throughout their career. >> imagine if you will when if they live in a rural area and they have this prescription and they go to their v.a. -- because the plan is to get them home as quickly as possible to aid in their recovery. but imagine if they go back to their v.a. in a rural area and they get the response towards the pharmaceutical treatment, what happens then? they kind of vanish. we kind of lose track of them. >> i didn't even know this existed when i was vice. i was in charge of army medicine in a weird kind of way. i had no idea that this problem existed. but most veterans when they're faced with that because of the pain they went through in getting the right ant depressant at the right dosage or the right pain medication or the right suite medication they have, walk out of the v.a., find a civilian provider, get them to write the script and pay for it out of pocket. that's what they do. because they don't want to go through that again. >> i want to touch on also what president bush was talking about in the pee ginning and -- beginning. it's media coverage and it is and i certainly have done this myself. we cover the homecomings and the heroes but we also cover what you're talking about. we cover challenges or we cover things that make all of the people watching think these people are victims. they don't want to be victims. we don't want them to be victims. i'm going to remove myself because i think i do understand these issues quite a bit. but how do you convince the country, how do you draw that line that you want people to be aware of pts, you want people to be aware of the wounds, you want people to be aware of the challenges. yet you don't want to paint people as victims. but we want to raise awareness but don't want to paint them either as just heroes or victims? >> well, you start in forums like this, i hope, and you hope that the people who hear this in here will take it out and tell it to their constituent sis but i don't really have the best answer because it is really a difficult question. i really appreciated the first panel because i think it takes somebody from the top to force veterans employment. but when you get to the middle manager, the h.r. person who is faced with two files and one person is deployed six times and another person who hasn't deployed, and if you don't have a push from the top, i can't help but think that that middle manager h.r. person is going to float on over to the person who hasn't deployed because they read a story about some veteran that had some problem with his or her brain and they're afraid. they're afraid and they move over. it really does in my opinion take pressure from the top to get down and say no we're going to do things differently. >> how do you talk to your employees about that? how does merrill lynch do this? and how do they do away with those stereo toops? >> it's education. we know that communicating with a lot of people is very hard. i could say happy holidays and not everybody will hear what i say. so it's really on this relentless education. one of the things we've identified is a program called unconscious bias which we all carry with us which sounds like this really does fit in this category that we all walk around with news bits that we file away that all of a sudden inform. so you've got to be aware of it, one. so we are taking our leadership team through this. this would be in the category of it. but i think it's education. and what president bush did for me really helped me because he talked about diabetes. and i think about that. my aunt suffered from it. she went in a lot of comas in front of me. and my assistant had really severe childhood diabetes and one day she went into a coma and i recognized it and we were able to call. and i think about that as a work issue. no one talked about it. she has an incredible leadership career with our organization now. but why is it different? so i think the statistics that you share about head injury and post traumatic stress isn't unique to combat. it's unique to life. and i think that education process will be one way we would go at it. >> when we talk about a bridge from military to civilian life, i know i end up talking to my military friends and i will often say do you have any civilian friends? so what responsibility -- and i'm going to ask you this way -- does the military have to sort of bridge that gap as well? to help you reintegrate, to help you say i am part of this, i had an incredible experience that none of you may be able to understand but i also need to take responsibility for that reintegration? >> i could actually speak on that for quite a while. when you look at the investment, when you say we're going to take america's best sons and daughters and we're going to put them through a process and we're going to make them the absolute best warriors where they can deploy anywhere around the world, be self-sufficient, hit the ground, and if they're ten steps only be able to answer one of them and figure out the other nine once they hit the ground, that's pretty amazing seeing as how they came in at 18 or at 22 from, as an officer, and then so after that huge investment to turn them into this amazing warrior that that is able to support the country fight anywhere around the world and win, that's very important, and then we look at the investment when it's time for them to come out. so if you compare the two investments, then obviously there's a lot more that we can do. so how do we as ken spoke earlier, how do we rebrand that 22-year-old that we just told nothing was impossible to him or her that we can do all of these things? if i could also address the previous question about conversation. what we want to be able to do is to change the conversation for the veteran in higher education. and we want to do that quantitatively. and we want businesses actually to be selfish when they approach us and ask what is the r.o.i. for hiring a vet? and so when we're working with -- >> return of investment. >> return on investment. >> i got it. >> what is the return on investment for hiring a vet. the n we look at organizations we partner with military family research institute and bept to prove quantitatively that if you hire a vet this is your return. so if we look at world war ii we know that for every $1 that was invested in a vet, $7 was returned to the economy. so that's the conversation we want to bring to business to reshape how student vets or how vets are viewed. >> anecdotally i can tell you that we have a higher success rate with veterans than with nonveterans in our development program so we can talk about it later but we have some data. >> and that's what we want to be able to get out. >> there's also the data of unemployment is higher and general can you address that? >> the unemployment issue? i really -- i think d.o.d. is doing its best because it costs them money when people come out of the service and are unemployed for a period of time they have to pick up the unemployment benefits for one year. that was about an $800 million i had when i was vice. i think it's gone down a little bit now but they are working very hard on the transition assistance plan with v.a. to prepare better. i'm very, very pleased when i hear things like that data base and data is being turned over to employees. that is -- that's huge. i sure couldn't make that happen or i couldn't find the right lawyer to make that happen when i was where i was. so those things are all great steps forward. but i think we need to go further than that. i had a discussion with a friend of mine in here before why don't we require everybody to do a linked in profile? and my good lawyer training said i can't do that because that is a privately owned rganization and if we were see ing favoring anybody we would be in trouble. but we need to make sure that we get them into the hand of the veteran and the hands of that h.r. person far earlier in the process than we do today. >> so if you all had to prioritize right now what you should do first to help make this process work better of transition or employing or of reaching out to students to get to veterans who are students to get an education, what would you -- how do you prioritize? it's hard. right? >> to me it's -- we've hired 4,000 veterans over the last 3 years and plan on hiring another 10,000. my priority in achieving that outcome for our business and for those veterans is really to connect better with the organizations that can provide me that talent pool, that can associate us and can point out those skillsets. because it just saves a ton of time for everybody to do that. so my priority walking out of here is to do a very good job of connecting with some of the people i've heard here, put our team in place to put together a much more efficient approach. >> i want to eliminate the 20%. i'm focused on the minority. i'm focused on those who are affected. so i'm kind of different in that way. i want to understand post traumatic stress. i want to be able to tell with certainty that someone has post traumatic stress not by asking them 20 questions. and i want -- demand -- that we treat today's veterans better than we treated other veterans who we know had post traumatic stress and traumatic brain injury from every war we fought in. and we're about 40 to 50 years behind in doing the research and connecting the dots that need to be connected to find answers too help that 20%. and if we did that and could really clear up this mystery and it really is a mystery. it's a mystery to everyone, even the professionals. and don't let them tell i-otherwise. if we could clear up this mystery we would go a long way in helping veterans unemployment by taking away this aura of uncertainty of people having traumatic brain injury or post traumatic stress doing thing that is we don't want them to do. >> and how much improvement do both of you think there has been in terms of removing the stigma? because it's certainly still there. >> it's still there and i don't think -- i think you're going to have to stand this forever. but this is a society. society's problem. and we take your young men and women. you don't like talking about suicide. we concentrate on military suicide. i have 160, 170 active component soldiers commit suicide every year. 38,000 americans commit suicide every year but we were focused on that 160 to 170 in my case army soldiers. we ought to be focused on the large numbers. we ought to be focused on the 3.4 million people that are going to have head trauma every year, on the $78 billion in direct medical costs that traumatic head trauma costs this country every single year and getting rid of it. and we've got to increase a research budget to researchers who are going to research the right way by sharing their data. we've got to increase that budget because i know with all the great ceo's in here that if you had a $78 billion problem and you were only spending $82 million a year to get at that problem you would not be a ceo for long. >> i think you want to say something about that. >> i think as the general just said, the stigma still exists. but there has to be a starting point everywhere. and we've made this -- we've made this issue, we brought it out to the forefront that there is a stigma. so now it's up to the veteran, it's up to the service man or woman to come forward and get the help that's there. i think that it's time that we started working and focusing on what works instead of what doesn't work. i'm so tired of hearing about everything that's wrong. we know what's wrong. but let's start looking at what's right. let's see what works in this country. let's see what works as it relates to veterans best practices and bring that to light. and let's also remember that through this whole thing is the military family. and with sequestration and budget cuts it's this segment of military society that will get hit the hardest. this is where we as philanthropists, where we as foundations need to do a better job of hitting the issues, eliminating redundancies, honoring the donated dollar, fulfilling the mission that we have to fulfill. because i think in the end i think with everything that's going on with all the cuts, with all the issues, be it stigma, wounded, jobs, it's the private sector that's going to make the difference, that's going to eliminate the gaps, that's going to lead the way forward. it's up to us to do a better job, to spend more money on our programs, and not on promotion, on salaries, so forth. we can do it. we just need to be more vigilant. > if i could tag along to what ken was just speaking on. what we are doing and the issue that we think is very prevalent in the student vet area or arena is that for -- if you were to ask anyone in this audience or outside of this audience what are the graduation rates of student vets at a particular university across the country, each year. so between 2009 and 2013, there was $34 billion invested into student vet education through the g.i. bill. so if you ask the graduation rate no one could tell you what those graduation rates are. as a matter of fact, no one could tell you for the last 70 years what the graduation rates are. so very low data existed. so we at s.v.a. are determined to partner with the best, the brightest organizations that are committed to supporteding student vets and bringing them out of the shadows, bringing them out from just the portion of nontraditional students. so we partnered, we're funded by google is stepped forward, lume in a, a couple of foundations, and what we're doing is a project called the million records project. and we're actually competing -- computing the graduation rates from 2000 to 2010 of student vets. and we're going to release that. the first time in 70 years on march of this year. and then afterwards we're going to compute the persistance rates and we're going to demystify student vets. we're going to show you how well student vets are doing. so those of us up here on the panel understand this but this is what we're going to get out to the american public so we can get away poor vet portion of the conversation and the handout and put us into the of investing in the country. with the research we are doing here. i want to open up to questions from the audience. we are going to wait for the microphone. right there. name and your affiliation. if you want to direct your question to a particular person. >> father john sheehan, i am a jesuit. that is latin for troublemaker. i run the xavier society for the representingm the association for blind veterans. we have heard about post-traumatic stress and brain injury. ken talked about wounded warriors who carry their weapons woundsem -- carry their with them. employers tend to back off when shows up in a wheelchair or with one arm. a blind guy does not get to show up. blind people can do almost anything a sighted person can with proper equipment and training. i have ridden in a car driven by a blind guy. my challenge is -- what are we doing for blind vets? that is a small segment but in the last 20 years combat injuries that affect the eyes have skyrocketed. unity has created a separate department to deal with this. companies have got to find ways to incorporate this. >> john, do you want to take this? >> i will take this as a challenge. i cannot address that as specifically as you would want. if that is a bias, we will just it. -- we will address it. >> i don't think you're going to get anyone who will disagree with you. you will do that, others in the room will do that. thank you for bringing that up. [indiscernible] >> thank you. behind you. will go to you. good afternoon. my name is kevin, director of interest initiatives -- director of veterans initiative for the walt disney company. very big numbers. numbers in the thousands and hundreds of thousands. the veteran employment is one veteran at a time. with this this room brilliant crowd if each person towardsone veteran completing college. one veteran towards finding employment, we will move free hundred to 400 veterans to a better life. to the group, it is not a question, it is a statement. panel, thank you for your time. >> thank you, kevin. i think that is another one we agree. to that point, is getting to know veterans. is out there and who can offer their services. there are so many veterans who are so extraordinary who can do so many things. and just need a little push. right there. thank you. my name is nakema, i am the chair of the veterans coalition of north central texas. we are a nonprofit comprised of 70 plus organizations that meet every month. from nonprofit organizations to the federal government. he talked about what are you doing, that is what we are doing on the ground. we come together every month to talk about the issues of our service and veteran organizations that support them. you mentioned a couple things i have a question. he talked about research and the economy. increasing the funding for research, the gap and prescriptions and after care. all that goes back to coverage for veterans. tri-care is one of the most -- i am sorry -- pathetic of around.s i have providers that call us and say we can no longer be in your network because you do not pay anything. we can no longer see your pay lessbecause you than medicare pays. that is embarrassing. what are we doing -- before we talk about increasing funding for research or prescriptions. if we do not have doctors who will see them how can they get prescriptions? how can we talk about research? what are we doing to say we need to provide better medical care, better dental, better vision -- all around health care for our veterans. i am talking about -- >> let me take that question. sorry, general chiarelli, you are going to get this one. one of the issues with tri-care is the payment rate. we are trying to establish where that is having an impact. i am on a commission now looking at this whole thing. dod paid out $16 billion last year in indirect medical costs on the tri-care network. they only did a billion dollars -- they only did $8 billion worth of care in our facilities. ontof our care is going the network. there are a bunch of things happening in health care today making it difficult. a $16 billion bill is something we are being asked to i promise you that. i do not see a movement afoot to raise tri-care payments. i really do not. there are things that could be done. one, they are normally five-year contract. the contract is set and services are set for five years. that is why you have problems with nico -- >> nico? >> national intrepid center of excellence. >> i am just reminding. >> that is a problem i mentioned earlier. ,he plan is set for five years it is difficult to change. you have to wait until the next contracting phase five years later to include things like cognitive behavioral therapy for people with the strikes stress -- people with posttraumatic stress that it is covered across the board. i understand your issues. the committee i am looking -- the committee i am sitting on is looking at all those issues. >> sir? hello, my name is david, executive director of the greater dallas military foundation. i wanted to touch on mr. fisher's point about best practices and sharing what is working. the commission you are working on, general, defines best these problems. that is where we need to spend time. one organization i am involved with is helping children's medical, a private organization, address a shortfall of $60 million in their budget. there are an enormous number of people around the country that would be very happy to dedicate their time and effort to operational do excellence, improvement projects, etc. for the v.a. if we could gain access to stop for tri-care. the ability for people in this , to to volunteer, to give give their time and their talents is a challenge. >> volunteering is not always easy. it is not always easy for companies to take volunteers. >> or for the government. >> i thinkfor all these people -- they would love to help if we could. if we could find access and we were given -- when i heard that the dod was giving up data on veterans, is pat was stunned. we did a project with 3000 sailors to help them get a job. the biggest problem was how do we get to them and engage them? the issues around privacy was a big block. the issue of pay, we are from the private sector and here to help. >> let's let ken fisher talk about. about volunteering, first of all. about people wanting to help. i think volunteers are very relevant, especially when it comes to fisher house. the lifeblood of our program is those who want to serve in any way that they can. they do not always have treasure, they have services. it is these kinds of foundations. therenot really know if was a question -- forgive me if i am not answering or hitting it. when it comes to volunteering at the relationship to tri-care i was not sure about the correlation. what i would like to say is that there are many ways we can make a difference. i know there is a lot of anger about tri-care and potentially raising fees and so forth. i know that there is a lot of anger about the quality. let me rephrase that, because i think the quality of care that has been administered to those who have been wounded with the 95% or 96% battlefield survival rate is pretty hard to argue with the quality of care they are getting. focusing on best practices and what is working. that is worth your time and your effort and volunteer. there are many of organizations that really need you. it is not just treasure, it is time, too. i do not know what your question was. when i hear the word volunteer, and theit to what we do amazing volunteers that we have. >> [indiscernible] leaders -- >> do you have a quick question? >> how do we get connected? privatee considered a organization, that is something that frustrates us all. throughout my time as the vice for four years, i am sure general paes had similar experiences. private organizations would come with one intent and that was to help wounded warriors. it was very hard because of regulations for us to be seen as favoring one private organization, even though it was solely directed at helping individuals, over another private organization. >> you cannot fund raise. tell you how difficult it was to get the process in place. the hardest thing in the world is to get the government anything. >> that was my point. it is hard to volunteer than you think. you said it better. less itore we do, the falls on the government. what we do, we have to do well. >> i just want you to each wrap up, if you can. some final thoughts on how we take what was announced today and the initiative and the research being carried out. and what they want to happen and how do you make that happen. i learned a lot today. there is research and it is accurate. it came from the people trying to serve. that has tons of credibility with me. i learned a long time ago that none of us are as smart as all of us. i challenge us to take the challenges we have today and then do something about it. it can be one person one at a time. i am walking away saying i have much more information. and we have better data and more facts to fix the problem and we will do that as an organization. >> i will just say if we look at what can we do with those sitting in the room, help us to fund research. number two, to be able to reach chapters in your local community. asked to serve as mentors. it might be tough initially are busy,udent vets with families -- they are older. once you break down that barrier the first thing you will realize is that they do not know the question to ask you. and justith resources saying i am here to help, to support, what do you need? on a local level that will help the student vet be in power. >> ken? >> 1% of this nation raised their right hand and took an oath to defend this nation. we as americans also need to raise our right hand and take enough to take care of the military family. take care of those who have given so much to this nation, whether it is a mental or physical injury. remember the military family. do what you can to help employee our wounded. do what you can to employ the blind. do what you can to employ those in wheelchairs and so forth. remember what sacrifices have been made on behalf of this nation. >> i would like to build on president bush's lost lede. >> he buried the lede, yeah. >> that we end the stigma associated with these issues. depression, post about it stress or brain -- depression, posttraumatic stress or brain injury. creating the environment in your own space. be that a large corporation or a small group of people. that tells people it is all right to go get treatment for these problems. that is absolutely critical. that, we will go a long way in helping the great group of people that are out there that really need to get some help. i am sometimes criticized for winning to drop the d. people say i have talked to all kinds of people and they say they had no problem with the d at all, they called the disorder. that is the wrong group of people to talk to. talk to soldiers who say at 19 years old i do not want to be told i have a disorder because i had to pick up my friend in pieces on the side of the road and put him in a body bag so i could bring him home. i do not want to be told i have a disorder because of that. ending the stigma and getting that we to get the help

Florida
United-states
Iraq
Dallas
Texas
Afghanistan
Florida-state-university
Chicago
Illinois
West-point
Americans
America

Transcripts For CSPAN Public Affairs 20130131

under ronald regan and one of the most decorated veterans of vietnam. united states senator. celebrated author. lawyer. and i thought he made a pretty strong, persuasive case. so did many of us. >> let's turn to cybersecurity. i was pleased that you mentioned cyber security in your initial remarks. they have moved expand its cyber security efforts. i have to talk about colorado. the air force academy is well positioned to train those. would you talk a little more on your take on cyber security and what sort of resources we need. >> i've been to those facilities in colorado a few times and don't know as much about them as you do, but i am familiar with them. they are essential to our national security. cyber, i believe represents as big a threat to the security of this country as any one specific threat. for all the reasons this committee understands. it's an insidious quiet, kind of a threat that we have never quite seen before. it can paralyze a nation in a second. not just a power grid or banking system. but it can knock out satellites. it can take down computers on all our carrier battle ships and do tremendous damage to our national security apparatus. that is the larger threat. but when you start defining it down, this body, i know. i watched it. it went through a pretty agonizing three months at the end of 2012 trying to find a bill they could agree on, on cyber. i know or i believe the congress will come back at it in this new congress. i think you must, and you know that. because we have different intergovernmental offices. home security, d.o.d. where is the capacity? where are the budgets? where are the authorities? this is law enforcement. privacy. business. a lot of complications that we've really never had to face before on other national defense threats to this country. so cyber will be an area that we'll continue to focus on. we must. and it's an area that i will put a high priority on if i am confirmed to be secretary of defense. >> senator in the 2013 ndaa, there's a provision that compels to -- religious blofes. i am concerned this could lead to misguided claims to discriminate against lesbian, gay, and bisexual service members with certain briefs. the department of defense will not condone discriminatory actions against good order or otherwise violate military codes of conduct. will you ensure the department of defense in accommodating religious beliefs or other beliefs does not constant constitute harm toos? >> i will faithfully, diligently enforce our laws. all men and women deserve the same rights and i can assure you that will be a high priority that enforce and assure that through the entire chain of command and accountability. >> thank you, senator hagel. i look forward to the second round of questions. it's now afternoon. thank you. >> thank you senator. senator wicker? >> let me just follow up on that. does that mean a chaplain would have to perform a same-sex marriage in your view if he objected based on conscience? >> well i think the pentagon regulations show that same-sex marriage is legal in nine states. >> would a chaplain be able to bow out of that procedure based on conscience? >> certainly. what we don't want, though, is -- senator his point is for someone to be denied to be married in a chapel or a facility and so on. but certainly as a matter of conscience, yes. what i'm talking about is strict interpretation of defending the law which defends rights. >> thank you for clarifying that and thank you for calling me early on. we had our conversation on january 8, and i appreciated that opportunity. you just said that your statements over time have been -- have gotten a lot more attention than you ever dreamed possible. that is entirely appropriate in this context. chairman levin mentioned that in his opening statement that in speaking your mind you had said several things that caused him concern, and he asked you about that. senator inhofe said several of your statements included what he called policy reversals based on expedient as i. you and i talked about two of these topics during our conversation. and one of them was in regard to sanctions against iran. you told me in our conversation that you opposed unilateral sanctions because they don't work and they isolate the united states. indeed you had made that statement tuesday. the omaha paper. i had not supported unilateral sanctions because when it's us alone they don't work and they just isolate the united states. in the omaha paper. i'll have to say that that statement seems to be in direct contradiction to your letter to senator boxer one week later. when you told her -- and i quote, i agree that with iran's continued rejection of overtures, sanctions both multilat lath ral and unilateral may be necessary. now a week before that, you said that you have opposed them because they don't work. senator levin mentioned in his statement that he disagrees with that. he believes they do work. you gave him an answer to that statement, and we have it on the record. but let me just suggest to you senator that if words have meaning, there's no two ways about it, the statement that you gave in the omaha paper and that you gave to me the following day is substantially and substantively different from what you wrote to senator boxer a week later. the office of secretary of defense is one of the most powerful positions in the country and arguably in the world, and this official, whoever he or she is, must lead with clarity and precision, and people around the world need to rely on the clear meaning of the words of the secretary of defense. now, the other thing we discussed that gave me concern during our conversation on january 8 was your statement about the jewish lobby. and you told me that you had apologized for using that terminology. and you retracted the use of the term jewish lobby. what you said was the jewish lobby inintimidate dates a lot of people up here. this was in a book an interview that you gave to aaron david miller. and you said, i've always argued against some of the dumb things they do, because i don't think it's in the interest of israel. here's my problem with your position at this point. you have corrected the term jewish lobby. and i assume now the correct term would be israel lobby or israeli lobby. do you still stand by your statement that they succeed in this town, that they succeed in this town because of intimidation, and that it amounts to us -- causing us to do dumb things? because senator, you are here today as a potential secretary of defense, and it would seem to me that however you characterize them, you have suggested that there is an effective lobby out there, whether you call them the jewish lobby, the israeli lobby or israel lobby and that they succeed on doing dumb things through intimidation and that u.s. policy has been the wrong approach, because the intimidation has worked. so when you talked about the jewish lobby, were you talking about apack? minor pack? christians united or israel? and do you still believe that their success in this town is because of intimidation and that they are, as you stated, urging upon our government that we do dumb things? >> well, first, i have never been accused of political expediatrician yen cri. -- expediatricianian cri. probably got me in some trouble, senator. second, address the last comment and we'll go back to sanctions. i've already said i regret referencing the jewish lobby. i should have said pro israel lobby. i think it's the only time on the record that i've ever said that. now, you all have done a lot of work with my record, and yes, it's appropriate, by the way. any nominee's record, what he or she thinks, says, does, absolutely. i was on your side of the -- for 12 years, so i understand that and that responsibility. so i don't have any problem with that. as i've already noted that i should have used another term, and i'm sorry, and i regret it. the use of intimidation. i should have used influence. i think would have been more appropriate. we were talking about in that book, and you've evidently read it aaron david miller's book and by the way, it's a book "much to promised land," he has spoken out directly in the last few weeks, written an op-ed about my opinion because it's noten a lot of attention, but it's been quite favorable to me and said much of it was taken out of context and was offended by those words. those of you who know aaron david miller, you know he is jewish and a highly-respected individual and also says in that interview, which is a fairly short interview mentions that i am a strong supporter of israel. that's in the interview. so i think that says something. i should not have said dumb or stupid. because i understand and appreciate there are different views on these things. we were talking about israel. we were talking about the middle east. we are -- we were not talking about armeinya or turkey or the banking influence. that's what the context of my comments were about. on your point on the conversations and the quote. a couple of points. let's go back to the ilsa vote. about the original vote during the clinton administration. and connect that to a comment i made in the world herald about they don't work. they are ineffective. and by the way, i've already noted for the record here that i have supported and voted for some unilateral sanctions. i think i noted three specific ones that i recall. but on your specific questions about the specific comment. just to give you an example of what i was talking about. you were not in the senate at the time. some were. but those who were here in the senate might recall the european union's reaction to that ilsa act. i was not in the senate when that was voted on original, so i didn't have a vote. but in 1988 the european union passed a resolution against the united states and threatened to take the united states to the world trade organization. as a consequence, secretary all bright had to get into this and as a consequence to that president clinton had to sign a waiver to allow a french oil company not to be part of that u.s. unilateral waiver. now, i'm not suggesting the united states action should be hostage to the european union or any other country but what i am suggesting is many times there are consequences to these actions. now every senator has their own position on these and will exercise their own judgment as they should and cast their own vote. so i don't think necessarily that there was a disconnect from what i said in the world herald to where i've been on international sanctions as to your specific point about supporting unilateral sagses as well as -- sanctions as well as international sanctions in a letter to senator boxer. it is a different situation to start with. we already have very effective sanctions on iran. >> are you saying those two statements don't contradict each other? the one to the omaha paper and the one to senator boxer? >> let me finish if i could, senator, my second point. my second point is this. where we are with iran today, the international sanctions that have been placed on iran, that puts iran, and the united states in a far different place. than where we were in 2000 or 1991 or -- or in 1998 or 2001. when i did not support it and the bush administration didn't either. they didn't want a five-year re-imposition on ilsa. my point in making where we are today connecting that to unilateral sanctions, then we've got a different situation. unilateral sanctions, because we've already got strong international sanctions, should be considered. i think the president is right to consider those. i would support that. because it's different than in 2001 or 1998. >> thank you senator. senator hagen? >> senator hagel, thank you for being here and for your service in our military and service in the u.s. senate and i also want to thank your wife and your family for standing with you today. you played an important role in supporting vietnam veterans affected by the exposure of agent orange. i've been involved in a similar set of circumstances at camp lejeune, and they continue to look at water contamination and the families and service men stationed at the base in the 1980's that may have been exposed to the harmful development of cancers. the quest for answers looking into this has been long and drawn out and men, women and children were dying and/or going broke paying out of pocket for their treatment while they were waiting for these various studies we in congress took action last year in the house and the senate, passed a bill that will provide for treatment of veterans and their family members through the v.a. and i continue to believe the families of those stationed at camp lejeune during those time periods deserve answers from the government about who was exposed and what impact that might have had on their health and what the government knew about this and i have been fighting with other senators on a bipartisan basis and along the way progress has been slowed by endless bureaucratic delays and obstacles. my question to you is do you employee that these marines and families deserve complete answers about the water contamination that occurred at camp lejeune, and if so would you pledge to work with us to unblock the delays that hinder the pursuit for families. >> you will note we had a long conversation about this. i committed to you in your office and i will make this commitmently do that. there should never, ever be a question about health and the safety and the environment that we put our men and women and their families in when we ask them to make sacrifices to serve this country, and i am committed to do that, and we will have further conversations. >> i know you have answered a number of questions about israel already today, but i do have one i want to ask you also. there is a special and historic bond between the u.s. and israel. and i am personally committed to israel's security and identity as a jewish state. when we met earlier i was pleased to hear you agree and also support a two-state solution and oppose any unilateral declaration of a palestinian state. we also discussed the need for a strong military and intelligence engagement between the u.s. and israel. >> just last fall i was in israel and i have spoken with senior military officials from both countries and i have continually heard the ties between our military and our intelligence organization has never been stronger. if confirmed, do you intend to maintain this close relationship and do you have any idea for how we can further strengthen this coordination? >> well, i once again reaffirm the commitment that i made to you, to this committee. i absolutely support the continuation and the strengthening of our relationship with israel. as has been noted before in my book. a chapter i have on israel. i talk about the special and historic relationship between the united states and israel. it is critically important that the quality tate i have military edge that we have assured israel since 1948, be maintain andaman enhanced. the iron dome is i think but one example. the latest military exercise we had with the israelis last fall -- challenge. it was the largest military exercise between our two countries in the history of our two countries. i think our intelligence agencies are working closer and are stronger and more coordinated than ever before. i think this president has done as much to support israel as any president as i mentioned earlier, since harry trueman, and i would look forward to continuing to follow those policies and enhance those policies. >> thank you. i wanted to answer a question on sequest ration. stopping se quest ration from occurring is -- in carolina we have two military installations and over 100,000 active service members in my state, and i do believe these cuts will impair our readiness and defer necessary maintenance that will help keep our troops safe and delay research and procurement as well as stunt our economic recovery that the time. i don't believe we can allow these cuts to move forward. congress needs to work on a bipartisan basis on a balanced flan will help eliminate this threat of sequest ration. also we have to reduce our areas of -- in our national defense. when we spoke earlier i was pleased to hear you did not support these indiscriminate, unprioritized cuts that sequestration would cause. if allowed to take effect, how would sequestration impact the ability to meet the future threats and challenges? as i shared with you i chaired the subcommittee on the threats and capabilities. so i'm particularly interested in your thoughts. you were commenting on the cyber issues airforce basely being considered in the emerging threats and capability. so my question is what impact do you believe that these cuts would have on our service members and their families at home and abroad and in particular, the cuts in the sequestration, how would this impact areas such as cyber security and the other areas? >> well, first, as we have said this morning and you know the chiefs made very clear, secretary pennetta. there would be serious consequences to the management of our defense department and our ability to have the flexibility and make the decisions not just for the -- but for the future. when you hang that kind of uncertainty over any institution, but especially the institution charged with national security in our country, it's very dangerous. readiness is obviously deemed number one priority. and we'll continue to do that. the changes have already started to work through all this and in some of the public statements they have made, we are preparing for that. they will be prepared if in the teevepbt sequestration does take effect, we'll be ready to deal with it. but this is going to be very difficult. and we talked a little earlier here this morning about we're going to have to reduce training, flying time. but i think the american people do need to be reassured that secretary pennetta and the security of this country is not going to be in jeopardy. but it's going to be difficult and it's going to affect longer-term type of planning. but make no mistake if this happens it's going to be a severe problem. >> my time is up. thank you for your comments. >> we're going to work through the vote going on now but we're going to take a 10-minute recess right now and come right back and then we're going to call on senator aha and senator mansion. i urge them to vote and come back. we will now recess for 10 minutes. >> for a short break, about a 15-minute break in this senate confirmation hearing for chuck hagel to be the new defense secretary replacing the outgoing pennetta. they are expected to go most of the day. at the end of this hearing we will open our phone lines to get your reaction. a 15-minute break, the first break of the day in this hearing. >> while this break is under way, the associated press has twhrin short story about this hearing, republican senator john mccain has been tangling with him over the iraq war and said his answers could affect whether he votes for or against the former republican senator which was president obama's choice and they pressed hagel whether he was right or wrong to the influx of 30,000 troops. hagel said iraq took the u.s. focus off afghanistan. here's a portion of their conversation during this hearing. or? opposed? the motion carries. thank you. senator mccain? >> thank you. i'm pleased to see an old friend here before the committee, especially pleased to see senator warner and senator nunn , two senators who have contributed greatly to the defense. these questions are not reasonable people disagreeing, these are fundamental disagreements. our concerns pertain to your final judgment and world view on areas of national security, including security in the middle east. with that in mind, let me begin with your opposition to the surge in iraq. 2006, republicans lost the election and we began the surge. he wrote a piece in the "washington post" -- leaving iraq honorably. he said it's not in the national interest for the u.s. to deepen its military involvement. in january 2007, in a rather bizarre exchange with secretary rice in the foreign relations committee after some nonsense about syria and crossing the border into iran and syria because of the surge, and a reference to cambodia in 1970, you said "when you set in motion the kind of policy the president is talking about here, it's very dangerous. i think this speech given last night by this president represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since the vietnam. if it is carried out, i will resist it." the question continued on for months and months talking about what a disaster the surge would be even when it was clear the surge was succeeding. in march 2008, you said "the term quagmires could apply. some reject that term, but if that is not a quagmire, what is? even as late as august 29, 2011, in an interview with the "financial times" -- you said i disagree with president obama and his decision to surge in iraq as i did with president obama. do you stand by those comments? >> senator, i stand by them because i made them. >> were you right? where you write in your assessment? >> i would defer to the judgment of history to assert -- to sort that out. >> the committee deserves to know whether you are right or wrong about the search. >> i will explain why -- >> i want to know if you are right or wrong. it's a direct question. >> the surge assisted in the objective. >> will you please answer the question -- were you correct or incorrect when he said the surge would be the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since vietnam? were you correct or incorrect? >> my reference -- >> are you going to answer the question? were you right or wrong? that's a straightforward question. answer whether you are right or wrong and then you are free to elaborate. >> i'm not going to give you a yes or no answer. >> let the record show he refuses to answer the question. please go ahead. >> if you would like me to explain -- >> i would like an answer, yes or no. >> i'm not going to give you a yes or no. it's far more complicated than that. i will defer that judgment to history. as to the comment i made about the most dangerous foreign policy decision since vietnam, that was about not just the surge, but the overall war of choice going into iraq. that particular decision made on the surge, but more to the point, our war in iraq, i think was the most fundamentally bad, dangerous decision since vietnam. aside from the cost that occurred to blood and treasure, what that did to take our focus off of afghanistan, which in fact was the original and real focus of the national threat to this country, iraq was not, i always tried to frame all of the different issues before i made a decision on anything. we can have differences of opinion. but that is essentially why i took the position. >> a fundamental difference of opinion, senator hegel. senator gramm and i, senator lieberman, we spent our time trying to prevent that 60 of. thank god for senator lieberman. i think history has already made a judgment about the surgeon you are on the wrong side of it in your refusal to answer whether you were right or wrong about it is going to have an impact on my judgment as to whether to vote for your confirmation or not. i hope he will reconsider the fact he refused to answer a fundamental question about an issue that took the lives of thousands of young americans. >> senator, there is more to it than just -- >> i am asking about the surge. >> i know, and i am trying to explain my position. it factored what general allan had put into place, we put over 100,000 -- >> am very aware of the history of the surge and i am also aware any casual observer will know the surge was the fundamental factor led by two great leaders, general petraeus and ambassador crocker. >> i don't know if that would have been >> and just a portion of the exchange that took place earlier today in this senate armed services committee hearing for chuck hagel to replace leon panetta for secretary of defense. at the conclusion of the hearing we will open our phone lines to get your reaction to what you have seen today, expected to continue for several hours. you can also offer your tchauths, via twitter #hagel. this hearing will re-air tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span. while we wait for this hearing to resume, as you can see, senators are milling around a little bit, so they are not quite ready to get started. we'll go back to the opening statements that the former senator hagel gave to the committee when he talked about gays in the military. 2 years in my one guiding principle on every security decision i made and every vote i cast was always this, simply this -- is our policy worthy of our troops and their families and the sacrifices that we ask them to make? that same question will guide me if i am confirmed as secretary of defen. our men and women in uniform and their milies must never doubt that their leaders' first priority is them. i believe my record of leadership on veterans' issues over the years going back to my service in the veterans administration under president reagan demonstrates my rock-solid exitment to our veterans and their families. we must always take care of our people. that's why i will work to ensure that everyone who volunteers to fight for this country has the same rights and same opportunities as i discussed with many of you in our meetings. i'm fully committed to implementing the repeal of don't-ask, don't-tell and doing everything possible under current law to provide equal benefits to the families of all, all our service members and their families. i will work with the service chiefs as we officially open combat positions to women, a decision i strongly support. and i will continue the important work that leon panetta has done to combat sexual assault, sexual assault in the military, maintain the health and well-being of those who serve as critical to maintaining a strong and capable military because in institutions people must always come first. as we look ahead to co years, we have an extraordinary opportunity, opportunity now, at this moment to define what's next for america's military in our country. it is incumbent upon all of us to make decisiones that will ensure our nation is prepared to confront any threat we may face in the future, protect our citizens and remain, remain the >> and that's just a portion of former senator hagel's opening statements. by the way, again, if you missed any of this hearing, it is available on our website. go to c-span.org. the senate is in session today, they are voting on the debt limit bill suspending it to may 19 of this year. votes are under way in the portman bill. at to top of this hearing we learned there would be no breaks and there would be opportunity for them to vote. this is the first unscheduled break. the house is not in session. members are away on a break and have been away all this week. they are meeting with constituents in their home towns and they will resume on this network, c-span. >> you will come back to order. senator? >> thank you mr. chairman. i want to thank you, senator hagel for your service to our country and for being here today that the hearing, and i want to thank your family as well. senator hagel, i think we established from the prior questions you have been asked. in july of 2001 you were one of only two senators to vote against extending the iran sanctions in that act. yes or no? >> yes. >> and that was when you were only one of two senators in the entire senate to vote against that. also in 2008 i believe you were one of two senators within the senate banking committee, not the entire senate, to vote against a comprehensive iran sanctions accountability act in 2008. is that right? >> yes. >> yes. thank you, senator. as i understand it on october 2, 2008, majority leader harry reid brought a similar bill to the floor. in fact, it was called the comprehensive iran sanctions accountability act of 2008. and he brought it to the floor in october 2, 2008. there have been media reports that you blocked unanimous consent for the consideration of that bill. are those reports true or not? >> i was one of some republican senators that did not want that vote to go forward. i voted against it in subcommittee. and the reason i did was because the bush administration did not want that bill to go forward. the reason they didn't was because they were involved in negotiations with the russians and the u.n. and security council members to put multilateral sanctions through. >> but just to be clear you did block unanimous contestant. >> i was -- con sent in >> i was part of those who did. >> would it surprise you that an earlier version of those sanctions bill was actually co-sponsored bicek taxpayer cary and clinton and obama at the time? would that surprise you? >> no. not necessarily. i never based my votes on what everybody else thought or did. i voted based on what i thought was right. >> also, we of course, the sanctions that are in place now, that bill or its next generation, passed the united states senate after you left in a vote of 99-0. and no one in the senate in fact voted against that. so that is then our clear policy of the bill really the next generation of the bill that you blocked in the senate. i want to ask you also about your position with respect to involvement in the global -- i know many people have asked you questions about this. here's what's troubling me. you've testified before this committee today that you've never been for unilateral -- unilateral nuclear disarmament. in other words, unilateral sanctions by the united states of america. yet this report itself, which you call an illustration, its illustration or recommendation or however you want to frame it, is to -- there are many recommendations and one is to eliminate a leg of our triad. you would maintain that is right? >> i call it an illustration, senator, because that's the term it used. at the front end of the report. it's not a recommendation well, let me talk about the other terms this report uses. because this report twice as senator sessions asked you on page one and on page 16 says that the illustrations were this example give engine this report, one of which is eliminating a leg of our nuclear triad could be implemented unilaterally. so here's what i'm struggling with. why would you put your name on a report that's inconsistent with what you said was that you could never be against it. >> the report does not recommend that we do these things. the report says "could." scenarios. possibilities. and you probably know the four other individuals who were involved in that report. mainly general cartwright the strategic commander. >> and senator hagel i know we don't have a lot of time here and i don't dispute the other individuals involved in this report, but of all the illustrations and coulds you could have picked, this report says the president could implement these unilaterally but it's inconsistent to what you say is your position yet you sign off on this and of all the illustrations you could have picked the illustration is eliminating a leg of our nuclear triad. so one thing that troubles me is of all the things that this group should or could have picked as what you called an illustration is an significant reduction in our nuclear deterrent. so to me i view that as troubling and inconsistent. and one thing i would hope you wouldn't do as secretary of defense is to put -- to sign off on a report that would say something like unilateral like this one does that could be implemented unilaterally that could be different from your policy or our policy. >> as secretary of defense i won't be signing off on reports in the same way as a private citizen, obviously. i will have a different kind of responsibility if i am confirmed by the senate. but i don't think that there's anything that also changes my position in that report, because it was a letter sent which you may have to the president of the united states. >> just so we're clear, and i don't want to interrupt you but we don't have a lot of time. just so we're clear, you don't view what you're telling us today and the language in this report as inconsistent? >> i do not. the report also says and the authors of it says and have always said, none of this could be any reductions unilateral just like any unilateral treaty we have signed both republicans and democrats have led on that. has to be verifyible and negotiated. i've always been there. and that's where we have been on this report. >> ok. thank you. may i follow up on this discussion about containment, nuclear containment with iran? >> mm-hmm. >> and there seemed to be -- first question i would have as you said clearly to senator levin that you believe that a military option should be on the table with respect to iran. in fact i think you said i do, i have and i strongly agree in terms of that being one of the options the president of the united states would have in addressing iran. is the language that you said. can you help me understand in when you went to islamabad, pakistan, in 2006, you said at that time a military strike against iran, a military option is not a viable, feasible or responsible option. now it seems what you're saying about the military option now seems inconsistent and why would you make that statement in pakistan that it's not a viable, feasible or responsible option in light of your statement today that you do, i have, and i stockly agree that a military option should be on the table. >> that statement was made in respect to all options with iran. and pakistan was where i was at the time. and the larger context of that was nuclear powers which certainly pakistan is part of that. and not unlike what secretary gates said on a strike on iran. my point was that this would not be a preferable option land the would be consequences to this option. things would happen as a result of it. if we could find a better option or way to deal with iran to assure they do not get nuclear weapons, then we are far better off. that was the context of that statement. >> i know my time is up and we will have an opportunity for a second round of questions, but as i see your quote it didn't say preferable it said it was not a preferable option so i look forward to following up in the second round of questioning. thank you. >> thank you senator ayotte. senator mansion? >> thank you so much senator hagel for your services and your family for your services. i'd like to say this. you and i have not known each other before. i've never had the pleasure of serving with you, which i wish i woufment you bring truly a breath of fresh air to this process in a bipartisan way having two senators serve by your side, one democrat and one republican speaks volumes. with that being said also everyone's been so fix ated on your past, what you've said, and i've come to learn in a very short time being a start that this town and process and body has become almost a guilt by conversation. with that being said, i respect you being the person in saying what you thought needed to be said. you voted the way you thought you should be voting for your constituents and country and weren't driven by your party or groups. i can't tell you how much i wish i would serve with you. sometimes i feel very lonely. with all that being said, sir, we're asked to consider you as a part of a cabinet. is there anything that would lead us to believe that you wouldn't follow the orders that were given? >> no. i understand clearly the responsibilities of secretary of defense. and as i said in my opening statement, those responsibilities are very serious. i don't know of many jobs that are more serious. and i would obviously, always make every decision for the defense department and my advice to the president based on only one thing, and that's the security of this country. >>i look back at your record. we come from the same area and are very close in age. and i remember the vietnam era very well. that, i think shaped all of us to a certain extent of how we looked after -- post vietnam -- of how we looked at if we had known what we knew before. i am sure that kind of guided you as you looked at the -- iraq. and i saw information we were given. if i had been a senator i probably would have voted also like many misled but after seeing five or six years of that unimportant to scenario play out, the surge and i know where you're coming from. would you say your experiences in vietnam and looking at that basically what sometimes misguided our misguided mission had been -- shaped a lot of your positions today? >> well, there's no question that as i have said this morning that my experience in vietnam very much guided questions, and i think i noted a couple times in my opening statement that it was one fundamental question i always ask, was the policy worthy of the men and women that we are asking to make the sacrifices? and i know there are differences of opinion. you mentioned iraq. you mentioned the surge. my positions there were very much guided by what is the political purpose of the surge? where do we go from here? yes, you put 35,000 more american troops in an area for a sustained period of time or more on top of more than 100,000 that we already had there. you will have a tactical victory. but there will be a cost for that victory. and that's what always guided me. do we understand the cost and are we prepared to make those costs in life? and what was the answer? where were we going with the surge? how was this going to take us or advance us to where we needed to go? and where did we think we needed to go? so yes, those experiences did shape my decisions. > the support of israel. i have no doubt that you think that -- your commitment to -- that around should not have the ability to have a nuclear weapon. i appreciate that position very much. where we go with the strength of our army if we have our military part and the pilot of defense, the national guard, how does the national guard play in what they should be doing and what they could be doing? >> the national guard as you know has a chair at the table with the joint chiefs. general -- the general represents the national guard. but their role will continue to be important as will the reserves. we saw over the last 12 years of war how important our national guard is in -- and the reserve. we could not have conducted those wars without the national guard and reserves. that is a professionalized service. they will continue to be important. their credibility, leadership, that is why the decision was made to assure their representation with the joint chiefs. i strongly support the national guard reserves. >> i think senator mccaskill touch on things i am concerned about. every time i hear about sequestering and people tell me if we do it it could destroy our ability to the been are solved -- are some, -- defend ourself, i do not follow that. this will be the least amount of money we have asked to drop down under any post-war time, and get everyone is hollering that it will be devastating. i know there is a way to do that. the contract -- we are having a hard time getting our hands around the contract thing, the cost of contracting, the ability for people in the contracting world to be reimbursed by over $700,000, almost twice what the president gets paid. would you embrace working with us and sitting down and looking at and embracing an audit, myself and tom coburn, have legislation asking a complete audit of the department of defense? your thoughts? >> of course, i will, and i have noted this morning i am committed to do that. i will do it. accountability is a primary responsibility of any institution, organization. that is clearly in the purview of the congress. we have to do it. we have got to improve in the process. we talked this morning about the astounding amount of waste, fraud, and abuse. inspector general's of both iraq and afghanistan have found. i am committed as i have said to assure that we make that deadline of 2017 on the audits and we will work with you closely on that. >> i wanted to state that we talked about in my office that the commitment to help our returning veterans get jobs. the jobs caucus, i hired a vet. i look forward to working with you to put our veterans to work. i look forward to voting for you. >> senator fisher? >> >> thank you, mr. chairman. good afternoon, senator, good to see you again. i want to begin by thanking you for your service to our country and to the state of nebraska. i appreciate your continued willingness to serve the united states. i need to be honest with you. after our meeting last week, i have some concerns about your nomination. many of my colleagues are concerned that you have changed your of use, and i share that concern, but i must admit that i am more worried that your views have not changed. from your meeting with me last week, it was clear that you maintain the views that led to such scrutiny of your nomination. despite these recent claims to the contrary, you continue to hold i believe extreme of used car to the left of even this administration. in particular, your clear statement to me during our meeting that if given the opportunity to recast your vote on the iranian sanctions, you would still oppose those sanctions. i believe that indicates that you hold these concerning the views. our nation faces many challenges. perhaps none greater or more immediate than around's continued progress toward obtaining nuclear weapons. at the same time, the department of defense is entering a time of transformation that will likely to find its role for many decades to come. the future of our nuclear deterrence could depend on our choices made by the next secretary of defense. i am " to bring up the report that we have heard about -- i am going to bring up the report that we have heard about quite a bit. you are listed as the co-author of a report on our nuclear posture. i believe there is a recommendation in there, and i believe the recommendation is to drastically reduce the united states nuclear forces. when we spoke last week, you describe this report as being offered by general cartwright, and i had the impression, and i am believe he'll apply to me, that you were not closely affiliated with that. you are listed as a co-author of that report, as one of the five. moreover, you told me at that time that this report discussed options. you have reiterated that stance today. after i have to reexamine that it, the only options i have found in the report are related to how best -- how to best achieve those reductions i believe it advises. there are no alternative to use or dissenting opinions that are discussed in the report. it states many controversial opinions. it state them as facts in support of its conclusion, and i believe is important to determine whether or not you agree with those positions. as it has been said before, my time here is limited, and so i would like to quickly go through and review some of those more concerning proclamations that and makes with you. i would appreciate if we could go through this quickly. for example, the united states icbm force has lost its central utility. that is stated in the report. do you agree with that? >> well, senator, that report was not a recommendation. that report as we have said is a series of scenarios, and again i use the term illustrative, because that was the beginning of the report, as possible ways we could continue to reduce our warheads, not unilaterally, but by latterly treat every treaty we have ever signed to reduce warheads and the thrust capability with the russians has been about reductions. that is not new. that is where it has always been picked icbm's, a specific questions. it is a 25-page report. i assume you have read it. it talked about one of the reasons icbm's may eventually be insignificant because of the over-flight over russia and so on. those are not fictional analyses. those are facts. no one is recommending in that report -- and you probably noted general cartwright and omaha -- these are serious people who understand this business, and no one recommends that we unilaterally do away with our icbm's. what that report was about was looking at where this is going. the title of the report was modernizing our nuclear strategy, not eliminating it. >> correct, but the you agree with the statement that the icbm's, that force has lost its central utility? >> that is not what the report said. >> i have it cited, and with respect i can enter that into the record, but it is cited in the report. >> the report in the overall context, icbm's, and all the parts of the report were about the utilities of our triad, where is this going, and money that we are investing in that, and we have to look at it. i think those kinds of reports are valuable to assess our needs, to assess our nuclear capability, to assess our nuclear deterrent. week two studies all the time. this was not an official report. think tanks do this all the time. i think that is valuable. >> excuse me. i do think that reports from various organizations, think tanks, individuals, groups, i think those are all very important in getting information and opinions out there. but when you co-authored a report, you should be able to answer a few -- if you agree with statements made in the report. >> i do not agree any recommendation that would unilaterally take any action to further reduce our nuclear warheads and our capability. again, that is not what the report said. i do not agree with that. every option that we must look at, every action we must take to reduce warheads or anything should be bilateral. it to be verifiable. it should be negotiated. >> every action that this country takes should be bilateral? >> when we are reducing warheads -- every treaty we have signed with russians as the bilateral, has been verifiable. ronald reagan said at best -- trust, but verify its. that is the key word. he also said we should wipe nuclear weapons from the face of the arts. i think almost every president has agreed with that. including, this president. world leaders agreed with the continued reduction, and this is not a report out of the mainstream. president obama has said in his prague speech in 2009 that that was his goal, as war breaking debt, as many presidents did. >> thank you. also, as i read the report, it calls for all u.s. tactical nuclear weapons to be eliminated over the next 10 years and asserts the military utility is practically nil. do you agree with that statement? >> senator, i do not delete it calls for it. these are scenarios and schedules and possibilities and options. but none of this could ever, ever happen unless it would be negotiated, bilateral, and verifiable, and that was part of a letter the global the zero- credit group said to the president in 2009, specifically, stating that. if i might, i might give you a more recent example. senator feinstein's subcommittee -- she had a hearing last year. general cartwright and admiral pickering -- or ambassador pickering testify, and they went into this. with any action we would take would have to be negotiated, it would have to be bilateral, no unilateral action, and they made that point again on the record in front of senator feinstein's subcommittee. and i support that. i agree with that. >> i have another statement from the report. the united states icbm rapid reaction posture remains in operations and runs a real risk of accidental or mistaken launch. i think that statement is pretty clear. do you agree with that? >> yes. i mean, i the accidental launch and those kinds of things are always to be concerned about and we need to assure as we have over the years that that does not happen, but on the russian -- >> that we will run a real risk of accident or mistake and launch? >> if you put just risk, but there's always a risk. when we are talking about nuclear weapons, and the consequences, as you know, you do not get a lot of second chances. we need to be very sure about these things, and that was the whole point. >> you need to say any additional questions for the second round. >> i am sorry -- i do not -- >> thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you, senator hagel, first testifying to it. i appreciate the support of your wife. i have some questions for the record, particularly about new york basis. -- bases. today i want to focus on issues from my perspective, talking about your thoughts about israel and israel's 630, afghanistan, a personnel issues. on israel, our relationship with israel is tremendously important, and we are tied to them because of being such a strong democracy in middle east and having our national security is tight in many ways. we talked about iran and you have clarified the position that contain it is not an option. i am concerned about a statement he said with regard to iran, a nuclear iran is an existential threat the nine states as well as israel. the iranian government has been a responsible for deaths of u.s. service members, and attempted attack on u.s. soil, training of terrorist groups. their latest threat to israel came just a day. i want to make sure that your statement earlier today with regard to whether iran is legitimate, i do not understand if you meant it is a legal entity that has international relations and has diplomatic relations and a member of the u.n., but i do not see erin's government as legitimate. i would like your thoughts. >> what i meant to say, should have said, it is recognizable, it has been recognized and is recognized at the united nations. most of our lives -- allies have an disease there. that is what i should have said. >> with regard to israel, israel's security is important, and i have been one of the strongest advocates, fighting for more increases in missile defense cooperation as low as coordination on the technology programs that are fundamental to their security. last year a program more than improved itself as missiles headed toward israel. ranking member inhofe and i push for full funding of the u.s.-is rural cooperative defense missile system. would you support funding for iron dome and other programs? will you also -- if we have to have a continued resolution, the funding for iron dome will be well below the authorized amount for fiscal year 2013? would you recommend reprogramming other funds or setting forth an anomaly budget requested to fully cover our commitment to this program? >> i fully support and will continue to fully support iron dome and arrow. s to a commitment to the second part of your question, i would have to better understand what our restrictions are are to be in our budgets. this would be before i could make decisions like that, and i would ask to talk with our chairman of the joint chiefs and each of the chiefs, and want a better understanding, depending how deep this sequestration might get. but make no mistake, it is clearly a priority program. i believe we will continue to fund it. we should. i will support the continuing funding. >> i also hope you will be a strong advocate. this is a very party before me. >> if i am confirmed, we will work together as well as this committee on of these issues. >> a number of members were just in egypt, and we are concerned about the syenite becoming a route for arms coming -- the inai becoming a route for arms. we want to figure out a way if there is a way to put more funds to that mission. do you have thoughts on that and what we can do to try to assist in cracking down on the weapons trade? >> it is a huge challenge, and part of what allows terrorists, extremists to advance their cause. maritime security, piracy issues, i mentioned in my opening statement -- that is all part of why we need to rebalance resources and why we need to -- we need a flexible, agile base, in particular, our navy, to do this. it will continue to take cooperation with our allies. we cannot do this as well as our intelligence, the best in the war, military best in the war, we are the largest, wealthiest country in the world, but we have to work with allies, and we have to find that through intelligence before it gets beyond the capacity to be used to do damage against the interests of this country and our allies. >> as israel is one of our most important allies, one of our growing threats is syria, particularly chemical weapons being not properly locked down, and there's concern with what happened the yester day -- yesterday. i suspect there is a close cooperation between our military with respect to syria's chemical weapons, but will this be something you can focus your concern on, because of their past statements about israel? is this something you will also commit to in keeping this alliance trunk and making sure we have a strong plan with regard to any chemical weapons coming out of syria? >> yes, and by the way i have said on the record many times that hezbollah and hamas are terrorist groups, and i have said many times on the record that iran is a state sponsor of terrorism. i am committed to that. , for my last minute, with regard to afghanistan, we have heard your views, and you did not give a specific statement about how many, but will you in your capacity advises the president bush be drawing down trips sooner rather than later? >> i think he has made that pretty clear, that he wants to do that, and if i am confirmed, i will need to better understand all the dimensions of this. i do not know all those dimensions. i think there is little question -- and i support completely -- where the president wants to go completely in afghanistan, and his commitment to on wind that war. as we have said, there should be, there will be. he noted he will enforce a new policy, a new relationship based on limited objectives for our troops there, and i support that. >> my last question, that i will submit, obviously, the personnel of military is our most important asset, and when we hear reports there are upwards of 90,000 sexual assaults against women, in the military, it is unacceptable. we have finally repealed don't ask don't tell, but it is difficult for a military spouse to go to the commissary or be notified if a spouse is killed in action. i would need a strong commitment from you that you will treat our military families and look after them in the wake you would look after your own. i want you to be concerned about every man and woman in the military, that they're well- being is being looked at, and see real advocacy and leadership, not status quo, not implementing what we put forward, but fighting for them every single day. >> you have my complete commitment on that. i have made that -- everybody i've spoken to directly and privately. i mention that point in my opening statement, if you will recall. i have a pretty clear record on that. i will continue to do that, will do that, and i agree it is not good enough just to say zero tolerance. the whole chain of command needs to be accountable for this all the way down to the bottom, so i will. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> that you senator. senator graham? >> senator hagel, congratulations on your appointment. you are a good, honest man, and i appreciate your willingness to serve the country in the past and be willing to do so in the future. what percentage of gdp do we spend on defense? >> well, we are i think it is probably 5% now in that area. >> at historically high or low? >> generally, it depends on real dollars in -- and wars. , are we at war? >> we are at war in afghanistan, around the world. >> you agree we are in war in afghanistan, around the world. when you look at spending on defense, and descended there should be aware we are still at war. do you agree with that? >> i am sorry -- what? >> do you agree every senator, every member of congress should be understanding that when you vote on a defense budget we are at war? >> yes, i do. >> ok, thank you. now, let's talk about statements you may need. you have explained this a bit. he said the jewish lobby in tonight's a lot of people up here. i am not an israeli senator. i am a united states senator. this pressure makes us to do dumb things at tie. he said jewish lobby should not have been used. name one person in your opinion? is intimidated by the israeli lobby in united states senate? >> well, first -- >> name one. >> i do not know. >> why would you say that? >> i did not have in mind a specific person. >> do you agreed that it is a provocative statement, that i could not think of a more provocative statement about the united states, israel, and congress. name one dumb thing we have been coded into doing because of pressure into doing because of the jewish lobby? >> i stated i have regretted that term -- >> you stated back then it makes us do dumb things. give me one example of the dumb things that we are pressure to do up here. >> we were talking in that interview about the middle east, about positions, about israel. >> give me an example of where we have been intimidated by the israeli jewish lobby to do something dumb regarding the middle east, israel, or anywhere else. >> i cannot give you an example. >> do you agree you should not have said that? >> i agree. >> do you agree with has a lot being a terrorist organization? yes.uest who'v >> you'll were one of the senators asking hezbollah to be designated as a terrorist organization for the purposes of being sanctioned. >> i have had a policy during my time in the senate that i did not think it was the right approach for the congress to be sending leaders any instructions or any documents versus letting our president do that -- >> why did you sign a letter to clinton urging him to deal with the russians when it comes to their policy against jewish people? >> because i think that is the appropriate approach. it is our president to conduct foreign policy. >> all i could suggest to you is when a letter is presented to the united states senate about the times in which we live in, you cannot write one letter and not write the other and be consistent. and the letter was urging the e.u. to impose sanctions on hezbollah, and you have been a believer that we should not do it alone, we should do with unilateral. what we do take the chance and urged the european union to sanction has a lot? is we shouldn insurer swer not be writing lesser proof, i think the president is the appropriate official. >> and congress has no interest in whether the e.u. would be sanctioned as a terrorist or a station? >> the congress has a responsibility in a lot of things. >> that me ask you this about the iranian revolutionary guard. he said a minute ago you think they are a terrorist recession. do you agree? bailout yes. >> and you voted against the amendment designating them as a terrorist organization because they are recognized as a state? iran, you would not want to designate the army of a recognized as a terrorist? >> i just clarify a statement on iran being a recognized nation by the nine nations, by most world bodies. the reason why i did not vote as 22 other members that because i think jim webb's argument was a strong argument, and that is we have -- and this is what he said -- designated part of a government as a terrorist organization, thereby, what his concern was, and what mine is, and other dissenters have voted against it. where to speak tonight to giving the president authority from congress to take military action? >> i got you. let me ask you this -- do you believe the sum total of all your votes refusing to sign a letter to the e.u. asking hezbollah being designated a terrorist organization, being one of 22 voting to designate the iranian card a terrorist or as a sheet of being one to vote against sanctions that this body was try to impose on iran -- statements you have made about palestinians and about the jewish lobby -- all that together, that the image you have created is one of sending the worst possible signal to our enemies and friends at one of the most critical times in world history? >> no, i would not agree with that, because i have taken actions and made statements, very clear, as to what i believe hezbollah and hamas are, as terrorist organizations. >> if there was a vote on the floor of the senate this afternoon to label the iranian revolutionary guard, the people who have killed our soldiers in iraq, some of the most vicious people to the people of iran themselves, there were a vote tomorrow or this afternoon or after lunch, would you still vote no? >> i would want to know from the president what they were doing -- >> you read the paper, you watch tv. do you have any doubt what they're doing? they are expanding terrorism. they are trying to intimidate their own people. they are the instrument of the theocracy to oppress their own people, and the are the biggest supporter of the urging to keeping them in power so get a nuclear weapon. if you have a chance today after lunch to the to say that the revolutionary guard is a terrorist or is asia, which still vote no? >> the reason i voted no to star or -- >> would you reconsider and vote yes this time? >> times change, and i would reconsider. >> that is encouraging. my time is up but we will have another round pick senator inhofe said that you were one of four senators who refused to sign a letter in october, and the first paragraph says we want you to express a solidary with israel at this moment of crisis and our profound disappointment with arafat and the palestinian authority. where does make a what allow violence to be carried out without restraint. this is when the intifada was being waged, and senator inf wanted a member for every member of this body, to put us on record that we believe arafat and the intifada is undercutting the agreements they had reached and they have resorted to violence to intimidate israel and their people in a way that was absolutely unacceptable. if you had a chance to do it over, which you signed this letter now, and i am going to give it to you during what ever break we at an ask you to reconsider. i would ask you, senator hagel, to tell the country, the world at large, particularly the state of missouri, you made a mistake by not signing the letter? >> who is the letter to pro? >> i will look at that. i cannot recall the letter. i will look at it and give you an answer. >> it was a big deal at an important time, and a lack of signature by you runs chills up my spine because i cannot imagine not signing a letter at a time like that. we will consider this conversation. 8. >> the keys, senator graham. we will not go to senator bowman thought. >> taken, chairman, and i wanted thank senator hagel for his service and his family. and expressing appreciation not only to you for your service, but also to our veterans, which people may not appreciate as much as they do, your military service, but is every bit as important to our nation. i want to say about that letter, i was not here when the letter was circulated. i would have signed it, but i would certainly join in urging that you reconsider and commit to the statement of support in a letter for the state of israel, if it is a program now and applicable to today's events, i hope you will reconsider expressing your support for it. i noted in your opening statements that no single quotation and no single vote define you in the entirety, and perhaps not as a whole, but votes and quotations do better, and i think that the questions about what you have said and what you have done in the past are entirely appropriate, i think also reconsidering your views evolving is also appropriate. and i am going to be submitted questions on some of the topics you have heard. we have discussed these questions very your private meetings with members of this body have been productive and effective, as you have seen in the comments that have been expressed here. the more we hear from you the better you do on many of these issues. i want to begin by talking about one issue that concerns our veterans, particularly our vietnam veterans. many vietnam veterans in connecticut and a run the country received less than honorable discharge as a result of contact that was a direct consequence of pst at a time when pst was not a term, not diagnosed, not treated, but they have to live with the consequences of a less than they havedischarge a marria, to live with it fewer benefits, and i would like a commitment from you that the department of defense will revisit those individual cases as well as the policies to take into account the fact that we now know that many of those patterns during the vietnam era suffered from pst or related kinds of injuries. >> you have my commitment to do everything i can about that. i understand the issue pretty well. i have been working on this issue long before i actually ever got to the senate. so i will, thank you. >> thank you. and i would like the same kind of commitment that you have expressed very persuasively the repeal of don't ask don't tell on the issue of sexual assaults. this issue, the military, i do not know if you have seen the document called "the invisible war," i know you are familiar with this issue, and i would ask that your commitment, not only to the prosecution and holding accountable people who are involved in this criminal conduct, but also to the victim s, so they receive the services that in the civilian world many of them do through victims advocates in the courts and similar kinds of roles played. both the prosecution, effective, vigorous, a zealous, but also to protection of victims. can you commit to that? >> absolutely. >> thank you. on the strategic issues, i wonder if i could talk to you for a moment about submarines, which you and i discussed privately, briefly. the department of defense, the joint chiefs, the president have all committed to an ohio-class replacement program that consists of a fleet of 12, starting no later than 2031. global 0 settled on a lower number, 10. i strongly believe that the cost will increase the cost per submarine and we will be at severe risk for reasons that you may well understand, although we cannot really discuss them in detail because they may be classified. i would like a commitment that you are committed as well to a fleet of 12 ohio-class replacement submarines. >> on that issue, i would want to talk with our chief of naval operations. i will get a better understanding of our budget. i can tell you this, i am committed completely to modernizing our navy and everything it includes, and will require. i will give you that commitment. >> i am sure you know the higher-class replacement program is the cornerstone of our nuclear deterrence, but it requires a clear leadership and support from the next secretary of defense, so i hope you will perhaps come back to us on that issue. >> i will. you and i will be discussing this many times if i confirm, so thank you. >> thank you. going to the virginia-class submarines, the next multi-share purchase known as block 4 envisions 10 submarines. there is a threat that it could be reduced to nine for reasons related to costs and national security. i think that number should be 10. the intent and spirit of the last national defense authorization act was that it should be 10, and i would like to act you similarly for your commitment that there will be two submarines for 2014 and that the program continues to be viable at the level of 10. >> senator, i will commit to what we have committed to to carry out what we need to fund it and develop and build in order to maintain the kind of modern maybe we will require. those submarines are cornerstones to that security. >> they are, absolutely, vital cornerstones, the essential building blocks to our national security as we move to the specific -- to the pacific-asian theater. they have the at intelligence and reconnaissance and surveillance capability as well as counter-terrorism importance, so i hope that effort will continue, and i appreciate your commitment. that me finish with a question that i think goes back to the contracting area where you were asked questions before. senator ayotte and i, and a trip led by senator mccain recently, this is it afghanistan and we were briefed and i will try to make this question brief. about the continuing corruption in the afghanistan government, deeply troubling, and even shocking. but equally it so is the waste of american taxpayer dollars, in part because of the procedural roadblocks to enforcement of section 841. i will not quiz you on 841, so you can take a deep breath. 841 is designed to protect americans' tax dollars from corrupt contracts that the to benefit the enemy. we are working in provisions that will make more effective the procedures for terminating those contracts, getting back american dollars, extending those protections to non-defense dollars, and i hope that we can have your commitment to work with us on that area. >> you have that commitment. i will enthusiastically work with you in this area. >> thank you. i appreciate your frank and forthright answers, and i do not know whether i will be here for the second round of questioning, but i want to express my sincere gratitude to you for your willingness to serve and your patience and forthrightness in entering all our questions. thank you. >> thank you, senator blumenthal. >> thank you, senator hagel, for being here today and thank you for your service to this country. it is good to see your wife and brothers behind you as an indication of the family commitment as well as your personal commitment. there are several things i may get to in a second round on iran and sanctions. that very involved anon effort when i was in the house. our relationship with israel is of great concern to me and is a priority to our efforts in the middle east, and i think that is largely exhausted in this first run, and least from my point of view. i may want to come back to that later. , i want to talk about the ongoing structure of the force. "the wall street journal" said the american military was the smallest in recent memory. may not mean that we are not as bad already as any others in the war, but that is a recognition that our investment and the way we view those resources has gotten them in a position where we need to be more focused on rebuilding than we do building down. senator, secretary panetta has been forthcoming in his comments about the across the board approach of sequestration. what do we do to get our worn out equipment and worn out personnel in a better position a year from now than they are right now? could you give me your brief, a strategic view of that? >> senator, you have just identified one of the priority is of the next few years at the department of defense. resetting equipment, and the essentially reshaping our force structure, but also renewing our force structure. the fact is we have been at war for 12 years. ever senator knows and you have constituents that we keep sending these kids back and back and back to two wars. of course there are part of the consequences, and you cannot keep doing that. that will be an overall challenge that will take us much of my time if i can confirm as anything, as it will our chief spirit our chiefs note this better than anyone, as we structure, repellents, and read- out for it. i believe we have a force structure that is as capable as ever. i do not accept that our force structure is somehow behind or not water or not capable. i do not think that is true. >> the point that the editorial was making was not that we were behind, but we are not on the cutting edge as we may have been, and i would hope you and i would want to get there. let me ask a question about that. secretary gates said recently that hits -- one of his big concerns was that we repeat the mistake of the procurement holiday in the 1970's, and we spent a lot of time 10 years after that getting built back to where we hoped to be. how in these discussions of cutting do we keep the lines open, do we keep our effort on going? one of the things i know quite a bit about is the f-18 line, because it is in st. louis were bowing to military is, and if we ever close that line down, when we come about whatever country needs some version of this, and how we keep this capacity at a time when there is this talk about cutting and not just cutting, but cutting everything a little bit, which means that some of the things that can cut a little bit disappear because they cannot survive if they are only partly there. >> senator, you have just again identified one of the great challenges that lies ahead. that is maintaining our industrial base. you used the f-18 -- >> that is just one of the lines i have been on. >> i understand. that is a good example. what we are going to have to continue to keep strong, but the reality is we, as you say, because we know what we have to deal with, when our budgets are as the result of the budget act of 200011. when we do not know brings us back to the uncertainty of sequestration, as some of the examples you are using are good examples of areas that could be cut arbitrarily in order to fulfil budget requirements. i think what you have just noted again is going to be a huge part of keeping our technological superiority, our edge. senator blumenthal mentioned submarines. as another component of this. all the superior technical edge this country has possessed since world war ii has kept us, along with other things and for other reasons, the strongest military power in the history of man. that must be maintained. threats change. 10 years nobody at anybody what -- 10 years nobody had any idea about what we were talking about, with cyber. >> we have made efforts with our allies and friends to give them some other version of equipment we had, maybe not as good as we had, something that keeps our defense kirk german airlines in place so that when we do need them, they're still there and that is critically important. before you were designated secretary of defense, as the potential nominee for the stop, in talking about sequestration, you made a comment about there is a lot of bloat. i am sure you talked about this, it's quite a bit. what do you have in mind there? what is being done at the pentagon that to be better be done somewhere else or is being duplicated somewhere else? maybe the fall of that, i saw you mentioned things that should be in the state department have gotten over the the pentagon. are there examples of that that we could work on and you will want to lead on? >> two things. that comment came in a large interview about budgets, about everything, and that interview was done in 2011 prior to the budget control act, to get the time from right on that. i never supported sequestration, by the beltway. now to your question about what we could do. much of the conversation has been about acquisition, which is, fraud, abuse, billions of dollars. why are we not auditing these programs? that is certainly an area that we are going to have to take a look at. my reference to the state department programs, some of the areas i mentioned this morning where we have pushed down on the military in the last 12 years to do things that usually are done out of the state department, aid-type programs, exchange programs, civilian programs. that was all given -- but a great deal of that was given to the military. the military has taken on a tremendous volume of assignments and funding that goes with that spirit that needs to be sorted through, i think. those are areas where i think -- >> and one of your commitments will be to help sort through that? >> it has to be. >> i am out of time. i will be here for the second round. >> thank you. senator donnelly? >> thank you, mr. chairman and mr. ranking member. it is an honor to be a part of this committee. i look forward to working with mike collins, and i am proud to serve the people of indiana. we are the heartland of america, and senator hagel, we have over 40,000 members of the national guard in our state. we have the fourth largest contingent of national guard members in the entire country. i want to thank you for your service to the country. you along with all veterans for what you have done for our nation. i appreciate you taking the time to meet with me. we had an extensive discussion, and your understanding of the complex challenges we face in the middle east and the importance of our alliance with israel -- it is a special an historic relationship. i believe is a special and historic relationship. my people in my statement believe that as well. it was important for you to let everyone know that there can be no nuclear iran, that there are lines that cannot be cross, and we will defend our friends and area.tire world in the iat i told you about my visit to crane or for systems in indian act, which create technologies to control the spectrum, try to win the battle field before the battlefield ever starts on the ground. we were wondering what can be done in this time of challenge and budgets to ensure that in the area of technology, in the area of spectrum, we can maintain our budget so that before the war as our starter on the ground we have won it on the spectrum level? how credible is that in terms of your planning and the defense department? >> senator, i think that focuses on as much the core of challenge that the pentagon has in front of it than any one thing. this committee will be particularly important to help the leaders of the pentagon sort through that, because as evidenced in the whole series of questions that have been asked today, senator blunt's most recent crashes, these are times of priorities. budgets drive that, but missions should always tried everything. what are going to be our missions in the defense department over the next few years? how will we resources missions? what are the priorities going to be? can and is the entire universe -- and is the entire universe of what their responsibilities are and how do we carry those responsibilities out to secure nation? more general questions, and most of the questions asked here today, have been about this. until i would get over to the pentagon, if i have confirmed, and understand more of the specifics and work with the chiefs and get a better grasp of exactly what we have got, i will not be in a position to be able to say this or this or we will do this or we will not. obviously, that is why i say this committee, the authorizing committees, our car to be particularly -- >> he mentioned over 14,000 guard members and our state, army reserves, and they have done tour after tour in iraq and afghanistan. as we wind down, i think it is critical to make sure that we have a strategic plan for the card in the future. so that the car we have today, is strugglingwise, on a command, we have to upgrade our vehicles but other areas as well. i guess the question is how do you view the mission of the guard in the years ahead? , well, as you know during our conversation and a couple of the questions i have had here today on the guard, i am committed to a strong national guard. it is and the central part of our force structure going into the future, and it was proven quite fairly and effectively the last 12 years. that will be maintained, and i think further evidence of that, putting a chief of the national guard into the joint chiefs. you have my commitment that i will be continually focus on that integration and the upgrading it in every way. >> i had the privilege of working with general should secchi -- general shinseki in recent years. as he testified about iraq and how many trips he thought was needed, and the repercussions that came out of that, not only for the general, but in so many other way straight it is critical that the generals and the people in the pentagon provide the most thunderous information possible. they tell you exactly what they think. you tell them exactly what you think. nobody at any time as their career affected for telling you the truth. i'd want to make sure that that is the way you are approaching this. >> that is the way i approach this. i value that. there's no other way to assure that we are getting the best, the most honest advice from our most capable leaders than to say it like that. the general shinseki episode was a very unfortunate episode in this country, what happened to him for telling the truth. if science editor at defense and that kind of thing will never happen -- if i am secretary of defense, that kind of thing will never happen, if a senior officer to be handled and treated that way when he told the truth to the congress. >> i will say this, the job he >> i will say, and i know you know this, the job he has done for veterans is extraordinary. another challenge we have for veterans and for active 2-d is the suicide -- active-duty, is the suicide rate, losing more members in 2012 than fighting in afghanistan. i know the general has basically dedicated his life to trying to solve this problem. i want to make sure the defense department will clean all in to try to fix this and provide answers so the number goes to zero in years ahead. >> you have my complete commitment on this issue. >> it is something veterans face and also a transition issue. as much as you can work with the va as our active-duty transitions out, when they go home, that they have somebody to talk to, tell them how they feel and understand what they are going through because if we can help them with that -- they have borne the burden of battle and we owe them everything. another question i wanted to ask you about was pakistan. incredible challenges in afghanistan -- so much of them are caused by pakistan. we are providing about $2.5 billion in aid. do you think those dollars were well spent so much? >> pakistan is a complicated relationship. it is a nuclear power. they cooperate with the united states on some things. we have difficulties with them on others. as to your question on investment in pakistan, we condition that assistance, as you know. we must continue to condition that assistance. i think text and is too dangerous, -- pakistan is too dangerous, we cannot just walk away from it. it is complicated, in perfect, but this is where all of the levels of influence, diplomacy, economics and power come into play. how we wisely use those resources will determine the outcomes. we have to be honest as well. we are dealing with factors there that we do not agree with , that we have difficulties with and power, but, again, we o continue to work at it and i believe we will and should. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, senator donnelly. senator cruz. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to begin by thanking you for your honorable service to the nation, the personal sacrifice in fighting for this country. >> thank you. >> i would like to address a question of process. you have described giving hundreds of speeches and interviews and his committee asked you to submit those speeches and in response you handed over a total of four speeches. in my view that submission was spatially, again insufficient fs committee to assess your record. indeed your financial disclosure shows you were paid in the past year for 12 speeches yet you did not even handover those speeches for which you are paid a substantial, the money. six members send you a letter asking for financial disclosures. you have not chosen to respond to that and -- letter. it asked you about the private organizations that paid you, and the degree to which those funding sources have come from foreign nationals, foreign sovereign debt funds. you chose not to respond to that letter. in my view, unless and until you respond, this committee does not have a proper record on which to assess your confirmation and we need photos are an adequate time to assess -- full disclosure and adequate time to assess that. with respect to the international criminal court, do you believe the united states should become a party to the international criminal court. >> senator, may i quickly respond to your first comment. >> i would like for you to answer my question, why time is limited. >> that question is one i will most -- likely not be dealing with as secretary of defense. >> do you think we should be a member? i am asking for your judgment. >> i support where the united states is today. >> you think we should not be a party. thank you. i would like to draw your attention to an interview you did in 2009 with al jazeera, and with the chairman's indulgence, if we can play and excerpt of that interview. >> go ahead with your question. >> hello, sir, good evening. it is a very good proposition, but very strongly i believe that -- leadership around the world -- there is a moral savior going on. unless they have a moral catastrophe, for example, look at palestine. there is a war crime and they are not dealing with it. if you look at sri lanka, the genocide going on, nothing is being done. [indiscernible]>> what is your question with regard to the issue? ask given the -- >> given the total moral failure, unless we bring them to moral judgment, nothing can be done. >> i think you are exactly right and i said in my opening statement that leadership is critical because in life nothing is ever accomplished without leadership. >> in that excerpt, the caller suggested that the nation of israel has committed war crimes and your response was not to dispute that characterization, but indeed to describe what he says as "well, i think that is exactly right." i would like to ask you, do you think the nation of israel has committed war crimes. >> no, i do not, senator. i would like to look at the full context of the interview, but to answer your question, no. >> we laid the entirety of the question for you to hear -- played the entirety of the question and your response. i would suggest that the suggestion that israel has committed war crimes is particularly offensive given that the jewish people suffered through the hollow class -- holocaust, and for the secretary of defense not to take issue with that claim is highly troubling. i would also point out in 2006 your characterization of the , andn of israel's action that was in a speech on the floor of the senate, referring to israel's military campaign against the terrorist group hezbollah as a "sickening slaughter." do you think it is right that israel was committed -- committing a "sickening slaughter?" >> again, i would like to read all of what i said, but i have said every nation has the right to defense -- defend itself. >> do you think a "sickening slaughter" would be a war crime? >> it depends on defending yourself. >> is defending yourself against terrorism typically characterized as "sickening slaughter?" let's play another expert -- exit. >> we have any e-mail from wendy who writes can the rest of the world -- the image of the united states is that of the world's bully -- do we need not to change the perception if we are asking to lay down arms? >> her observation is a good one and relevant. yes, and it is a good question. >> do you think it is appropriate for the civilian leader of us military forces to agree with the statement that both the perception and the reality is that the united ?"ates is "the world's bully >> i did not hear her stick -- say that, and my comment was that it was relevant and a good observation, not that i agree with it. >> with respect, the record speaks for itself that she said the us is the world's bully, and you said her observation is a good one, i agree with it, and yes to her question. you agreed with the characterization of the united states as the world only, and i would suggest that is not a characterization -- the united states has spilled more blood, more treasure, standing for freedom, liberating people across the world, and to go on al jazeera, a foreign network, broadcasting propaganda to nations that are hostile to us and to explicitly agree with the characterization of the united states as the world's bully i would suggest is not the conduct one would expect of the senator of decks -- secretary of defense. ex-senator, she said that was an observation. >> she said perception and reality. with that, my time has expired. >> thank you. what we will do, given the fact that some of those tapes -- they need to be transcribed to be made part of the record so that people can judge exactly what was said and what was asked. i heard that first question as a response to the need for moral leadership, by the way, not the way senator cruz did, but in any event it is important that the words be transcribed and made part of the record. i told senator cruz that i'd refer we have a transcript and you the asked questions from a transcript but i did not want to stop him from offering the tape of it. he went ahead and did it, and in any event the fair thing is that the transcript of each of those segments be made part of the record and that we give senator hagel an opportunity should he want either on this question, or other questions, an opportunity to record -- answer for the record in any way he might proceed. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we would be happy to provide a transcript and we will make public a link to these excerpts and the entire transcript. >> that would be very helpful. thank you, senator cruz. senator her ronald -- her ronald -- herono. >> think you, mr. chairman. we live in a complex world, and any secretary of defense should ask tough questions, maybe not politically popular questions, and i see you as that kind of person given your comments to the questions asked of you today and the conversation you and i had. turning to your statement this morning, you talked about looking at future threats and challenges, and why the department of defense is rebalancing for the asia pacific region. this is important for hawaii. would you expand as to why and what particular economic or national security factors come into play as we rebalance to the asia-pacific region? >> senator, you know better than most your region and its importance, and why it will continue to be important to the world, but certainly to the united states. as i noted in my opening statement and you know, we have always been a pacific power. we have been a pacific power because we have clear economic interests, strong allies and i mentioned some of them in my opening statement. when we look at the growth of the economy, trade growth, population growth, the rise of china, but not just china -- that entire asia-pacific region -- we need to stay relevant to opportunities as well as challenges in all areas, particularly those we see emerging as to the largest, most significant economic security issues and opportunities. it is important that any nation rebalance assets. you have to be relevant to the times, the shifts, the changes. the world is different than it was 12 years ago. our force structure is being refit. we are looking at a far more agile, flexible force structure as our economies become more agile and flexible. for all of those reasons and more, that is why we are doing what i think is exactly the right thing to do, but it does not mean we are abandoning anyone, or any part of the world. we can not. >> senator, as we live in times of budget constraints, will you commit to keeping this committee informed as you develop strategies and contemplate posture adjustments that go along with this kind of rebalancing? >> yes, and i look forward to it. >> i am always heartened by the factor that you always -- fact that you ask the question is the policy worthy of the men and women we sent into battle. i am heartened by that perspective. what would be your top priorities as you look to care for the men and women in uniform and their families? that's as i said in my opening statement, -- >> as i said in my opening statement, the welfare, the safety, the success of our men and women in -- in uniform is my top priority, and will continue to the. >> do you have any specifically programmatic ways you will reflect that? >> first, to implement the law. we have a number of new laws, policies that are in the process of being implemented. we have spoken about some here today. i will assure, if confirmed, that we do that. as i said in my opening statement, we will assure that every military man and woman and their families are given exactly the same opportunities and rights as each other and all members of the armed forces. >> i also take to heart your belief in the importance of the coordination and the work between the department of defense and the va. i understand you have a strong relationship with secretary shin seki. having been a senior leader in the veterans administration, what will be your primary challenges and goals as you look to collaborate with the secretary and the va? >> it will be the same that secretary panetta, and before him, secretary gates, initiated in closer collaboration between the two agencies, and that means the integration of our systems as our men and women transition out of active duty into civilian life or retired life and require the assistance of some veterans assistance programs. a closer integration -- we know that the backlogs now are still far too long to get you valuation's of whether it is ptsd or whatever the health issue is. i think continuing to work with the secretary as secretary panetta engaged it, but strengthening those levels of leadership where people understand each other better and maximize the resources that each agency has in making those resources more value-added and count more. >> i had an opportunity to meet with secretary shin seki recently, and those are not happening as expeditiously as we would like, so i hope you would have a real need sense of urgency about these efforts because the bottom line is to help our men and women transitioning into civilian life. i hope we have that strong commitment. >> you have my strong commitment. >> the department of defense is the us's largest consumer of energy. we talked about that briefly. it is clear the military will benefit from cheaper, more stable fuel costs over the long term and promising work is being done in the area to commercialize alternative fuels that can be produced abundantly in the united states. this is very important for all of our -- hawaii. if confirmed, will you continue to emphasize and prioritize research, development and where possible deployment of renewable fuels, as well as enhanced energy efficiency efforts to reduce the department of defense's energy costs over the long term? >> senator, as you noted, the department of defense is the largest user of certainly liquid fuels, but i think our energy budget -- i do not know the exact number, but it is probably around $18 billion a year. anything we can do to make any aspect of securing our country more cost-effective, we need to look at. i would make that a high priority if i am confirmed and go to the defense department -- to see how we do that, how we continue to do that he cousin in the end, for all the reasons you know, -- because in the end, for all the reasons you know, it is in the interest of our country, resources and people. >> continuing to fund these areas will accrue huge cost savings for dod. thank you, my time is up. >> thank you, senator hirono. here is the situation we have. the first vote is a 10 minute boat and the subsequent votes are 10 minutes. i am happy to call upon you now , but you will have to keep track of this. i would be happy to recess now instead of your -- after your questions. we will recess for the five votes, about one hour. would you like to start now and take the chance that you do not finish, or start after the hour recess? >> i had better not miss the possibility of missing a vote, so i would prefer to recess now. >> we will recess for about one hour, and that the last vote, it is up to five votes, but the final vote, final passage of the debt limit will -- we will begin about five minutes after the beginning of that vote. we will stand in recess. [captions copyright nationalcable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed bynational captioning institute] >> c-span's live coverage of the confirmation hearing of former nebraska senator chuck hagel, the president take to be the next defense secretary. our phone lines are open. the confirmation hearing, which began this morning at 9:30 a.m. eastern time, five hours so far , and begin with opening remarks by former chairs of the committee, and then the questioning by members of the senate armed services committee. we will show you some of the highlights and all of the hearing is available on our website, c-span.org. tony joins us from district heights, maryland. >> good afternoon afternoon. i wanted to make some observations. if you listen to lindsey graham and ted cruz, the sheer and minutes and reflective ideological dogma driven questioning they had, you would think that chuck hagel grabbed two guys off the street to introduce him. how can two seasons, reasonable, dedicated professionals like these to be for this man if he is the monster or the nitwit that these to try to depict him as? it shows that even on foreign- policy members, -- matters, the altar right wing tea party -- altra right wing tea party cachet is therefore some folks. >> josh, joining us next from dallas, texas, republican line, a reference to your senator, ted cruz. >> for all texans, do not believe a single word ted cruz says. you can go search on that network, and you can watch the full clip. that comment was completely scandalous. i am telling you right now. quicksand you are a republican? >> he does not have those views. that was scandalous. i am shocked a us senator would go that far. that right there should be a reason to expel a senator. >> you are a republican, correct? >> yes, i am, a moderate. >> ok. randy, virginia beach, virginia , democrats line. >> i am so appalled what is going on with the senate. chuck hagel said he was a us senator, not the senator from israel, and he is not going to be the defense minister of israel. for every senator to get up there and hollered and talk about israel, israel, israel as if they are the only nation on earth. let's talk about israel and the united states in 1947. they were supposed to be our best friend. what about library is -- liberia? i am so tired of hearing about israel. i do not live in israel. maybe some of those guys are double agents up there, but we need some people that think about america first. >> gene, joining us from lindbergh, montana, good afternoon. you are on the air. please go ahead. >> i have been listening and watching intently, taking notes on what has been said and ask, and i am really disturbed about chuck hagel. a leopard does not change his spots, and i am a firm believer in that. i have some tough questions if i could ask him myself, and whether it is the democrats or the republicans asking the questions, it is not the time for anybody to run and hide and say they do not know or they do not recall. that is all i have to say. >> calvin, durham, north carolina, day one of the confirmation hearings. you are on the air. >> yes, john mccain appears to be a sore loser, still bitter about his loss in the election. president barack obama won the election. i do not understand why he cannot have who he wants in his cabinet. >> we are getting comments on the facebook page. one says confirm chuck hagel, he served in vietnam, knows war is hell, and the us is wasting blood and treasure. another says i support chuck hagel as secretary of defense as it will be refreshing to have a man that served and enlisted. next, little rock, arkansas. >> chuck hagel kind of reminds me of the oliver stone 1960's guy that does not see the us in the power that it is, and i am tired of these people that think we should not back israel because if we were to lose israel it is a new ballgame and that is not good for anyone. as long as they keep using chuck hagel's own statements, i think any line of questioning is open for debate. too many people are making this about trying to do something against the president. no, they are not. they are trying to confirm somebody using proper history. >> we have conducted a number of interviews with chuck hagel over the years and it is available any time on c-span.org. john mccain parted company with chuck hagel on the issue of the surge in 2007 in the war in iraq. here is that exchange. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and i am pleased to see an old friend here before the committee. i am pleased to see senator warner and senator nunn, who contributed to our nation's defense and were great members of this committee. members of this committee will raise questions reflecting concerns with your policy positions. they are not reasonable people disagreeing. they are fundamental disagreements and our concerns pertain to your professional judgment and your worldview of national security, including in the middle east. let me begin with your opposition to the surge in iraq. in 2006, republicans lost the election and we began the surge. you wrote a piece called "leaving iraq honorably." in 2007 you said it is not in the national interest to deepen military involvement. in january, 2007, in a bizarre exchange with secretary rice after some nonsense about syria and crossing the border into iran and syria because of the surge, and a reference to cambodia in 1970, you said "when you set in motion the kind of policy the president is talking about here, it is very dangerous. i have to say, madam secretary, i get -- i think the speech given by this president represents the most dangerous foreign-policy blunder in this country since vietnam. if it is carried out, i will resist it." that you carried on months afterwards talking about what a disaster the surge would be even to the point where it was clear the surge was succeeding. in march, 2008, you said "here, the term quagmire can apply. some reject the term, but if that is not a quagmire, what is ?" even as late as august 29, 2011 -- 2011, in an interview with "the financial times" you said "i disagree with president obama cost decision to surge in iraq as they did with -- resident bush -- president bush ." do you stand by those, it's? -- comments? >> i stand by them because i made them. >> were you right? >> the committee deserves your judgment about whether you were right or wrong about the surge. i want to know if you were right or wrong. >> the surge assisted in the objective, but if we review the record a little bit -- >> will you please answer the question? were you correct or incorrect when you said the surge would be the most dangerous foreign- policy blunder in this country since vietnam. were you correct or incorrect? >> my reference -- qwest -- >> will you answer the question? were you right or wrong? i would like you to answer and then you are free to elaborate. next well, -- >> i am not going to give you a yes or no answer. let's let the record show you refuse to answer that question. >> if you would like me to explain. >> i would actually like an answer, yes or no. >> i will not give you a yes or no. my answer is i will refer to that judgment to history. as for the comment i made about the most dangerous foreign- policy decision since vietnam was about not just the surge, but the overall war of choice going into iraq. that particular decision that was made on the surge, but more to the point our war in iraq, i think was the most fundamental, bad, dangerous decision since vietnam. aside from the costs that occurred in this country through blood and treasure, aside from what dad did to take our focus off of afghanistan, which -- what that did to take our focus off of afghanistan, which was the original and real focus of the threat to this country -- iraq was not -- i always try to frame all of the different issues before i made a decision on anything. just as you said, senator, we could have differences of opinion. >> it is a fundamental difference of opinion, senator hagel, and senator graham and i and senator lieberman spent our time to prevent that 60th. thank god for senator lieberman. i think history has made that decision, and you are on the wrong side of it, and it will impact my judgment as to whether to vote for your confirmation or not. i hope you will reconsider that you refused to answer a fundamental question about an issue that took the lives of thousands of americans. >> there was more to it. >> i am asking about the surge, senator hagel. >> i know you are, and the beginning of the surge also talked about what happened in an bar province, the sunni awakening. >> i am very aware of the history of the surge and the awakening, and every casual observer will know the surge was a fundamental factor led by two great leaders, general petraeus and ambassador -- >> i do not know if that would have been required and cost us over 1000 american lives aired >> you do not know if the surge would have been required. ok. >> the questioning from john mccain to who is one-time former colleague, chuck hagel, also a veteran of the vietnam war. the senate committee is in recess because of votes. we have live coverage of the senate in -- on c-span2, and live on c-span3, hillary rodham clinton is discussing leadership in her final speech as secretary of state. this reminder, the hearing taking place today, if it wraps up by 8:00 p.m. tonight, and as we heard from carl levin, they hope to finish this, we will have the rear air -- reairing. some of your thoughts on twitter and facebook -- this tweet from connor who was watching the exchange with senator john mccain -- chuck hagel is getting ripped apart. there is this from thomas hurley on the facebook page who says this man should be confirmed, he understands there are no easy answers and the republicans are continuing to commit political suicide. on the phones, independent line, georgia. >> hi, thank you for taking my call. i think former senator hagel should be confirmed. i wanted to talk about john mccain talks questions about the surge in iraq. i think it is well known the war in iraq was illegitimate, so i do not think mccain was being fair by grilling hagel so much on that point in particular. another thing i wanted to follow-up on and i know senator hagel could not get into this, but in reference to the question about the israel lobby intimidation in congress, i beg everyone who was watching right now to look into former congresswoman cynthia mckinney, and you will find plenty of her testimony on her support of americans, and i think she is in mind -- in line with senator hagel about putting america first. of course we will support israel, but we lost too many lies through war. >> cynthia mckinney, and you will find plenty of her. good afternoon. >> good afternoon. thanks for taking my call. i believe senator hagel should be confirmed. he is a true american. he is a hero. he is working for the american people and he has been elected for the senate he for. that is what he does. the united states of america has to change its own foreign- policy. we have our own issue in the united states with 15 million homeless. 60 million people have no health insurance. so, america comes first, and american people come first, to. >> there is this tweet from ernest who says the senator's words are working against him and he has to flip-flop his position. too bad. dennis, latrobe, pennsylvania. good afternoon. >> yes, thank you. i would like to weigh in on a few things. senator hagel's past, to me, he is not a warm person when you meet him in person, for instance. from very important people in my life that have met him. the other thing is little things like his views on the boy scouts, other issues, they will not be brought up obviously, but to me they would disqualify this gentleman to sit at the table with. the president and talk over these type of crucial negotiations that we have with each other in this country and get the right things done. i think he is just too much involved in the right -- wrong things, and too far removed from the real topics that need to be dealt with when you are talking about defense and everything in this country. with my background being in the history of social ecology, i am sure they can find -- so she ali g, i am sure they can find better qualified people, -- so she ali g -- socialolo -- sociology. >> the senate is wrapping up the hearing tonight, and potentially there could be a vote out of the committee next week if all goes as scheduled. that could be blocked by senators who say they will stop the negotiation. today is the last speech by former senator, secretary of state hillary clinton. we are covering the speech on the council of foreign relations. you can watch the speech online right now on c-span3with my bace history of social ecology, i am sure they can find -- so she ali g, i am sure they can find better qualified people, -- so she ali g -- social. jackie joins us from st. joseph, missouri, republican line. >> i support the nomination of chuck hagel. i think the war in iraq was a mistake. it allowed iran to pursue nuclear weapons, unfettered. we did the same thing in libya, leaving a political vacuum. what we can deal with in the future is afghanistan where we have been at war for 11 years with no end in sight. i do support chuck hagel. i think his moderate approach to war is a step in the right direction. >> one of the last two question chuck hagel was ted cruz, and a couple of you weighed in on his line of questioning. this is from bill who says ted cruz brought out the real colors of chuck hagel. he should not be considered -- confirmed. danny responds cruise was a fraud in context and he knows it. another exchange with a veteran from the committee, lindsey graham. >> he said the jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people. i am not an israeli senator, i am a united states senator and this pressure makes us do dumb things at times. he said the jewish lobby should not be used. name one person in your opinion that is intimidated by the israeli lobby in the united states senate. >> well, first -- >> name one. >> i do not know. >> why did you say it? >> i did not have a specific person. >> can you think -- and you agree that it is a provocative statement? name one dumb thing we have been goaded into doing because of the pressure from the israeli or jewish lobby. you said it made us do dumb things. you can not name one senator intimidated. give us an example of the dumb things we are pressured to do up here. like so we were talking in interview about the middle east , -- >> we were talking in the interview about the middle east -- >> give me one example where we were intimidated by the jewish lobby to do something dumb. >> i can not agree -- give you an example. >> do you agree that you should not have said that? >> yes, i have already said that. >> do you agree has the law is a terrorist organization? >> yes. ask you are one of 12 senators refusing to sign a letter refusing to identify them as a terrorist organization. why were you one of the few to refuse signing the letter? >> i did not think it was the right approach for the congress of the united states to be sending leaders any instructions or documents as opposed to letting our president do that. >> why did you sign the letter to bill clinton urging him to deal with the russians when it comes to the policy against jewish people? >> because that is the appropriate approach. the president conducts foreign- policy. >> when a letter is presented to a united states senator about the times in which we live in you cannot write one letter and not write the other and in my view be consistent. the letter was urging the eu to impose sanctions on has a lot and you have been a big believer we should not do it unilaterally. why would you not take his chance to urge the european union to go ahead and sanction has a lot because it might help the world at large, and your answer is you do not think we should be writing letters. >> that was not my answer. i think the resident of the united states as the appropriate official. >> congress has no interest at all on whether the eu would designate hezbollah as a terrorist organization? >> the congress has an interest in all things. >> ok. apparently not there. let me ask you this about the rain in revolutionary guard -- iranian revolutionary guard. you said they are a terrorist organization and you voted against the amendment designating them a terrorist organization because you thought we would be going down the wrong road doing that because they are a recognized state. air and. you -- it ran. -- iran. >> i said iran is a state sponsor of terrorism, and i also clarify a statement that they were a recognized nation by the united nations and most world bodies. the reason i did not vote as 22 other members did not, i think jim webb's argument was a strong argument because he sat on the floor we have never designated part of a government as a terrorist organization, thereby what his concern was and as was mine and other senators who voted against it, would this be tantamount to giving the president of the united states authority from the congress to take military action against iran? >> do you believe the sum total of all of your votes refusing to sign a letter to the eu, asking has a lot to be designated as a terrorist organization, being one of 22 to vote to designate the iranian revolutionary guard as a terrorist organization, being one of two to vote against sanctions this body was trying to impose on iran, the statements you have made about palestinians and the jewish lobby -- all of that together, that the image you have created is one of sending the worst possible signal to our enemies and friends at one of the most critical times in world history? >> no, i would not agree with that because i have taken actions and made statements very clear as to what i believe hezbollah and hamas are as terrorist organizations. >> if there was a vote on the floor of the senate this afternoon to label the iranian national -- revolutionary guard, the people that killed soldiers in iraq, some of the most vicious people to the people of iran themselves, if there was a vote would you still vote no? >> i would want to know from the president what they were doing. ask i mean you read the paper, you watch tv card do you have any doubt -- >> i mean, you read the paper, you watch tv, do you have any doubt what they are doing? they are expanding terrorism. they are the biggest supporter of the regime to keep them in power so they get a nuclear weapon. if you had a chance tomorrow, today after lunch, to go to say that the iranian revolutionary guard was a terrorist organization would you still vote no? >> the reason i voted no to start with, that has not changed. >> would you reconsider? >> times change, and yes, i would reconsider. >> thank you, that is encouraging. why time is up, but we will have another round. senator in half -- senator inhofe said you were one of the only senators to refuse to sign a letter offering disagreement with support for arafat, and every member of this body was asked for a letter to clearly put us on record that we believe that arafat and the intifada is undercutting the agreements that they had reached and they had resorted to violence to intimidate the israeli government and people in a way that was absolutely unacceptable. if you had a chance to do it over, would you sign this letter now, and i will give it to you during whatever break we have and ask you to reconsider. i would ask you, senator hagel, to tell the country, the world at large, particularly the state of israel, that you made a mistake in not signing that letter. >> who does the letter go to? >> the president. >> i will take a look at the letter and give you an answer. >> all i can say is it was a big deal and the lack of a signature by you runs chills up my spine because i cannot imagine not signing a letter like that at a time when it really mattered. >> the exchange between senator lindsey graham and former senator chuck hagel, the president's choice to be the next defense secretary. the armed services committee is reconvening in about 25 minutes. we will take you back live, but in the meantime we will spend a couple of minutes getting your calls and comments. john has this on our twitter page saying the hagel hearing is proof of the military- industrial complex, they are supporters of the funding and the agenda. from our facebook page, confirm him, chuck hagel has the right to speak truth to power then and now. democrats line. lincoln, nebraska, the home state of chuck hagel. >> thank you for letting me share in this debate. he has been our senator, a very moderate, decent man, a war hero -- he and his brother are. i support him entirely. i think these questions he was asked -- did the surge worked? i do not think it did. i think we have lost both of those wars. we will never stabilize those countries. with spending the money in those countries and end it in the united states of america. this man has taken the pledge of the constitution, not a grover norquist pledge, but the pledge of the constitution twice as a senator and as a sergeant in the army, and i would not want anyone but this man to lead my marines into combat or send them there because he knows exactly what combat is. thank you very much. >> thank you. senator carl levin is the chairman of the committee, and when the hearing reconvenes, senator mike lee of utah will begin the next round of questioning. christian, democrats line, vermont. >> yes i am absolutely in support of chuck hagel. one of the things that is really annoying me is all of this emphasis on israel. you know, i think -- i really empathize with their history, especially in world war ii, but i think that the oppressed has now become the oppressor. i think they are cool to the palestinians -- cruel to the palestinians. i totally agree. i know where hagel is going, i agree with him and i think that is is sentiment. i am just appalled by how this country sends so much money to israel, which oppresses and kills so many people, and i would -- i am absolutely in support of hagel. i hope that other people recognize this and open their eyes and see what israel is doing to other people. >> thank you for the call. mary has tweeted in -- ted cruz and graham or an awesome team, pulling a total sergeant friday on chuck hagel, just the fact, man. on our facebook page -- barbara says both lindsey graham and john mccain seem to be angry chuck hagel did not vote the way they wanted them to in the past. lisa says mccain another event we are covering today are the comments of the president of the nra, one day after the testimony before the senate judiciary committee. he spoke this morning at a christian science monitor breakfast. here is part of that exchange. we apologize, we thought we had that clip for you, but it is an event that would cover. all of these events are available on our website at c- span.org. the president of the nra speaking on the issue of guns and gun violence, and the debate continues here in this country. we will get more details on the president's plan during his state of the union address. right now we will take you back to the hearing as it began this morning at 9:30. when the gavel comes down for the afternoon session, which will be in about 35 minutes, we will take you live to that, here on c-span. thank you for being with us. >> good morning, everybody. the committee meets today to consider the nomination of former senator chuck hagel to be secretary of defense. before i begin, i want to first welcome senator inhofe as the new ranking republican on our committee, succeeding senator mccain. senator mccain has been a great partner over the past six years, and i thank him for all the work he has done to get bills enacted, his leadership on a host of issues, his support for the work of this committee, and for always keeping our hearings likely. senator inhofe has shown his strong commitment to the national defense over his 20 years on this committee. and i know that we are going to work well together and continue the bipartisan tradition of the committee. we are also pleased to welcome the eight senators who are joining the committee this year, both of those who are new to the senate and those who are new to our committee. senators donnelly, hirono, kaine, and king on the democratic side, and senators blunt, cruz, fischer, and lee on the republican side. you will all find that this is a wonderful committee where we work across party lines to support our troops and their families, and their national defense mission. i would also like to pause for a moment to offer my thanks and the thanks of our committee to secretary panetta, who delayed his retirement and his return to california to serve our country, first as director of central intelligence, and then as secretary of defense. secretary panetta has provided a steady hand at the department of defense through two very difficult years, and has earned our great respect and our appreciation. finally, the committee will be holding hearings next week on benghazi, and the weeks thereafter on the impact of a sequester on the department of defense. senator hagel, we welcome you to the armed services committee as an old friend, those of us with whom he served during your years in the senate. there are few jobs were demanding that the position to which you have been nominated. the hours are long and extremely challenging, and require sacrifices from both the secretary and his family. we traditionally give our nominees an opportunity to introduce their families at these hearings, and we would welcome your doing so during your opening statement. 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. you cannot read and senator hagel's account of his military service and not be impressed by it. as senator hagel explained a few years ago, but " probably most fundamental for me, when we talk about going to war, we need to think it through carefully, not just for the political and diplomatic and economic consequences, and those are important, but at least for me, this old infantry sergeant thinks about when i was in vietnam in 1968. someone needs to represent that perspective in our government as well. the people in washington make the policy, but it is the little guys to come back in the body bags." senator hagel's background provides an invaluable perspective, not only with respect to the difficult decisions and recommendations that the 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 that the secretary must make to ensure that our men and women in uniform and their families received the support and assistance 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, and that he has their backs. senator hagel, you would be in position to make key decisions on afghanistan. the secretary of defense is called upon to advise the president on the size and mission of a post-2014 so- called residual force, and the pace of the drawdown between now and the end of 2014. the key to this transition is ensuring the readiness and ability of afghan security forces to take over the defense of their own country. i always believed that would be our main mission and its key to success. during my trip to afghanistan with senator jack reed last month, we heard from u.s. commanders on the ground that afghan security forces are operating on their own on most operations, including conducting more than 85% of operations, with limited or no u.s. support in the difficult regional command east take difficult obstacles remain with the process of reducing our forces and shifting responsibility to afghan forces, including the difficulty of negotiating the status of forces agreement, including recent reports that the afghan government might slow down a successful program of growing and training the afghan local police, and including questions about the current plan to reduce the size of the afghan national security forces from 352,000 to around 132,000 after 2015. we face a number of new and growing threats elsewhere in the world, such as the ongoing threat posed by iran's nuclear weapons program and the increase in early destructive civil war in syria, and the risks of conflict could result in the loss of control of the countries substantial stockpile of weapons. there is continuing instability in other countries affected by the arab spring. the growth of al qaeda affiliates in unguarded regions including yemen, somalia, and north africa, and continued unpredictable behavior of the nuclear-armed regime in north korea. we face these challenges at a time when the dod budget is under unique pressure as a result of cuts previously agreed upon by congress, the budgeting by continuing resolution, and the impending threats of a sequester. secretary panetta has said that a sequester would be devastating for our military. senator hagel's views on the sequester will be of great interest to this committee and the nation. those of us who have served with senator hagel in the senate know that he is a man who was not afraid to speak his mind. senator hagel has made a number of statements over the course of his career which committee members will ask him about during today's hearing. for example, senator hagel has stated that unilateral sanctions against iran, "are exactly the wrong approach," and that "the worst thing we could do is try to isolate iran." i believe that while effective multilateral sanctions are preferable, unilateral sanctions are an important part of the approach that the obama administration has followed and congress has supported, and it appears that sanctions are producing tremendous pressure on iran. another statement which has raised concern is senator hagel's recommendation that we conduct, "direct, unconditional, and comprehensive talks with the government of iran." now, while there is value in communicating with our adversaries, the formulation used by senator hagel seemed to imply a willingness to talk to iran on some issues that i believe most of us would view as non-negotiable, and any willingness to talk to iran would need to be highly conditional. toator hagel's reassurance me and my office that he supports the obama administration's strong stance against iran is significant. we look forward to hearing senator hagel today in some depth on that subject. we will also be interested in hearing senator hagel's statement on the public statements is made on israel and the united states, that our policy of non-engagement with the syrians as, "isolated us more than the syrians," and a 2009 statement that "we should not isolate hamas," a terrorist organization. there is much to be explored at this hearing. but as we struggle with the difficult security challenges facing our nation, the president needs to have a secretary of defense in whom he has trust, who will give him unvarnished advice, a person of integrity, and one who has a personal understanding of the consequences of decisions relative to the use of military force. senator hagel certainly has those critically important qualifications to lead the department of defense. senator inhofe. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first of all, i would like to echo your remarks about secretary panetta and the work he has done. i don't see him here today, but i do recall that when he was first nominated, i was probably one of the first phone calls to him, and i have enjoyed working with him and a mccain, the same way, i continue to depend on his counsel. you and i have worked very well together in the past. mr. chairman, before i continue the opening statement, i would like to raise a concern about the sufficiency of the materials provided to this committee by our nominee. senator hagel was requested to provide the speeches he has delivered over the past five years. yet his initials the mission was for only four speeches, even though, as was noticed by senator cruz, he had 12 speeches but submitted four speeches. well, we received some more, but only late last night i think it would have been a lot more helpful if we had received them before that. i hope we will be able to get that information before we have to cast votes on this nominee. the president's nomination for senator hagel for secretary of defense comes at a critical juncture. secretary hagel is a good man. i am a great admirer of the time he spent in vietnam, and the sacrifices he made. while this service is commendable, his nomination should be decided by the totality of his record. it is the votes he has cast and the statements he has made that will inform us as to his judgment, his view of america's role in the world, and his view of the military requirement to support that role. as i told senator hagel in my office some time ago, over two weeks ago, after a long and careful review of his record, the things he has said, and the things i have personally experienced with him, we are too philosophically opposed on the pressing issues facing our country, and therefore i told him i would not be supporting his nomination. his record demonstrates what i view as a lack of his steadfast opposition to policies that diminish u.s. power and influence throughout the world, as well as a recent trend of policy reversals based on political expediency rather than on core beliefs. with many of the security challenges facing u.s. interest around the world, senator hagel's record is deeply troubling and out of the mainstream read too often, it seems he's willing to subscribe to it worldwide view that is predicated on appeasing our adversaries while shunning our friends. no man survives when freedom fails. i will mention a few of these things because they will come in this hearing. in 2000, an overwhelming majority of the senators sent a letter to president clinton for reaffirming our solidarity with israel. i carried that their around. i remember it well. senator hagel is one of just four who refused to sign that letter. i am sure he will want to comment on that. in 2001, he was one of just two senators voting against the bill for extending harsh sanctions against iran. a year later, he urged president bush to support iran's membership in the world trade organization. senator hagel voted against a resolution designating iran's revolutionary guard corps, a group responsible for killing soldiers in iraq and afghanistan, as a terrorist organization. on multiple occasions, he has advocated for direct negotiations with iran, a regime that continues to oppress its people and doggedly pursue a nuclear weapon capability and employ terrorist proxies including hamas and hezbollah. senator hagel has been an outspoken supporter of nuclear disarmament and global zero movement. we are very sensitive to that. the president has said many times that he wants a nuclear- free world, and i know that senator hagel is right there with him, but and a time when north korea's belligerent actions threaten our allies with nuclear capabilities, and the security of our own nation and that of our allies, why would we want to unilaterally disarm ourselves of nuclear capability? of late, however, senator hagel has expressed views in meetings with senate colleagues and i have been informed that they are glaringly at odds with long- held positions, particularly regarding israel, iran, and our nuclear arsenal. this willingness to walk back his positions, possibly for the sake of political expediency on input and issues, is deeply troubling, and sends a concerning message to our allies and adversaries alike. though i respect senator hagel, his record demonstrates that he would be a staunch advocate for the continuation of the misguided policies of the president's first term, retreating from america's unique global leadership role. it will embolden our enemies and endanger our allies and provide an opportunity for nations that do not share our interests to fill the global leadership vacuum we leave behind. it is for these reasons that i believe he is the wrong person to lead the pentagon at this perilous and consequential time. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, senator inhofe. we have two former chairmen of this committee with us to introduce senator hagel. no senator has had two dearer friends or better mentor is that i have had with senators nunn and warner. i want to welcome them back to this committee. i don't have to tell them that they are among dear, dear friends. it is a real treat to welcome you back to the committee. i will call on you, senator nunn, first. i will call you alphabetically. i have no better way to do it. sam? [laughter] sam, welcome back. >> first, for the record, seniority and age are two different things. senator levin, ranking member inhofe, i am honored to join my friend john warner in presenting chuck hagel to the committee and recommending that chuck be confirmed as our secretary of defense. i think it is worth noting that 68 years ago this month, john warner and listed in the u.s. navy to fight in world war ii. that was the start of his great career in public service, and john, i am proud to be here by your side. mr. chairman, i spent a lot of time sitting in your seat, and congratulations on not having to do that today -- >> i don't know how long it will last, but thanks for pointing it out. >> you and senator mccain have effectively guided this committee in its important role as an compelling voice for defense. you have managed to pass authorization bills even during contentious times. thank you both for your dedicated service to our nation. i am confident that you and senator inhofe will continue this tradition, and that senator mccain will still be a very, very valuable member and a voice on this committee. i believe our nation is fortunate to have a nominee for secretary of defense with the character and the experience and courage and leadership that chuck hagel would bring to this position. first, chuck is acutely aware that even in an age of rapid technological advances, our military capability and effectiveness depend on the quality and the morale of the people who serve our nation in uniform, as well as the families who support them. chuck received two purple hearts in vietnam, and he continued to fight for veterans and active duty military personnel. he knows that our people are the strongest assets. second, chuck's experience in vietnam shape his life in perspective. war for chuck hagel is not an abstraction. i am confident that if confirmed, he will ask the hard and smart questions before sending troops into battle. chuck hagel knows that the united states has vital interests that are worth fighting for and dying for. he also knows that war should be a last resort, and that our nation must effectively use all of our tools, not limited only to our military, to protect our important and to protect our vital interests. certainly, mr. chairman, there is a tension in these values, but it is a tension we should welcome in the thought process and in the advice that our secretary of defense gives to our commander in chief and this congress. from our service to gather on the defense policy board in recent years, i know that chuck hagel has a clear worldview, and that is aligned with the mainstream of u.s. foreign and defense policy and also with president obama. chuck hagel believes we must preserve the american strength as a force for good in the world. he recognizing that protecting our interests requires strong allies and friends, as well as strong american leadership. third, chuck has the depth of experience and leadership skills required to handle this tough job. there is no shortage of security challenges around the world, as this committee knows and as you enumerated this morning, mr. chairman. a very large and impressive group of former cabinet officials and public servants from both sides of the aisle have said that they trust chuck hagel with this important responsibility. and i strongly, i strongly agree. fourth, on the fiscal side, i am confident that chuck will be a powerful advocate for a common-sense approach in this administration and on capitol hill regarding fiscal challenges to the defense budget. he understands that our defense capabilities are being threatened on two budget friends. first, sequestration, with its damaging, across the board, up from the budget cuts, and second, the rapidly rising costs within the department's budget, including but not limited to health care, personnel, and retirement costs. mr. chairman, members of the committee, i believe that chuck will work effectively with this committee and congress on meeting these budget challenges while protecting our people, our capabilities, and while ensuring that the united states has the strongest military in the world. chuck hagel was a soldier and a senator, but he has been also a highly successful executive in both the public and private sectors. he built a successful company from the ground up. he is a man who knows how to prioritize and make tough decisions. he will listen to and carefully consider the views of our military and civilian leaders and guided them as necessary. fifth, i believe that chuck hagel will be a balanced and responsible voice on a nuclear weapons policy. president reagan said it often and said it well -- "nuclear war cannot be won and it must not be fought." as this committee knows, the risks of a global nuclear war have thankfully, substantially declined since the breakup of the soviet union. but with nine nations possessing nuclear weapons, with a nuclear weapons usable material and knowledge spread across the globe, and if terrorists manage to buy, steal, or make one, we face enormous risks that a nuclear weapon would be used if proliferation continues in places like iran and north korea, and if we do not secure them globally, the odds of use go up even more. six years ago, george shultz, bill perry, henry kissinger and i made the argument that we should reduce reliance on nuclear weapons as a vital contribution to preventing proliferation, keeping them out of dangerous hands, and ultimately ending them as a threat to the world. 2/3 of living former secretaries of state, defense, and national security advisers have agreed with the vision and the steps that we outlined, including substantial work on verification and enforcement. mr. chairman, i hope that all members of the committee and the senate will read the recent statements by four credible and very experienced americans -- master tom pickering, ambassador richard burt, general james cartwright, and general john sheehan, about their work with chuck hagel on nuclear weapons. they made it abundantly clear that the bank opposed unilateral moves -- they oppose unilateral moves and support verifiable u.s. arms reductions, to be followed by multilateral negotiations bringing other nuclear weapons countries into a series and verifiable process of reductions. in closing, mr. chairman, there are many essential characteristics and values that the secretary of defense should possess in a dangerous and challenging world. let me name just two or three that i think are very important. first, someone who is well informed, has an open mind, in cages in critical thinking, who is capable of and seeks out independent thought. second, someone who sets aside fixed ideologies and biases to honestly evaluate all options and provide his or her candid judgment to the president and the congress. third, someone who pays attention to people with the best ideas, regardless of their party affiliation. no one is perfect, we all know that. but chuck hagel comes as close as anyone i know to having all of these qualities. mr. chairman, senator inhofe, members of the committee, i served for 24 years on this committee and i know that much has changed since i retired 16 years ago. i continue to believe, however, that every major problem we face today requires the best input from both political parties if we are to arrive at a solution. i believe that chuck hagel will seek that input. i urge his support by this committee and i urge the confirmation of this nomination by the u.s. senate. i thank the chairman. >> thank you very much, senator nunn. i thank the chairman. >> thank you. >> thank you mr. chairman. it is a very amusing -- a very moving experience for me. i served on this committee for 30 years. and in that time, senator nunn was the chairman and i was the ranking. but no one to say to you that jim and i have been good friends and we worked together, not only on this committee, but other committees. you following the steps of my dear and guided friend of some years, john mccain. and the leadership of this committee throughout my 30 years in the senate's has been drawn from the ranks of the strongest and the best of this membership. we have it today and i have every reason to believe we will have it tomorrow. i would like to say a word to the members of this committee. as a look back over a very fortunate record of public service for many years, the chapter of my career was more important -- new chapter in my career was more important than my services committee. you will carry with you for the rest of your lives the recollections that you have done for the assets of the men and women and their families of the united states. i have written out a nice long statement. then last night, i got sam nunn's statement and chuck hagel's statement. i would rather say just a few words from the heart about the importance of what we have by way of this before all of us today. 68 years ago in the navy, i did no more than every other kid on my block. we all went. but i would like to remind you that, half a century ago, you served in the coast guard. so grandpa with another grandpa. [laughter] good friends, we thank chuck hagel and mrs. hagel and his family. if confirmed, an enormous commitment by the family to this position. having known some of it, you have made that decision to watch yourself once again, offer yourself for continued public service. public service is a privilege. i have always regarded it as such. the second reason -- i will give a long statement. this statement by senator hegel will soon be shared with you. i read through not once, not twice, but again this morning. and i say this very carefully. i have read the statements that have been placed before the members of this committee for those 30 years. i have never read a more carefully prepared statement a more forthright statement, and one that has no hedges or deviations. he hits firm on those issues that will make the decision in your mind and that of your colleagues. as to whether or not his cold -- he is qualified to take on this very important assignment. i first entered the pentagon in 1969 during the war in vietnam under melvyn larry. jim schlesinger followed and i worked with every secretary of defense since that time. all different, all different strength and there were weaknesses. but set forth in this is a series of commitments to you as a committee, to the members of the full senate and to the american public as precisely what his goals are and what he will do. how he will serve the president, how he will give the president his best advice. and i know him to give it very strongly. so i will talk kilobit about chuck hegel, the man that i served with -- so i will talk a little bit about chuck hagel, the man that i served with. the first year he was here, we had the daniel defense authorization on the floor. in those days as it is today, the bill goes on the floor and that bill stays on that floor. sometimes a couple of days, sometimes a week, sometimes broken up, but we get it through. and when it is done, we don't immediately back to our committee spaces and we begin to write that bill and give it to the printer so that we can go to conference. how many times have we done that together, senator nunn? senator levin? senator mccain? senator enhofe? many times. the first time he was here, he watched the process. when i had taken the step back to the committee room, surprisingly, he showed up. i did not know him that well. i wanted to get to know him because of my deep and abiding interest in the vietnam period, having served for five years in that time as undersecretary of the navy. and he started into the room and i introduced him to the people. and he said to the staff -- you are one of the most impressive group of young people i have ever seen. i learned a lot. and he shared some of his stories as a simple and elegant soldier. that is the way he started. and thereafter, he voted for every single final passage of the authorization bill, every single final passage of the appropriation bill. he was home and learned in that generation of vietnam and i am so proud to have the film shea -- the affiliation of having the comparative safety of the pentagon. but i did go to the field of battle and see these young men and some women who engage in that struggle. but chuck hagel brings with him the experience of having come home -- come home to an america that was quite different than what i experienced when my generation came home from world war ii. we were welcomed with open arms. america at that time in vietnam, and how will john mccain can remember this, was very divided. and when you were your uniform back home, it did not receive the same respect that deserved, the sacrifices that you and your colleagues had committed. chuck will never forget it. i will never forget it. john will never forget it. today, we welcome them home and we do with the fullest heart. the young men and women. but there have been times in history when that was done. that honed him to be prepared to take on his responsibilities as he addresses the declining budget situation, which will be a challenge. and i am absolutely certain that he will stand up and fight as hard as two of your predecessors. leon panetta you mentioned today, and robert gates. they gave their president loyalty, but they gave him their best advice and they were tough and they fought for their troops. and they drilled down but they need to maintain whatever budget and sequesters not the answer. whatever budget, maintain morale and combat readiness and also, ladies and gentlemen, the pillar of strength of our military system, the all- volunteer force. we had drafts in vietnam. we saw the effect of that. and we decided as a nation to take the gamble, to let every person who wished to wear the uniform, give him that opportunity and to volunteer. no one is forced in there. that has got to be maintained. this man has the experience of gravitas and the strength to protect the all-volunteer force. and was also deeply impressed with the senate, in a manner that it confirmed john kerry. john kerry was also in that generation. he served his trousers and tribulations and he came home and face that public, the same way that chuck did. they sent him whole way ready to take on the enormity of his responsibility. in the enormity of my experience, i have seen a great deal of camaraderie, but a good deal of competition between the secretary of defense and the secretaries of state. it is a sort of built in their cribs sometimes a lot of sand gets in that gear box. but it is important for the united states, having the major jurisdiction over the major policies, that they've worked as a team. john kerry and chuck hagel are a band of brothers out of vietnam with that special bond and i am sure that you will utilize that and remember it and make those two departments perform their functions to best serve the president and to best serve the country. i pretty well said everything i should say. i want to be brief because it is important for this committee to pursue its work. again, bob gates, leon panetta set the bar for this century of those who take on this job. and you mention your long friendship and how you know both. i would keep close contact. they have had the experience to do with this president of the united states and he is the president's choice. there is an old saying in the combat infantry and marine corps. certain men are asked to take the point, which means to get out and lead in the face of the enemy. chuck hagel did that. as a sergeant in vietnam. if confirmed, chuck hagel will do it again. this time, not before a platoon, but before every man and woman and their families in the armed services he will leave them. and they will know in their hearts that we have won a barrel. -- we have one of our own. you're on your own. good luck. [laughter] >> we thank you both, senator warner and senator nunn for your extremely powerful introductions. i just wish every white member of the senate and every american could have heard and hope will hear and read about what you said here today about chuck hagel. i also noticed there is another former senator who is a member of the band of brothers who is with us today. paradmedics cleveland is here. i want to welcome -- max cleveland is here. max, want to welcome you. let me know: senator hegel and senator north -- let me now call on senator hegel. senator hagel. >> thank you, chairman leaven and distinguished members of the committee. i am honored to come before you today as the president's nominee to be secretary of defense. first, as you suggested, mr. chairman, let me introduce my family. my wife lilly beth. our daughter and our son and not here today. our son claims he is taking a test. and we will confirm that later. but both our son and daughter, we are very proud of. like any proud father and any proud mother, you all know how i feel about that as you have the same feelings about your children the same way we feel about hours. i also want to introduce my brother tom who served with me in vietnam. my brother might -- i'd rather mi -- my brother mike, who is our no. 3. he has in the pentagon 10 paintings as the chairman of the air force artist's guild over the years. they are hanging in different locations in the pentagon. so we have some rather some claim. mike's son is sitting behind him, josh. we have here also cousins, many friends, the people i owe money to. [laughter] and who knows who else and then some. i have received some publicity over the weeks. i also want to thank my friends sam nunn and john warner. i want to thank them for their support, there's encouragement and their friendship over many years. and, as each of you have the privilege of serving with those two senators, i, too, add my thank you for their tremendous service to the country. these two distinguished americans represent what is best about american public service and responsible bipartisanship. they have embodied both in their careers, long distinguished careers, and are models for each of us. and of course, to my family and friends and fellow veterans who are here, as has been noted, max cleveland, jan scruggs, good friends, veterans from all wars were here today who work with for many, many years and i am grateful to them. not just to those friends who are in support, but also who are not. life is only as good as the family and friends that you have and the people that surround yourself with. i also want to thank my friend leon panetta for his tremendous service to our country over some years. if i am given the privilege of succeeding him, it will be a high honor. president obama for his confidence and trust in me, i thank him. high and humbled by the opportunity and the possibility that he has given me to serve our country once again. and i fully recognize the men's responsibilities of the secretary of defense. i assure the president that, if confirmed by the united states senate, i will do my best for the nation and for the men and women and their families were called on to make the enormous sacrifices of military service. their safety, success and welfare will always be at the forefront of the decisions i make. i also assured the president that i will always provide him with my most honest and informed advice. i make that same commitment to this committee and to the congress. if confirmed, i will reach out to the members of this committee for advice and collaboration. it will be a partnership. because the national security challenges the nation faces required. we cannot allow the work of confronting the great threats we face today to be held hostage to partisanship, neither shall -- on either side of the aisle or by differences between the bodies represented in articles 1 and two of our constitution. the stakes are too high. men and women of all political philosophies and parties and ideas by and fight for our country. as this conflict -- as this committee knows so well, protecting our national security or committing a nation to war can never become political litmus tests. i know that secretary panetta reached to the congress. i come from the congress and respect and understand this institutions and distance -- indispensable role in governing our country. we're all products of the forces that shape us. for me, there has been nothing more important in my life or a more defining influence on my life and my family. whether it was helping my mother raised four boys after by -- >> testimony from earlier today. the defense secretary confirmation of chuck hagel. let's go back to capitol hill for more on the hearing that is just getting underway after a break. >> the committee will come back to order. senator lee. >> thank you mr. chairman and think you senator hegel for joining us today and for answering the questions that have been asked of you so far. i would like to talk with you so far for a few minutes about israel. israel is america's most important ally certainly in the middle east and come in many respects, in the entire world. a lot of people in this body are concerned, quite appropriately, about making sure that that alliance remains strong, about making sure that our interests and as americans are protected abroad. a lot of us feel that one of the best ways of protecting american national security is through that alliance in the middle east. on april 12, 2002, there was a palestinian terrorist who detonated a bomb in downtown jerusalem, killing six israelis and wounding about 100 others. on that day, while you were serving the u.s. senate, you gave a speech on the senate floor. you may couple of comments that i would like to discuss with you and ask you a little bit about them. in one segment of the speech, you said we understand israel's right to defend itself. we are committed to that. we help israel defend that right. we will continue to do so. but it should not be at the expense of the palestinian people. innocent palestinian people and the innocent israelis who are paying the price. some who have read that have reacted with concern that this may be indicative of a feeling on your part that there may be some moral equivalency between, on the one hand, is real exercise of its right to defend itself, hand on the other set -- on the other hand, palestinian terrorism. do you believe there is a moral equivalency between these two things? >> absolutely not. >> do you understand how others may read this statement and would lead them to that impression? >> i do. >> how do you respond to it? in other words, do palestinians have a legitimate gripe? >> terrorism can never be justified under any circumstances. >> but is there gripe legitimate? >> the palestinians? >> yes, the palestinians who decide to strap a bomb on themselves and -- do they have grievances? >> they do have grievances, but not a justification for terrorism and killing innocent people. never. >> are they on par with the grievances that israelis have when they become victims of violent acts? >> i don't think you can judge whether it is the israelis or palestinians or anybody in the world in separating innocent victims of terrorism. >> i think you can in some circumstances, can you? >> not victims. >> must not judge when it comes to one group of people who may at least be willing to recognize the other group of people's right to exist? >> absolutely. clearly on the record on that point. in fact, in 2006, the anti- palestinian act that i voted for. and there were a number of other resolutions, acts, votes, speeches that i wrote. in my book, i have said specifically that hezbollah must announce -- must renounce terrorism and accept israel to exist as a jewish homeland, respect the borders and protect the borders. i made that clear. >> ok. later on in the same speech, you asked the question -- you last -- he referred to the fact that we really need to develop peace in the middle east. and you ask the question who guarantees this piece? if we expect israel to pull back to their pre-1967 borders, who guarantees that peace? does this reflect sentiment on your part that that is a legitimate way of solving the peace process, bringing about peace in the middle east, by asking israel to withdraw to its pre-1967 borders? >> no, not at all. what i said was who guarantees the security of israel's borders? israel's borders must be secure. that is part of the fundamental of the core principles of 2006. in fact, you made resolutions that is paramount, the guarantee of the security of israel and its borders. >> i've understand that part of the question of how we bring about that piece -- that peace. but another part of the questions started from the premise that israel would be withdrawing to its pre-1967 borders. you feel that is a tenable solution? do believe such borders are militarily defensible? >> i think that it's all negotiable. the quartet principles of 2006, which president bush laid down in the two-state solution, all of those issues have to be resolved. land for peace, trading land, all of those are final status issues that are key to the future of israel or before israel can agree to anything. >> so you're saying you might describe a resolution of this crisis involving withdrawal to the pre-1967 borders as perhaps one among several tenable solutions? >> as part of what has been talked about and defined, as i said the main the 2006 quartet principles and u.s. resolutions that that is part of a final status set of issues that have to be resolved. the united states, no other country can impose that on israel. that is a negotiable issue. but it has been out there. that remains to be dealt with in negotiations. >> is it one that you think the united states should encourage? >> i would encourage peace and a secure, safe israel. that is what i think most of this would want to see. >> ok. in 2009, you made a statement suggesting that u.s. ground troops should be sent to that part of the world and installed as u.n. peacekeepers in a "non- motorized palestinian state." is -- "non-militarize palestinian state." is that appropriate? >> i don't have the facts in front of me, but i don't think that that was earmarked -- a recommendation was making. as i recall my comments and you may be able to give me exactly the comments, they were in the context of how do you secure israel's border? who secures israel's border? it has been suggested that this is a peacekeeping role for nato. that is what that was all about. >> my time has expired. i would like to ask you one more question. i understand you may be statement indicating that there is no justification for palestinian suicide bombers. but that there's also no justification for israel to "keep palestinians caged up like animals." did you say that and, if so, do you stand by that today? >> well, i said it. and remember the context for when i said it. >> do you believe today that israel kids palestinians caged up like animals? >> if i had in a party to edit that, i would like to go bad -- and -- if i had an opportunity to edit that, i would like to go back. i said many things over many years. it was a larger context. the frustration and what is happening that is not in israel's interest, to find ways to find peace and security to israel. if i had a chance to go back and ended it, i would. i regret having used those words. >> thank you. >> senator lee. senator kane. >> it was good to see with my dear friend senator warner, a decorated navy and marine veteran from world war ii and korean war, a longtime member of this committee. it was good to see him here. he exemplifies and come forgive my va centers and for a minute, he exemplifies something that is very important commonwealth. our route is in out of this country's military history. yorktown, about x, there is the uss arlington that will be commissioned in april. we care very deeply about these events. one in nine virginians birth to death is a veteran. when you add in the guard and reserve and contractors, now you are probably talking about one in three of us. we care very deeply about all that is within dod. let me be playing -- plain, the threat that virginians and others are talking about now more than ever is the inability of congress to find a way forward on a reasonable budget compromise. that is what is in the newspapers and the headlines. of the day -- the direction of the deputy director, dod is planning for future cuts. i am very worried at the macro level about dod's ability to pursue and execute appropriate national security objectives in this time of congressional inability to find a budget compromise. the current cr limits flexibility, for example, of the military to pretty tail -- taylor resources -- to appropriately taylor resources, we have no flexibility to deal with a shortfall. and to me, it seems like funding the military through cr is poor business, poor budgeting, poor governance. i am worried about its effect on the morale of our men and women in service. my first question is a simple one. do you agree that we, congress, must finish a fiscal year 2013 appropriations process as soon as possible to allow dod to move forward with this year's funding decisions rather than continuing to be down by a fiscal year 2012 cr? >> yes, i do. i think i have been pretty clear on that all day today. you have described it accurately. >> my second question is about sequestration. to me, the new guy, allowing budget sequestration, the cavalier discussions in newspapers recently that i have seen by members of congress about the fact that is reality and we probably cannot change it makes no sense. i am interested to see whether it might be more sensible to realign the deadlines, a sequester deadline. based on a vote we just had and the senate, we are now in a budgetary process where there is a strong likelihood we will be able to produce budgets together with the house. and why would we be making short-term, one-off decisions that are holdovers from a previous congress that could not get it right? to my way of thinking, that is the way you ought to make budget decisions and revenue accord, rather than through gimmicks like sequestered. i think we will get out of this budget uncertainty, but when we do, you will have the task, if confirmed, of being the secretary of defense in a resource constrained environment and will have to deal in a more thoughtful budgetary process with congress about how to make priorities on spending. i would like to hear you talk about how you would approach that administrative task of dealing with these fiscal realities. and >> first -- >> first, as i noted in my opening statement, if confirmed, i would intend to make this relationship between the secretary of defense and congress a partnership, much as secretary panetta has done prepared i think it is critically important -- secretary panetta has done. i think it is critically important. you authorize. you appropriate. the federal government is captive to that authorization and appropriation. each department must work in the budgetary framework of those resources. i have said that like all of these big issues, it is a matter of first of all, clearly defining the mission in its entirety as to what is the mission of the department of the -- department of defense. and then what our priorities are as they fit into our strategic interests around the world. and then how you manage it, how you lead. that includes working closely with the chiefs. it includes working closely with all of the leadership within the department of defense. it is about teams, people. it is about building consensus within the congress as well as within the military. each military chief has a responsibility for his or her area and service. and that is as it should be. and obviously, goldwater nichols integrated our services, which was the right thing. i think most people agree with that. but also, the commandant of the marine corps and each chief has the responsibility to look out for the interest of our service. the coordination of those efforts engender standing of the bigger picture are critically important. those are all critical elements not unlike you as a governor and one time would bring to the job. >> switching gears for a moment, it is hard to contemplate that if confirmed, he would be the first in last person to hold the position. i want to ask a question about our listings. senator manchin mentioned earlier the high unemployment rate of our military officers. when we see an unemployment rate among enlisted as that is higher than the national rate, when they have technical skills that can benefit a civilian work force, we know something is wrong. there have been some pilot projects in 2012 and into 2013 to focus on issues that matter. we have talked about it, how to credential active duty military while they are in their himmel's's and while they are -- while they are in their mos's how to gain critical skills so that when they leave they are not just a ghani sargent, which people in the average work force may not understand. are you committed to pushing forward on those pilot programs and expanding them so we can get at this employment issue? gregg's absolutely, and again kind of a doubt in my opening statement -- >> absolutely, and again, i noted that in my opening statement. i am committed to that. nothing is more important than our men and women and their families, and that does not just mean drop their time of service to our country, but afterward. -- throughout their time of service to our country, but afterward. we must fulfill our commitment to them. >> one last question. as the topics have come up today when we have talked about iran and the threat of a nuclear iran, we often talk about it as linked to israel as posing security, which is. they are holocaust deniers and they threaten the security of israel. it is not just about the security of israel. in the iranian nuclear threat is a much bigger one. it is clear that if they get nuclear weapons, other nations will start to do the same. i know that is counter to principles that you hold, that the president holds, and is not just on israel's shoulders to be worried about a nuclear iran. it is a threat we all need to be worried about. >> i agree. to add one point on that, you all know, of course, and many of us have been involved over the years -- the current p-5 plus one engagement, to get all five members of the u.n. security council together on this one issue -- we have variations of exactly what should be done, but that should give the world some indication of how russia, china, the u.s., and essentially all major nations of the world to view the threat of a nuclear iran. >> thank you >> senator vitter. >> thank you, senator, for being here. and thank you for your military service. my single biggest concern about the nomination is the dramatic flip-flops' between your past statements and record and what you are saying as a nominee. and they are about key, core issues. we have discussed some of those today. i want to focus on that, and i apologize if i go over some of the things that have come up before. i could not be here for most of the hearing. in 2006, when israel was responding to attacks by hezbollah from lebanon, you call that response, "a sickening slaughter." and you accuse israel of "to the systematic destruction of an american friend, the people of and country of lebanon." what do you say about those statements? >> well, first, i said them. i have been asked about them. i have said that i regret saying that. it was within the larger context of a speech i made about what was going on, a thirtysomething days of war going on. i also included in that speech the responsibility of hezbollah, who started the war. it was not exactly the way you just noted it. the language is exact, what you just said, but there was a larger context. yes, i regret that language, but i think the bigger point, senator, and i have noted is all morning, my unequivocal support of israel over the years, there has been no flip-flop on that. i have never voted against anything but israel's interests in every vote i cast in the u.s. senate. i have said it in my book. there are a special, historic ally and we will always support and defend them. i have said it in my speeches. there is no flip-flop on support of israel. >> is there a flip-flop on your calling the -- do you stand by your statement about hezbollah? >> i just said that i regretted it. >> do you stand by those words, or do you flip-flop? >> if i had a chance to edit, i would. gregg's that is what i'm talking about in terms of flip-flop. >> if i had a chance to edit a lot of things in my life, i would probably be fairly busy. and >> let me move on. a number of these concerns in 1998 in a senate hearing, you said that secretary of state madeleine albright had "tilted way too far toward israel in the middle east peace process." do you still think that of the peace process in 1998? >> i do not recall the event, the words. i do not know where that comes from or the context. again, senator, i go back years and years on different things i have said, but i do not recall what that context was, so i do not know. secretary albright has endorsed me, by the way, to be the next secretary of defense. i work very closely with secretary albright, as i do with the clinton administration in support of israel. >> in general at that time under the clinton administration, the you think that they were "and going way too far toward israel in the middle east peace process"? >> no, i do not, because i was very supportive of what the president did at the end of his term. in january of 2001, in fact, i recount that in my book. >> just to clarify, that is the sort of flip-flopper but i am talking about. that is what you said then, and you are changing you -- your mind now. >> that is not a flip-flop. i do not recall everything i have said in the past 25 years. if i could go back and change some of it, i would. but it does not discount the support i have always given israel and continue to give israel. >> and going to what you said today talking about iran as "illegitimate elected government" you think that the election of this iranian government coming to power was free, fair, and legitimate? >> i noted the term "legitimate" was not the term i should have used. i should have used recognized. that is the more appropriate term. i was referring to the fact that it is a nation that is a member of the united nations. it has embassies from all of our allies. it is a recognized nation. >> what about the word elected? he said "legitimate elected government." >> there was an election. kristie think that is a free and fair and legitimate election? >> that is not what i said. >> you said, "legitimate, elected government. of >> i just explained that i should have said recognized instead of legitimate. there was an election and there will be another one in june of this year for the president of iran. whether it is free and fair, i do not know. >> you have no expectations one way or another about that? >> i do know that iran is not exactly a model democracy. and it has not been. i do not have any expectations for a free and fair election. >> in 2008, you wrote that a nuclear iran might be tolerable because "sovereign nation states possessing nuclear weapons capability as opposed to stateless terrorist groups will often responds with some degree of responsible or at least, same behavior." is that still your hope or expectation about the government of iran? >> i'm not sure where the reference came from or the context. but what i was referring to was the different options that people will look at in regard to iran getting nuclear weapons. i have always said that iran must not get weapons of mass destruction. i have always said it is a sponsor of terrorism. i have always said the military option should remain on the table to assure that iran does not get to their weapons. -- nuclear weapons. >> in this statement you suggest that iran would maybe or hopefully respond in a responsible, or at least samne way. is that still your expectation of hope? >> i always hope that people will respond in a sane way. but that does not change the fact that it is a dangerous country to the united states and the entire world purdum >> -- the entire world. >> after your statement, the iranian press noted with satisfaction dobbie "anti- israel heigl" and that is there a statement, not yours, why do you think they have that impression? >> first, it is not an accurate quote. >> it is an accurate quotation of the iran impress purdum >> it is not an accurate statement of my position. >> right, but why you think they have that impression? >> as i said earlier, have enough difficulty understanding american politics. i surely do not understand iranian politics. but if i might add, i also said there have been some rather significant israeli government leaders who said some pretty nice things about me, current israeli leaders. >> ok, thank you. >> senator kaine -- king. >> like all of the other increase interest today, i want to thank you for your service and particularly your willingness to put yourself through this process to serve your country once again. it is one of my life principles to never take a job where i would have to be confirmed by legislative body. [laughter] and you are doing it. i read one commentator that said, the fact that this guy was an enlisted man in vietnam is nice, but not significant. i think it is very significant. i am a bit of a student of the cuban missile crisis, the most dangerous moment this country has ever experienced. anyone who studies that time, it is hard to escape the conclusion again. it is one of my life principles tothat president kennedy's servs on the front lines in world war ii and chairman kershaw of's service during world war ii was of significance, their willingness to back away. most of the questions, probably 90% today have been about policy. but the reality is, policy comes from the president. you will certainly advise, but that is where policy comes from. i would like to ask your thoughts about management. you are about to take on the world's most cumbersome bureaucracy with a lot of headaches and problems and the budgetary challenges. share your thoughts with me about how you approach the management of the department of defense. >> senator, thank you. i note you were sitting there during the exchange i had with senator kaine about some of the spirit -- some of this. in answer to your question, i would pick up on a couple of those observations. first, i know you were also a governor. you both understand a lot of the pieces of this. no matter how big an organization is, there are still some fundamentals to leadership and management. as you have noted, the department of defense is the largest institution, certainly, in this country, and maybe the world. how do you try to manage your wealth? it is not about me. the secretary of defense, he leaves, he advises the president, but it is really about -- he leads, he advises the president, but it is really about the people who run the defense apparatus. that includes all of the officers. i think there are over 50 presidential appointees in the department of defense. obviously, there are uniformed military, 1.3 million of them. all of these people are required to manage the department. i think fundamental to me,as yoe department and then answered your question, it is accountability. we have had some discussions today about audits. all institutions must be accountable. elected officials are accountable. we are all accountable. and the emphasis on accountability i do not think could ever be overstated. you give managers flexibility, resources, but you give them direction and expectations. they have to be very clear, direct, and defined. but not to the point where you do not want their input and their ability to be flexible with their management. in my opinion, that is the key to anything, but surely it is the key to something as large as the department of defense. a number of questions were asked of me today about specific programs, submarine programs, different areas of technology and acquisitions, and our superior technology. i said i do not know enough about it. i do not. there are many things i do not know about. if confirmed, i intend to know a lot more than i do. i will have to. but at the same time, i would never think that, as i said earlier, this is about me or that i will be running anything. i will be the leader. i will be responsible. i will be accountable, but i've got to rely on the right teams, right people to bring those to get there. it is accountability and responsibility. i would stop there, if they give you some sense of how i would intend to do this business. >> my theory of leadership is to hire good people and take credit for what they do. >> [laughter] >> you are a guy from nebraska and in the army, so i imagine you do not get up in the morning and think about the navy. i hope to correct that in the next few years, particularly in maine and other parts of the country. there's a multi-year procurement program that is in jeopardy because of the budget situation. your feelings about multi-year procurement and maintaining the industrial base, which we just have to do if we will be able to maintain our force? >> governor, you probably know, and gov. kaine probably knows as well that there is such a thing as in nebraska navy. our governors make these distinguished appointments throughout their careers. our fleet is small, but miti. -- mighty. that has been my early experience with the navy. the industrial base, a reference that with a couple of other comments i made earlier today in responding to questions. absolutely essential to our future that we maintain a strong, growing, credible military industrial base. do. for all the reasons that you understand. the survey, senator mccain does, being from virginia, -- certainly, senator kaine does being from virginia, as well as several others. how we prioritize our needs, how we account for an audit contracts, forward procurements, cost overruns, waste, fraud, and abuse -- all part of it. this will be more and more essential as we are dealing with, as you have noted, a restricted budget. maybe very restricted budget, depending on how things happen on sequestration. the navy is an indispensable part of our security apparatus. first commodity is the one visible projection of power -- first, it is the one visible projection of power that we have in the world. obviously, our rebalancing of resources in the asia-pacific region is some indication of that. persian gulf, we have been talking all day about iran, israel. but positively about iran in the persian will -- gulf. we have two battle groups in and out of that small area. the flexibility, agility, missile defense, nuclear, all of those capabilities are within the navy. i am a strong supporter of advancing our navy technology and our efforts, and i will continue to do that if confirmed. >> thank you, senator. i will have more questions at a later time. >> senator shaheen. >> thank you, mr. chairman. senator hagel, thank you for your tremendous service in europe provided to this country and your willingness to take on this challenge as secretary of defense, and for your stamina at this hearing all day. you will certainly need it as secretary of defense. i want to follow up on senator kean pose a question about the navy. it is very important to us in new hampshire as well. our four public shipyards are the backbone of our naval power. but according to the navy, there is a huge backlog of restoration and modernization projects at our shipyards. according to last year's number, the backlog was around $3 billion at portsmouth naval shipyard, which we are all concerned about. that number was $513 million. it is not cost-effective. for example, the 2010 gop report pointed out that the pure project at northrop, which i'm sure senator mccain -- kaine is familiar with, if it had been addressed earlier, it would have cost much less. now it will cost about $5 million. in fiscal year 2012, senator collins and i included an amendment in a bill that requires the shipyard modernization plan to address these shortfalls. the report is laid, but was promised in the upcoming budget submissions for fiscal year 2014 prepare will you commit to ensuring this modernization plan is produced? and would you commit to pressing and 80 the navy within the fiscal constraints that i appreciate, -- pressing the navy within the fiscal constraints that i appreciate, but ensuring that for the long term they continue to be very efficient and effective at our shipyards? >> yes, i will make the commitment to do everything i can to first, understand the specifics, which i do not know all the details. by your request -- but your request is preliminary to effective, efficient use of our resources, and planning our national security. i will make that commitment. if confirmed compaq -- if confirmed, i will get the details. i will assure that the navy response. >> thank you. and i'm sure others, and -- in -- and join with me in inviting you to come to see the shipyards as soon as you are confirmed. >> thank you. >> i know there has been -- a fair amount of discussion today about your involvement with an organization called global 0 and your position on nuclear weapons. i think it is worth quoting again what senator reid said about ronald reagan, who said that we seek the total elimination one day of nuclear weapons from the face of the earth. i think every president since modeled reagan has supported that aspirational goal, recognizing that at this point in time, it is a goal. certainly, that is what president obama said he supports, that someday -- probably not in this lifetime, but some day we should hope for a world that would be free of nuclear weapons. i have heard you say that you agree with those two statements prepared but do you also agree that as long as nuclear weapons exist, we have to maintain a safe, secure, and effective nuclear arsenal to deter any adversary? >> yes, completely, absolutely. i have never had any position but that. as i indicated this morning and this afternoon, i will continue to take the position. as i said in my opening statement and an answer to other questions, our nuclear deterrent has probably been the core of keeping world peace and avoiding a world war iii. as long as there is the threat of nuclear weapons, and like you noted and president obama noted in his speech in 2009, it probably will not happen in our lifetime. but just as you noted, and in senator read's comments about what president reagan laid on the cape -- on the table in 1986, we need to keep working on it and moving forward and tempting to do it. -- attempting to do it. if you look at the different treaties we have done, we have brought those war had done, under republican and democratic administrations, bipartisan. what sam said this morning, he and his former colleagues, secretary kissinger, secretary shultz, secretary perry, hundreds of national leaders in the republican and democratic leaders -- administrations over the years have supported nuclear destruction -- nuclear weapons destruction. not unilateral, bilateral, negotiated, and verifiable. as ronald reagan said, trust but verify. nothing unilateral. >> thank you. another has been a lot of discussion about your comments relative to sanctions on iran and various options we might pursue with respect to iran and nuclear weapons. i wonder, again, if you would confirm what your position is on the president's current strategy of strong diplomacy, a tough international sanctions, and keeping all the options on the table. >> you have just defined president obama's strategy on iran, which i firmly support. it is the wise way to do it. i do not know if i mention this to you in our meeting, but i wrote a book in 2008 and i have a chapter on iran. i laid out all out in the chapter, as i have said. i do not think president obama went to my shafter and about his strategy on my chapter, but there is nothing in najaf during the house that i have never said that deviates from where the president is the military option -- from where the president is. the military option should always be on the table. it always should be the last option. aren't we wiser if we can accomplish our objectives without having to go to war? for everybody. >> i hope so. you referenced meeting we had last week, and i appreciated your coming in and talking about some of the statements that had been represented and that you have addressed today. one of those had to do with israel's security. again, i of this has been discussed at length during the day today. i wonder if again, you could reconfirm what your commitment is on israel and the security of israel in the middle east. >> my support of israel's security is and always has been very clear. i strongly support israel. the security of israel is a commitment that we made to israel in 1948 when israel was born under american leadership. harry truman. that commitment was -- is a bond that is more than just allied to outside. it is special, historical, -- more than ally to ally. it is special, historical. i have never equivocated from bat line. i have said this in my book. absolutely we will continue to do that. >> thank you very much. >> we are going to have a five- minute second round. and if we need a third round, which will house a third round. -- we will have a third round. i will try to take less than five minutes, so i can yield a couple of minutes if i still have them to center in off. earlier today, one of my colleagues made a statement i you had not responded to requests for copies of all of your speeches and to a request about contributions to certain organizations, i believe, the u.s. either served or spoken to. you did not have the opportunity -- that you either serve or spoken to. you did not have the opportunity to respond to that time. if you wish, you may respond for the record. >> mr. chairman, thank you. i will respond for the record. as far as i know, and i asked again at the brainport -- at the break of our counsel, we have responded to all requests, or are in the process of responding to every single request. some of these requests and did not come in until yesterday, specifically the financial documentation request, copies of my speeches came in late. we have given the committee every copy of every speech that i have that is out there. every video that i have that is out there. on paid speeches, most everyone of those paid speeches, in the contract is says that they are private and not videotaped. it was not my decision. that was the contract of the group i spoke to. i believe every paid speech i gave i did not howff a prepared text. i gave it extemporaneously, which is something i have been doing since long before i left the senate. we are filling every legal commitment. i have complied with every ethical request. i always have. i did when i was in the senate. i will continue to do with now. we are doing it now there were one or two times when you did not have the opportunity to reply to a question. in order to not use all my time, you should feel free to do that for the record. we will keep this record open until close of business tomorrow for questions. and for your answers, close of business monday. which means 5:00 p.m. tomorrow for questions for the record, 5:00 p.m. on monday for your responses to questions for the record. at that time, would you give us the update on any additional documents, speeches, or information that you have been requested to provide that you have not yet been able to buy is in the works? >> i will, and i have committed and will continue to commit to complying with every legal document, a legal requirement. corexit thank you. i hope i have a minute or two to yield to the center. >> i will have to hurry this up a little bit. it is less time than i thought we had. it was mentioned that one of the members of your thought i was being disrespectful during the time i was questioning you. it was at the time that i made the statement that you have been endorsed by the ministry of iran for your nomination to be secretary of defense. do you consider that to be it disrespectful motion on my part? >> no, it is a legitimate question. >> thank you. i have been a leader on postponing any further abrams tanks or f-16's and us -- to egypt until the government is under control this is the representing my thoughts. there was a vote a little while ago to do away permanently with the sending of any of this equipment to egypt. i do not think that is a good idea. what i think is a good idea is to continue to use that as leverage. if you do that, you lose the leverage. i believe we will be in a position right now, enda morsi has already distanced himself from the military. that is a good step. i think we could reinstate a friend in that area. i would ask you whether you would agree with my statement i came out with a long time ago, or my bill, i guess i should say, and that i reintroduced in a stronger way today, saying that we would withhold this equipment sending to egypt until such time as these conditions are met. and i mention the conditions being the accord at camp david and that type of thing. would you consider that? >> that is a policy that the president of the united states would have to consider. if he asked my guys, i would give it to him. but to the bigger question, i think is important that our assistance to egypt be conditional. they play an absolutely critical role in fulfilling the commitment of camp david and the security of israel. >> we are almost out of time right now. i appreciate an answer. you made a statement that i strongly disagree with. you said the president of obama has been the strongest israeli supporter since 1948. i have a hard time with that. i know he is not up for confirmation. you are. but when you see statements coming at of the administration like the united states believes that negotiations should result in two states with permanent palestinian borders with israel, jordan, and egypt, and they've come out with statements saying they believe that the borders with israel and palestine should be based on a 1967 border lines, these are statements that i think are very damaging. i can assure you that the leadership in israel feels those statements are damaging. do you still feel this president has been the strongest supporter of israel since 1948? >> i do, and i will tell you quickly wide. first, the 2006 quartet principles that president bush laid down coverage most of the points that you have made. i supported president bush then, and still do in what he did in developing those principles. when you look at the assistance this administration has given to israel, the most significant and largest military to military exercise and challenge to the israeli u.s. forces last fall, the money we put into the iron dome, the president's position of "we've got your back." >> that is fine. i appreciate it. one other thing before run out of time, something you are interested in. you were a co-sponsor of the defense act of 1999, and i was, too. we agreed then. times have changed since then. at that time, people thought having the capabilities was confined to the u.s.s.r. at that time, or russia, and the united states. a lot has happened since then. at one of the things i disagree with most in the first budget that the president had -- this president had is when he did with the ground-based interceptor site in poland. -- and did away with the ground- based interceptor site in poland. most people agree that we still have adequate protection on the west coast. it is the east coast, and our intelligence still says today, that iran will have the weapons capability and the delivery capability by 2015. that is why it was supposed to be there. now there is a discussion saying, to cover the boy, we need to have a third site. -- cover that point, we need to have a third site. do you support that? >> i am aware of the authorization and instruction for a third site in the environmental impact statement. i do not know enough of the details. if confirmed, i will get into it. but to respond to that, which i will for the record, i just do not know enough about it. >> i think is very significant and i think most people are looking at this with a void. you have a timeframe between now to 2015. nobody disputes the capability that they will house in that time. it is not been classified. there is still a void of the six years between what we have in capability and what needs to be in place. i hope you'll come back and support the third sight. the last thing, if you'll forgive me, mr. chairman, when the senator talk to you about your efforts in choosing and her expectations on your being involved in using the department of defense for all statement. i do not know enough of these environmental things, i would suggest you that is why we have a department of energy. and when i ask you a question, would refrain from doing the things that have been done in the past in his administration, such as forcing the navy to pay $26 per gallon for 450,000 gallons of fuel that you can buy for $3 and other things, it is billions of dollars that we are paying that we could be using for war fighting. i see an inconsistency in your answer to me, and in your answer to the senator from hawaii. >> my answer to the senator from hawaii, and i believe you can read it back, was that i am committed to all of the efficiencies we can find in the department of defense that are in the interest of our country. i did not commit to any one program. >> or any program that would be a costly program on experimentation, such as these programs i just mentioned. clearly, they are in the jurisdiction of the department of energy and they are the ones who is supposed to be doing it. don't you agree that we should confine ourselves to enhancing our war fighter capabilities? >> well, of course, but within that round, certainly, the kind of money that we spend on fuel, as you noted, that should include some sense of that, but also whether there are other things we can do within research and technology inside the department of defense. it just makes sense. >> we should come as a government, but that is what the department of energy should be doing. when you suggest a high cost of fuel, yes, it is a high cost because we are paying 10 times as much as we would have to pay, money that we could be putting toward our were fighting efforts. that is my point. >> yes, i agree, but why would we not look all options if we have the kind of sophisticated research and technology that the department of defense does and how -- has possession of? i do not know anything more specific to or central to our security than energy. >> i know my time is expired, but we are spending literally millions, actually some billions of dollars, on some of these experimentations that again are not in the purview of this. right now, we are installing 139 f-35's that we just recently put off. if they put them off indefinitely, that is just a cut. those are things we should be doing right now. we are looking at the ohio class of. we should be doing that right now. if we are spending and the environmental causes is what the department of energy should be doing. when you suggest a high cost of fuel, yes, it is a high cost because we are paying 10 times as much as we would have to pay, money that we could be putting toward our were fighting efforts. that is my point. >> yes, i agree, but why would we not look all on war fighting, apparently, you do not agree with that. >> i will commit this to you, senator. as i said to the senator from hawaii, if i'm confirmed, i will look at all of these programs. i will have to. >> thank you. senator manchin. corexit i feel like i want to apologize for some of the tone and demeanor today. with that being said, if i could ask you this, since we are so -- again, talking about things you have done and said over the years -- how did you get to vietnam? were you ordered to go to vietnam? were you sent there? how were your orders? >> well, actually, i got to vietnam through kind of an interesting route. i volunteered for the draft. as my brother did a month after me. during that time in 1967, the draft was coming down with pretty heavy levy, as you recall. >> i was there. >> and i know your story. they would not take you, not because you were not smart enough, of course, but because of your knees. you tried to bribe your way in, but they still will not let you. i admire your effort. and i know your story. i went to basic training, advanced infantry training. my brother followed me everywhere a month after me. after advanced infantry training, i was selected to be one of nine first-class then top-secret shoulder fired heat seeking a so-called "the red eye gun." at the time, it was classified and it was built to bring down low-flying soviet-made -- soviet migs flying over germany. we went entrain for two months. it was all classified. we could not get calls in a route. all nine of us were quietly ordered to go and were integrated into nato units without any fanfare or anyone knowing about it. i got my orders to go to germany. i went to fort dix, new jersey in november, 1967. my eight fellow soldiers and i were getting packed upper -- packed up to go to germany. i just decided, if i was going to be in the military, it did not make much sense to go to germany. i had never been to germany. my great grandparents are from germany. probably a pretty good place, i thought, but i ought to go where there is a war. i took my orders down to pioli, told him i was private hagel and here were my orders anna i was told to go to germany and i wanted to go to vietnam. the office was a bit quiet. they brought in priests, rabbis, ministers, psychiatrists. they all came in to examine me, thinking something was wrong. i was running away from something or i had killed somebody. after two days of testing need to see that i was ok, they held me. i scrubbed the barracks for five days before they could cut new orders. they gave me new orders to go to vietnam. they sent me home for five days and then on to travis air force base in san francisco. i got to vietnam in december, 1967. >> there is no reason anyone of us should ever be concerned about your willingness to do anything you possibly can to defend this country against all foreign enemies, wherever they may be. >> well, i hope not. we can disagree on policy. but i think my life and my commitment to this country is pretty clear. i am proud of it. >> and i would say that israel, this box peaceful -- the spokespeople for israel support you. they have come to me and told me that. have they told you that? >> there are many israeli groups that have formally supported me. i'm grateful. >> and it sounds like iran has wishful thinking. >> evidently, iran supports me. >> the president has asked you to support -- to serve at this level, so he has confidence in you. >> the president did ask me to serve. i said in my opening statement i am grateful that and honored by -- by the trust and confidence and will do everything in my power never to do anything that would disabuse that confidence from this country. >> as you see the role of secretary of defense, and i know we have talked about it and you have been question on policy, and i know you will not be in a policy position. you will be basically following policy, not making policy. but if you could wrap it up, what we should expect from your position as secretary of defense -- >> thank you. if i am confirmed, as i noted in my opening comments, i would see this relationship as a partnership. i will need your help. i will need your advice and collaboration. many people on this authorization committee have a great deal of experience in this business. many far more than i do, as is the case in the congress, both the senate and house. i will need that. i will call upon that. i will not be in a policymaking position, as you know. i have also committed to all of you, and all of you who have served with me know this, i will always be honest with you. you never have to worry about that. i will listen to you. i'm sure we will not always agreed. but i will say it straight and i will give you and the president my honest, most informed advice, always. >> thank you. and i will say one more thing. where i come from there is an old saying that goes, i cannot change your mind, you cannot change anything. -- if you cannot change your mind, you cannot change anything. >> senator hagel, you are holding up well. but it is an important office and you have asked to meet our defense department. i know you know the seriousness of that and is exceedingly important. you have to know, and in particular recent years there has been tension within the congress over a number of issues, one of them is national defence. that is a subcommittee i am a member of and we have wrestled with that over the years. and we have pretty consistently had a bipartisan congressional vote on those issues. we have voted again this year unanimously on the armed services defense authorization bill. unanimous out of committee under chairman of an's committee, and senator mccain. i was looking today at the national journal. the obama administration is moving to begin new u.s.-russia talks on the drawdown of the nation's nuclear arsenals. that has also been an issue of concern. but i believe we have been staying fairly bipartisan and unified on that. your report is what causes a great deal of concern. this study of the global 0 group. i would note that vice president biden is set to meet with the russian foreign minister this weekend during the munich security conference. national security adviser tom bolon will have to moscow in february. -- tom donelon will go to moscow in february. and the president will begin to call for the deployment of strategic nuclear arsenals involving 700 delivery systems. as i read the global 0 report that you co-authored less than a year ago, you call for the elimination of all icbm's, all tactical nuclear weapons, most of the bombers, 67 b-52's @ eliminated, leaving only 80 bombers and submarines. it looks like you are down to about 28 delivery systems. this is of dramatic concern. there are worries on capitol hill that the administration could revise its missile shield strategy, or go ahead with cutbacks to the u.s. stockpile as a means to draw russia into negotiations, foreign policy magazine reported, ahead of the unannounced discussions. the house subcommittee chairman mike rogers asks if they have assurances as to what is going on there. i would note that last year's defense authorization villepin -- bill calls for briefings on his discussions to the congress, the servant -- the armed services committee and subcommittee. it does not less than twice each year, the president or his designee will brief the committee on foreign relations and the committee on armed services about the dialogue between the u.s. and the russian federation on issues of limits or controls of nuclear arms, missile defense system, and long-range conventional strike systems. the deadline for that would be march 2 this year. my first question to you, if confirmed, will you honor that request as part of the mdaa? >> the request for the briefing? >> yes, the requirements for the briefing. will you keep congress advise on any discussions dealing with national defense and dialogue with russia on national missile defense and nuclear arms, and long-range conventional strike systems? >> yes, i commit to do that. >> also, it is the sense of the congress that any agreement between the united states and the russian federation dealing with nuclear arms or missile defense systems or long-range conventional strike systems obligating the u.s. to reduce our armed forces or armaments of the united states in any militarily significant manner may be made only pursuant to the

Arkansas
United-states
Vietnam
Republic-of
Jerusalem
Israel-general-
Israel
Montana
Capitol-hill
New-jersey
Vermont
Turkey

Transcripts For CSPAN Capitol Hill Hearings 20130201

carl levin chairs the armed services committee and makes the opening statement. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> good morning, everybody. the committee meets today to consider the nomination of former senator chuck hagel to be secretary of defense. before i begin, i want to first welcome senator inhofe as the new ranking republican on our committee, succeeding senator mccain. senator mccain has been a great partner over the past six years, and i thank him for all the work he has done to get bills enacted, his leadership on a host of issues, his support for the work of this committee, and for always keeping our hearings likely. -- lively. senator inhofe has shown his strong commitment to the national defense over his 20 years on this committee. and i know that we are going to work well together and continue the bipartisan tradition of the committee. we are also pleased to welcome the eight senators who are joining the committee this year, both of those who are new to the senate and those who are new to our committee. senators donnelly, hirono, kaine, and king on the democratic side, and senators blunt, cruz, fischer, and lee on the republican side. you will all find that this is a wonderful committee where we work across party lines to support our troops and their families, and their national defense mission. i would also like to pause for a moment to offer my thanks and the thanks of our committee to secretary panetta, who delayed his retirement and his return to california to serve our country, first as director of central intelligence, and then as secretary of defense. secretary panetta has provided a steady hand at the department of defense through two very difficult years, and has earned our great respect and our appreciation. finally, the committee will be holding hearings next week on benghazi, and the weeks thereafter on the impact of a sequester on the department of defense. senator hagel, we welcome you to the armed services committee as an old friend, those of us with whom he served during your years in the senate. there are few jobs were demanding that the position to which you have been nominated. the hours are long and extremely challenging, and require sacrifices from both the secretary and his family. we traditionally give our nominees an opportunity to introduce their families at these hearings, and we would welcome your doing so during your opening statement. 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. you cannot read and senator hagel's account of his military service and not be impressed by it. as senator hagel explained a few years ago, but " probably most fundamental for me, when we talk about going to war, we need to think it through carefully, not just for the political and diplomatic and economic consequences, and those are important, but at least for me, this old infantry sergeant thinks about when i was in vietnam in 1968. someone needs to represent that perspective in our government as well. the people in washington make the policy, but it is the little guys to come back in the body bags." senator hagel's background provides an invaluable perspective, not only with respect to the difficult decisions and recommendations that the 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 that the secretary must make to ensure that our men and women in uniform and their families received the support and assistance 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, and that he has their backs. senator hagel, you would be in position to make key decisions on afghanistan. the secretary of defense is called upon to advise the president on the size and mission of a post-2014 so- called residual force, and the pace of the drawdown between now and the end of 2014. the key to this transition is ensuring the readiness and ability of afghan security forces to take over the defense of their own country. i always believed that would be our main mission and its key to success. during my trip to afghanistan with senator jack reed last month, we heard from u.s. commanders on the ground that afghan security forces are operating on their own on most operations, including conducting more than 85% of operations, with limited or no u.s. support in the difficult regional command east take difficult obstacles remain with the process of reducing our forces and shifting responsibility to afghan forces, including the difficulty of negotiating the status of forces agreement, including recent reports that the afghan government might slow down a successful program of growing and training the afghan local police, and including questions about the current plan to reduce the size of the afghan national security forces from 352,000 to around 132,000 after -- 230,000 after 2015. we face a number of new and growing threats elsewhere in the world, such as the ongoing threat posed by iran's nuclear weapons program and the increase in early destructive civil war -- increasingly destructive civil war in syria, and the risks of conflict could result in the loss of control of the countries substantial stockpile of weapons. there is continuing instability in other countries affected by the arab spring. the growth of al qaeda affiliates in unguarded regions including yemen, somalia, and north africa, and continued unpredictable behavior of the nuclear-armed regime in north korea. we face these challenges at a time when the dod budget is under unique pressure as a result of cuts previously agreed upon by congress, the budgeting by continuing resolution, and the impending threats of a sequester. secretary panetta has said that a sequester would be devastating for our military. senator hagel's views on the sequester will be of great interest to this committee and the nation. those of us who have served with senator hagel in the senate know that he is a man who was not afraid to speak his mind. senator hagel has made a number of statements over the course of his career which committee members will ask him about during today's hearing. for example, senator hagel has stated that unilateral sanctions against iran, "are exactly the wrong approach," and that "the worst thing we could do is try to isolate iran." i believe that while effective multilateral sanctions are preferable, unilateral sanctions are an important part of the approach that the obama administration has followed and congress has supported, and it appears that sanctions are producing tremendous pressure on iran. another statement which has raised concern is senator hagel's recommendation that we conduct, "direct, unconditional, and comprehensive talks with the government of iran." now, while there is value in communicating with our adversaries, the formulation used by senator hagel seemed to imply a willingness to talk to iran on some issues that i believe most of us would view as non-negotiable, and any willingness to talk to iran would need to be highly conditional. senator hagel's reassurance to me and my office that he supports the obama administration's strong stance against iran is significant. we look forward to hearing senator hagel today in some depth on that subject. we will also be interested in hearing senator hagel's statement on the public statements is made on israel and the united states, that our policy of non-engagement with the syrians as, "isolated us more than the syrians," and a 2009 statement that "we should not isolate hamas," a terrorist organization. there is much to be explored at this hearing. but as we struggle with the difficult security challenges facing our nation, the president needs to have a secretary of defense in whom he has trust, who will give him unvarnished advice, a person of integrity, and one who has a personal understanding of the consequences of decisions relative to the use of military force. senator hagel certainly has those critically important qualifications to lead the department of defense. senator inhofe. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first of all, i would like to echo your remarks about secretary panetta and the work he has done. i don't see him here today, but i do recall that when he was first nominated, i was probably one of the first phone calls to him, and i have enjoyed working with him and a mccain, the same way, i continue to depend on his counsel. you and i have worked very well together in the past. mr. chairman, before i continue the opening statement, i would like to raise a concern about the sufficiency of the materials provided to this committee by our nominee. senator hagel was requested to provide the speeches he has delivered over the past five years. yet his initials the mission was -- initial submission was for only four speeches, even though, as was noticed by senator cruz, he had 12 speeches but submitted four speeches. well, we received some more, but only late last night i think it would have been a lot more helpful if we had received them before that. i hope we will be able to get that information before we have to cast votes on this nominee. the president's nomination for senator hagel for secretary of defense comes at a critical juncture. secretary hagel is a good man. i am a great admirer of the time he spent in vietnam, and the sacrifices he made. while this service is commendable, his nomination should be decided by the totality of his record. it is the votes he has cast and the statements he has made that will inform us as to his judgment, his view of america's role in the world, and his view of the military requirement to support that role. as i told senator hagel in my office some time ago, over two weeks ago, after a long and careful review of his record, the things he has said, and the things i have personally experienced with him, we are too philosophically opposed on the pressing issues facing our country, and therefore i told him i would not be supporting his nomination. his record demonstrates what i view as a lack of his steadfast opposition to policies that diminish u.s. power and influence throughout the world, as well as a recent trend of policy reversals based on political expediency rather than on core beliefs. with many of the security challenges facing u.s. interest around the world, senator hagel's record is deeply troubling and out of the mainstream read too often, it seems he's willing to subscribe to it worldwide view that is predicated on appeasing our adversaries while shunning our friends. no man survives when freedom fails. i will mention a few of these things because they will come in this hearing. in 2000, an overwhelming majority of the senators sent a letter to president clinton for reaffirming our solidarity with israel. i carried that their around. -- letter around. i remember it well. senator hagel is one of just four who refused to sign that letter. i am sure he will want to comment on that. in 2001, he was one of just two senators voting against the bill for extending harsh sanctions against iran. a year later, he urged president bush to support iran's membership in the world trade organization. senator hagel voted against a resolution designating iran's revolutionary guard corps, a group responsible for killing soldiers in iraq and afghanistan, as a terrorist organization. on multiple occasions, he has advocated for direct negotiations with iran, a regime that continues to oppress its people and doggedly pursue a nuclear weapon capability and employ terrorist proxies including hamas and hezbollah. senator hagel has been an outspoken supporter of nuclear disarmament and global zero movement. we are very sensitive to that. the president has said many times that he wants a nuclear- free world, and i know that senator hagel is right there with him, but and a time when north korea's belligerent actions threaten our allies with nuclear capabilities, and the security of our own nation and that of our allies, why would we want to unilaterally disarm ourselves of nuclear capability? of late, however, senator hagel has expressed views in meetings with senate colleagues and i have been informed that they are glaringly at odds with long- held positions, particularly regarding israel, iran, and our nuclear arsenal. this willingness to walk back his positions, possibly for the sake of political expediency on input and issues, is deeply troubling, and sends a concerning message to our allies and adversaries alike. though i respect senator hagel, his record demonstrates that he would be a staunch advocate for the continuation of the misguided policies of the president's first term, retreating from america's unique global leadership role. it will embolden our enemies and endanger our allies and provide an opportunity for nations that do not share our interests to fill the global leadership vacuum we leave behind. it is for these reasons that i believe he is the wrong person to lead the pentagon at this perilous and consequential time. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, senator inhofe. we have two former chairmen of this committee with us to introduce senator hagel. no senator has had two dearer friends or better mentor is i have hadtors than with senators nunn and warner. i want to welcome them back to this committee. i don't have to tell them that they are among dear, dear friends. it is a real treat to welcome you back to the committee. i will call on you, senator nunn, first. i will call you alphabetically. i have no better way to do it. sam? [laughter] sam, welcome back. >> first, for the record, seniority and age are two different things. senator levin, ranking member inhofe, i am honored to join my friend john warner in presenting chuck hagel to the committee and recommending that chuck be confirmed as our secretary of defense. i think it is worth noting that 68 years ago this month, john warner and listed in the u.s. -- enlisted in the u.s. navy to fight in world war ii. that was the start of his great career in public service, and john, i am proud to be here by your side. mr. chairman, i spent a lot of time sitting in your seat, and congratulations on not having to do that today -- >> i don't know how long it will last, but thanks for pointing it out. >> you and senator mccain have effectively guided this committee in its important role as an compelling voice for defense. you have managed to pass authorization bills even during contentious times. thank you both for your dedicated service to our nation. i am confident that you and senator inhofe will continue this tradition, and that senator mccain will still be a very, very valuable member and a voice on this committee. i believe our nation is fortunate to have a nominee for secretary of defense with the character and the experience and courage and leadership that chuck hagel would bring to this position. first, chuck is acutely aware that even in an age of rapid technological advances, our military capability and effectiveness depend on the quality and the morale of the people who serve our nation in uniform, as well as the families who support them. chuck received two purple hearts in vietnam, and he continued to fight for veterans and active duty military personnel. he knows that our people are the strongest assets. second, chuck's experience in vietnam shape his life in perspective. war for chuck hagel is not an abstraction. i am confident that if confirmed, he will ask the hard and smart questions before sending troops into battle. chuck hagel knows that the united states has vital interests that are worth fighting for and dying for. he also knows that war should be a last resort, and that our nation must effectively use all of our tools, not limited only to our military, to protect our important and to protect our vital interests. certainly, mr. chairman, there is a tension in these values, but it is a tension we should welcome in the thought process and in the advice that our secretary of defense gives to our commander in chief and this congress. from our service to gather on -- together on the defense policy board in recent years, i know that chuck hagel has a clear worldview, and that is aligned with the mainstream of u.s. foreign and defense policy and also with president obama. chuck hagel believes we must preserve the american strength as a force for good in the world. he recognizing that protecting our interests requires strong allies and friends, as well as strong american leadership. third, chuck has the depth of experience and leadership skills required to handle this tough job. there is no shortage of security challenges around the world, as this committee knows and as you enumerated this morning, mr. chairman. a very large and impressive group of former cabinet officials and public servants from both sides of the aisle have said that they trust chuck hagel with this important responsibility. and i strongly, i strongly agree. fourth, on the fiscal side, i am confident that chuck will be a powerful advocate for a common-sense approach in this administration and on capitol hill regarding fiscal challenges to the defense budget. he understands that our defense capabilities are being threatened on two budget friends. first, sequestration, with its damaging, across the board, up from the budget cuts, and second, the rapidly rising costs within the department's budget, including but not limited to health care, personnel, and retirement costs. mr. chairman, members of the committee, i believe that chuck will work effectively with this committee and congress on meeting these budget challenges while protecting our people, our capabilities, and while ensuring that the united states has the strongest military in the world. chuck hagel was a soldier and a senator, but he has been also a highly successful executive in both the public and private sectors. he built a successful company from the ground up. he is a man who knows how to prioritize and make tough decisions. he will listen to and carefully consider the views of our military and civilian leaders and guided them as necessary. fifth, i believe that chuck hagel will be a balanced and responsible voice on a nuclear weapons policy. president reagan said it often and said it well -- "nuclear war cannot be won and it must not be fought." as this committee knows, the risks of a global nuclear war have thankfully, substantially declined since the breakup of the soviet union. but with nine nations possessing nuclear weapons, with a nuclear weapons usable material and knowledge spread across the globe, and if terrorists manage to buy, steal, or make one, we face enormous risks that a nuclear weapon would be used if proliferation continues in places like iran and north korea, and if we do not secure them globally, the odds of use go up even more. six years ago, george shultz, bill perry, henry kissinger and i made the argument that we should reduce reliance on nuclear weapons as a vital contribution to preventing proliferation, keeping them out of dangerous hands, and ultimately ending them as a threat to the world. 2/3 of living former secretaries of state, defense, and national security advisers have agreed with the vision and the steps that we outlined, including substantial work on verification and enforcement. mr. chairman, i hope that all members of the committee and the senate will read the recent statements by four credible and very experienced americans -- master tom pickering, ambassador richard burt, general james cartwright, and general john sheehan, about their work with chuck hagel on nuclear weapons. they made it abundantly clear that the bank opposed unilateral moves -- they oppose unilateral moves and support verifiable u.s. arms reductions, to be followed by multilateral negotiations bringing other nuclear weapons countries into a series and verifiable process of reductions. in closing, mr. chairman, there are many essential characteristics and values that the secretary of defense should possess in a dangerous and challenging world. let me name just two or three that i think are very important. first, someone who is well informed, has an open mind, in cages in critical thinking, who is capable of and seeks out independent thought. second, someone who sets aside fixed ideologies and biases to honestly evaluate all options and provide his or her candid judgment to the president and the congress. third, someone who pays attention to people with the best ideas, regardless of their party affiliation. no one is perfect, we all know that. but chuck hagel comes as close as anyone i know to having all of these qualities. mr. chairman, senator inhofe, members of the committee, i served for 24 years on this committee and i know that much has changed since i retired 16 years ago. i continue to believe, however, that every major problem we face today requires the best input from both political parties if we are to arrive at a solution. i believe that chuck hagel will seek that input. i urge his support by this committee and i urge the confirmation of this nomination by the u.s. senate. i thank the chairman. >> thank you very much, senator nunn. senator warner. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it is a very moving experience for me to reenter this room. i served on this committee for 30 years. in that period of time, senator nunn was the chairman and i was renting. -- ranking. but i want to say to you and jim inhofe -- jim and i have been good friends and we worked together not only on this committee, but other committees, and you will be a fine ranking member. you follow in the steps of my dear, valued friend of so many years, john mccain. and the leadership of this committee throughout my 30 years of the senate has been drawn from the ranks of the strongest and the best of this membership. we have it today, and i have every reason to believe we will have it tomorrow. i have a very fortunate record of public service for many years. no chapter was more important than my service on this committee. you will carry with you the rest of your life the recollections of the work you have done for one of america's most valued assets, the men and women and their families of the armed services of the united states. i had written out a nice, long statement, and then last night, statement and's chuck hagel's statement, and i felt that another statement would not do. i would rather say a few words from the heart. i was in the navy. i did no more than any other kid on my block. we all went. good friends, we thank chuck hagel and mrs. hegel and his family. because if confirmed, is an enormous commitment by the family to this position. you have made the decision to offer yourself once again to public service. public service is a privilege. i have always regarded it as such. this statement will soon be shared by you. i read it through not once or twice, but again this morning. i have never read more carefully prepared statement, a more forthright statement, and one that has no hedges or deviations. he hits firm on those issues that will make the decision in your mind and that of your colleagues as to whether or not he is qualified to take on this very important assignment. i first entered the pentagon in 1969 during the war in vietnam under melvin laird. jim schlesinger followed and i worked with every secretary of defense since that period of time. all different, all with their strengths and indeed some of their weaknesses, but set forth in this is a series of commitments to you as a committee, to the members of the full senate and to the american public as precisely what his goals are and what he will do. how he will serve the president, how he will give the president his best advice, and i know chuck to give it very strongly. so i am going to talk a little bit about crack hagel, the man i served with for 12 years. my distinguished colleague and longtime friend, sam, had gone when chuck arrived at the senate. first year he was here, we had daniel defense authorization -- the annual defense authorization bill on the floor, and in those days, as it is today, that bill goes on that floor, that bill stays on that floor. sometimes a couple days, sometimes a couple of weeks. we get it through. when it's done we go back to our committee's faces and we begin to write that bill and get it to the printer so that we can go to conference. how many times have we done that together, senator nunn, senator levin, senator mccain, senator inhofe? many times. well, the first year he was here he watched that process, and when i had taken the staff back to the committee room, surprisingly, he showed up and i didn't know him that well, although i studied his biography and i wanted to get to know him because of my deep and abiding interest in the vietnam period having served for five years in that period as secretary, under secretary of the navy. he strolled in the room and i introduced him to the people and he said to the staff, you are one of the most impressive group of young people i've ever seen. i learned a lot. and he shared some of his stories as a simple but elegant soldier that he was. and's how he started, thereafter he voted for every single final passage of the authorization bill, every single final passage of the appropriation bill. he was honed and learned in that generation of vietnam, and i'm so proud to have the affiliation of having been, yes, in comparative safety, the pentagon, but i did go to the field of battle and see these young men and some women who engaged in that struggle, but chuck hagel brings with him the experience of having come home, come home to an america that was quite different, and what i than what i experienced when my generation came home from world war ii, we were welcomed with open arms. america at that time in vietnam, and how well john mccain can remember this, was very divided, and when you wore your uniform back home, it didn't see the same respect it deserved for the sacrifices that you and your colleagues had committed. chuck will never forget that. i will never forget it. john will never forget it. today we welcome home and we do it with the fullest heart the young men and women that there have been times in history, and that was one, and so that honed him to be prepared to take on his responsibilities as he addresses the declining budget situation which is going to be a challenge. and i am absolutely certain that he will stand up and fight as hard as two of your predecessors, leon panetta, you mentioned today, and robert gates. they gave their president loyalty but they gave him their best advice and tough and fought for their troops and drilled down that they've got to maintain whatever budget and sequester is not the route. but whatever budget, maintain morale and combat readiness. and also, ladies and gentlemen, that pillar of strength of our military system, the all- volunteer force. we had drafts in vietnam. we saw the effect of that. and we decided as a nation to take a gamble, to let every person who wished to wear the uniform give them that opportunity and to volunteer. no one is forced in there. that has got to be maintained. this man has the experience and graphs to and the strength to protect the all-volunteer force. i also was deeply impressed by the senate and the manner in which it confirmed john kerry. john kerry served in that time and he went through trials and tribulations and came home and faced the public the way that chuck did. the senate confirmed him with a very, very strong vote, and they sent him away ready to take on the enormity of his responsibility. now, i mention that because in my experience, i've seen a good deal of camaraderie and the competition between the secretaries of defense and the secretaries of state. it just sort of built in there and a lot of times sand gets in that gearbox, but it's important to the united states that they, having the major jurisdiction of most of the policy issues, work as a team. john kerry and chuck hagel are a band of brothers out of vietnam with that special bond, and i'm sure that you will utilize that and remember and make those two departments perform their function, best service the president and best service the country. so i pretty well said everything i should say. i want to be brief because it's important that this committee pursue its work, but, again, bob gates, leon panetta, set the bar for this century of those who take on this job and you mentioned your long friendship and how you know both. i'd keep close contact. they've had the experience to deal with this president of the united states, and you're the president's choice. folks, there's an old saying in the combat army infantry and marine corps. certain men are asked to take the point, which means to get out and lead, in the face of the enemy. chuck hagel did that as a sergeant in vietnam. if confirmed, chuck hagel will do it again. this time not before a platoon but before every man and woman and their families in the armed services, you will lead them, and they will know in their hearts, we have one of our own. you're on your own. good luck. \[laughter] >> well, we thank you both, senator warner, senator nunn, for your powerful introductions. i just wish every member of the senate, every american could have heard, and i hope will hear and read about what you said here today about chuck hagel. and i also notice there's another former senator who is a member of that band of brothers who is with us today. i just noticed in the audience max cleland is here and i want to welcome you, max, an old friend of the committee and of the senate and of the nation. so let me now call on senator hagel, and senator warner, senator nunn, again, thank you for your introductions and you are free to get back to your lives or to stay as you wish. >> thank you. >> senator hagel. >> thank you, chairman levin, ranking member inhofe and distinguished members of the committee. i am honored to come before you today as the president's nominee to be secretary of defense. first, as you suggested, mr. chairman, let me introduce my family. my wife, lilibet, our son, ziller, and our daughter, allyn, are not with us today. our son, ziller, claims he's taking a test. we'll confirm that later. but both are a son and daughter that lilibet and i are very, very proud of. and i think like any proud father and any proud mother, you all know how i feel about that as you have the same feelings about your children, it's the same way lilibet and i feel about ours. i also want to introduce my brother, tom, who served with me in vietnam. my brother mike, who is our number three brother. and i might add who actually possesses any talent our family has, he has in the pentagon 10 paintings as chairman of the air force artist over the years, and they're hanging in different locations in the pentagon. so we have one brother of some acclaim. and one of us did make it. my brother mike. behindson is sitting him, josh. thatone of three children mike has. we have here also cousins, many friends, people i owe money to. \[laughter] and who knows who else. i have received some publicity over the weeks. i want to also thank my friends, sam nunn and john warner. i want to thank them for their support, their encouragement and their friendship over many years. and as each of you who had the privilege of serving with those two senators, i, too, add my thanks for their tremendous service to our country. these two distinguished americans represent what the best about american public service and responsible bipartisanship. they have embodied both in their careers, long distinguished careers, and are models for each of us. and of course to my family and friends and my fellow veterans who are here, as has been noted, max cleland, jan scruggs, veterans from all wars. i am grateful to them. not just for fellow friends and veterans who are here but those not here, thank you. a life is only as good as the family and friends you have and the people you surround yourself with. i also want to thank my friend, leon panetta, for his tremendous service to our country over so many years. if i'm given the privilege of succeeding him, it will be a high honor. president obama, for his confidence and trust in me, i thank him. i'm humbled by the opportunity and the possibility he's given me to serve our country once again. and i fully recognize the immense responsibilities of the secretary of defense. i assured the president that if i am confirmed by the united states senate i will always do my best, i will always do my best for our nation and for the men and women and their families who are called on to make the enormous sacrifices of military service. their safety, success and welfare will always be at the forefront of the decisions i make. i also assured the president that i would always provide him with my most honest and informed advice. i make that same commitment to this committee and to the congress. if confirmed i will reach out to the members of this committee for advice and collaboration. it will be a partnership, because the national security challenges america faces require it. our nation's security is the highest priority of our leaders and our government. we cannot allow the work of confronting the great threats we face today to be held hostage to partisanship on either side of the aisle or by differences between the bodies represented in articles 1 and 2 of our constitution. the stakes are too high. men and women of all political philosophies and parties and ideas die and fight for our country. as this committee knows so well, protecting our national security our committing a nation to war can never become political litmus tests. i know secretary panetta has put a strong emphasis on reaching out to the congress. i, like leon, come from the congress and respect and understand this institution's indispensible role and setting policy and helping govern our country. we are all products. forces that shape us. for me there has been nothing more important in my life or more defining influence on my life than my family. whether it was helping my mother raise four boys after my father, a world war ii veteran, died suddenly at age 39 on christmas day, or serving side by side my brother, tom, in vietnam or the wonderful miracle of my wife, lilibet and me being blessed with two beautiful children. that is who i am. we each bring to our responsibilities frames of reference. these frames of reference are formed by our life's experiences. they help instruct our judgments. we build out from those personal foundations by continually informing ourselves, listening and learning. like each of you, i have a record, a record that i'm proud of. i'm proud of my record, not because of any accomplishments i may have achieved or certainly because of an absence of mistakes but rather because i tried to build that record based on living my life and fulfilling my responsibilities as honestly as i knew how and with hard work. underpinning everything i've done in my life was a belief we should always be striving to make our nation a more better and secure place for all our people. during the 12 years i had the privilege of serving the people of nebraska in the united states senate, i cast over 3,000 votes and hundreds of committee votes. i've also given hundreds of interviews and speeches and written a book. so as you all know, i'm on the record. i'm on the record on many issues. but no one individual vote, no one individual quote, no one individual statement defines me. my believes or my record, my overall world view has never changed. america has and must maintain the strongest military in the world, that we must lead in the international community to confront threats and challenges together and take advantage of opportunities together and that we must use all our tools of american power to protect our citizens and our interests. i believe and i always have believed that america must engage in the world, not retreat from the world but engage from the world. my record is consistent on these points. it's clear that we are living at a defining time. our nation is emerging from over a decade of war. we have brought our men and women in uniform home from iraq and have started to bring them home from afghanistan. that does not mean that the threats we face and will continue to face are any less dangerous or complicated. in fact, it is quite the opposite. recent events in mali and algeria remind us clearly of this reality. 21st century complexities, technologies, economies, threats are bringing the seven billion global citizens closer together than ever before. and as our planet adds another two billion people over the next 25 years, the dangers, complications and human demands will not be lessened but rather heightened. despite these challenges, i believe we also have historic opportunities to help build a safer, more prosperous, more secure, more hopeful and just world that maybe at any time -- than maybe at any time in the history of people. yes, the intolerance continues around the world and we must continue to be clear eyed about this danger and we will be. we will not hesitate to use the full force of the united states military in defense of our security, but we must also be smart and more importantly wise, wise in how we employ all of our nation's great power. america's continued leadership and strength at home and abroad will be critically important for our country and the world. while we will not his -- hesitate to act unilaterally when necessary. it is essential that we closely with our allies and partners to enhance america's interests and security as well as global security. if confirmed i will continue to build on the efforts of this administration and a former secretaries gates, secretary panetta and secretary clinton to strengthen our alliances and partnerships around the world. i will also look forward to working with my former senate colleague, your colleague and our friend, john kerry, in this pursuit. as i told the president, i am committed to his positions on all issues of national security, specifically decisions that the department of defense is in the process of implementing now. this includes the defense strategic guidance the president outlined in january, 2012. allow me to very briefly address a few of those specific issues now. first, we have a plan to place -- a plan in place to transition out of afghanistan, continue bringing our troops home and end the war which has been the longest war, as we all know, in america's history. as you also know, discussions are ongoing about what the u.s. presence in afghanistan will look like after 2014. the president has made clear and i agree that there should be only two functions for u.s. troops that remain in afghanistan after 2014. counterterrorism, particularly to target al qaeda and its affiliates, and training and advising afghan forces. it's time we forge a new partnership with afghanistan, with its government and most importantly with its people. second, as secretary of defense i will ensure we will stay vigilant and keep up the pressure on terrorist organizations as they try to expand their affiliates around the world in places like yemen, somalia and north africa. at the pentagon, that means continuing to invest in and build the tools to assist in that fight, such as special operations forces and new intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance technologies. and it will mean working hand in hand with our partners here at home, across the national security intelligence communities to confront these and other threats, especially the emerging threat, the very dangerous and real threat of cyberwarfare. as i made clear, i am fully committed to the president's goal of preventing iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. and as i have been on record on that issue and as i've said in the past many times, all options must be on the table to achieve that goal. my policy has always been the same as the president's, one of prevention, not of containment. and the president has made clear that is the policy of our government. as secretary of defense, i will make sure that the department is prepared for any contingency. that's my job. that's my responsibility. i will ensure our friend and ally israel maintains its qualitative military edge in the region and will continue to support systems like iron dome, which is today saving israeli lives from terrorists' rocket attacks. that support i have always made clear and been on the record for. fourth, while we pursue the reductions in our deployed stockpiles and launchers consistent with the new start treaty, i am committed to maintaining a modern, strong, safe ready and effective nuclear arsenal. america's nuclear deterrent over the last 35 years has played a central role in ensuring global security and the avoidance of a world war iii. i have been committed to that. my record is clear on that. i am committed to modernizing our nuclear arsenal. as we emerge from this decade of war, we must also broaden our nation's focus overseas as we look at future threats and challenges. as this committee knows, that's why d.o.d. is rebalancing its resources toward the asia pacific region. we are in the process of modernizing our defense posture across the entire region to defend and deepen our partnerships with traditional allies, especially japan, south korea and australia. to continue to defer and defend against provocations from states like north korea as well as nonstate actors. and to expand our networks of security cooperation throughout the region to combat terrorism, counterproliferation, provide disaster relief, fight piracy and ensure maritime security. i will continue this rebalancing even as we continue to work closely, closely with our longtime allies of nato and our friends and with allies and partners and friends in other regions of the world. at the same time we'll continue to focus on challenges in the middle east and north africa where we have clear national interests. rather as a recognition that the united states has been and always will be a pacific power. in the asia pacific area is increasingly vital to america's security and economic interests. that's why we must become even more engaged in the region over the incoming years. during all of this and much more will require smart and strategic budget decisions. i have made it clear i'm sure leon panetta and the concerns of the impact just ration will have on our armed forces. as someone who has run businesses, i know that the uncertainty and turbulence of the current budget climate makes it much more difficult to manage the pentagon's resources and our national security. if confirmed i'm committed to effectively and efficiently using every single taxpayers' dollars the right way, to maintain the strongest military in the world and to working with congress to ensure that the department has the resources it needs and that the disposition of those resources is accountable. even as we deal with difficult budget decisions, i will never break america's commitment to our troops, our veterans and our military families. we will continue to invest in the well-being of our all- volunteer force and working with the v.a. and other institutions we will make sure our troops and their families get the health care, job opportunities and education they have earned and deserve. just as i did when i co- authored the post-9/11 g.i. bill with senators jim webb, frank lautenberg and john warner. this includes focusing on the mental health of our fighting force, because no one who volunteers to fight and die for this country should ever feel like that they have nowhere to turn. that's unacceptable for this country. in my 12 years in the senate, my one guiding principle on every security decision i made and every vote i cast was always this, simply this -- is our policy worthy of our troops and their families and the sacrifices that we ask them to make? that same question will guide me if i am confirmed as secretary of defense. our men and women in uniform and their families must never doubt that their leaders' first priority is them. i believe my record of leadership on veterans' issues over the years going back to my service in the veterans administration under president reagan demonstrates my rock- solid commitment to our veterans and their families. we must always take care of our people. that's why i will work to ensure that everyone who volunteers to fight for this country has the same rights and same opportunities as i discussed with many of you in our meetings. i'm fully committed to implementing the repeal of don't-ask, don't-tell and doing everything possible under current law to provide equal benefits to the families of all, all our service members and their families. i will work with the service chiefs as we officially open combat positions to women, a decision i strongly support. and i will continue the important work that leon panetta has done to combat sexual assault, sexual assault in the military, maintain the health and well-being of those who serve as critical to maintaining a strong and capable military because in institutions people must always come first. as we look ahead to the coming years, we have an extraordinary opportunity, opportunity now, at this moment to define what's next for america's military in our country. it is incumbent upon all of us to make decisions that will ensure our nation is prepared to confront any threat we may face in the future, protect our citizens and remain, remain the greatest force for good in the world. if confirmed as secretary of defense, it will be a great honor working with the president, this committee, the congress and our military to ensure our policies are worthy of the service and sacrifice of america's men and women. thank you, mr. chairman. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you very much, senator hagel, and here's what the plan is now for the hearing. -- what the plan is now for the hearing. we'll have a first round of eight minutes each. we have a vote that is scheduled for 12:15. we're going to work through that vote so -- and we're also going to work through lunch, which means we would ask are you to vote sometime during that 12:15 vote and come back, for those who haven't had your turn yet. there are five votes at 2:15. i hope that we can complete our first round by 2:00 or 2:15 so we could then have a late lunch at 12:15 during those five votes. we would then come back perhaps an hour later. we would ask those who have not had a turn, if that's the case, or during our second round that to begin our second round that you on the final vote, vote early and then come back so we can start as quickly as possible around the 3:15 or 3:30, i would assume, to either complete the first round, if it hasn't been completed, or to begin our second round. the -- because of the time crunch, we have standard questions which we ask of all nominees. i am going to ask those at a later time during this hearing, but we will ask them, and again i think we hope to finish today. we'll leave the record open for questions, but our goal would be to finish today no matter how long it takes today. then to have the record open for questions. so let us now begin our first round of eight minutes. senator hagel, you made reference to the looming sequester. we received a letter signed by the joint chiefs of staff relative to sequester which says that we're on the brink of creating a hallowed force based on budget conditions and legislation. they have talked about the readiness crisis which would result, grounding aircraft, returning ships to port, stop driving combat vehicles and training and so forth. can you -- and you've spoken very briefly about your agreeing in general with the impact. would you expand on the impact of that sequester from your perspective? >> well, mr. chairman, i think the chiefs have laid it out rather directly, plainly, as secretary panetta has as recently as two, three days ago, ash carter in an interview, went into some detail. the fact is, the bottom line is if sequester would occur, it isn't just a reduction in a significant amount of dollars that would occur, but it would be a convergence of taking the flexibility, the projection, the management, the future away from those who are responsible for managing our budget. furloughs. furloughing civilian employees would have to occur. you listed inventory of consequences of cutting back on flying time, of training. these are real consequences that would occur. i know the pentagon, the chiefs, those who have responsibility or managing every department of this three million operation security institution are preparing for the worst. but make no mistake, this is not an exaggeration. when managers are not given the flexibility and the opportunity and the tools to manage with complete uncertainty as to what's ahead, that's disaster. >> thank you. on the question of iran and the use of force, the president has said that iran's leaders should understand that president obama does not have a policy of containment. he has a policy to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, that he's made clear that he will not hesitate, in his words, to use force when necessary to defend the united states and its interests. do you agree with president obama's position that, quote, all options should be on the table, closed quote, to let iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon? >> i do, i have and i strongly agree with it. >> on iranian sanctions. president obama has said that the sanctions which have been put in place are crippling the economy of iran. i have to agree. their currency has dropped 80%. oil production has plunged. the economy is in the shambles. do you agree with the president's views on sanctions against iran and if so how do you reconcile your position with some of your past statements that suggest that the national security of the united states is not served by isolating iran? >> well, first, i do agree and always have agreed with multilateral sanctions because i think they have an effect sand i think this president, in particular, has probably done more than any president to effectively employ those kind of international sanctions, starting with a security council u.n. agreement and u.n. mandates. so i agree with what the president's doing. and i've said publicly, incidentally, long before the president ever asked me to consider this job, that additional sanctions might be required. as to my record on votes in the senate regarding unilateral sanctions, i have differed on some of those. i have voted for some as well. it was always on a case-by-case basis. when i voted against some of those unilateral sanctions against iran, it was a different time. for example, i believe one was in 2001, 2002. we were at a different place with iran during that time. as a matter of fact, i recall the bush administration did not want a renewal of the five-year renewal of ilsa during that time because they weren't sure of the effectiveness of sanctions. that wasn't the only reason i voted against it. it was because i thought there might be other ways to employ our vast ability to harness power and allies. it was never a question of did i disagree with the objective. the objective was i think very clear to both of us. i recall, for example, in 2008, secretary of state rice, sending a letter to the chairman of the finance committee, senator -- senator baucus, requiring a sanctions resolution unilateral in the finance committee not come out of the finance committee because the bush administration at the time was working with the russians specifically but with the security council of the united nations to try to get international sanctions which i think that effort, by the way in 2008, led to the 2010 international sanctions. >> can you give us your view on the size of the u.s. force, which might be necessary or would be necessary after 2014, the so-called residual force, if you have an opinion on the size? you indicated in your opening statement two missions for that residual force. can you also give us your opinion about the size of the afghan national security force after 2014 and whether you agree with me and senator graham on this committee and others that we ought to reconsider the position that the afghan national security force should be reduced by a third starting in 2014 to about 230,000 from what its current goal is which is about 350,000? >> as you all know, general allen has presented his options to the president for the president's consideration. as far as i know as of this morning, the president had not made a decision on what a residual force numbers-wise would look like. i have not been included in those discussions, so i don't know other than knowing that he's got a range of options as you do. but i would say that from what the president has told me, from what secretary panetta has told me, that that decision will be made to assure resourcing the mission and the capability of that mission. as to what kind of a force structure should eventually be in place by the afghans, i don't know enough about the specifics to give you a good answer other than to say i think that has to be a decision that is made certainly with the president of afghanistan, what we can do to continue to support and train and protect our interests within the scope of our ability to do that. obviously the immunity for our troops is an issue, which was an issue with iraq. all those considerations will be important and will be made. if i'm confirmed and in position to give the president advice on that, i will with consultation of our commanders on the ground and our chiefs, give him the best options we can provide. >> will you review that question of the size of the afghan force with an open mind if confirmed? >> i will because i think we have to. >> thank you. senator inhofe. >> thank you, mr. chairman. senator hagel, my first question's not to be responded regarding the position but i want to state the position or restate the position on five things i mentioned during my opening statement merely to ask you if those are accurate reflections of things that happened in the past. first one is in 2007, you voted against the designating iran islamic revolutionary guard corps as a terrorist organization. the second thing, in 2006 you were one of 12 senators who refused to position the e.u. to identify hezbollah as a terrorist group. third, in november of twee, you failed to -- 2003, you failed to vote on a syrian accountability act with sanctions -- occupation of lebanon. four, in 2001, you were one of only two senators that year to vote against renewal of the iran-libya sanctions act. and lastly, in 2001, you were one of four senators who refused to sign the letter supporting israel. are those accurate? >> well, let's start with the -- >> no. i just want to know if the statement -- these are votes that took place. do you agree those votes took place? >> i want to ask the letter that you just noted in your fifth point, what was the date in the letter? >> the date. >> you said i refused to sign letter. >> october of 2001. >> a letter to -- >> ok. skip that one. is the other ones true? >> well, it was fairly important -- >> it's very important. i was holding the letter at the time that we were gathering signatures. >> i see. on the 2008 question regarding designating the revolutionary guard as a terrorist organization, i did vote against it. >> i'm sorry. i don't want to be rude. you and i are very good friends. i know my time's going to expire. others are going to ask why you did this. i was asking for the accuracy. if you don't want to answer that's fine. >> i did vote against it and i was going to explain why i voted against it. >> i know. they will be asking you for your explanation. i want to get to three other things and that's why it's critical that we kind of keep moving along here. one of the criticisms i had of this administration is the lack of priority and funding for the military. while they've increased the deficit by $5.3 trillion in four years, the only major part of the budget has been decreased is the military. that's something pretty well- known. a lot of people don't like that idea. the thing that bothers me just as much is putting the agenda, another agenda under the military budget. for example, you have heard senator mccain and me and others talk about the fact that the navy paid for 450,000 gallons of fuel, some $26 a gallon. you can get it on the market for $3. the air force, same thing. except it's $59 a gallon. and so the question i would have of you is just a commitment that if you are confirmed, will you confine the dollars that we are going to spend in the defense budget for defense purposes, for war-fighting purposes? >> well, of course i will because that's the intent of our budget and department of defense. >> i appreciate that very much. there was an article the other day in "the washington post" by jennifer ruben called, "our dim witted state department." it's kind of an interesting article. there are four questions that i'm willing to ask that you respond for the record. for people that don't know what it is, that means later on in writing. the questions i'd like that she asked. did the sell of the f-16's have morrissey crack down on his peep? would we still have sent the weaponry? how will we respond to the anti-democratic moves and the rise and violence against christians in egypt? or as will likely be the case, a failure to live up to egypt's security obligations regarding gaza? and four, have we miscalculated the muslim brotherhood? that would be for the record. in the area of the global zero policy, you and i talked about that in my office. others have talked about it. we're very much concerned. when i heard senator warner and others talk about what used to be the case, the problem in terms of nuclear capabilities, we used to be talking about russia and the united states. it's not true any more. our intelligence has told us since 2007 that iran will have that nuclear capability and a delivery system by 2015. so it's other countries that are involved in that. the question i would ask you, in your book you wrote that we must once again convince the world that america has a clear intention of fulfilling the nuclear disarmament committee -- commitments that we have made. the question, a bit more recently you said, i believe providing necessary resources for a nuclear modernization of the triad should be a national priority. do you stand by your last statement? >> my last -- >> your last statement saying -- i believe that providing the necessary resources for nuclear modernization of the triad should be a national priority? >> absolutely should be. i agree with that. and that's what the policy of this administration is. >> well, i'm merely bringing out the inconsistency because when you were involved with supporting the global zero or whatever that group, the organization was, their declaration is, quote, we the undersigned believe that protect our children, our grandchildren, our civilization from the threat of nuclear catastrophe, we must eliminate all nuclear weapons globally, we therefore commit to working for a legally binding verifiable agreement, including all nations to eliminate nuclear weapons by a date certain. >> the position of global zero, my position, some of the individuals, national security leaders that senator nunn talked about, including himself, has not been unilateral disarmament ever, never. we have over the years, which i have supported, the united states has led in reducing the efforts to reducing nuclear warheads. there was no more significant voice for that than ronald reagan when he laid before secretary general gorbachev in 1986 a rather bold plan. in fact, i believe, paraphrasing president reagan, we must eliminate nuclear warheads from the face of the earth, i believe he said something to that effect. global zero has been very clear on this. their effort has been in line with every major national leader in the world, including president obama, to continue to try to make an effort to reduce our nuclear warheads, but in a dangerous world, nuclear arsenals and our containment policy which i mentioned in my statement has been critically important. we're not going to unilaterally disarm. verifiable. it has to be bilateral. it has to be negotiated. as all our treaties have been. >> thank you, senator hagel. the reasonable i mentioned the mission statement, that's a group you belong to. we can talk about that later. you may want to expand on that for the record. my time has expired, but i have one last question i'd like to ask and that is, given that iran, the people -- i'm quoting right now from iran -- people of the middle east, the muslim region and the north africa, people of these regions hate america from the bottom of their heart. it further says israel is a cancerous tumor in the heart of the muslim world. and they're willing to wipe israel off the map. and if you'd like to answer for the record, why do you think the iranian foreign ministry strongly supports your nomination to be the secretary of defense? >> i have a difficult enough time with american policies, senator. i have no idea. but thank you. and i'll be glad to respond further for the record. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator inhofe. senator reed. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. first, i'd ask unanimous consent that several letters of support, including one from 13 former secretaries of defense, secretaries of state, strongly endorse senator hagel's nomination be placed in the record. >> it will be placed in the record. >> i think the president chose wisely. there are very few people in the country with very few experience, as a combat infantryman, decorated and wounded, as a business leader, as the second leader of the veterans administration, as the united states senator, as someone who every day understands that the decisions we make will be carried out by young americans, has looked in the face of young americans, who have seen them suffer and die for this country. and i think that quality is if not unique extraordinarily part of the nominee before us. so again i think the president made a wise choice. senator inhofe's discussion about zero growth is an opportunity for a quote and let me quote. there is only one way safely and legitimately to reduce the course of national security and that is to reduce the need for it. and that is why we are trying to do a negotiation with the soviet union. we are not just discussing limits on the further increase of nuclear weapons. we seek instead to reduce the number. we seek the total elimination of one day of nuclear weapons on the face of the earth. president ronald reagan in his second inaugural address. the notion of global zero is not something unique. as signators to the nuclear disarmament treaty, national nonproliferation treaty, article 11 undertakes to commit at least to complete disarmament under strict and effective control. this is something the united states has embraced for have -- a very long time under presidents of both parties. as senator hagel pointed out, this is not unilateral disarmament. this is a long process of making sure we have the nuclear weapons in place to deal with appropriate challenges. some very different than the cold war. but the aspirations have been important. and been a bipartisan constant for decades. is that a rough summary of what you might agree to do, senator? >> yes, it is, senator. thank you. >> the other issue is there is several specific points raised with your record, and let me give you the opportunity to respond, if you will, to the questions that senator inhofe posed with respect to votes. if you have the list before you or -- >> what, sorry? >> senator inhofe posed several issues about 2007 vote, 2006 resolution with hezbollah, 2003 syrian sanctions, etc. you were prepared to comment. i think it's appropriate that you have an opportunity to comment if you want to do so now, i'd invite you to do so. >> i'd be glad to further comment for the record, because i have none of those specific votes in front of me, which i will, senator, listing every vote i took. i would say, though, included in those votes, which i do recall some of them, were a vote in 1998, a vote in 2000, a vote in 2006, specifically against iran, sanctioning companies, unilateral sanctions that in any way assisted iran's building their capability of nuclear weapons or rocket or missiles, i voted for those. i recall signing a letter, warner-levin letter in 2002 to the president of the united states regarding anti-semitism in russia. i wrote a letter to president clinton specifically in 1999 recommending to president clinton a number of stems that he'd take with president yeltsin regarding anti-semitism in russia. i remember specifically there were two unanimous consent resolutions in 2006 against hezbollah, against hamas, against syria and iran that we had unanimous consent, i supported on the floor of the senate. so there is a more complete record, senator, than just one or two or three or four, and those are some of them that i recall. as i noted in one of the responses back to senator inhofe, i didn't take any action on any vote, as i suspect every colleague here has the same way to approach votes, on this specific issue, on hezbollah, hamas, which i'm on the record many times designating and saying that hezbollah and hamas are terrorist organizations. i'm on the record many times in speeches and the floor of the senate and in the book i wrote in 2008 saying that iran is a state sponsor of terrorism. that is not new. that's in my record. but the way i approached every vote i ever took in the senate was based on what i thought could be most effective, what was at the time, what was the situation at the time, how could we do this smarter and better. i always believed the president of the united states is the elected leader of america. he has within his responsibilities, and i believe it's clearly articulated in article 2, to conduct foreign policy. i always thought the best way to deal with foreign leaders is let the president do that directly, for us to communicate with the president. i don't think there was a letter i recall signed to a president on these issues that i agreed with it that i didn't sign. so it was never a matter of differing objectives here. it was a matter of how best we could do it. i mentioned in 2008 the secretary of state didn't want one of those unilateral sanctions to go forward during the bush administration, wrote a letter. 2001, one of the issues that senator inhofe brought up. the bush administration was opposed to a five-year renewal of those. now, i'm not saying it's right or wrong. every one of the decisions i made, every vote i cast was based on at the time what i thought made the most sense. >> senator, you have clearly stated that you are supportive of the president's efforts to support the state of israel. and you have specifically said the iron dome. they have seldom seen or never seen the same level of military support to the state of israel that he's seen in the last several years, and you are i presume and hope fully prepared to carry out that same effort, that same level of support because the vital interests that we share with the state of israel. >> i am, and i have a record on that. in my book in 2008, interviews, speeches, i have always said i am a supporter of israel. in some cases, i've said i am a strong supporter of israel. in some cases, i've written and i think it's in my book that we have a special relationship with israel and we always have had. i have never voted against israel ever in the 12 years i was in the senate, whether was military authorizations or supplemental appropriations. the record is very clear on that. i might add as long as we're on this subject, and senator nelson may have a clearer view of this and see was just in jerusalem, and there have been a couple of recent statements made by the current israeli ambassador to the united states, the former israeli ambassador to the united states and now the deputy foreign minister to israel. they were fairly positive about me. all of the israeli leaders i have dealt with and met with, and i have been to israel many times -- the first two times i was in israel, i was in the u.s. though. we kept the haifa uso open. there was a lot of pressure to close uso's around the world. there was a lot of pressure to close the haifa uso's. a recent interview how strongly supported me and said specifically i was a strong friend of israel. the uso is now closed, but the than-director who lives in haifa said i was a strong supporter for israel. i think my record is clear. i support israel and continue to support the president's policies and i think he has been as strong a supporter of israel as may be any president since 1948, when harry truman helped give birth to israel. this president has been there -- as he said, have israel's back. $3.1 billion in assistance, almost 300 additional million dollars of the defense department for iron dome. i am a strong supporter of all of those programs and will continue to support them. >> thank you. >> before i call on that senator mccain, there's not a quorum present and i ask the committee to consider 952 military nominations. is there a motion to favorably report does? all in favor? opposed? the motion carries. thank you. senator mccain? >> thank you. i'm pleased to see an old friend here before the committee, especially pleased to see senator warner and senator nunn, two senators who have contributed greatly to the defense. these questions are not reasonable people disagreeing, these are fundamental disagreements. our concerns pertain to your final judgment and world view on areas of national security, including security in the middle east. with that in mind, let me begin with your opposition to the surge in iraq. 2006, republicans lost the election and we began the surge. he wrote a piece in the "washington post" -- leaving iraq honorably. he said it's not in the national interest for the u.s. to deepen its military involvement. in january 2007, in a rather bizarre exchange with secretary rice in the foreign relations committee after some nonsense about syria and crossing the border into iran and syria because of the surge, and a reference to cambodia in 1970, you said "when you set in motion the kind of policy the president is talking about here, it's very dangerous. i think this speech given last night by this president represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since the vietnam. if it is carried out, i will resist it." the question continued on for months and months talking about what a disaster the surge would be even when it was clear the surge was succeeding. in march 2008, you said "the term quagmires could apply. some reject that term, but if that is not a quagmire, what is? even as late as august 29, 2011, in an interview with the "financial times" -- you said i disagree with president obama and his decision to surge in iraq as i did with president obama. do you stand by those comments? >> senator, i stand by them because i made them. >> were you right? where you write in your assessment? >> i would defer to the judgment of history to sort that out. >> the committee deserves to know whether you are right or wrong about the search. >> i will explain why -- >> i want to know if you are right or wrong. it's a direct question. >> the surge assisted in the objective. >> will you please answer the question -- were you correct or incorrect when he said the surge would be the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since vietnam? were you correct or incorrect? >> my reference -- >> are you going to answer the question? were you right or wrong? that's a straightforward question. answer whether you are right or wrong and then you are free to elaborate. >> i'm not going to give you a yes or no answer. >> let the record show he refuses to answer the question. please go ahead. >> if you would like me to explain -- >> i would like an answer, yes or no. >> i'm not going to give you a yes or no. it's far more complicated than that. i will defer that judgment to history. as to the comment i made about the most dangerous foreign policy decision since vietnam, that was about not just the surge, but the overall war of choice going into iraq. that particular decision made on the surge, but more to the point, our war in iraq, i think was the most fundamentally bad, dangerous decision since vietnam. aside from the cost that occurred to blood and treasure, what that did to take our focus off of afghanistan, which in fact was the original and real focus of the national threat to this country, iraq was not, i always tried to frame all of the different issues before i made a decision on anything. we can have differences of opinion. but that is essentially why i took the position. >> a fundamental difference of opinion, senator hegel. senator gramm and i, senator lieberman, we spent our time trying to prevent that 60 of. thank god for senator lieberman. i think history has already made a judgment about the surgeon you are on the wrong side of it in your refusal to answer whether you were right or wrong about it is going to have an impact on my judgment as to whether to vote for your confirmation or not. i hope he will reconsider the fact he refused to answer a fundamental question about an issue that took the lives of thousands of young americans. >> senator, there is more to it than just -- >> i am asking about the surge. >> i know, and i am trying to explain my position. it factored what general allan had put into place, we put over 100,000 -- >> am very aware of the history of the surge and i am also aware any casual observer will know the surge was the fundamental factor led by two great leaders, general petraeus and ambassador crocker. >> i don't know if that would have been required and cost us over a thousand american lives. >> you don't know if the surge would have been required? let me go to syria now. more than 60,000 people have been killed in syria. do you believe we should be more engaged in syria? >> i know this administration is very engaged in working with its partners. >> you don't think we should do more? >> when you say do more -- >> do you think we should make sure the syrians get the weapons they need and perhaps established a no-fly zone? >> i believe part of our review is looking at those options. >> it has been 22 months. >> i wasn't there. i don't know the details, i'm not there now. the'm sure you've read in newspapers that 60,000 people have been killed and it is in danger of spilling over into neighboring countries. my question is how many more would have to die before you would support arming the resistance and establishing a no-fly zone? >> i don't think anyone questions the terrible tragedy occurring there every day. it's a matter of how best do we work our way through this so we can stop it to begin with. what comes next? >> did you disagree with president obama on his decision for the surge in afghanistan? >> i did not think we should get ourselves -- first of all, i have no original position -- >> you were recorded in 2007 saying i disagree on the decision to surge into afghanistan. >> that was my personal opinion, yes. >> thank you. >> senator nelson? >> since the issue of iraq has come up here, i want to state for the record and laid the predicate that this senator was one of many that voted for the authorization to go into iraq and, as it turns out, the lessons of history, we were given incorrect information as a justification for going into iraq. we were told by the secretary of defense, by the secretary of state, by the national security adviser, and the director of the cia that there were weapons of mass destruction in iraq. so for a lot of the decisions that were made at the outset, they were decisions that were informed with incorrect information. as the committee is judging senator hagel on that decision, i want to tell the committee what was the experience of this senator. what i would like to do with my time here is that since there are few of us in this room that served in the military during the vietnam era, and you clearly have that experience in combat. senator hagel -- by the way, a lot of people don't know anything about vietnam and don't know how difficult it was as senator warner has so eloquently stated in his comments, how the nation was divided. what i would like for you as the committee is getting to know you, know something about your service in vietnam and your combat experience. were you wounded, senator hagel? >> senator nelson, thank you. if i may, if i read into your question, some latitude in answering. i would respond this way -- i think my time is better served may be talking about these specific things like senator mccain asked me about and some others and maybe we've in some of my experience as to how i formed my judgment rather than going through a 12-month journal of my time in the jungles when my brother, and i were both wounded twice together. in 1968, when tom and i served here was the worst year we had. those who may not recall that year, we sent over 16,000 dead americans home. that is unfathomable in the world we live in today. 16,000 dead americans. i saw that from the bottom. i think chairman levin, in an accurate and appropriate quote for me and it certainly goes to senator mccain's question about the search. just as i said in my statement -- i have one fundamental question i asked myself on every vote i took in every decision made -- was a policy worthy of the men and women we were sending in to battle and surely to their deaths? in many cases, unfortunately tens of thousands of cases we are living with and these poor families are living with, wounded -- the results and the consequences. i know it's easy here, it is anywhere, if you don't have a connection to some of this to see these things a little differently. it doesn't mean i'm any better, senator, it doesn't mean i'm any smarter, it doesn't mean i'm any more appreciative of the service to our country. i saw it to the bottom and i saw what happens. i saw the consequences, the suffering, and horror of war. i did question the surge. it was not an aberration to me ever. i always ask the question is this going to be worth the sacrifice, because there will be sacrificed. in the surge in iraq, we lost almost 1200 dead americans and thousands of wounded. was it required? was it necessary? senator mccain has his own opinion on that, shared by others. i'm not sure. i'm not that certain it was required. it doesn't mean i'm right, it doesn't mean i made wrong vote, but that is what guides me when you ask me the question about my time in vietnam and was i wanted -- that was a very insignificant part of this. we were just doing our job, senator, as every military person knows that. some of this committee has a rather distinguished members that it served, starting with senator mccain and the sacrifices he has made to this country. but it does condition you. i am not shaped, frame, molded, consumed by that experience. of course not. but it is part of me. i tried to explain that in my opening statement. we are all shaped by those experiences. i hope that experience i have had is for the better and i hope if i have the privilege of serving as secretary of defense, it will put someone in charge at the pentagon -- not questioning past secretaries of defense, i can only speak for myself -- who understands the realities and consequences of war. it doesn't mean i'm better. i don't walk away from that. i acknowledge that. but it does not consume me. i don't see the lands of every world event and whether we should use american power through the lens of vietnam. but it is part of me and it is part of that lands. i think that is for the better and i think we need to be cautious with their power and lead to be wise with our power. we have great power, awesome power. no nation in the world is even in our league. we've done so much good with that power. i don't think there is a nation in history of man that has ever been as judicious and careful with its power as we have. and i want to make sure we continue to do that, as you all do. we will have differences on policies, but all i can do is my best based on my own experiences, as i said my statement, reaching out, listening, learning, never knowing enough, understand that circumstances change. >> thank you, senator. >> it's great to have you with us and have this hearing and opportunity to discuss important issues. i admire your service to your country and your combat experience is something we all honor and respect. i have been for the most part chairman, ranking member or member of the strategic subcommittee of this senate armed services committee for the time i've been in the senate. we came together, so i have some experience and knowledge about nuclear weapons and national security. i believe the secretary of defense should be the core, the rock solid person for the defense of america. i believe he should project an image of solidity and steadfastness the whole world and american people can depend on. i'm more than a little troubled by the report you participated in that calls for the total elimination of nuclear weapons and clearly suggests that is an achievable goal in a realistic time. certainly not immediately. their report writers issued an article defending you and the report that was just issued last year. they protest and say chalk hagel and global zero views are in the national interest and squarely in the mainstream. they insist you are in the mainstream because your position is that of president obama's. dramatically, they assert you are out of the mainstream if you believe otherwise. your report explicitly calls for "an urgent and transformational change in u.s. nuclear force structure, strategy and posture." exceedingly's an dramatic report, frankly. specifically, as to the historic nuclear force triad that has been our defense triad, it calls for bilaterally or unilaterally totally eliminating the icbm triad leg. the report refers to itself as a diad instead of a triad. you propose eliminating the 76 nuclear b-52 bombers entirely, leaving only 18 v to bombers, reducing nuclear submarines from 14 to 10. you favor eliminating all tactical nuclear weapons, de- alerting all the clear weapons, that means it would take a few days to place a weapon on alert. i agree that would be a transformational change in our nuclear force structure, strategy and posture. i think it's a big, historic thing. the present commander of the u.s. strategic command and the secretary of the air force do not agree with the recommendations in this report. they're people he will supervise. the general told the press last year that he does not support the former vice chairman, general cartwright, i do not think we are in the place he suggests now, nor do i see that particular place anytime soon. you will be supervising him. would you share with us where you are today on that issue? do you support the view of general taylor or do you support the commission report you signed? >> thank you, senator. first, let me correct some of your interpretation of what the global zero report was. and what it actually said. first, it did not propose or call for anything. it was in fact the word specifically used at the front end of that report was illustrative. proposing nothing, but laying out different scenarios and possibilities and schedules. but here is the key part to all of this. this is summarized in a letter to president obama in 2009. bilateral, never unilateral. nothing was suggested on a unilateral basis to take down our arsenal. verifiable. these are terms that were in the report. as senator nunn said in his opening statement and i have alluded to this -- the mainstream thinking of most presidents we've had the last 65 years, and i go back to ronald reagan's comment was a reduction of nuclear weapons for very obvious reasons. that is why we have engaged in treaties to reduce nuclear weapons. those were not unilateral arrangements, those were bilateral arrangements. the u.s. and russians have about 90% of the nuclear weapons in the world today. there are others to have them. there are nine nuclear powers, dangerous, the so-called loose nukes or non-state actors and terrorist groups getting all of these are threats -- >> it is not clear in your report. the report says on page one these steps should be taken with russia and negotiated in another round of bilateral arms reductions or implemented unilaterally. a less good approach would be to adopt this agenda he unilaterally. it suggests it would not be as good, but you would do so. there is another reference to that. it does call for these reductions in your conclusion. you say the united states should seek to achieve such reductions in 10 years and base its arsenal on a diad of nuclear delivery vehicles. it would consist of 10 trident submarines and 18 v to bombers. the normal conditions that one half of the warhead stockpile would be deployed on these carriers, the other half would be kept in reserves. all land-based intercontinental missiles armed with nuclear payloads would be retired along with carriers of non strategic nuclear warheads. all of which would be eliminated. tactical nuclear weapons, all of which would be eliminated from the stockpile. b-52 bombers would be completely dismantled or converted to carry only conventional weapons. i don't believe that is consistent with the policy as a country as a whole. i support of legislation to create a bipartisan commission several years ago to help us. senator levin and others supported. the house supported and it passed, to help us determine how much further we could continue to draw down our nuclear weapons. john glenn was on it, lee hamilton, james woolsey, they had access to the defense department secret documents and information and they came out with quite a different view. let me point out some of the things they came up with. they said maintain the triad. they said "maintained the triads." they said to maintain the weapons. they recommended no change in the alert status. in fact, this was with president obama and secretary gates, and they especially found it. i will give you a chance to respond. they said, quote, what may make possible the global elimination of nuclear weapons are not present today, and their creation would require a fundamental transformation in the world political order. close quote. that is a very strong statement, and there is this idea that is practical and realistic for us to expect that the world is going to move to zero nuclear weapons. so, first, i want to ask you one question that you told me in our meeting that i appreciated. president obama stated when we did the treaty discussions and voting, quote, "i intend to modernize or replace the triad of strategic nuclear systems, a heavy bomber, and a cruise missile, and icbm and nuclear power ballistic submarines." " decks. and he talked about the two buildings where our modernizations would take place and request full funding for those projects, so, first, let me ask you. would you support that vision and commitment to the president made? >> well, absolutely, i do. >> and then you can respond to what i am saying, but i really do feel that i am uneasy about his vision expressed in that committee report of yours. >> well, let me just briefly come back to what you said, senator, and i appreciate your giving me a chance to respond. first, my record has always been very clear. everything i voted on in my career in the senate. i have been a strong, agile, save, arsenal for the united states. that is not debatable. i believe that. you know the home of the strategic command is now in senator fisher's state, which used to be the state by represented. i used to be in that state as a senator. it has not changed. i know a little something about, not as much as you and others on the committee, but i have been to that facility many times. i know the general very well. and you know what the motto is. it is a pretty significant module. "piece is our business." -- "peace is our business." there is that strong, nuclear deterrent. this prospective secretary of defense would never do anything or in any way take any action that would minimize or harm or downgrade that reality. again, i go back to, not to get caught up in this report, this report was about the illustrative possibilities, always bilateral, always bilateral, just as we have always done in our treaties. i will stop there. that is a commitment i made to you and the president. my record is clear. >> well, thank you, and i would just say that the vision stated in your report i believe is going to create instability rather than confidence and stability, create uncertainty among our allies and i do not believe it will meet the goals that you said not to weaken our abilities. so i am troubled. i appreciate your comments today, but i am troubled. >> thank you very much, senator sessions. but >> thank you, mr. chairman. in the six years i have served in this committee, i have served under senator warner as a ranking member and senator mccain as a ranking republican member, and i have to tell you that there has never been a time that i did not sense that we all agreed that our work on behalf of our nation in terms of protecting our country and defending our country, that it was a bipartisan effort. i believe very strongly that this committee needs to be bipartisan, and i hope that the new ranking member holds the same regard for that as senator mccain and senator warner did, because at all times, i felt that they were respectful and were willing to listen to our disagreements, and i am hopeful about will continue, and i am optimistic that it will. i will ask some questions. if you need more time, just say so. do you believe that all options should be on the table when we confront in iran? >> absolutely. >> do you believe that iran is a state sponsor of terrorism and provide support to hezbollah and hamas. >> yes, and i am on the record many times saying that. >> do you support sanctions against iran? >> yes. >> do you believe that the united states should unilaterally eliminate its nuclear arsenal? >> no. >> do you agree with four national security leaders, including henry kissinger, san nunn, william perry, and george shultz, president reagan's secretary of state, when they said, and i quote, "the four of us have come together in a non- partisan effort, deeply committed to building support for a global effort to reduce reliance on nuclear weapons, to prevent their spread into potentially dangerous hands, and to ultimately to end them as a threat to the world. we remain committed to working towards this vision and advancing the steps essential to achieve this goal." do you agree with those four bipartisan, national leaders in the area of national security and foreign policy? >> yes. >> i wanted to take some time to talk about some of the things we talked about in my office. what the defense department. i know you stayed with some of the advanced policy questions that you want to hold people accountable and profitability. i do not think most americans understand that as we face shrinking budgets and as we want to secure the pre-eminence of our military and not a hollow out the spending in the defense department, that walkability is a crucial agreement to us being able to find out if all of the money being spent there is being spent like americans would want it to be spent. can you reassure me that on its ability as prescribed by law -- that bought it -- what it -- auditability is a priority, that it would be an essential priority of your time as secretary of defense? >> as i told you, senator, i will make that commitment to this committee. >> and then turning to contract in. i have yet to have provided to me other than the numbers that we spent, any data that would indicate that major infrastructure rebuilding as part of a counterinsurgency strategy works. there are many things that work in a counterinsurgency strategy, and one of them as it was originally posed to me back some six years ago on this committee by general petraeus was the commander emergency response program, but walking around money to fix a plate glass windows in neighborhoods, that that was an essential part. that change into our military infrastructure projects. without really any data really to indicate that the billions of dollars that we were spending was, in fact, advancing our mission, our military mission. in addition to that, it is clear, if you want to look at iraq, and the failures that iraq represents in some ways, one of the failures is the crumbling investments that this country made in iraq. the health centers that never opened. the water parks that's it crumbling. the facilities that were blown up before they even had an opportunity to operate. i can go down billions of dollars of waste because we did not do the analysis on sustainability after we left. i am convinced that we have made the same mistakes in afghanistan, and i would like your response to this issue of major infrastructure building while we are in a conflict being conducted by our military, not by a i.d. or by the state department, -- not by a.i.d, analyzing whether or not there is data to support that aspect of the strategy. >> well, i will make that commitment, and it is part of a larger series of questions and factors always involved when a nation gets clearly committed, as we were and still are in afghanistan and were in iraq for eight years. when you are at war, the highest, first priority is to take care of your people, and as a result of that, all of the rest of the normal latitude and guidance, fury, policy is secondary, and so i think in both of those wars, because we got ourselves in so deep with so many people, and the welfare of our men and women was paramount, we tried a lot of things. we had never been this way before. we had never seen anything quite like these two situations, and as a result, as you know, our special inspector generals have come up with billions and billions and billions of dollars better run accounted for. corruption. fraud. waste. abuse. it really is quite astounding, but when you think about the universe of money that went in, no one should be surprised. now, how do we fix it? what do we do? to your point, how do we learn? how do we learn from this? we need to learn from this. it was not the fault of the military. of the military was asked to do everything. we overloaded circuits of our military korea we said, "you do it. you have got the structure. you have got the organization. you have got the people. so now go do it. so we put these young captain's in very difficult spot. they were given $100,000 in cash, essentially walking around money to take care of things and so on. it was not their fault. they were told to do this, what was part of the strategy. so i do not question necessarily any particular strategy or part of it, but i do think it is part of bill hall that you are talking about. i will take a look at this, and we will go deeper in this because we owe it to our people. we owe it to the people of this country who pay the bills, and for future, what did we learn for future challenges? >> thank you. >> thank you, senator. senator chambliss? >> thank you. again, congratulations on your nomination. as we talked the other day, you and i have been good friends since i came to the senate in 2002, sat next to each other for six years on the intel committee, and during that process, there were some things that i question, but we were always able to dialogue. there is our friendship, and i appreciate that. you were also introduced by two of my friends. i want to drill down, chuck, probably the number-one issue you will have to deal with assuming that you are confirmed, and that is the issue about our relationship with iran and where do we go in the future, short- term as well as long term. you wrote in your book, and i quote, "we blundered into iraq due to flawed judgments and ideologically driven motives. we must not repeat these errors with iran, and the best way to avoid that is to maintain an effective dialogue." you then go on to advocate again a direct and strategic, diplomatic relationship. i heard you in your opening comments say that your position on iran is prevention, not containment when it comes to their nuclear weapon is asian. i want you to expand on that, -- it comes to their nuclear weaponizeation. iran is the number-one terror sponsor in the world. i do not think there is any disagreement about that. i want you to expand on your position on a nuclear weaponized it -- iran, and it your position is true about prevention and not containment, chalk, what is the point? we know there are some things happening right now that are very serious, so how far do we go? do you still advocate direct negotiations with iran, it as you said, any made clear that all options were on the table, and you would say it again that military options is one of those. if you will, talk about that. we have never negotiated with a terrorist state. why do you feel that we ought to dialogue with them, even on this issue today? and lastly, what alterations, if any, do you think are necessary to our military force posture in the gulf region to deter iranian regional ambitions and support international diplomatic efforts to support -- to prevent iran from developing nuclear weapons capability. it is a broad statement on my part, a broader question, but this is the issue from the national security standpoint, chalk, and i would like you to be very specific. >> right. let's start with a very specific question on a vote. what is designated as the revolutionary guard as a terrorist organization. you recall because you were there that there were 22 senators voting against it. the effort against it, the main point made came from senator jim webb, and his point was we have never ever designated it a part of a legitimate government state, and i say legitimate, it does not mean that we agreed iran, but it is a member of the united nations. almost all of our allies have embassies in iran, so that is what i note an elected, legitimate government, whether we agree or not. designated them or made them part of a terrorist organization. we have never done that, so you say, so what? what is the big problem? the problem was that least 22 of us believed, both republicans and democrats, by the way, in that vote. it was jim webb on the floor, he said if you do that, that is tantamount to giving the president of the united states the authority to use military force against iran without having to come back to get a resolution from or partner with or cooperate with the congress of the united states. essentially, if we vote for this, we are giving the president in a sense that authority. we can agree or disagree with that, but i listened to that debate, and there were some pretty thoughtful debates, and that debate i thought was pretty powerful with me. we were already in two wars at the time, and i thought that this made sense, and so i voted against it. that is why i voted against it. you might also remember that the, secretary of state john kerry voted against it, and then senator obama gave speeches against it. vice-president biden voted against it. dick lugar voted against it. there were some other republicans. as to the iranian red line, persian gulf, some of the iranian questions you asked, i support the president's strong position of containment, as i said, and i will speak more specifically to a couple of the examples used from my book. but his position i think is right, and when you ask the question about red line, red line, i think the president has gone as far as he can go publicly on that, and he said clearly that in his words, he has israel's back. he said his policy is not to allow the iranians to get a nuclear weapon. what constitutes when the action would be taken? i think that is always something that should not be discussed publicly or debated publicly or out in the public domain. your quotations from my book, which you acknowledge as well, and i always say military options should be on the table, and i had said that consistently, as well as engaging with iran. i have always thought it is far smarter to approach these very serious threats, including iran, who is probably as significant a threat as we have out there today, although north korea is beyond a threat. it is a real nuclear power and quite unpredictable. i think pakistan is another very complicated reality, but staying on iran, i think we are far smarter to do what the president is doing, and i lay out in my book -- i have two chapters on iraq and a chapter on the middle east. getting the world community behind us with the u.n.- sanctioned sanctions through the security council of the united nations. these are tough sanctions. they are having a tremendous impact. you know that. on iran. if, in fact, the military option is the only one required -- i think we are always on higher ground in every way. national law, domestic law, people in the world, people in the region to be with us on this if we have tried and have gone through every possibility to resolve this in a responsible, a peaceful way, rather than going to war. everything i said in my book was about that. i do not have a problem with engagement pre-empt i think great powers engaged. it is clearly in our interest. that is not negotiation. engagement is not surrender. i think if the time is right, the climate is right, the dynamics are right, we should find the ways, if we can find ways. we cannot force it, but i think we are smarter and wiser to take that approach initially. posture in the persian gulf. as you know, senator, our fifth fleet is located in the persian gulf, bahrain, and as you also know, we have a couple of carrier battle groups in that area. our military posture in there is a very strong. it is very ready. it is very capable. these are contingencies and options that the secretary of defense, working with his cheeks, and the combat commanders always have to give with the president to make sure we are prepared, so let me stop there, and i may have missed some of the specific things you want to discuss. >> i am understating you saying you are not ready to discuss red lines and a specific way. am i hearing that right? >> i do not think that is my role now, to start with, as i am not the secretary of defense, but i think the president is wise in his course of action in not discussing that publicly. i think it is a far smarter way of handling it, and i think he has said what he needs to say. i think it has been understood in iran. i think the world understands his position. by the way, i have just been handed a note that i misspoke and said i supported the president's position on containment. if i said that, i meant to say that obviously we do not have a position on containment. i recognize the idea that more attention paid to my words and the last eight weeks than i ever thought possible, so i do not take any chances. thank you. >> i think i understood you correctly on containment. >> just to make sure your correction is clear, we do have a position on containment, which is we do not favor containment. >> we do not favor containment, so that is the president's position in my position. >> clarify be clarified. >> if you need further, i am here. >> thank you, senator. >> thank you, senator. >> good morning, senator hagel. thank you for once again heeding the call to lead the department of defense. we had a great private meeting last week. we covered many of the threats and challenges that our country faces, shrinking budgets, strategic national charity -- security ships, and we continue to provide fair and equal opportunities for all of our service members and their families. i want to tell you i appreciate that opportunity, and i will take you up on that offer, if you are confirmed, to sit down with you with the armed services committee. i know this issue has already been addressed, but i want to make sure i am on the record as to raising my concerns, and this committee should give every opportunity to underline your point of view. when we met, you emphasized your determination to keep all options on the table with regard to iran, including a military strike if iran continues to pursue a program of defiance of its international obligations. you also discussed your longstanding support of israel and your longstanding relationship, but you have critics out there, i do not have to tell you that, who maintain that your record on iran is in question and that you are anti- israel. these are serious charges, so let me direct some questions your way. why should americans trust that you would consider every option when it comes to one of the most serious national security threats facing us today, which is iran? >> well, first, thank you for an opportunity to clarify these issues. my record has been very clear on iran. senator chambliss noted from my 2008 book, a chapter, specifically noting that i said the military option must remain on the table. i said that as recently as an op-ed that i've co-authored last june and the washington post with two former said, commanders -- centcom demanders. one of the things we brought out is that the military option must remain on the table along with the other areas of effort and expertise and diplomacy and economics and sanctions that the president is using, which i have already said i support, so my record is pretty thorough on this, and i will continue to support that position, and i strongly support the president's position. >> senator, talk about a your view on israel, our relationship with israel. how can we continue to have a special alliance with a country with whom we share more than an economic or political philosophy but with eight broader moral connection that we have with israel? >> well, i have said many times, just as i am said in regards to the military option with iran, many times in my book, speeches on the floor, he interviews i have given, i am a strong supporter of israel. i will continue to be. i am also said, and i believe this is in my book, that we have a special relationship with israel, so, again, my record is pretty clear. i voted for 12 years in the senate for every authorization, every appropriation that i had an opportunity to vote on for israel. i have been to israel many times and have met with their leaders many times. so, again, if you look at my record, i think my record is pretty clear in my strong support for israel. >> senator, i've heard you say when you discussed your vote against the resolution applying to the iranian revolutionary guards that in the end, you were protecting congress broadly when it comes to declaring war. is that correct? >> that is exactly it. that is exactly what i was saying, and i guess i did not say it that way, but that was the point, and again i say like an answering the other questions, it was not a question of the objective, and i shared the objectives, and i suspect all 22 members who voted against that resolution supported the objective, but as jim webb made the case, i think, pretty effectively, and senator webb was an individual who had a rather considerable experience -- he had been secretary of navy under ronald reagan. he had been assistant secretary of defense under ronald reagan. he was one of the most decorated veterans of vietnam, a united states senator, a celebrated author and lawyer. i thought he made a strong persuasive case, as did many of us. >> let's turn to cybersecurity. i was pleased you mentioned cybersecurity in your initial remarks. the pentagon's move to significantly expand its cybersecurity assets and knowledge, i have to talk about colorado, since i represent them. the air force academy is well- positioned to train those cyber security experts. we are also a command point. when you talk more about your take on cybersecurity, what we need to be doing, what types of resources we made. >> as you know, i have been to those facilities in colorado a few times and to know as much about it as you do, but i am pretty familiar with it. they are essential to our national security. cyber, i believe, represents as big a threat to the security of this country as any one specific threat. for all of the reasons that this committee understands. it is an insidious, quiet kind of a threat that we have never seen before. it can paralyze a nation. not just a power grid or a banking system, but it can knock out satellites. it can take down computers on all of our battleships. it can do tremendous damage to our national security apparatus. that is the larger threat, but when you start defining it down, this body, i know, i watched it. we went through a pre-agonizing three months at the end of 2012 trying to find a bill that they could agree on on cyber. i know, or i believe, that the congress will come back in this new congress. i think he must, and you know that, because we have got different and it -- intergovernmental authorizations here. the dod. where is the capacity? where are the budgets? where are the authorities? this is law enforcement. this is privacy, business, a lot of complications that we have never ever had to face before. the other national defense reps do this country. so cyber will be an area that we will continue to focus on. we must. it is an area i will put a high priority on if i am confirmed to be secretary of defense. >> senator, the 2013 -- there is a provision that compels the military to accommodate the conscious moral principles and religious beliefs of all members of the armed forces. this seems reasonable on the surface, but i am especially concerned this could lead to misguided claims as a right to discriminate against lesbians or gays or bisexuals or some with other beliefs. the president has said that they will not permit or condone discriminatory actions that compromise good order or discipline, or otherwise affect the military code of conduct. would you assure that the department of defense, in accommodating religious beliefs or matters of conscience, does not tolerate discrimination in regards to others? >> absolutely. i will faithfully, diligently enforce our laws. all men and women deserve the same rights, and i can assure you that will be a high priority. i will assure that in every way through the entire chain of command and accountability. >> thank you, senator riegle. i look forward to the second round of questions. it is now the afternoon, and it is a good afternoon. >> thank you, senator. senator? >> let me follow up on that. does that mean a chaplain would have to perform a same-sex marriage, if he objected based on conscience? >> i think the pentagon regulations show, senator, that same-sex marriage it is legal in nine states. >> no, with a chaplain be able to bounce out of that procedure based on conscience? >> certainly. what we do not want though, senator, the point is someone to be denied to be married. in a chapel for a facility and so on, but, certainly, as a matter of conscience. what i am talking about is a strict interpretation of defending the law, which defends rights. >> thank you very much for clarifying that, and thank you for calling me early on. we had our conversation on january 8, and i appreciated that opportunity. you just said that your statements over time have gotten a lot more attention than you ever dreamed possible, and i hope you agree that is entirely appropriate in this context. chairman 11 -- the chairman mention that in speaking your mind, you had said several things that had caused him concern. senator in off -- another senator mention what some people feel our policy reversals based on expedience's, so those are concerns. you and i talked about two of these topics during our conversation, and one of them was with regard to sanctions against iran. you told me in our conversation that you opposed unilateral sanctions because they do not work, they isolate the united states. you had made that statement to the omaha paper just the day before. you have not supported unilateral sanctions because when it is bus alone, they do not work, and they just isolate the united states, in the omaha paper. i have to say that that statement seems to be in direct contradiction to your letter to senator boxer one week later. when you told her, and i quote, "i agree with iran's continued rejection of diplomatic overtures, further sanctions, both multilateral and unilateral may be necessary." now, one week before that, you said that you have opposed them because they do not work. another senator said that he disagrees with that. he says they do work. you gave him an answer to that statement, and we have it on the record, but let me just suggest to you, senator, if words have meaning, there is no two ways about it. the statement you gave in the, paper that you gave to me the following day is substantially and substantively different from what you wrote to senator boxer one week later. the office of secretary of defense is one of the most powerful positions in the country and arguably in the world, and this official, the weber who he or she is must leave with clarity and precision, and people around the world need to rely on the clear meaning of the words of the secretary of defense. the other thing we discussed that gave me concern during our conversation on january 8 was your statement about the jewish lobby. and you told me that you have apologized for using that, and you retracted the use of the term the jewish lobby. what you said is that the jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here. this was in an interview you gave. you said, "i have always argued against some of the things because i do not think it is in the interest of israel." here is my problem at this point. you have corrected the term "jewish lobby." and i think the correct term now would be the israel lobby or the israeli lobby. do you stand by the idea that they succeed in this town because of intimidation? and that it amounts to causing us to do dumb things, because i want to say this, senator. you are here today as a potential secretary of defense, and it would seem to me that however you characterize them, you have suggested that there is any effective lobby out there, whether you call them the jewish lobby or the israel lobby or the israeli lobby, and that they succeed in doing dumb things through intimidation and that u.s. policy has been the wrong approach because the intimidation has worked, so when you talk about the jewish lobby, were you talking about a pack? were you talking about christians united? and do you still believe that their success in this town is because of intimidation and because they are, as you stated, urging upon our government that we do dumb things? >> well, first, i never been accused of political expediency. i do not do that. it has probably gotten me into some trouble, senator. second, addressing the last comment, and then going back to sanctions, i have already said i regret referencing the jewish lobby. i should have said the pro- israel lobby. i think that is the only time on the record that i never said that. now, you all have done a lot of work with my record, and yes, it is appropriate for any nominee on the record, what he or she thinks and has done, absolutely. i was on your side of the dais for 12 years, so i understand that and that responsibility, so i do not have any problem with that. so i have already noted that i should have used another term. i am sorry, and i regret it. the use of intimidation. i should have used "influence." i think that would have been more appropriate. we were talking about in that book, you have evidently read it, and, by the way, it is a book -- to the promised land, he has spoken out directly recently about my position because it has gotten some attention, as you have noted, and has been quite favorable to me and said much of that was taken out of context, and he was offended, and those were his words. those of you know something about him know that he is jewish. he is a highly respected individual who has counseled pencil -- counseled presidents and secretary of states. in that fairly short interview, he mentioned that i am a strong supporter of israel. that is in the interview. so i think that says something. i should not have said, or stupid. -- said dumb or stupid, because i appreciate there are differing views on these things. we were talking about the middle east. we were not talking about armenia or turkey or the banking influence or the chamber of commerce influence. that was the context of what my comments were about. on your point on the unilateral sanctions conversation and the quote, a couple of points. let's go back to the vote. about the regional vote during the clinton administration, and connect that to a comment i made in the world harrold above they do not work, they are ineffective. and, by the wycombe i have already noted for the record that i am supported and voted for unilateral sanctions. i think there are three specific ones i recall, but your specific question about this specific comment, just to give you an example of partly what i was talking about, you were not in the senate at the time, some work, but those that were here in the senate might recall the european union's reaction to that act. i was not in the senate when it was voted on originally, so i did not have a vote, but in 1998, the european union passed a resolution against the united states and threatened to take the united states to the world trade organization. as a consequence, secretary albright had to get into this, and as a consequence of that, president clinton had to sign a waiver to allow a french oil company not to be part of that u.s. unilateral waiver. now, i am not suggesting united states actions should be hostage to the european union or any other country, but what i am suggesting is many times there are consequences do these actions. now, every senator has their own position on these and exercises their own judgment, as they should, and cast their own vote, so i do not necessarily that there was a disconnect from what i said in the world harold to where i have been on international subjects. as your specific point about supporting unilateral sanctions as well as international sanctions, a letter with senator boxer, it is a different situation. we already have very effective international sanctions on iran. >> are you saying those two statements do not contradict each other? the one to the, paper and the one to senator boxer? >> there are two points, and that me finish, if i could, senator, thank you, for my second point. the second point is where we are today, international sanctions that have been placed on iran, that puts iran and united states in a far different place than where we were in 2000 or 1998 or 2001, when i did not support the reimposition -- and by the way, the bush administration did not either. they did not want a five-year ban reimposition. some of the things i questions that. but my point in making where we are today, connecting at to unilateral sanctions, then we have got a different situation. unilateral sanctions, because we have already got strong international sanctions, it should be considered. i think the president is right to consider those. i would support that. it is different than what it was back in 2000 or 1998. >> thank you, senator. senator? >> thank you. senator hagel, thank you for being here. thank you for your service to the country in the military and your service in the u.s. senate, and i also want to thank your wife and your family for standing with you today. you played an important role in supporting vietnam veterans impacted by the exposure to agent orange, but i a been involved in a similar set of issues facing veterans stationed at camp lejeune, and they continue to look into the effects of water contamination there. as many as 1 million marines and their families stationed at the base between the early 1950's and the 1980's may have been exposed to harmful chemicals that could have lead to cancer and other elements. looking into this has been long. it has been drawn out, and recognition that men, women, and children were dying or going broke paying out of pocket for their treatment while they're waiting for these various studies to be completed on the water contamination. we in congress took action last year. the house and senate passed a bill that would provide for the treatment of veterans and their family members through the v.a., but i continue to believe that the families of those stationed at camp lejeune during this time period, they deserve answers from the u.s. government about who was exposed to the harmful chemicals, about what type of impact that may have had on their health, and what the government knew about this exposure, and i up and fighting for answers with a group of other committed senators on a bipartisan basis, and along the way, progress has been slowed by endless bureaucratic delays and obstacles. my question to you is do you agree that these marines and their families deserve complete answers about the water contamination that occurred at camp lejeune, and if confirmed, do you pledge to work with us to overcome any bureaucratic hurdles that may halt or delay the pursuit of answers for the affected marines and their family members? >> well, thank you. you noted that we had a long conversation about this. i committed to you in your office, and i will make that commitment in front of this audience. there should never, ever be a question about the health and the safety and the environment that we put our men and women and their families and when we ask them to make sacrifices to serve this country, and i am committed to do that. we will have further conversations. >> thank you, senator. i know u.s. answered a number of questions about israel already today, but i do have one i want to ask you also. there is a special and historic bond between the u.s. and israel, and i am personally committed to israel's security and identity as a jewish state. when we met earlier this week, i was pleased to hear you agree and that you support a two-state solution and oppose any unilateral declaration of a palestinian state. we also discussed the need for a strong military and intelligence engagement between the u.s. and israel. just last fall, i was in israel, and i have spoken with senior military officials from both countries, and i have continually heard that the ties between our military and intelligence organizations have never been stronger. if confirmed, do you intend to maintain its close relationship, and do you any ideas as to how we can further strengthen this coordination? >> well, i would, once again, reaffirm the commitment that i made to you to this committee. i absolutely support the continuation and strengthening of our relationship with israel, as has been noted before in my book. in the chapter i have on israel, i talk about the special and historic relationship between the united states and israel. it is critically important that the qualitative military edge that we have assured israel since 1948 be maintained and be enhanced. the iron dome is i think but one example. the latest military exercise we had with the israelis last fall, the challenge, it was the largest military exercises between our two countries in the history of our two countries. i think our intelligence agencies are working closely and are stronger and more coordinated than ever before. i think this president has done as much to support israel as any president, as i mentioned earlier, since harry truman, and i will look forward to continuing to follow those policies and enhance those policies. >> thank you. i wanted to ask a question on sequestration. stopping sequestration from occurring is very important to me. north carolina, we have seven military installations, and we have over 100,000 active-duty service members in my state, and i believe that these cuts are going to harm our national security, will impair our readiness, will defer necessary maintenance that will help keep our troops sake, that delay important investments in research and procurement as well as stunt our economic recovery at this time. i do not believe we can allow these cuts to move forward. congress needs to work on a bipartisan basis on a bipartisan plan that will help eliminate this threat of sequestration. also, we have to reduce our deficit and protect the investments in the areas of national defense. when we spoke earlier, i was pleased to hear that you did not support these indiscriminate, on prioritized cuts that sequestration would cause. if allowed to take effect, how would sequestration impact the department's ability to meet the future threats and challenges could as i've shared with you, highchair the subcommittee of this committee on emerging threats and capabilities, so i am particularly interested on your thoughts. you were commenting earlier to a senators' questions on cybersecurity issues. obviously being considered in the emerging threats and capabilities subcommittee. my question is, what impact do you believe that these cuts would have on our service members and their families at home and abroad, and in particular, the cuts with the sequestration, how would this impact areas such as cybersecurity and the other areas? >> well, first, as we have said this morning, you know the chiefs have made very clear, secretary panetta, there will be consequences, significant consequences, to the management of our defense department and our ability to have the flexibility to make the decisions, not just for the immediate but for the future. when you hang in that kind of uncertainty over any institution, but especially the institution charged with national security in our country, it is very dangerous. readiness is obviously the number one priority, and we will continue to do that. the chiefs have already decided to work through this, and i think in some of the public statements they have made, we are preparing for that. they will be prepared in the event sequestration does take effect. we will be ready to deal with it. but this is going to be very difficult, and we talked a little earlier here this morning about how we were going to have to reduce training, flying time, but i think the american people do need to be reassured, as i said, as secretary panetta and the chiefs have, the security of this country will not be in jeopardy, but it will be difficult. and it will affect longer-term kinds of planet, but make no mistake. if this happens, this is going to be a severe problem. >> my time is up. thank you for your comments. >> senator, thank you so much. we are going to work right 3 vote that is going on, but we will take a 10-minute recess right now and come right back, and then we are going to call on the two senators who are next in line, and i urge them to go vote and come back, so we will now resort -- recess for 10 minutes. [gavel] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> chuck hagel's confirmation hearing to be secretary took a break here, so we will take this opportunity to get your reaction to what you have heard so far and then go to the rest of the hearing. our phone numbers are open. democrats, please call 202-585- 385. republicans, please call 202- 585-3886. others, please call 202-585- 3887. a call from virginia, hi, wayne. what caught your attention in the hearing? >> i am a republican who worked with chalk in the 1980 reagan campaign, -- who worked with chuck, and i support him. he is an iconoclast, and he is somewhat of a contrarian, and that comes out of his vietnam experience, where he was a grunt, fighting in the blood and mark of vietnam, and he would compare what he saw with what the optimistic reports were coming out of the white house and be administration and the defense department. the light at the end of the tunnel, and victory was right around the corner, and yet 50,000 boys died, and chuck formed a lot of his thinking, just as he was arguing with senator mccain, who i have also known for over 30 years. >> what does he have that would make him a great secretary? >> the best thing he has -- look, he is a conservative, but he has critical thinking. you do not always agree with chuck, but he does critical thinking, and he does not do this ideologically. i have known him 33 years, and this is the way he is. i support the guy. he is an honest, salas, a another call from suzanne. >> another call from suzanne. what did you see in the hearing. -- hearing? >> what upset me is i think there was a lack of respect on the part of the republicans. i understand the importance of the position. i think chuck hagel, as ever -- from everything i have read about him, i like his way of thinking. he is not ideological. the fact that he is not ready to put all armed forces in harm's way without clear thinking. >> thank you for your input. our next call is from adam. go ahead. are you there? our next call is john from pennsylvania. what do you think? >> i watched them grow chuck hagel. he feels like a super good person. i am afraid the united states will move and this is what scares me. afghanistan was a mistake. they are not going to grow corn and tomatoes. i have watched these hearings for three days. it seems to be a waste of time. website andpan's watched the interview conducted with senator hagel. that was an excellent interview. >> what you think about chuck hagel as defense secretary? are you for or against him. >> i am thrilled. it is wise to put someone in the position who has volunteered to be in a war. he has straddle in his body from serving in vietnam. he had saved other people's lives. he is not going to be one who will be what the neo's want. he is very serious. i think before he puts charge of our young soldiers into a war, it would have to be proven to him it is the very last thing, that we had tried everything else. >> sorry to cut you off. "the new york times" writes that the senator from california was one of the most hostile. >>now, let's talk about statements you made. you have explained this a bit. you said the jewish lobby bullies a lot of people up here. i am not an israeli senator. i am a united states senator. this pressure makes us to do dumb things at times. you said "jewish lobby" should not have been used. name one person in your opinion who is intimidated by the israeli lobby in united states senate? >> well, first -- >> name one. >> i do not know. >> why would you say that? >> i did not have in mind a specific person. >> do you agreed that it is a provocative statement, that i could not think of a more provocative statement about the united states, israel, and congress? name one dumb thing we have been bullied into doing because of or pressured into doing because of the jewish lobby? >> i stated i have regretted that term -- >> you stated back then it makes us do dumb things. give me one example of the dumb things that we are pressure to do up here. >> we were talking in that interview about the middle east, about positions, about israel. >> give me an example of where we have been intimidated by the israeli jewish lobby to do something dumb regarding the middle east, israel, or anywhere else. >> i cannot give you an example. >> do you agree you should not have said that? >> i agree. >> do you agree with hezbollah being a terrorist organization? >> yes. >> burnie is from omaha. go ahead. >> i have been watching it and i will take the position of supporting the senator hagel on the basis that the things he said in the past, granted, as a trooper on the ground, he understood even back in vietnam, i believe, being around at that time, having served myself, but not in vietnam. a number of my friends have. he can use a certain way of expressing from the very plains of nebraska that candy construed to be in a different direction, such as talking about the lobby. i will give him a pass on that and say he will be the man for the job and he will do the job correctly, and in terms of support of israel, my view in israel, back in the nixon time, i believe he supports israel 100%, as i do, in that even a unilateral judgments by israel, i would support any way, such as the bombings of those missiles. >> we do want to get to more calls. our next one is from buffalo, new york. a republican. you have the floor. >> thank you. good evening. i would like to say i am a united states army veteran. given my military expertise and professional background, i would have liked to see the senators asked the question in hagel's position. when has political and diplomatic approaches translated into long-term, sustainable, positive behavioral change? it underlies -- underwrites his idea that a focus toward i ran will be a pretext of further engaging calculated aggression. i do not think they had enough time -- >> the democratic column. go ahead. i am sorry. republican from kentucky. another time, we will try the tampa, florida col. are you there? >> yes. he should not be nominated. in 2002, he says there were weapons of mass destruction. he said america will win. i want to know how he is qualified when he is so wrong. >> we appreciate all of your calls. the armed services committee will hold a nomination early next week. six republican senators, including four on the senate services committee. we will mention you will have another chance to comment on the nomination on washington gerald ma morning, at 8:30. here is more about the conference today. >> you could sense the animosity between the two. at times it was not personal. -- >> there were a lot of exchanges. >> he had to be prepared for this. >> he has spent a long time preparing and looking at what statements he should make in terms of the various questions that might be put to him. there were times he did not seem why seem so sure footed. host: as you look at this hearing, what happens next? guest: the committee will look to have a vote to see if they can pass it to the full senate. senator carl levin, the chairman, told reporters that that could happen as early as next thursday. there has not been a schedule for that, so it depends on senator hagel possibility to put forward a response to questions that he has been asked about. host: a lot of reaction to the questioning by senator lindsey graham and senator ted cruz of texas, a new member of this committee, a freshman senator from the lone star state. what was your take on their questioning? guest: very aggressive. lindsey graham has not come out and said he is going to oppose chuck hagel. based on the posturing today, it seems hard to believe that lindsey graham could support him. ted cruz is a relatively -- a brand-new member of the senate, and he is going through one of his first confirmation proceedings. he took no prisoners today through rounds of questioning using video and slides to question hagel and his record. guest: we're talking with tim mak. has anyone on the democratic side come out in opposition? guest: no, no single democratic senator has come out. host: lindsay graham said he would possibly put a hold on the nomination . who is yet to testify? guest: they have not figured that out yet. we note there should be a hearing on benghazi next week. this is all touch and go. they have not figured out what is going to happen next week. >> we will pick up chuck hagel's confirmation hearing with another three hours and 45 minutes left of questioning. >> you will come back to order. senator? >> thank you mr. chairman. i want to thank you, senator hagel for your service to our country and for being here today that the hearing, and i want to thank your family as well. senator hagel, i think we established from the prior questions you have been asked. in july of 2001 you were one of only two senators to vote against extending the iran sanctions in that act. yes or no? >> yes. >> and that was when you were only one of two senators in the entire senate to vote against that. also in 2008 i believe you were one of two senators within the senate banking committee, not the entire senate, to vote against a comprehensive iran sanctions accountability act in 2008. is that right? >> yes. >> yes. thank you, senator. as i understand it on october 2, 2008, majority leader harry reid brought a similar bill to the floor. in fact, it was called the comprehensive iran sanctions accountability act of 2008. and he brought it to the floor in october 2, 2008. there have been media reports that you blocked unanimous consent for the consideration of that bill. are those reports true or not? >> i was one of some republican senators that did not want that vote to go forward. i voted against it in subcommittee. and the reason i did was because the bush administration did not want that bill to go forward. the reason they didn't was because they were involved in negotiations with the russians and the u.n. and security council members to put multilateral sanctions through. >> but just to be clear you did block unanimous contestant. >> i was -- con sent in >> i was part of those who did. >> would it surprise you that an earlier version of those sanctions bill was actually co- sponsored bicek taxpayer cary and clinton and obama at the time? would that surprise you? >> no. not necessarily. i never based my votes on what everybody else thought or did. i voted based on what i thought was right. >> also, we of course, the sanctions that are in place now, that bill or its next generation, passed the united states senate after you left in a vote of 99-0. and no one in the senate in fact voted against that. so that is then our clear policy of the bill really the next generation of the bill that you blocked in the senate. i want to ask you also about your position with respect to involvement in the global -- i know many people have asked you questions about this. here's what's troubling me. you've testified before this committee today that you've never been for unilateral -- unilateral nuclear disarmament. in other words, unilateral sanctions by the united states of america. yet this report itself, which you call an illustration, its illustration or recommendation or however you want to frame it, is to -- there are many recommendations and one is to eliminate a leg of our triad. you would maintain that is right? >> i call it an illustration, senator, because that's the term it used. at the front end of the report. it's not a recommendation well, let me talk about the other terms this report uses. because this report twice as senator sessions asked you on page one and on page 16 says that the illustrations were this example give engine this report, one of which is eliminating a leg of our nuclear triad could be implemented unilaterally. so here's what i'm struggling with. why would you put your name on a report that's inconsistent with what you said was that you could never be against it. >> the report does not recommend that we do these things. the report says "could." scenarios. possibilities. and you probably know the four other individuals who were involved in that report. mainly general cartwright the strategic commander. >> and senator hagel i know we don't have a lot of time here and i don't dispute the other individuals involved in this report, but of all the illustrations and coulds you could have picked, this report says the president could implement these unilaterally but it's inconsistent to what you say is your position yet you sign off on this and of all the illustrations you could have picked the illustration is eliminating a leg of our nuclear triad. so one thing that troubles me is of all the things that this group should or could have picked as what you called an illustration is an significant reduction in our nuclear deterrent. so to me i view that as troubling and inconsistent. and one thing i would hope you wouldn't do as secretary of defense is to put -- to sign off on a report that would say something like unilateral like this one does that could be implemented unilaterally that could be different from your policy or our policy. >> as secretary of defense i won't be signing off on reports in the same way as a private citizen, obviously. i will have a different kind of responsibility if i am confirmed by the senate. but i don't think that there's anything that also changes my position in that report, because it was a letter sent which you may have to the president of the united states. >> just so we're clear, and i don't want to interrupt you but we don't have a lot of time. just so we're clear, you don't view what you're telling us today and the language in this report as inconsistent? >> i do not. the report also says and the authors of it says and have always said, none of this could be any reductions unilateral just like any unilateral treaty we have signed both republicans and democrats have led on that. has to be verifyible and negotiated. i've always been there. and that's where we have been on this report. >> ok. thank you. may i follow up on this discussion about containment, nuclear containment with iran? >> mm-hmm. >> and there seemed to be -- first question i would have as you said clearly to senator levin that you believe that a military option should be on the table with respect to iran. in fact i think you said i do, i have and i strongly agree in terms of that being one of the options the president of the united states would have in addressing iran. is the language that you said. can you help me understand in when you went to islamabad, pakistan, in 2006, you said at that time a military strike against iran, a military option is not a viable, feasible or responsible option. now it seems what you're saying about the military option now seems inconsistent and why would you make that statement in pakistan that it's not a viable, feasible or responsible option in light of your statement today that you do, i have, and i stockly agree that a military option should be on the table. >> that statement was made in respect to all options with iran. and pakistan was where i was at the time. and the larger context of that was nuclear powers which certainly pakistan is part of that. and not unlike what secretary gates said on a strike on iran. my point was that this would not be a preferable option land the would be consequences to this option. things would happen as a result of it. if we could find a better option or way to deal with iran to assure they do not get nuclear weapons, then we are far better off. that was the context of that statement. >> i know my time is up and we will have an opportunity for a second round of questions, but as i see your quote it didn't say preferable it said it was not a preferable option so i look forward to following up in the second round of questioning. thank you. >> thank you senator ayotte. senator mansion? >> thank you so much senator hagel for your services and your family for your services. i'd like to say this. you and i have not known each other before. ofe never had the pleasure serving with you, which i wish i woufment you bring truly a breath of fresh air to this process in a bipartisan way having two senators serve by your side, one democrat and one republican speaks volumes. with that being said also everyone's been so fix ated on your past, what you've said, and i've come to learn in a very short time being a start that this town and process and body has become almost a guilt by conversation. with that being said, i respect you being the person in saying what you thought needed to be said. you voted the way you thought you should be voting for your constituents and country and weren't driven by your party or groups. i can't tell you how much i wish i would serve with you. sometimes i feel very lonely. with all that being said, sir, we're asked to consider you as a part of a cabinet. is there anything that would lead us to believe that you wouldn't follow the orders that were given? >> no. i understand clearly the responsibilities of secretary of defense. and as i said in my opening statement, those responsibilities are very serious. i don't know of many jobs that are more serious. and i would obviously, always make every decision for the defense department and my advice to the president based on only one thing, and that's the security of this country. >>i look back at your record. we come from the same area and are very close in age. and i remember the vietnam era very well. that, i think shaped all of us to a certain extent of how we looked after -- post vietnam -- of how we looked at if we had known what we knew before. i am sure that kind of guided you as you looked at the -- iraq. and i saw information we were given. if i had been a senator i probably would have voted also like many misled but after seeing five or six years of that unimportant to scenario play out, the surge and i know where you're coming from. would you say your experiences in vietnam and looking at that basically what sometimes misguided our misguided mission had been -- shaped a lot of your positions today? >> well, there's no question that as i have said this morning that my experience in vietnam very much guided questions, and i think i noted a couple times in my opening statement that it was one fundamental question i always ask, was the policy worthy of the men and women that we are asking to make the sacrifices? and i know there are differences of opinion. you mentioned iraq. you mentioned the surge. my positions there were very much guided by what is the political purpose of the surge? where do we go from here? yes, you put 35,000 more american troops in an area for a sustained period of time or more on top of more than 100,000 that we already had there. you will have a tactical victory. but there will be a cost for that victory. and that's what always guided me. do we understand the cost and are we prepared to make those costs in life? and what was the answer? where were we going with the surge? how was this going to take us or advance us to where we needed to go? and where did we think we needed to go? so yes, those experiences did shape my decisions. >> speaking to now and the concerns people would have with your nomination. perhaps none greater or more immediate than iran's continued progress toward obtaining nuclear weapons. at the same time, the department of defense is entering a time of transformation that will likely define its role for many decades to come. the future of our nuclear deterrence could depend on our choices made by the next secretary of defense. i am going to bring up the report that we have heard about quite a bit. you are listed as the co-author of a report on our nuclear posture. i believe there is a recommendation in there, and i believe the recommendation is to drastically reduce the united states' nuclear forces. when we spoke last week, you described this report as being authored by general cartwright, and i had the impression that you were not closely affiliated with that. you are listed as a co-author of that report, as one of the five co-authors. moreover, you told me at that time that this report discussed options. you have reiterated that stance today. after i have reexamined it, the only options i have found in the report are how to best achieve those reductions i believe it advises. there are no alternative to use or dissenting opinions that are discussed in the report. it states many controversial opinions. it states them as facts in support of its conclusion, and i believe is important to determine whether or not you agree with those positions. as it has been said before, my time here is limited, and so i would like to quickly go through and review some of those more concerning proclamations that it makes with you. i would appreciate if we could go through this quickly. for example, the united states icbm force has lost its central utility. that is stated in the report. do you agree with that? >> well, senator, that report was not a recommendation. that report, as we have said, is a series of scenarios, and again i use the term "illustrative," because that was the beginning of the report, as possible ways we could continue to reduce our warheads, not unilaterally, but bilaterally. every treaty we have ever signed to reduce warheads and the thrust capability with the russians has been about reductions. that is not new. that is where it has always been. icbm's, specific questions. it is a 25-page report. i assume you have read it. it talked about one of the reasons icbm's may eventually be insignificant because of the over-flight over russia and so on. those are not fictional analyses. those are facts. no one is recommending in that report -- and you probably know general cartwright in omaha -- these are serious people who understand this business, and no one recommends that we unilaterally do away with our icbm's. what that report was about was looking at where this is going. the title of the report was "modernizing our nuclear strategy," not eliminating it. >> correct, but do you agree with the statement that the icbm's, that force has lost its central utility? >> that is not what the report said. >> i have it cited, and with respect i can enter that into the record, but it is cited in the report. >> the report in the overall context, icbm's, and all the parts of the report were about the utilities of our triad, where is this going, and money that we are investing in that, and we have to look at it. i think those kinds of reports are valuable to assess our needs, to assess our nuclear capability, to assess our nuclear deterrent. we do studies all the time. this was not an official report. think tanks do this all the time. i think that is valuable. >> excuse me. i do think that reports from various organizations, think tanks, individuals, groups, i think those are all very important in getting information and opinions out there. but when you co-authored a report, you should be able to answer a few -- if you agree with statements made in the report. >> i do not agree any recommendation that would unilaterally take any action to further reduce our nuclear warheads and our capability. again, that is not what the report said. i do not agree with that. every option that we must look at, every action we must take to reduce warheads or anything should be bilateral. it to be verifiable. it should be negotiated. >> every action that this country takes should be bilateral? >> when we are reducing warheads -- every treaty we have signed with russians has been bilateral, has been verifiable. ronald reagan said it best -- trust, but verify. that is the key word. he also said we should wipe nuclear weapons from the face of the earth. i think almost every president has agreed with that, including this president. world leaders agree with the continued reduction, and this is not a report out of the mainstream. president obama has said in his prague speech in 2009 that that was his goal, as many presidents did. >> thank you. also, as i read the report, it calls for all u.s. tactical nuclear weapons to be eliminated over the next 10 years and asserts their military utility is practically nil. do you agree with that statement? >> senator, i do not agree with what it calls for. these are scenarios and schedules and possibilities and options. but none of this could ever, ever happen unless it would be negotiated, be bilateral and verifiable, and that was part of a letter the global zero group said to the president in 2009, specifically stating that. if i might, i might give you a more recent example. senator feinstein's subcommittee -- she had a hearing last year. general cartwright and admiral pickering -- or ambassador pickering testified, and they went into this. any action we would take would have to be negotiated, it would have to be bilateral, no unilateral action, and they made that point again on the record in front of senator feinstein's subcommittee. and i support that. i agree with that. >> i have another statement from the report. the united states icbm rapid reaction posture remains in operation and runs a real risk of accidental or mistaken launch. i think that statement is pretty clear. do you agree with that? >> yes. i mean, i the accidental launch and those kinds of things are always to be concerned about, and we need to assure as we have over the years that that does not happen, but on the russian -- >> that we will run a real risk of accident or mistaken launch? >> if you put just "risk," but there's always a risk. when we are talking about nuclear weapons, and the consequences, as you know, you do not get a lot of second chances. we need to be very sure about these things, and that was the whole point. >> you need to say any additional questions for the second round. >> i am sorry -- i do not -- >> thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you, senator hagel, for testifying. i appreciate the support of your wife. i have some questions for the record, particularly about new york bases. today i want to focus on issues from my perspective, talking about your thoughts about israel and israel's security, afghanistan, a personnel issues. on israel, our relationship with israel is tremendously important, and we are tied to them because of being such a strong democracy in middle east and having our national security tied in many ways. we talked about iran, and you have clarified the position that containment is not an option. i am concerned about a statement he said with regard to iran, a nuclear iran is an existential threat the united states as well as israel. the iranian government has been responsible for deaths of u.s. service members, an attempted attack on u.s. soil, training of terrorist groups. their latest threat to israel came just today. i want to make sure that your statement earlier today with regard to whether iran is legitimate. i do not understand if you meant it is a legal entity that has international relations and has diplomatic relations and a member of the u.n., but i do not see iran's government as legitimate. i would like your thoughts. >> what i meant to say, should have said, it is recognizable, it has been recognized, and is recognized at the united nations. most of our allies have agreed there. that is what i should have said. >> with regard to israel, israel's security is important, and i have been one of the strongest advocates, fighting for more increases in missile defense cooperation as well as coordination on the technology programs that are fundamental to their security. last year a program more than proved itself as missiles headed toward israel. ranking member inhofe and i pushed for full funding of the u.s.-israeli cooperative defense missile system. would you support funding for iron dome and other programs? will you also -- if we have to have a continued resolution, the funding for iron dome will be well below the authorized amount for fiscal year 2013. would you recommend reprogramming other funds or setting forth an anomaly budget requested to fully cover our commitment to this program? >> i fully support and will continue to fully support iron dome and arrow. as to a commitment to the second part of your question, i would have to better understand what our restrictions are to be in our budgets. this would be before i could make decisions like that, and i would ask to talk with our chairman of the joint chiefs and each of the chiefs and want a better understanding, depending how deep this sequestration might get. but make no mistake, it is clearly a priority program. i believe we will continue to fund it. we should. i will support the continuing funding. >> i also hope you will be a strong advocate. this is a priority for me. >> if i am confirmed, we will work together as well as this committee on of these issues. >> a number of members were just in egypt, and we are concerned about the sinai becoming a route for arms. we want to figure out a way if there is a way to put more funds to that mission. do you have thoughts on that, and what we can do to try to assist in cracking down on the weapons trade? >> it is a huge challenge and part of what allows terrorists, extremists to advance their cause. maritime security, piracy issues i mentioned in my opening statement -- that is all part of why we need to rebalance resources and why we need a flexible, agile base, in particular our navy, to do this. it will continue to have cooperation with our allies. we cannot do this as well as our intelligence, the best in the world, military best in the world. we are the largest, wealthiest country in the world, but we have to work with allies, and we have to find that through intelligence before it gets beyond the capacity to be used to do damage against the interests of this country and our allies. >> as israel is one of our most important allies, one of our growing threats is syria, particularly chemical weapons being not properly locked down, and there's concern with what happened yesterday. i suspect there is a close cooperation between our military with respect to syria's chemical weapons, but will this be something you can focus your concern on, because of their past statements about israel? is this something you will also commit to in keeping this alliance and making sure we have a strong plan with regard to any chemical weapons coming out of syria? >> yes, and by the way i have said on the record many times that hezbollah and hamas are terrorist groups, and i have said many times on the record that iran is a state sponsor of terrorism. i am committed to that. >> for my last minute, with regard to afghanistan, we have heard your views, and you did not give a specific statement about how many, but will you in your capacity advise the president to be drawing down troops sooner rather than later? >> i think he has made that pretty clear, that he wants to do that, and if i am confirmed, i will need to better understand all the dimensions of this. i do not know all those dimensions. i think there is little question -- and i support completely where the president wants to go in afghanistan and his commitment to unwind that war. as we have said, there should be, there will be. he noted he will enforce a new policy, a new relationship based on limited objectives for our troops there, and i support that. >> my last question that i will submit, obviously, the personnel of the military is our most important asset, and when we hear reports there are upwards of 19,000 sexual assaults against women in the military, it is unacceptable. we have finally repealed don't ask don't tell, but it is difficult for a military spouse to go to the commissary or be notified if a spouse is killed in action. i would need a strong commitment from you that you will treat our military families and look after them in the wake you would look after your own. i want you to be concerned about every man and woman in the military, that their well-being is being looked at and see real advocacy and leadership, not status quo, not implementing what we put forward, but fighting for them every single day. >> you have my complete commitment on that. i have made that clear to everybody i've spoken to directly and privately. i mentioned that point in my opening statement, if you will recall. i have a pretty clear record on that. i will continue to do that, will do that, and i agree it is not good enough just to say zero tolerance. the whole chain of command needs to be accountable for this all the way down to the bottom, so i will. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator. senator graham? >> senator hagel, congratulations on your appointment. you are a good, honest man, and i appreciate your willingness to serve the country in the past and be willing to do so in the future. what percentage of gdp do we spend on defense? >> well, we are i think it is probably 5% now in that area. >> at historically high or low? >> generally, it depends on real dollars and wars. >> are we at war? >> we are at war in afghanistan, around the world. >> you agree we are in war in afghanistan, around the world. when you look at spending on defense, understanding we should be aware we are still at war. do you agree with that? >> i am sorry -- what? >> do you agree every senator, every member of congress should be understanding that when you vote on a defense budget we are at war? >> yes, i do. >> ok, thank you. now, let's talk about statements you made. you have explained this a bit. you said the jewish lobby bullies a lot of people up here. i am not an israeli senator. i am a united states senator. this pressure makes us to do dumb things at times. you said "jewish lobby" should not have been used. name one person in your opinion who is intimidated by the israeli lobby in united states senate? >> well, first -- >> name one. >> i do not know. >> why would you say that? >> i did not have in mind a specific person. >> do you agreed that it is a provocative statement, that i could not think of a more provocative statement about the united states, israel, and congress? name one dumb thing we have been bullied into doing because of or pressured into doing because of the jewish lobby? >> i stated i have regretted that term -- >> you stated back then it makes us do dumb things. give me one example of the dumb things that we are pressure to do up here. >> we were talking in that interview about the middle east, about positions, about israel. >> give me an example of where we have been intimidated by the israeli jewish lobby to do something dumb regarding the middle east, israel, or anywhere else. >> i cannot give you an example. >> do you agree you should not have said that? >> i agree. >> do you agree with hezbollah being a terrorist organization? >> yes. >> you'll were one of the senators asked that hezbollah be designated as a terrorist organization for the purposes of being sanctioned. >> i have had a policy during my time in the senate that i did not think it was the right approach for the congress to be sending leaders any instructions or any documents versus letting our president do that -- >> why did you sign a letter to clinton urging him to deal with the russians when it comes to their policy against jewish people? >> because i think that is the appropriate approach. it is for our president to conduct foreign policy. >> all i could suggest to you is when a letter is presented to the united states senate about the times in which we live in, you cannot write one letter and not write the other and be consistent. and the letter was urging the e.u. to impose sanctions on hezbollah, and you have been a believer that we should not do it alone, we should do bilaterally. why not take the chance and urge the european union to sanction hezbollah? and your answer is we should not be writing letters, you think the president is the appropriate official. and congress has no interest in whether the e.u. would be sanctioned as a terrorist organization? >> the congress has a responsibility in a lot of things. >> let me ask you this about the iranian revolutionary guard. you said a minute ago you think they are a terrorist organization. do you agree? >> yes. >> and you voted against the amendment designating them as a terrorist organization because they are recognized as a state? iran, you would not want to designate the army of a recognized country as a terrorist? >> i just clarified a statement on iran being a recognized nation by the united nations, by most world bodies. the reason why i did not vote, as with 22 other members, because i think jim webb's argument was a strong argument, and that is we have -- and this is what he said -- designated part of a government as a terrorist organization. thereby, what his concern was and what mine is and other dissenters who have voted against it, where to speak to giving the president authority from congress to take military action. >> i got you. let me ask you this -- do you believe the sum total of all your votes -- refusing to sign a letter to the e.u. asking hezbollah being designated a terrorist organization, being one of 22 voting to designate the iranian guard a terrorist organization, being one to vote against sanctions that this body was try to impose on iran, statements you have made about palestinians and about the jewish lobby -- all that together, that the image you have created is one of sending the worst possible signal to our enemies and friends at one of the most critical times in world history? and the jewish lobby, the image you have created is one of sending the worst possible signal to our enemies and friends at one of the most critical times in world history. >> i would not agree with that. i have taken actions and a statement very clear as to what i believe and hamas are as terrorist organizations. >> if there was a vote on the floor of the senate this afternoon. to label the iranian revolutionary guard. some of the most vicious people. >> i would want to know from the president what they were doing it. >> they are expanding terrorism. they are trying to intimidate their own people. if you had a chance to say the card was a terrorist organization, would you still vote no? >> the reason i voted no to star with -- >> you told me that. my question is would you reconsider? >> times change, and i would reconsider. >> that is encouraging. my time is up, but we will have another round. senator inhofe said that you were one of four senators who refused to sign a letter in october, and the first paragraph says we want you to express a solidarity with israel at this moment of crisis and our profound disappointment with arafat and the palestinian authority, where it allows violence to be carried out without restraint. this is when the intifada was being waged, and senator inhofe wanted every member of this body to put us on record that we believe arafat and the intifada is undercutting the agreements they had reached and they have resorted to violence to intimidate israel and their people in a way that was absolutely unacceptable. if you had a chance to do it over, would you sign this letter now, and i am going to give it to you during whatever break we at an ask you to reconsider. i would ask you, senator hagel, to tell the country, the world at large, particularly the state of israel, you made a mistake by not signing the letter? >> who is the letter to? >> i will look at that. i cannot recall the letter. i will look at it and give you an answer. >> it was a big deal at an important time, and a lack of signature by you runs chills up my spine because i cannot imagine not signing a letter at a time like that. we will consider this conversation. >> thank you, senator graham. we will not go to senator blumenthal. >> thank you, chairman, and i wanted thank senator hagel for his service and his family and expressing appreciation not only to you for your service, but also to our veterans, which people may not appreciate as much as they do, your military service, but is every bit as important to our nation. i want to say about that letter, i was not here when the letter was circulated. i would have signed it, but i would certainly join in urging that you reconsider and commit to the statement of support in a letter for the state of israel. i hope you will reconsider expressing your support for it. i noted in your opening statements that no single quote and no single vote defined you in the entirety, and perhaps not as a whole, but votes and quotes do matter, and i think that the questions about what you have said and what you have done in the past are entirely appropriate, i think also reconsidering your views evolving is also appropriate. and i am going to be submitting questions on some of the topics you have heard. we have discussed these questions in your private meetings with members of this body, which have been productive and effective, as you have seen in the comments that have been expressed here. the more we hear from you the better you do on many of these issues. i want to begin by talking about one issue that concerns our veterans, particularly our vietnam veterans. many vietnam veterans in connecticut and around the country received less than honorable discharge as a result of contact that was a direct consequence of pst at a time when pst was not a term, not diagnosed, not treated, but they have to live with the consequences of a less than honorable discharge, they have to live with fewer benefits, and i would like a commitment from you that the department of defense will revisit those individual cases as well as the policies to take into account the fact that we now know that many of those veterans during the vietnam era suffered from pst or related kinds of injuries. >> you have my commitment to do everything i can about that. i understand the issue pretty well. i have been working on this issue long before i actually ever got to the senate. so i will, thank you. >> thank you. and i would like the same kind of commitment that you have expressed very persuasively the repeal of don't ask don't tell on the issue of sexual assaults. this issue, the military, i do not know if you have seen the document called "the invisible war." i know you are familiar with this issue, and i would ask that your commitment, not only to the prosecution and holding accountable people who are involved in this criminal conduct, but also to the victims so they receive the services that in the civilian world many of them do through victims' advocates in the courts and similar kinds of roles played, both the prosecution, effective, vigorous, zealous, but also to protection of victims. can you commit to that? >> absolutely. >> thank you. on the strategic issues, i wonder if i could talk to you for a moment about submarines, which you and i discussed privately briefly. the department of defense, the joint chiefs, the president have all committed to an ohio- class replacement program that consists of a fleet of 12, starting no later than 2031. global zero settled on a lower number, 10. i strongly believe that the cost will increase the cost per submarine and we will be at severe risk for reasons that you may well understand, although we cannot really discuss them in detail because they may be classified. i would like a commitment that you are committed as well to a fleet of 12 ohio-class replacement submarines. >> on that issue, i would want to talk with our chief of naval operations. i will get a better understanding of our budget. i can tell you this, i am committed completely to modernizing our navy and everything it includes and will require. i will give you that commitment. >> i am sure you know the higher-class replacement program is the cornerstone of our nuclear deterrence, but it requires a clear leadership and support from the next secretary of defense, so i hope you will perhaps come back to us on that issue. >> i will. you and i will be discussing this many times if i am confirmed, so thank you. >> thank you. going to the virginia-class submarines, the next multi-year purchase known as block 4 envisions 10 submarines. there is a threat that it could be reduced to nine for reasons related to costs and national security. i think that number should be 10. the intent and spirit of the last national defense authorization act was that it should be 10, and i would like to act you similarly for your commitment that there will be two submarines for 2014 and that the program continues to be viable at the level of 10. >> senator, i will commit to what we have committed to to carry out what we need to fund it and develop and build in order to maintain the kind of modern navy we will require. those submarines are cornerstones to that security. >> they are absolutely, vital cornerstones, the essential building blocks to our national security as we move to the pacific-asia theater. they have the intelligence and reconnaissance and surveillance capability as well as counterterrorism importance, so i hope that effort will continue, and i appreciate your commitment. let me finish with a question that i think goes back to the contracting area where you were asked questions before. senator ayotte and i went on a trip led by senator mccain recently, this in afghanistan, and we were briefed and i will try to make this question brief. about the continuing corruption in the afghanistan government, deeply troubling, and even shocking, but equally so is the waste of american taxpayer dollars, in part because of the procedural roadblocks to enforcement of section 841. i will not quiz you on 841, so you can take a deep breath. 841 is designed to protect americans' tax dollars from corrupt contracts that benefit the enemy. we are working in provisions that will make more effective the procedures for terminating those contracts, getting back american dollars, extending those protections to non-defense dollars, and i hope that we can have your commitment to work with us on that area. >> you have that commitment. i will enthusiastically work with you in this area. >> thank you. i appreciate your frank and forthright answers, and i do not know whether i will be here for the second round of questioning, but i want to express my sincere gratitude to you for your willingness to serve and your patience and forthrightness in entering all our questions. thank you. >> thank you, senator blumenthal. >> thank you, senator hagel, for being here today and thank you for your service to this country. it is good to see your wife and brothers behind you as an indication of the family commitment as well as your personal commitment. there are several things i may get to in a second round on iran and sanctions. i was very involved on that effort when i was in the house. our relationship with israel is of great concern to me and is a priority to our efforts in the middle east, and i think that is largely exhausted in this first run, and least from my point of view. i may want to come back to that later. i want to talk about the ongoing structure of the force. "the wall street journal" said the american military was the smallest in recent memory. that may not mean that we are not as bad already as any others in the world, but that is a recognition that our investment and the way we view those resources has gotten them in a position where we need to be more focused on rebuilding than we do building down. senator, secretary panetta has been forthcoming in his comments about the across-the-board approach of sequestration. what do we do to get our worn- out equipment and worn-out personnel in a better position a year from now than they are right now? could you give me your brief, strategic view of that? >> senator, you have just identified one of the priorities of the next few years at the department of defense -- resetting equipment and the essentially reshaping our force structure, but also renewing our force structure. the fact is we have been at war for 12 years. ever senator knows and you have constituents that we keep sending these kids back and back and back and back to two wars. of course, there are going to be consequences, and you cannot keep doing that. that will be an overall challenge that will take us much of my time if i am confirmed as anything, as it will our chiefs who know this better than anyone, as we structure for it. i believe we have a force structure that is as capable as ever. i do not accept that our force structure is somehow behind or not capable. i do not think that is true. >> the point that the editorial was making was not that we were behind, but we are not on the cutting edge as we may have been, and i would hope you and i would want to get there. let me ask a question about that. secretary gates said recently that one of his big concerns was that we repeat the mistake of the procurement holiday in the 1970's, and we spent a lot of time, 10 years, after that getting built back to where we hoped to be. how in these discussions of cutting do we keep the lines open, do we keep our effort ongoing? one of the things i know quite a bit about is the f-18 line, because it is in st. louis where boeing military is, and if we ever close that line down, when we come about whatever the country needs, some version of this, and how we keep this at capacity at a time when there is this talk about cutting and not just cutting, but cutting everything a little bit, which means that some of the things that can cut a little bit disappear because they cannot survive if they are only partly there. >> senator, you have just again identified one of the great challenges that lies ahead. that is maintaining our industrial base. you used the f-18 -- >> that is just one of the lines i have been on. >> i understand. that is a good example, what we are going to have to continue to keep strong, but the reality is, as you say, because we know what we have to deal with, when our budgets are as the result of the budget act of 2011. when we do not know brings us back to the uncertainty of sequestration, as some of the examples you are using are good examples of areas that could be cut arbitrarily in order to fulfill budget requirements. i think what you have just noted again is going to be a huge part of keeping our technological superiority, our edge. senator blumenthal mentioned submarines as another component of this. all the superior technical edge this country has possessed since world war ii has kept us, along with other things and for other reasons, the strongest military power in the history of man. that must be maintained. threats change. 10 years ago nobody had any idea about what we were talking about with cyber. >> we have made efforts with our allies and friends to give them some other version of equipment we had, maybe not as good as we had, something that keeps our defense airlines in place so that when we do need them, they're still there, and that is critically important. before you were designated secretary of defense, as the potential nominee for the job, in talking about sequestration, you made a comment about there is a lot of bloat. i am sure you talked about this. it's quite a bit. what do you have in mind there? what is being done at the pentagon that can be better be done somewhere else or is being duplicated somewhere else? maybe to follow up on that, i saw you mentioned things that should be in the state department have gotten over to the pentagon. are there examples of that that we could work on and you will want to lead on? >> two things. that comment came in a large interview about budgets, about everything, and that interview was done in 2011 prior to the budget control act, to get the time from right on that. i never supported sequestration, by the way. now to your question about what we could do. much of the conversation has been about acquisition, which is fraud, abuse, billions of dollars. why are we not auditing these programs? that is certainly an area that we are going to have to take a look at. my reference to the state department programs, some of the areas i mentioned this morning where we have pushed down on the military in the last 12 years to do things that usually are done out of the state department, aid-type programs, exchange programs, civilian programs. that was all given -- but a great deal of that was given to the military. the military has taken on a tremendous volume of assignments and funding that goes with that that needs to be sorted through, i think. those are areas where i think -- >> and one of your commitments will be to help sort through that? >> it has to be. >> i am out of time. i will be here for the second round. >> thank you. senator donnelly? >> thank you, mr. chairman and mr. ranking member, it is an honor to be a part of this committee. i look forward to working with mike collins, and i am proud to serve the people of indiana. we are the heartland of america, and, senator hagel, we have over 40,000 members of the national guard in our state. we have the fourth largest contingent of national guard members in the entire country. i want to thank you for your service to the country, you along with all veterans, for what you have done for our nation. i appreciate you taking the time to meet with me. we had an extensive discussion, and your understanding of the complex challenges we face in the middle east and the importance of our alliance with israel -- it is a special and historic relationship. i believe it is a special and historic relationship. my people in my state believe that as well. it was important for you to let everyone know that there can be no nuclear iran, that there are lines that cannot be crossed, and we will defend our friends and the entire world in that area. i told you about my visit to crane systems in indiana, which creates technologies to control the spectrum, try to win the battlefield before the battlefield ever starts on the ground. we were wondering what can be done in this time of challenge and budgets to ensure that in the area of technology, in the area of spectrum, we can maintain our budget so that before the war has started on the ground we have won it on the spectrum level? how credible is that in terms of your planning in the defense department? >> senator, i think that focuses on as much the core of challenge that the pentagon has in front of it than any one thing. this committee will be particularly important to help the leaders of the pentagon sort through that, because as evidenced in the whole series of questions that have been asked today, senator blunt's most recent questions, these are times of priorities. budgets drive that, but missions should always drive everything. what are going to be our missions in the defense department over the next few years? how will we resource missions? what are the priorities going to be? and what is the entire universe of what their responsibilities are and how do we carry those responsibilities out to secure nation? more general questions, and most of the questions asked here today, have been about this. until i would get over to the pentagon, if i am confirmed, and understand more of the specifics and work with the chiefs and get a better grasp of exactly what we have got, i will not be in a position to be able to say this or this or we will do this or we will not. obviously, that is why i say this committee, the authorizing committees, are going to be particularly -- >> i mentioned over 14,000 guard members and our state, army reserves, and they have done tour after tour after tour in iraq and afghanistan. as we wind down, i think it is critical to make sure that we have a strategic plan for the guard in the future. the guard we have today, equipment-wise, is struggling on command, we have to upgrade our vehicles but other areas as well. i guess the question is how do you view the mission of the guard in the years ahead? >> well, as you know during our conversation and a couple of the questions i have had here today on the guard, i am committed to a strong national guard. it is an essential part of our force structure going into the future, and it was proven quite fairly and effectively the last 12 years. that will be maintained, and i think further evidence of that, putting a chief of the national guard into the joint chiefs. you have my commitment that i will be continually focus on that integration and the upgrading it in every way. >> i had the privilege of working with general shinseki in recent years. as he testified about iraq and how many trips he thought was needed, and the repercussions that came out of that, not only for the general, but in so many other ways it is critical that the generals and the people in the pentagon provide the most -- information possible. they tell you exactly what they think. you tell them exactly what you think. nobody at any time has their career affected for telling you the truth. i'd want to make sure that that is the way you are approaching this. >> that is the way i approach this. i value that. there's no other way to assure that we are getting the best, the most honest advice from our most capable leaders than to say it like that. the general shinseki episode was a very unfortunate episode in this country, what happened to him for telling the truth. if i am secretary of defense, that kind of thing will never happen, that a senior officer be handled and treated that way when he told the truth to the congress. >> i will say this, the job he has done for our veterans as the v.a. secretary has been extraordinary. >> i will say, and i know you know this, the job he has done for veterans is extraordinary. another challenge we have for veterans and for active 2-d is the suicide -- active-duty, is the suicide rate, losing more members in 2012 than fighting in afghanistan. i know the general has basically dedicated his life to trying to solve this problem. i want to make sure the defense department will clean all in to try to fix this and provide answers so the number goes to zero in years ahead. >> you have my complete commitment on this issue. >> it is something veterans face and also a transition issue. as much as you can work with the va as our active-duty transitions out, when they go home, that they have somebody to talk to, tell them how they feel and understand what they are going through because if we can help them with that -- they have borne the burden of battle and we owe them everything. another question i wanted to ask you about was pakistan. incredible challenges in afghanistan -- so much of them are caused by pakistan. we are providing about $2.5 billion in aid. do you think those dollars were well spent? >> pakistan is a complicated relationship. it is a nuclear power. they cooperate with the united states on some things. we have difficulties with them on others. as to your question on investment in pakistan, we condition that assistance, as you know. we must continue to condition that assistance. i think text and is too dangerous, -- pakistan is too dangerous, we cannot just walk away from it. it is complicated, in perfect, but this is where all of the levels of influence, diplomacy, economics and power come into play. how we wisely use those resources will determine the outcomes. we have to be honest as well. we are dealing with factors there that we do not agree with, that we have difficulties with, but, again, we have to continue to work at it and i believe we will and should. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, senator donnelly. senator cruz. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to begin by thanking you for your honorable service to the nation, the personal sacrifice in fighting for this country. >> thank you. >> i would like to address a question of process. you have described giving hundreds of speeches and interviews and his committee asked you to submit those speeches and in response you handed over a total of four speeches. in my view that submission was spatially insufficient for this committee to assess your record. indeed your financial disclosure shows you were paid in the past year for 12 speeches yet you did not even handover those speeches for which you are paid a substantial, the money. six members send you a letter asking for financial disclosures. you have not chosen to respond to that and -- letter. it asked you about the private organizations that paid you, and the degree to which those funding sources have come from foreign nationals, foreign sovereign debt funds. you chose not to respond to that letter. in my view, unless and until you respond, this committee does not have a proper record on which to assess your confirmation and we need photos are an adequate time to assess -- full disclosure and adequate time to assess that. with respect to the international criminal court, do you believe the united states should become a party to the international criminal court. >> senator, may i quickly respond to your first comment. >> i would like for you to answer my question, why time is limited. >> that question is one i will most -- likely not be dealing with as secretary of defense. >> do you think we should be a member? i am asking for your judgment. >> i support where the united states is today. >> you think we should not be a party. thank you. i would like to draw your attention to an interview you did in 2009 with al jazeera, and with the chairman's indulgence, if we can play and excerpt of that interview. [audio clip] >> go ahead with your question. >> hello, sir, good evening. it is a very good proposition, but very strongly i believe that -- leadership around the world -- there is a moral savior going on. unless they have a moral catastrophe, for example, look at palestine. there is a war crime and they are not dealing with it. if you look at sri lanka, the genocide going on, nothing is being done. [indiscernible] >> what is your question with regard to the issue? ask given the -- >> given the total moral failure, unless we bring them to moral judgment, nothing can be done. >> i think you are exactly right and i said in my opening statement that leadership is critical because in life nothing is ever accomplished without leadership. >> in that excerpt, the caller suggested that the nation of israel has committed war crimes and your response was not to dispute that characterization, but indeed to describe what he says as "well, i think that is exactly right." i would like to ask you, do you think the nation of israel has committed war crimes. >> no, i do not, senator. i would like to look at the full context of the interview, but to answer your question, no. >> we laid the entirety of the question for you to hear -- played the entirety of the question and your response. i would suggest that the suggestion that israel has committed war crimes is particularly offensive given that the jewish people suffered through the hollow class -- holocaust, and for the secretary of defense not to take issue with that claim is highly troubling. i would also point out in 2006 your characterization of the nation of israel's action, and that was in a speech on the floor of the senate, referring to israel's military campaign against the terrorist group hezbollah as a "sickening slaughter." do you think it is right that israel was committed -- committing a "sickening slaughter?" >> again, i would like to read all of what i said, but i have said every nation has the right to defense -- defend itself. >> do you think a "sickening slaughter" would be a war crime? >> it depends on defending yourself. >> is defending yourself against terrorism typically characterized as "sickening slaughter?" let's play another expert -- exit. >> we have any e-mail from wendy who writes can the rest of the world -- the image of the united states is that of the world's bully -- do we need not to change the perception if we are asking to lay down arms? >> her observation is a good one and relevant. yes, and it is a good question. >> do you think it is appropriate for the civilian leader of us military forces to agree with the statement that both the perception and the reality is that the united states is "the world's bully?" >> i did not hear her stick -- say that, and my comment was that it was relevant and a good observation, not that i agree with it. >> with respect, the record speaks for itself that she said the us is the world's bully, and you said her observation is a good one, i agree with it, and yes to her question. you agreed with the characterization of the united states as the world only, and i would suggest that is not a characterization -- the united states has spilled more blood, more treasure, standing for freedom, liberating people across the world, and to go on al jazeera, a foreign network, broadcasting propaganda to nations that are hostile to us and to explicitly agree with the characterization of the united states as the world's bully i would suggest is not the conduct one would expect of the senator of decks -- secretary of defense. ex-senator, she said that was an observation. >> she said perception and reality. with that, my time has expired. >> thank you. what we will do, given the fact that some of those tapes -- they need to be transcribed to be made part of the record so that people can judge exactly what was said and what was asked. i heard that first question as a response to the need for moral leadership, by the way, not the way senator cruz did, but in any event it is important that the words be transcribed and made part of the record. i told senator cruz that i'd refer we have a transcript and you the asked questions from a transcript but i did not want to stop him from offering the tape of it. he went ahead and did it, and in any event the fair thing is that the transcript of each of those segments be made part of the record and that we give senator hagel an opportunity should he want either on this question, or other questions, an opportunity to record -- answer for the record in any way he might proceed. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we would be happy to provide a transcript and we will make public a link to these excerpts and the entire transcript. >> that would be very helpful. thank you, senator cruz. senator her ronald -- her ronald -- herono. >> think you, mr. chairman. we live in a complex world, and any secretary of defense should ask tough questions, maybe not politically popular questions, and i see you as that kind of person given your comments to the questions asked of you today and the conversation you and i had. turning to your statement this morning, you talked about looking at future threats and challenges, and why the department of defense is rebalancing for the asia pacific region. this is important for hawaii. would you expand as to why and what particular economic or national security factors come into play as we rebalance to the asia-pacific region? >> senator, you know better than most your region and its importance, and why it will continue to be important to the world, but certainly to the united states. as i noted in my opening statement and you know, we have always been a pacific power. we have been a pacific power because we have clear economic interests, strong allies and i mentioned some of them in my opening statement. when we look at the growth of the economy, trade growth, population growth, the rise of china, but not just china -- that entire asia-pacific region -- we need to stay relevant to opportunities as well as challenges in all areas, particularly those we see emerging as to the largest, most significant economic security issues and opportunities. it is important that any nation rebalance assets. you have to be relevant to the times, the shifts, the changes. the world is different than it was 12 years ago. our force structure is being refit. we are looking at a far more agile, flexible force structure as our economies become more agile and flexible. for all of those reasons and more, that is why we are doing what i think is exactly the right thing to do, but it does not mean we are abandoning anyone, or any part of the world. we can not. >> senator, as we live in times of budget constraints, will you commit to keeping this committee informed as you develop strategies and contemplate posture adjustments that go along with this kind of rebalancing? >> yes, and i look forward to it. >> i am always heartened by the factor that you always -- fact that you ask the question is the policy worthy of the men and women we sent into battle. i am heartened by that perspective. what would be your top priorities as you look to care for the men and women in uniform and their families? that's as i said in my opening statement, -- >> as i said in my opening statement, the welfare, the safety, the success of our men and women in -- in uniform is my top priority, and will continue to the. >> do you have any specifically programmatic ways you will reflect that? >> first, to implement the law. we have a number of new laws, policies that are in the process of being implemented. we have spoken about some here today. i will assure, if confirmed, that we do that. as i said in my opening statement, we will assure that every military man and woman and their families are given exactly the same opportunities and rights as each other and all members of the armed forces. >> i also take to heart your belief in the importance of the coordination and the work between the department of defense and the va. i understand you have a strong relationship with secretary shin seki. having been a senior leader in the veterans administration, what will be your primary challenges and goals as you look to collaborate with the secretary and the va? >> it will be the same that secretary panetta, and before him, secretary gates, initiated in closer collaboration between the two agencies, and that means the integration of our systems as our men and women transition out of active duty into civilian life or retired life and require the assistance of some veterans assistance programs. a closer integration -- we know that the backlogs now are still far too long to get you valuation's of whether it is ptsd or whatever the health issue is. i think continuing to work with the secretary as secretary panetta engaged it, but strengthening those levels of leadership where people understand each other better and maximize the resources that each agency has in making those resources more value-added and count more. >> i had an opportunity to meet with secretary shin seki recently, and those are not happening as expeditiously as we would like, so i hope you would have a real need sense of urgency about these efforts because the bottom line is to help our men and women transitioning into civilian life. i hope we have that strong commitment. >> you have my strong commitment. >> the department of defense is the us's largest consumer of energy. we talked about that briefly. it is clear the military will benefit from cheaper, more stable fuel costs over the long term and promising work is being done in the area to commercialize alternative fuels that can be produced abundantly in the united states. this is very important for all of our -- hawaii. if confirmed, will you continue to emphasize and prioritize research, development and where possible deployment of renewable fuels, as well as enhanced energy efficiency efforts to reduce the department of defense's energy costs over the long term? >> senator, as you noted, the department of defense is the largest user of certainly liquid fuels, but i think our energy budget -- i do not know the exact number, but it is probably around $18 billion a year. anything we can do to make any aspect of securing our country more cost-effective, we need to look at. i would make that a high priority if i am confirmed and go to the defense department -- to see how we do that, how we continue to do that he cousin in the end, for all the reasons you know, -- because in the end, for all the reasons you know, it is in the interest of our country, resources and people. >> continuing to fund these areas will accrue huge cost savings for dod. thank you, my time is up. >> thank you, senator hirono. here is the situation we have. the first vote is a 10 minute boat and the subsequent votes are 10 minutes. i am happy to call upon you now, but you will have to keep track of this. i would be happy to recess now instead of your -- after your questions. we will recess for the five votes, about one hour. would you like to start now and take the chance that you do not finish, or start after the hour recess? >> i had better not miss the possibility of missing a vote, so i would prefer to recess now. >> we will recess for about one hour, and that the last vote, it is up to five votes, but the final vote, final passage of the debt limit will -- we will begin about five minutes after the beginning of that vote. we will stand in recess. >> the committee will come back to order. senator leaks. >> thank you, senator for joining us today and for answering the questions so far. i would like to talk about israel. it is america's most important ally in the middle east and in many respects, the entire world. a lot of people are concerned about making sure that the alliance remains strong and making sure our interests as americans are protected abroad. a lot of us feel one of the best ways of protecting american national security is through the alliance in the middle east. on april 12, 2010 -- 2002, there was a palestinian terrorist to decimated a bomb in downtown jerusalem, killing six israelis and wounding 100 others. on that day, you gave a speech on the senate floor and made some comments that i would like to discuss with you. in one segment of the speech, you said we understand israel's right to defend itself. we are committed to that. we will continue to do so but we should -- it could not be at the expense of the palestinian people. in is a palestinian people and israelis pay high-priced. some who have read that have reacted with concern that this may be indicative of a feeling on your part that there might be some moral equivalency between on the one hand israel's exercise of its right to defend itself and palestinian terrorism. do you believe there is moral equivalency between these two things? >> absolutely not. >> do you understand how others might read this statement and could lead to that impression? >> i do. >> do palestinians, those who have engaged in acts of terrorism, perhaps in reaction to israel, and do they have a legitimate right? >> terrorism can never be justified. >> is there grievance legitimate? what the palestinians? >> yes, the palestinians to decide to strap a bomb on to themselves and detonate it or otherwise engaged in acts of terror. >> they have grievances. >> they have grievances.

Vietnam
Republic-of
Jerusalem
Israel-general-
Israel
Australia
China
California
United-states
Syria
Russia
Washington

Transcripts For CSPAN Confirmation Hearing 20130203

>> good morning, everybody. the committee meets today to consider the nomination of former senator chuck hagel to be secretary of defense. before i begin, i want to first welcome senator inhofe as the new ranking republican on our committee, succeeding senator mccain. senator mccain has been a great partner over the past six years, and i thank him for all the work he has done to get bills enacted, his leadership on a host of issues, his support for the work of this committee, and for always keeping our hearings likely. -- lively. senator inhofe has shown his strong commitment to the national defense over his 20 years on this committee. and i know that we are going to work well together and continue the bipartisan tradition of the committee. we are also pleased to welcome the eight senators who are joining the committee this year, both of those who are new to the senate and those who are new to our committee. senators donnelly, hirono, kaine, and king on the democratic side, and senators blunt, cruz, fischer, and lee on the republican side. you will all find that this is a wonderful committee where we work across party lines to support our troops and their families, and their national defense mission. i would also like to pause for a moment to offer my thanks and the thanks of our committee to secretary panetta, who delayed his retirement and his return to california to serve our country, first as director of central intelligence, and then as secretary of defense. secretary panetta has provided a steady hand at the department of defense through two very difficult years, and has earned our great respect and our appreciation. finally, the committee will be holding hearings next week on benghazi, and the weeks thereafter on the impact of a sequester on the department of defense. senator hagel, we welcome you to the armed services committee as an old friend, those of us with whom he served during your years in the senate. there are few jobs were demanding that the position to which you have been nominated. the hours are long and extremely challenging, and require sacrifices from both the secretary and his family. we traditionally give our nominees an opportunity to introduce their families at these hearings, and we would welcome your doing so during your opening statement. 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. you cannot read and senator hagel's account of his military service and not be impressed by it. as senator hagel explained a few years ago, but " probably most fundamental for me, when we talk about going to war, we need to think it through carefully, not just for the political and diplomatic and economic consequences, and those are important, but at least for me, this old infantry sergeant thinks about when i was in vietnam in 1968. someone needs to represent that perspective in our government as well. the people in washington make the policy, but it is the little guys to come back in the body bags." backgroundel's provides an invaluable perspective, not only with respect to the difficult decisions and recommendations that the 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 that the secretary must make to ensure that our men and women in uniform and their families received the support and assistance 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, and that he has their backs. senator hagel, you would be in position to make key decisions on afghanistan. the secretary of defense is called upon to advise the president on the size and mission of a post-2014 so- called residual force, and the pace of the drawdown between now and the end of 2014. the key to this transition is ensuring the readiness and ability of afghan security forces to take over the defense of their own country. i always believed that would be our main mission and its key to success. during my trip to afghanistan with senator jack reed last month, we heard from u.s. commanders on the ground that afghan security forces are operating on their own on most operations, including conducting more than 85% of operations, with limited or no u.s. support in the difficult regional command east take difficult obstacles remain with the process of reducing our forces and shifting responsibility to afghan forces, including the difficulty of negotiating the status of forces agreement, including recent reports that the afghan government might slow down a successful program of growing and training the afghan local police, and including questions about the current plan to reduce the size of the afghan national security forces from 352,000 to around 132,000 after -- 230,000 after 2015. we face a number of new and growing threats elsewhere in the world, such as the ongoing threat posed by iran's nuclear weapons program and the increase in early destructive civil war -- increasingly destructive civil war in syria, and the risks of conflict could result in the loss of control of the countries substantial stockpile of weapons. there is continuing instability in other countries affected by the arab spring. the growth of al qaeda affiliates in unguarded regions including yemen, somalia, and north africa, and continued unpredictable behavior of the nuclear-armed regime in north korea. we face these challenges at a time when the dod budget is under unique pressure as a result of cuts previously agreed upon by congress, the budgeting by continuing resolution, and the impending threats of a sequester. secretary panetta has said that a sequester would be devastating for our military. senator hagel's views on the sequester will be of great interest to this committee and the nation. those of us who have served with senator hagel in the senate know that he is a man who was not afraid to speak his mind. senator hagel has made a number of statements over the course of his career which committee members will ask him about during today's hearing. for example, senator hagel has stated that unilateral sanctions against iran, "are exactly the wrong approach," and that "the worst thing we could do is try to isolate iran." i believe that while effective multilateral sanctions are preferable, unilateral sanctions are an important part of the approach that the obama administration has followed and congress has supported, and it appears that sanctions are producing tremendous pressure on iran. another statement which has raised concern is senator hagel's recommendation that we conduct, "direct, unconditional, and comprehensive talks with the government of iran." now, while there is value in communicating with our adversaries, the formulation used by senator hagel seemed to imply a willingness to talk to iran on some issues that i believe most of us would view as non-negotiable, and any willingness to talk to iran would need to be highly conditional. senator hagel's reassurance to me and my office that he supports the obama administration's strong stance against iran is significant. we look forward to hearing senator hagel today in some depth on that subject. we will also be interested in hearing senator hagel's statement on the public statements is made on israel and the united states, that our policy of non-engagement with the syrians as, "isolated us more than the syrians," and a 2009 statement that "we should not isolate hamas," a terrorist organization. there is much to be explored at this hearing. but as we struggle with the difficult security challenges facing our nation, the president needs to have a secretary of defense in whom he has trust, who will give him unvarnished advice, a person of integrity, and one who has a personal understanding of the consequences of decisions relative to the use of military force. senator hagel certainly has those critically important qualifications to lead the department of defense. senator inhofe. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first of all, i would like to echo your remarks about secretary panetta and the work he has done. i don't see him here today, but i do recall that when he was first nominated, i was probably one of the first phone calls to him, and i have enjoyed working with him and a mccain, the same way, i continue to depend on his counsel. you and i have worked very well together in the past. mr. chairman, before i continue the opening statement, i would like to raise a concern about the sufficiency of the materials provided to this committee by our nominee. senator hagel was requested to provide the speeches he has delivered over the past five years. yet his initials the mission was -- initial submission was for only four speeches, even though, as was noticed by senator cruz, he had 12 speeches but submitted four speeches. well, we received some more, but only late last night i think it would have been a lot more helpful if we had received them before that. i hope we will be able to get that information before we have to cast votes on this nominee. the president's nomination for senator hagel for secretary of defense comes at a critical juncture. secretary hagel is a good man. i am a great admirer of the time he spent in vietnam, and the sacrifices he made. while this service is commendable, his nomination should be decided by the totality of his record. it is the votes he has cast and the statements he has made that will inform us as to his judgment, his view of america's role in the world, and his view of the military requirement to support that role. as i told senator hagel in my office some time ago, over two weeks ago, after a long and careful review of his record, the things he has said, and the things i have personally experienced with him, we are too philosophically opposed on the pressing issues facing our country, and therefore i told him i would not be supporting his nomination. his record demonstrates what i view as a lack of his steadfast opposition to policies that diminish u.s. power and influence throughout the world, as well as a recent trend of policy reversals based on political expediency rather than on core beliefs. with many of the security challenges facing u.s. interest around the world, senator hagel's record is deeply troubling and out of the mainstream read too often, it seems he's willing to subscribe to it worldwide view that is predicated on appeasing our adversaries while shunning our friends. no man survives when freedom fails. i will mention a few of these things because they will come in this hearing. in 2000, an overwhelming majority of the senators sent a letter to president clinton for reaffirming our solidarity with israel. i carried that their around. -- letter around. i remember it well. senator hagel is one of just four who refused to sign that letter. i am sure he will want to comment on that. in 2001, he was one of just two senators voting against the bill for extending harsh sanctions against iran. a year later, he urged president bush to support iran's membership in the world trade organization. senator hagel voted against a resolution designating iran's revolutionary guard corps, a group responsible for killing soldiers in iraq and afghanistan, as a terrorist organization. on multiple occasions, he has advocated for direct negotiations with iran, a regime that continues to oppress its people and doggedly pursue a nuclear weapon capability and employ terrorist proxies including hamas and hezbollah. senator hagel has been an outspoken supporter of nuclear disarmament and global zero movement. we are very sensitive to that. the president has said many times that he wants a nuclear- free world, and i know that senator hagel is right there with him, but and a time when north korea's belligerent actions threaten our allies with nuclear capabilities, and the security of our own nation and that of our allies, why would we want to unilaterally disarm ourselves of nuclear capability? of late, however, senator hagel has expressed views in meetings with senate colleagues and i have been informed that they are glaringly at odds with long- held positions, particularly regarding israel, iran, and our nuclear arsenal. this willingness to walk back his positions, possibly for the sake of political expediency on input and issues, is deeply troubling, and sends a concerning message to our allies and adversaries alike. though i respect senator hagel, his record demonstrates that he would be a staunch advocate for the continuation of the misguided policies of the president's first term, retreating from america's unique global leadership role. it will embolden our enemies and endanger our allies and provide an opportunity for nations that do not share our interests to fill the global leadership vacuum we leave behind. it is for these reasons that i believe he is the wrong person to lead the pentagon at this perilous and consequential time. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, senator inhofe. we have two former chairmen of this committee with us to introduce senator hagel. no senator has had two dearer friends or better mentor is that -- mentors than i have had with senators nunn and warner. i want to welcome them back to this committee. i don't have to tell them that they are among dear, dear friends. it is a real treat to welcome you back to the committee. i will call on you, senator nunn, first. i will call you alphabetically. i have no better way to do it. sam? [laughter] sam, welcome back. >> first, for the record, seniority and age are two different things. senator levin, ranking member inhofe, i am honored to join my friend john warner in presenting chuck hagel to the committee and recommending that chuck be confirmed as our secretary of defense. i think it is worth noting that 68 years ago this month, john warner and listed in the u.s. -- enlisted in the u.s. navy to fight in world war ii. that was the start of his great career in public service, and john, i am proud to be here by your side. mr. chairman, i spent a lot of time sitting in your seat, and congratulations on not having to do that today -- >> i don't know how long it will last, but thanks for pointing it out. >> you and senator mccain have effectively guided this committee in its important role as an compelling voice for defense. you have managed to pass authorization bills even during contentious times. thank you both for your dedicated service to our nation. i am confident that you and senator inhofe will continue this tradition, and that senator mccain will still be a very, very valuable member and a voice on this committee. i believe our nation is fortunate to have a nominee for secretary of defense with the character and the experience and courage and leadership that chuck hagel would bring to this position. first, chuck is acutely aware that even in an age of rapid technological advances, our military capability and effectiveness depend on the quality and the morale of the people who serve our nation in uniform, as well as the families who support them. chuck received two purple hearts in vietnam, and he continued to fight for veterans and active duty military personnel. he knows that our people are the strongest assets. second, chuck's experience in vietnam shape his life in perspective. war for chuck hagel is not an abstraction. i am confident that if confirmed, he will ask the hard and smart questions before sending troops into battle. chuck hagel knows that the united states has vital interests that are worth fighting for and dying for. he also knows that war should be a last resort, and that our nation must effectively use all of our tools, not limited only to our military, to protect our important and to protect our vital interests. certainly, mr. chairman, there is a tension in these values, but it is a tension we should welcome in the thought process and in the advice that our secretary of defense gives to our commander in chief and this congress. from our service to gather on -- together on the defense policy board in recent years, i know that chuck hagel has a clear worldview, and that is aligned with the mainstream of u.s. foreign and defense policy and also with president obama. chuck hagel believes we must preserve the american strength as a force for good in the world. he recognizing that protecting our interests requires strong allies and friends, as well as strong american leadership. third, chuck has the depth of experience and leadership skills required to handle this tough job. there is no shortage of security challenges around the world, as this committee knows and as you enumerated this morning, mr. chairman. a very large and impressive group of former cabinet officials and public servants from both sides of the aisle have said that they trust chuck hagel with this important responsibility. and i strongly, i strongly agree. fourth, on the fiscal side, i am confident that chuck will be a powerful advocate for a common- sense approach in this administration and on capitol hill regarding fiscal challenges to the defense budget. he understands that our defense capabilities are being threatened on two budget friends. first, sequestration, with its damaging, across the board, up from the budget cuts, and second, the rapidly rising costs within the department's budget, including but not limited to health care, personnel, and retirement costs. mr. chairman, members of the committee, i believe that chuck will work effectively with this committee and congress on meeting these budget challenges while protecting our people, our capabilities, and while ensuring that the united states has the strongest military in the world. chuck hagel was a soldier and a senator, but he has been also a highly successful executive in both the public and private sectors. he built a successful company from the ground up. he is a man who knows how to prioritize and make tough decisions. he will listen to and carefully consider the views of our military and civilian leaders and guided them as necessary. fifth, i believe that chuck hagel will be a balanced and responsible voice on a nuclear weapons policy. president reagan said it often and said it well -- "nuclear war cannot be won and it must not be fought." as this committee knows, the risks of a global nuclear war have thankfully, substantially declined since the breakup of the soviet union. but with nine nations possessing nuclear weapons, with a nuclear weapons usable material and knowledge spread across the globe, and if terrorists manage to buy, steal, or make one, we face enormous risks that a nuclear weapon would be used if proliferation continues in places like iran and north korea, and if we do not secure them globally, the odds of use go up even more. six years ago, george shultz, bill perry, henry kissinger and i made the argument that we should reduce reliance on nuclear weapons as a vital contribution to preventing proliferation, keeping them out of dangerous hands, and ultimately ending them as a threat to the world. 2/3 of living former secretaries of state, defense, and national security advisers have agreed with the vision and the steps that we outlined, including substantial work on verification and enforcement. mr. chairman, i hope that all members of the committee and the senate will read the recent statements by four credible and very experienced americans -- master tom pickering, ambassador richard burt, general james cartwright, and general john sheehan, about their work with chuck hagel on nuclear weapons. they made it abundantly clear that the bank opposed unilateral moves -- they oppose unilateral moves and support verifiable u.s. arms reductions, to be followed by multilateral negotiations bringing other nuclear weapons countries into a series and verifiable process of reductions. in closing, mr. chairman, there are many essential characteristics and values that the secretary of defense should possess in a dangerous and challenging world. let me name just two or three that i think are very important. first, someone who is well informed, has an open mind, in cages in critical thinking, who is capable of and seeks out independent thought. second, someone who sets aside fixed ideologies and biases to honestly evaluate all options and provide his or her candid judgment to the president and the congress. third, someone who pays attention to people with the best ideas, regardless of their party affiliation. no one is perfect, we all know that. but chuck hagel comes as close as anyone i know to having all of these qualities. mr. chairman, senator inhofe, members of the committee, i served for 24 years on this committee and i know that much has changed since i retired 16 years ago. i continue to believe, however, that every major problem we face today requires the best input from both political parties if we are to arrive at a solution. i believe that chuck hagel will seek that input. i urge his support by this committee and i urge the confirmation of this nomination by the u.s. senate. i thank the chairman. >> thank you very much, senator nunn. senator warner. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it is a very moving experience for me to reenter this room. i served on this committee for 30 years. in that period of time, senator nunn was the chairman and i was renting. -- ranking. but i want to say to you and jim inhofe -- jim and i have been good friends and we worked together not only on this committee, but other committees, and you will be a fine ranking member. you follow in the steps of my dear, valued friend of so many years, john mccain. and the leadership of this committee throughout my 30 years of the senate has been drawn from the ranks of the strongest and the best of this membership. we have it today, and i have every reason to believe we will have it tomorrow. i have a very fortunate record of public service for many years. no chapter was more important than my service on this committee. you will carry with you the rest of your life the recollections of the work you have done for one of america's most valued assets, the men and women and their families of the armed services of the united states. i had written out a nice, long statement, and then last night, i got sam nunn's statement and chuck hagel's statement, and i felt that another statement would not do. i would rather say a few words from the heart. i was in the navy. i did no more than any other kid on my block. we all went. good friends, we thank chuck hagel and mrs. hagel and his family. because if confirmed, is an enormous commitment by the family to this position. you have made the decision to offer yourself once again to public service. public service is a privilege. i have always regarded it as such. this statement will soon be shared by you. i read it through not once or twice, but again this morning. i have never read more carefully prepared statement, a more forthright statement, and one that has no hedges or deviations. he hits firm on those issues that will make the decision in your mind and that of your colleagues as to whether or not he is qualified to take on this very important assignment. i first entered the pentagon in 1969 during the war in vietnam under melvin laird. jim schlesinger followed and i worked with every secretary of defense since that period of time. all different, all with their strengths and indeed some of their weaknesses, but set forth in this is a series of commitments to you as a committee, to the members of the full senate and to the american public as precisely what his goals are and what he will do. how he will serve the president, how he will give the president his best advice, and i know chuck to give it very strongly. so i am going to talk a little bit about crack hagel, the man i served with for 12 years. my distinguished colleague and longtime friend, sam, had gone when chuck arrived at the senate. first year he was here, we had daniel defense authorization -- the annual defense authorization bill on the floor, and in those days, as it is today, that bill goes on that floor, that bill stays on that floor. sometimes a couple days, sometimes a couple of weeks. we get it through. when it's done we go back to our committee's faces and we begin to write that bill and get it to the printer so that we can go to conference. how many times have we done that together, senator nunn, senator levin, senator mccain, senator inhofe? many times. well, the first year he was here he watched that process, and when i had taken the staff back to the committee room, surprisingly, he showed up and i didn't know him that well, although i studied his biography and i wanted to get to know him because of my deep and abiding interest in the vietnam period having served for five years in that period as secretary, under secretary of the navy. he strolled in the room and i introduced him to the people and he said to the staff, you are one of the most impressive group of young people i've ever seen. i learned a lot. and he shared some of his stories as a simple but elegant soldier that he was. that's how he started, and thereafter he voted for every single final passage of the authorization bill, every single final passage of the appropriation bill. he was honed and learned in that generation of vietnam, and i'm so proud to have the affiliation of having been, yes, in comparative safety, the pentagon, but i did go to the field of battle and see these young men and some women who engaged in that struggle, but chuck hagel brings with him the experience of having come home, come home to an america that was quite different, and what i than what i experienced when my generation came home from world war ii, we were welcomed with open arms. america at that time in vietnam, and how well john mccain can remember this, was very divided, and when you wore your uniform back home, it didn't see the same respect it deserved for the sacrifices that you and your colleagues had committed. chuck will never forget that. i will never forget it. john will never forget it. today we welcome home and we do it with the fullest heart the young men and women that there have been times in history, and that was one, and so that honed him to be prepared to take on his responsibilities as he addresses the declining budget situation which is going to be a challenge. and i am absolutely certain that he will stand up and fight as hard as two of your predecessors, leon panetta, you mentioned today, and robert gates. they gave their president loyalty but they gave him their best advice and tough and fought for their troops and drilled down that they've got to maintain whatever budget and sequester is not the route. but whatever budget, maintain morale and combat readiness. and also, ladies and gentlemen, that pillar of strength of our military system, the all- volunteer force. we had drafts in vietnam. we saw the effect of that. and we decided as a nation to take a gamble, to let every person who wished to wear the uniform give them that opportunity and to volunteer. no one is forced in there. that has got to be maintained. this man has the experience and graphs to and the strength to protect the all-volunteer force. i also was deeply impressed by the senate and the manner in which it confirmed john kerry. john kerry served in that time and he went through trials and tribulations and came home and faced the public the way that chuck did. the senate confirmed him with a very, very strong vote, and they sent him away ready to take on the enormity of his responsibility. now, i mention that because in my experience, i've seen a good deal of camaraderie and the competition between the secretaries of defense and the secretaries of state. it just sort of built in there and a lot of times sand gets in that gearbox, but it's important to the united states that they, having the major jurisdiction of most of the policy issues, work as a team. john kerry and chuck hagel are a band of brothers out of vietnam with that special bond, and i'm sure that you will utilize that and remember and make those two departments perform their function, best service the president and best service the country. so i pretty well said everything i should say. i want to be brief because it's important that this committee pursue its work, but, again, bob gates, leon panetta, set the bar for this century of those who take on this job and you mentioned your long friendship and how you know both. i'd keep close contact. they've had the experience to deal with this president of the united states, and you're the president's choice. folks, there's an old saying in the combat army infantry and marine corps. certain men are asked to take the point, which means to get out and lead, in the face of the enemy. chuck hagel did that as a sergeant in vietnam. if confirmed, chuck hagel will do it again. this time not before a platoon but before every man and woman and their families in the armed services, you will lead them, and they will know in their hearts, we have one of our own. you're on your own. good luck. \[laughter] >> well, we thank you both, senator warner, senator nunn, for your powerful introductions. i just wish every member of the senate, every american could have heard, and i hope will hear and read about what you said here today about chuck hagel. and i also notice there's another former senator who is a member of that band of brothers who is with us today. i just noticed in the audience max cleland is here and i want to welcome you, max, an old friend of the committee and of the senate and of the nation. so let me now call on senator hagel, and senator warner, senator nunn, again, thank you for your introductions and you are free to get back to your lives or to stay as you wish. >> thank you. >> senator hagel. >> thank you, chairman levin, ranking member inhofe and distinguished members of the committee. i am honored to come before you today as the president's nominee to be secretary of defense. first, as you suggested, mr. chairman, let me introduce my family. my wife, lilibet, our son, ziller, and our daughter, allyn, are not with us today. our son, ziller, claims he's taking a test. we'll confirm that later. but both are a son and daughter that lilibet and i are very, very proud of. and i think like any proud father and any proud mother, you all know how i feel about that as you have the same feelings about your children, it's the same way lilibet and i feel about ours. i also want to introduce my brother, tom, who served with me in vietnam. my brother mike, who is our number three brother. and i might add who actually possesses any talent our family has, he has in the pentagon 10 paintings as chairman of the air force artist over the years, and they're hanging in different locations in the pentagon. so we have one brother of some acclaim. and one of us did make it. my brother mike. mike's son is sitting behind him, josh. he's one of three children that mike has. we have here also cousins, many friends, people i owe money to. \[laughter] and who knows who else. i have received some publicity over the weeks. i want to also thank my friends, sam nunn and john warner. i want to thank them for their support, their encouragement and their friendship over many years. and as each of you who had the privilege of serving with those two senators, i, too, add my thanks for their tremendous service to our country. these two distinguished americans represent what the best about american public service and responsible bipartisanship. they have embodied both in their careers, long distinguished careers, and are models for each of us. and of course to my family and friends and my fellow veterans who are here, as has been noted, max cleland, jan scruggs, veterans from all wars. i am grateful to them. not just for fellow friends and veterans who are here but those not here, thank you. a life is only as good as the family and friends you have and the people you surround yourself with. i also want to thank my friend, leon panetta, for his tremendous service to our country over so many years. if i'm given the privilege of succeeding him, it will be a high honor. president obama, for his confidence and trust in me, i thank him. i'm humbled by the opportunity and the possibility he's given me to serve our country once again. and i fully recognize the immense responsibilities of the secretary of defense. i assured the president that if i am confirmed by the united states senate i will always do my best, i will always do my best for our nation and for the men and women and their families who are called on to make the enormous sacrifices of military service. their safety, success and welfare will always be at the forefront of the decisions i make. i also assured the president that i would always provide him with my most honest and informed advice. i make that same commitment to this committee and to the congress. if confirmed i will reach out to the members of this committee for advice and collaboration. it will be a partnership, because the national security challenges america faces require it. our nation's security is the highest priority of our leaders and our government. we cannot allow the work of confronting the great threats we face today to be held hostage to partisanship on either side of the aisle or by differences between the bodies represented in articles 1 and 2 of our constitution. the stakes are too high. men and women of all political philosophies and parties and ideas die and fight for our country. as this committee knows so well, protecting our national security our committing a nation to war can never become political litmus tests. i know secretary panetta has put a strong emphasis on reaching out to the congress. i, like leon, come from the congress and respect and understand this institution's indispensible role and setting policy and helping govern our country. we are all products. forces that shape us. for me there has been nothing more important in my life or more defining influence on my life than my family. whether it was helping my mother raise four boys after my father, a world war ii veteran, died suddenly at age 39 on christmas day, or serving side by side my brother, tom, in vietnam or the wonderful miracle of my wife, lilibet and me being blessed with two beautiful children. that is who i am. we each bring to our responsibilities frames of reference. these frames of reference are formed by our life's experiences. they help instruct our judgments. we build out from those personal foundations by continually informing ourselves, listening and learning. like each of you, i have a record, a record that i'm proud of. i'm proud of my record, not because of any accomplishments i may have achieved or certainly because of an absence of mistakes but rather because i tried to build that record based on living my life and fulfilling my responsibilities as honestly as i knew how and with hard work. underpinning everything i've done in my life was a belief we should always be striving to make our nation a more better and secure place for all our people. during the 12 years i had the privilege of serving the people of nebraska in the united states senate, i cast over 3,000 votes and hundreds of committee votes. i've also given hundreds of interviews and speeches and written a book. thes you all know, i'm on record. i'm on the record on many issues. but no one individual vote, no one individual quote, no one individual statement defines me. my believes or my record, my overall world view has never changed. america has and must maintain the strongest military in the world, that we must lead in the international community to confront threats and challenges together and take advantage of opportunities together and that we must use all our tools of american power to protect our citizens and our interests. i believe and i always have believed that america must engage in the world, not retreat from the world but engage from the world. my record is consistent on these points. it's clear that we are living at a defining time. our nation is emerging from over a decade of war. we have brought our men and women in uniform home from iraq and have started to bring them home from afghanistan. that does not mean that the threats we face and will continue to face are any less dangerous or complicated. in fact, it is quite the opposite. recent events in mali and algeria remind us clearly of this reality. 21st century complexities, technologies, economies, threats are bringing the seven billion global citizens closer together than ever before. and as our planet adds another two billion people over the next 25 years, the dangers, complications and human demands will not be lessened but rather heightened. despite these challenges, i believe we also have historic opportunities to help build a safer, more prosperous, more secure, more hopeful and just world that maybe at any time -- than maybe at any time in the history of people. yes, the intolerance continues around the world and we must continue to be clear eyed about this danger and we will be. we will not hesitate to use the full force of the united states military in defense of our security, but we must also be smart and more importantly wise, wise in how we employ all of our nation's great power. america's continued leadership and strength at home and abroad will be critically important for our country and the world. while we will not his -- hesitate to act unilaterally when necessary. it is essential that we closely with our allies and partners to enhance america's interests and security as well as global security. if confirmed i will continue to build on the efforts of this administration and a former secretaries gates, secretary panetta and secretary clinton to strengthen our alliances and partnerships around the world. i will also look forward to working with my former senate colleague, your colleague and our friend, john kerry, in this pursuit. as i told the president, i am committed to his positions on all issues of national security, specifically decisions that the department of defense is in the process of implementing now. this includes the defense strategic guidance the president outlined in january, 2012. allow me to very briefly address a few of those specific issues now. first, we have a plan to place -- a plan in place to transition out of afghanistan, continue bringing our troops home and end the war which has been the longest war, as we all know, in america's history. as you also know, discussions are ongoing about what the u.s. presence in afghanistan will look like after 2014. the president has made clear and i agree that there should be only two functions for u.s. troops that remain in afghanistan after 2014. counterterrorism, particularly to target al qaeda and its affiliates, and training and advising afghan forces. it's time we forge a new partnership with afghanistan, with its government and most importantly with its people. second, as secretary of defense i will ensure we will stay vigilant and keep up the pressure on terrorist organizations as they try to expand their affiliates around the world in places like yemen, somalia and north africa. at the pentagon, that means continuing to invest in and build the tools to assist in that fight, such as special operations forces and new intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance technologies. and it will mean working hand in hand with our partners here at home, across the national security intelligence communities to confront these and other threats, especially the emerging threat, the very dangerous and real threat of cyberwarfare. as i made clear, i am fully committed to the president's goal of preventing iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. and as i have been on record on that issue and as i've said in the past many times, all options must be on the table to achieve that goal. my policy has always been the same as the president's, one of prevention, not of containment. and the president has made clear that is the policy of our government. as secretary of defense, i will make sure that the department is prepared for any contingency. that's my job. that's my responsibility. i will ensure our friend and ally israel maintains its qualitative military edge in the region and will continue to support systems like iron dome, which is today saving israeli lives from terrorists' rocket attacks. that support i have always made clear and been on the record for. fourth, while we pursue the reductions in our deployed stockpiles and launchers consistent with the new start treaty, i am committed to maintaining a modern, strong, safe ready and effective nuclear arsenal. america's nuclear deterrent over the last 35 years has played a central role in ensuring global security and the avoidance of a world war iii. i have been committed to that. my record is clear on that. i am committed to modernizing our nuclear arsenal. as we emerge from this decade of war, we must also broaden our nation's focus overseas as we look at future threats and challenges. as this committee knows, that's why d.o.d. is rebalancing its resources toward the asia pacific region. we are in the process of modernizing our defense posture across the entire region to defend and deepen our partnerships with traditional allies, especially japan, south korea and australia. to continue to defer and defend against provocations from states like north korea as well as nonstate actors. and to expand our networks of security cooperation throughout the region to combat terrorism, counterproliferation, provide disaster relief, fight piracy and ensure maritime security. i will continue this rebalancing even as we continue to work closely, closely with our longtime allies of nato and our friends and with allies and partners and friends in other regions of the world. at the same time we'll continue to focus on challenges in the middle east and north africa where we have clear national interests. rather as a recognition that the united states has been and always will be a pacific power. in the asia pacific area is increasingly vital to america's security and economic interests. that's why we must become even more engaged in the region over the incoming years. during all of this and much more will require smart and strategic budget decisions. i have made it clear i'm sure leon panetta and the concerns of the impact just ration will have on our armed forces. as someone who has run businesses, i know that the uncertainty and turbulence of the current budget climate makes it much more difficult to manage the pentagon's resources and our national security. if confirmed i'm committed to effectively and efficiently using every single taxpayers' dollars the right way, to maintain the strongest military in the world and to working with congress to ensure that the department has the resources it needs and that the disposition of those resources is accountable. even as we deal with difficult budget decisions, i will never break america's commitment to our troops, our veterans and our military families. we will continue to invest in the well-being of our all- volunteer force and working with the v.a. and other institutions we will make sure our troops and their families get the health care, job opportunities and education they have earned and deserve. just as i did when i co- authored the post-9/11 g.i. bill with senators jim webb, frank lautenberg and john warner. this includes focusing on the mental health of our fighting force, because no one who volunteers to fight and die for this country should ever feel like that they have nowhere to turn. that's unacceptable for this country. in my 12 years in the senate, my one guiding principle on every security decision i made and every vote i cast was always this, simply this -- is our policy worthy of our troops and their families and the sacrifices that we ask them to make? that same question will guide me if i am confirmed as secretary of defense. our men and women in uniform and their families must never doubt that their leaders' first priority is them. i believe my record of leadership on veterans' issues over the years going back to my service in the veterans administration under president reagan demonstrates my rock- solid commitment to our veterans and their families. we must always take care of our people. that's why i will work to ensure that everyone who volunteers to fight for this country has the same rights and same opportunities as i discussed with many of you in our meetings. i'm fully committed to implementing the repeal of don't-ask, don't-tell and doing everything possible under current law to provide equal benefits to the families of all, all our service members and their families. i will work with the service chiefs as we officially open combat positions to women, a decision i strongly support. and i will continue the important work that leon panetta has done to combat sexual assault, sexual assault in the military, maintain the health and well-being of those who serve as critical to maintaining a strong and capable military because in institutions people must always come first. as we look ahead to the coming years, we have an extraordinary opportunity, opportunity now, at this moment to define what's next for america's military in our country. it is incumbent upon all of us to make decisions that will ensure our nation is prepared to confront any threat we may face in the future, protect our citizens and remain, remain the greatest force for good in the world. if confirmed as secretary of defense, it will be a great honor working with the president, this committee, the congress and our military to ensure our policies are worthy of the service and sacrifice of america's men and women. thank you, mr. chairman. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you very much, senator hagel, and here's what the plan is now for the hearing. we'll have a first round of eight minutes each. we have a vote that is scheduled for 12:15. we're going to work through that vote so -- and we're also going to work through lunch, which means we would ask are you to vote sometime during that 12:15 vote and come back, for those who haven't had your turn yet. there are five votes at 2:15. i hope that we can complete our first round by 2:00 or 2:15 so we could then have a late lunch at 12:15 during those five votes. we would then come back perhaps an hour later. we would ask those who have not had a turn, if that's the case, or during our second round that to begin our second round that you on the final vote, vote early and then come back so we can start as quickly as possible around the 3:15 or 3:30, i would assume, to either complete the first round, if it hasn't been completed, or to begin our second round. the -- because of the time crunch, we have standard questions which we ask of all nominees. i am going to ask those at a later time during this hearing, but we will ask them, and again i think we hope to finish today. we'll leave the record open for questions, but our goal would be to finish today no matter how long it takes today. then to have the record open for questions. so let us now begin our first round of eight minutes. senator hagel, you made reference to the looming sequester. we received a letter signed by the joint chiefs of staff relative to sequester which says that we're on the brink of creating a hallowed force based on budget conditions and legislation. they have talked about the readiness crisis which would result, grounding aircraft, returning ships to port, stop driving combat vehicles and training and so forth. can you -- and you've spoken very briefly about your agreeing in general with the impact. would you expand on the impact of that sequester from your perspective? >> well, mr. chairman, i think the chiefs have laid it out rather directly, plainly, as secretary panetta has as recently as two, three days ago, ash carter in an interview, went into some detail. the fact is, the bottom line is if sequester would occur, it isn't just a reduction in a significant amount of dollars that would occur, but it would be a convergence of taking the flexibility, the projection, the management, the future away from those who are responsible for managing our budget. furloughs. furloughing civilian employees would have to occur. you listed inventory of consequences of cutting back on flying time, of training. these are real consequences that would occur. i know the pentagon, the chiefs, those who have responsibility or managing every department of this three million operation security institution are preparing for the worst. but make no mistake, this is not an exaggeration. when managers are not given the flexibility and the opportunity and the tools to manage with complete uncertainty as to what's ahead, that's disaster. >> thank you. on the question of iran and the use of force, the president has said that iran's leaders should understand that president obama does not have a policy of containment. he has a policy to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, that he's made clear that he will not hesitate, in his words, to use force when necessary to defend the united states and its interests. do you agree with president obama's position that, quote, all options should be on the table, closed quote, to let iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon? >> i do, i have and i strongly agree with it. >> on iranian sanctions. president obama has said that the sanctions which have been put in place are crippling the economy of iran. i have to agree. their currency has dropped 80%. oil production has plunged. the economy is in the shambles. do you agree with the president's views on sanctions against iran and if so how do you reconcile your position with some of your past statements that suggest that the national security of the united states is not served by isolating iran? >> well, first, i do agree and always have agreed with multilateral sanctions because i think they have an effect sand i think this president, in particular, has probably done more than any president to effectively employ those kind of international sanctions, starting with a security council u.n. agreement and u.n. mandates. so i agree with what the president's doing. and i've said publicly, incidentally, long before the president ever asked me to consider this job, that additional sanctions might be required. as to my record on votes in the senate regarding unilateral sanctions, i have differed on some of those. i have voted for some as well. it was always on a case-by-case basis. when i voted against some of those unilateral sanctions against iran, it was a different time. for example, i believe one was in 2001, 2002. we were at a different place with iran during that time. as a matter of fact, i recall the bush administration did not want a renewal of the five-year renewal of ilsa during that time because they weren't sure of the effectiveness of sanctions. that wasn't the only reason i voted against it. it was because i thought there might be other ways to employ our vast ability to harness power and allies. it was never a question of did i disagree with the objective. the objective was i think very clear to both of us. i recall, for example, in 2008, secretary of state rice, sending a letter to the chairman of the finance committee, senator -- senator baucus, requiring a sanctions resolution unilateral in the finance committee not come out of the finance committee because the bush administration at the time was working with the russians specifically but with the security council of the united nations to try to get international sanctions which i think that effort, by the way in 2008, led to the 2010 international sanctions. >> can you give us your view on the size of the u.s. force, which might be necessary or would be necessary after 2014, the so-called residual force, if you have an opinion on the size? you indicated in your opening statement two missions for that residual force. can you also give us your opinion about the size of the afghan national security force after 2014 and whether you agree with me and senator graham on this committee and others that we ought to reconsider the position that the afghan national security force should be reduced by a third starting in 2014 to about 230,000 from what its current goal is which is about 350,000? >> as you all know, general allen has presented his options to the president for the president's consideration. as far as i know as of this morning, the president had not made a decision on what a residual force numbers-wise would look like. i have not been included in those discussions, so i don't know other than knowing that he's got a range of options as you do. but i would say that from what the president has told me, from what secretary panetta has told me, that that decision will be made to assure resourcing the mission and the capability of that mission. as to what kind of a force structure should eventually be in place by the afghans, i don't know enough about the specifics to give you a good answer other than to say i think that has to be a decision that is made certainly with the president of afghanistan, what we can do to continue to support and train and protect our interests within the scope of our ability to do that. obviously the immunity for our troops is an issue, which was an issue with iraq. all those considerations will be important and will be made. if i'm confirmed and in position to give the president advice on that, i will with consultation of our commanders on the ground and our chiefs, give him the best options we can provide. >> will you review that question of the size of the afghan force with an open mind if confirmed? >> i will because i think we have to. >> thank you. senator inhofe. >> thank you, mr. chairman. senator hagel, my first question's not to be responded regarding the position but i want to state the position or restate the position on five things i mentioned during my opening statement merely to ask you if those are accurate reflections of things that happened in the past. first one is in 2007, you voted against the designating iran islamic revolutionary guard corps as a terrorist organization. the second thing, in 2006 you were one of 12 senators who refused to position the e.u. to identify hezbollah as a terrorist group. third, in november of twee, you failed to -- 2003, you failed to vote on a syrian accountability act with sanctions -- occupation of lebanon. four, in 2001, you were one of only two senators that year to vote against renewal of the iran-libya sanctions act. and lastly, in 2001, you were one of four senators who refused to sign the letter supporting israel. are those accurate? >> well, let's start with the -- >> no. i just want to know if the statement -- these are votes that took place. do you agree those votes took place? >> i want to ask the letter that you just noted in your fifth point, what was the date in the letter? >> the date. >> you said i refused to sign letter. >> october of 2001. >> a letter to -- >> ok. skip that one. is the other ones true? >> well, it was fairly important -- >> it's very important. i was holding the letter at the time that we were gathering signatures. >> i see. on the 2008 question regarding designating the revolutionary guard as a terrorist organization, i did vote against it. >> i'm sorry. i don't want to be rude. you and i are very good friends. i know my time's going to expire. others are going to ask why you did this. i was asking for the accuracy. if you don't want to answer that's fine. >> i did vote against it and i was going to explain why i voted against it. >> i know. they will be asking you for your explanation. i want to get to three other things and that's why it's critical that we kind of keep moving along here. one of the criticisms i had of this administration is the lack of priority and funding for the military. while they've increased the deficit by $5.3 trillion in four years, the only major part of the budget has been decreased is the military. that's something pretty well- known. a lot of people don't like that idea. the thing that bothers me just as much is putting the agenda, another agenda under the military budget. for example, you have heard senator mccain and me and others talk about the fact that the navy paid for 450,000 gallons of fuel, some $26 a gallon. you can get it on the market for $3. the air force, same thing. except it's $59 a gallon. and so the question i would have of you is just a commitment that if you are confirmed, will you confine the dollars that we are going to spend in the defense budget for defense purposes, for war-fighting purposes? >> well, of course i will because that's the intent of our budget and department of defense. >> i appreciate that very much. there was an article the other day in "the washington post" by jennifer ruben called, "our dim witted state department." it's kind of an interesting article. there are four questions that i'm willing to ask that you respond for the record. for people that don't know what it is, that means later on in writing. the questions i'd like that she asked. did the sell of the f-16's have morrissey crack down on his peep? would we still have sent the weaponry? how will we respond to the anti-democratic moves and the rise and violence against christians in egypt? or as will likely be the case, a failure to live up to egypt's security obligations regarding gaza? and four, have we miscalculated the muslim brotherhood? that would be for the record. in the area of the global zero policy, you and i talked about that in my office. others have talked about it. we're very much concerned. when i heard senator warner and others talk about what used to be the case, the problem in terms of nuclear capabilities, we used to be talking about russia and the united states. it's not true any more. our intelligence has told us since 2007 that iran will have that nuclear capability and a delivery system by 2015. so it's other countries that are involved in that. the question i would ask you, in your book you wrote that we must once again convince the world that america has a clear intention of fulfilling the nuclear disarmament committee -- commitments that we have made. the question, a bit more recently you said, i believe providing necessary resources for a nuclear modernization of the triad should be a national priority. do you stand by your last statement? >> my last -- >> your last statement saying -- i believe that providing the necessary resources for nuclear modernization of the triad should be a national priority? >> absolutely should be. i agree with that. and that's what the policy of this administration is. >> well, i'm merely bringing out the inconsistency because when you were involved with supporting the global zero or whatever that group, the organization was, their declaration is, quote, we the undersigned believe that protect our children, our grandchildren, our civilization from the threat of nuclear catastrophe, we must eliminate all nuclear weapons globally, we therefore commit to working for a legally binding verifiable agreement, including all nations to eliminate nuclear weapons by a date certain. >> the position of global zero, my position, some of the individuals, national security leaders that senator nunn talked about, including himself, has not been unilateral disarmament ever, never. we have over the years, which i have supported, the united states has led in reducing the efforts to reducing nuclear warheads. there was no more significant voice for that than ronald reagan when he laid before secretary general gorbachev in 1986 a rather bold plan. in fact, i believe, paraphrasing president reagan, we must eliminate nuclear warheads from the face of the earth, i believe he said something to that effect. global zero has been very clear on this. their effort has been in line with every major national leader in the world, including president obama, to continue to try to make an effort to reduce our nuclear warheads, but in a dangerous world, nuclear arsenals and our containment policy which i mentioned in my statement has been critically important. we're not going to unilaterally disarm. verifiable. it has to be bilateral. it has to be negotiated. as all our treaties have been. >> thank you, senator hagel. the reasonable i mentioned the mission statement, that's a group you belong to. we can talk about that later. you may want to expand on that for the record. my time has expired, but i have one last question i'd like to ask and that is, given that iran, the people -- i'm quoting right now from iran -- people of the middle east, the muslim region and the north africa, people of these regions hate america from the bottom of their heart. it further says israel is a cancerous tumor in the heart of the muslim world. and they're willing to wipe israel off the map. and if you'd like to answer for the record, why do you think the iranian foreign ministry strongly supports your nomination to be the secretary of defense? >> i have a difficult enough time with american policies, senator. i have no idea. but thank you. and i'll be glad to respond further for the record. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator inhofe. senator reed. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. first, i'd ask unanimous consent that several letters of support, including one from 13 former secretaries of defense, secretaries of state, strongly endorse senator hagel's nomination be placed in the record. >> it will be placed in the record. >> i think the president chose wisely. there are very few people in the country with very few experience, as a combat infantryman, decorated and wounded, as a business leader, as the second leader of the veterans administration, as the united states senator, as someone who every day understands that the decisions we make will be carried out by young americans, has looked in the face of young americans, who have seen them suffer and die for this country. and i think that quality is if not unique extraordinarily part of the nominee before us. so again i think the president made a wise choice. senator inhofe's discussion about zero growth is an opportunity for a quote and let me quote. there is only one way safely and legitimately to reduce the course of national security and that is to reduce the need for it. and that is why we are trying to do a negotiation with the soviet union. we are not just discussing limits on the further increase of nuclear weapons. we seek instead to reduce the number. we seek the total elimination of one day of nuclear weapons on the face of the earth. president ronald reagan in his second inaugural address. the notion of global zero is not something unique. as signators to the nuclear disarmament treaty, national nonproliferation treaty, article 11 undertakes to commit at least to complete disarmament under strict and effective control. this is something the united states has embraced for have -- a very long time under presidents of both parties. as senator hagel pointed out, this is not unilateral disarmament. this is a long process of making sure we have the nuclear weapons in place to deal with appropriate challenges. some very different than the cold war. but the aspirations have been important. it's been a bipartisan and constant for decades. is that a rough summary of what you might agree to do, senator? >> yes, it is, senator. thank you. >> the other issue is there is several specific points raised with your record, and let me give you the opportunity to respond, if you will, to the questions that senator inhofe posed with respect to votes. if you have the list before you or -- >> what, sorry? >> senator inhofe posed several issues about 2007 vote, 2006 resolution with hezbollah, 2003 syrian sanctions, etc. you were prepared to comment. i think it's appropriate that you have an opportunity to comment if you want to do so now, i'd invite you to do so. >> i'd be glad to further comment for the record, because i have none of those specific votes in front of me, which i will, senator, listing every vote i took. i would say, though, included in those votes, which i do recall some of them, were a vote in 1998, a vote in 2000, a vote in 2006, specifically against iran, sanctioning companies, unilateral sanctions that in any way assisted iran's building their capability of nuclear weapons or rocket or missiles, i voted for those. i recall signing a letter, warner-levin letter in 2002 to the president of the united states regarding anti-semitism in russia. i wrote a letter to president clinton specifically in 1999 recommending to president clinton a number of stems that he'd take with president yeltsin regarding anti-semitism in russia. i remember specifically there were two unanimous consent resolutions in 2006 against hezbollah, against hamas, against syria and iran that we had unanimous consent, i supported on the floor of the senate. so there is a more complete record, senator, than just one or two or three or four, and those are some of them that i recall. as i noted in one of the responses back to senator inhofe, i didn't take any action on any vote, as i suspect every colleague here has the same way to approach votes, on this specific issue, on hezbollah, hamas, which i'm on the record many times designating and saying that hezbollah and hamas are terrorist organizations. i'm on the record many times in speeches and the floor of the senate and in the book i wrote in 2008 saying that iran is a state sponsor of terrorism. that is not new. that's in my record. but the way i approached every vote i ever took in the senate was based on what i thought could be most effective, what was at the time, what was the situation at the time, how could we do this smarter and better. i always believed the president of the united states is the elected leader of america. he has within his responsibilities, and i believe it's clearly articulated in article 2, to conduct foreign policy. i always thought the best way to deal with foreign leaders is let the president do that directly, for us to communicate with the president. i don't think there was a letter i recall signed to a president on these issues that i agreed with it that i didn't sign. so it was never a matter of differing objectives here. it was a matter of how best we could do it. i mentioned in 2008 the secretary of state didn't want one of those unilateral sanctions to go forward during the bush administration, wrote a letter. 2001, one of the issues that senator inhofe brought up. the bush administration was opposed to a five-year renewal of those. now, i'm not saying it's right or wrong. every one of the decisions i made, every vote i cast was based on at the time what i thought made the most sense. >> senator, you have clearly stated that you are supportive of the president's efforts to support the state of israel. and you have specifically you are fully prepared to carry out that same effort, that same level of support. the vital interest we share this with the state of israel. >> i am. i have a record on that. in my book in 2000 a, it interviews -- it has interviews and speeches. i am a strong supporter of israel. in some cases i have recession that we have a special relationship with israel. we always have had. i have never voted against israel ever in the 12 years i was in the senate. the record is very clear on that. i might add, and senator nelson may have a clearer view of it since he was just in jerusalem, there were a couple of recent statements made by the current israeli ambassador to the united states, the former israeli ambassador, and now the deputy minister, that were fairly positive about me. i think all the israeli leaders i have dealt with over the years and met with, and i have been to israel many times. the first time i was there i was head of the u.s. sell. o.kep but to keep the u.s.o. open. -- i fought to keep the u.s.o. open. i was the one that made that decision. i have been strongly supported. the current then it director of the u.s.o. said i was a strong supporter and friend of israel. i think my record is pretty clear on my support of israel. i will continue to support the president's policies. he has been a strong supporter of israel as maybe of any president since 1948 when harry truman helped give birth to israel. this president has been there. as he said "i have israel's back." almost 300 additional million dollars out of the defense department for the iron dome. i am a strong supporter of those programs. i will continue to support them. >> thank you. there is a quorum that is now present. i have asked the committee to consider a list of 952 pending military nominations. they have all been before the committee for the required time. all in favor say aye. the motion carries. thank you very much. >> thank you. i am pleased to see an old friend on the committee, especially pleased to see a senator warren, a member of the committee who has contributed so much to our nation's defense. the committee will raise questions concerning your policy decisions. these are fundamental disagreements. our concerns pertain to the quality of your professional judgment and your view on critical areas of national security including security in the middle east. let me begin with your opposition to the surge in iraq. in 2006 we lost the election, the republicans, and we began the surge to leave iraq honorably. in 2007 you said it is not in the natural interest to deepen the military involvement. january of 2007 in a bizarre exchange what secretary rice after some nonsense about syria and crossing the border into iran and syria because of the surge and a reference to cambodian in 1970, you said " when he set in motion the policy the president is talking about it is dangerous." "i have to say this speech given last night by the president represents the most dangerous foreign policy wandering this country since the vietnam. is carried out i will resist it." you continued on for months about what a disaster it would be, even to the point where it was clear the surge was succeeding. in march to thousand eight you said the term quagmires could apply. -- in march of 2008 you said the term "quagmire"could apply. even as late as august 2011 in an interview with the "financial he said he disagreed with president obama as you did with president bush on the surgeon in iraq. if you stand by those comments? -- surge in iraq. do you stand by these comments and that's what i stand by them. i made them. i would defer -- sam by these comments? >> i stand by them. i made them. i will explain why i made those comments. >> i expect a direct answer. >> the surge assisted. if we review the record. >> will you please answer the question? were you correct or incorrect when he said it would be the most dangerous foreign policy blunder since vietnam? >> my reference -- >> ari going to answer the question -- are you going to answer the question? it is straightforward. then you are free to elaborate. >> i am not going to give you a yes or no answer. >> let the record show you refuse to answer that question. >> if you like me to explain why -- >> i would like an answer, yes or no. >> it is far more complicated than that. i will refer that judgment to history. as to the comments i made about the most dangerous for policy decision since vietnam, it was not just about the surge but the overall war of choice going into iran. that particular decision that was made on the surge, but more to the point our war in iraq, i think was the most fundamentally dangerous decision since vietnam. aside from the cost that occurred in this country, aside from what that did to take our focus off of afghanistan, which was the original and real focus of the national threat to this country, i always tried to frame all the different issues before i made a decision on anything. just as you have said, we can have differences of opinion. that is essentially why i took the position. >> it is a fundamental difference of opinion. senator lieberman and i, when 59 voterss, we made that decision. your refusal to answer whether you are right or wrong is going to have an impact on my judgment as to whether to vote for confirmation. i hope he will reconsider the fact that you refuse to answer a fundamental question about an issue that took the lives of thousands of young americans. >> there is more to it than just flooding -- >> i am asking about the surge. >> i know you are. i am trying to explain my position. the beginning also factored in the suni awakening. >> i am very aware of the history of the surge. i am also aware that any casual observer will know the surge is the fundamental factor led by two great leaders, it to petrae including general petrae. know these surge would have been required? let me go back to syria. more than 60,000 people have been killed in syria. do you believe we should be more engaged in syria? >> we have been very engaged. >> you do not think we should do more? >> when you say "do more" do you mean --\ >> making sure the syrians need weapons they need. >> part of our review is reviewing those options. >> it has been 22 months. >> i was not there. i'm not there now. >> i am sure you have read that 60,000 people have been killed and it is in danger of spilling over into neighboring countries. how many war would have to die before you would support -- -- more would you have to die before you would support resistance and a no-fly zone? >> no one questions the terrible tragedy that is occurring there every day. it is a matter of how best to we work our way through this so we can stop it. then what comes next? >> did you disagree with president obama on this decision for the surge in afghanistan at? >> i did not think we should get ourselves in. i had no formal position. >> you reported saying "i disagreed with president obama and his decision to surge in afghanistan." >> that was my personal opinion, yes. >> thank you. >> senator nelson. >> since the issue of iraq's come up, iowa -- iraq has come up, i want to lay the predicate. this senator was one of many that voted for the operatio authorization to go into iraq. the lessons of history, we read given incorrect information as a justification for going in. we were told by the secretary of defense, secretary of state, national security adviser, and a director of the cia that there were weapons of mass destruction in iraq. for a lot of the decisions that were made at the outset, they were decisions that were informed with incorrect information. as the committee is judging hagel on that decision as others, i want to tell the committee that was the experience wasthis senator. -- with this senator. what i would like to do with my time, since there are a few of us in this room that served in the military during the vietnam era, and you clearly have that experience in combat, i would -- by the way, a lot of people do not know anything about vietnam and do not know how difficult it was of but how the nation was divided. i would like you, i would like to know something about your service and in vietnam and your combat experience. were you wounded? >> thank you. if i may, if i read into your question with some latitude in answering, i would responded this way. i think my time is better served to maybe talk about more of the specific things like senator mccain asking things and how it formed my judgment rather than going through a 12-month journal of my time in jungle. my brother tom and i were both wounded twice together. 1968 was the worst year we had. we sent over 16,000 dead americans home. that is unfathomable in the world we live in today. 16,000 dead americans. i saw that from the bottom. i think chairman levin in an accurate quote about what formed me directly goes to center mccain's question. just -- senator mccain's question. i had one fundamental question that i asked myself on every vote i took an decision i made. was the policy worthy of the men and women that we were sending into battle and surely to their deaths? in many cases, these poor families are living the consequences. i know it is easier if you do not have a connection to some of this. it does not mean i am any better. it is not mean i am any smarter. it is not mean i am any more appreciative of the service of our country. that is not it. i saw it from the bottom. i saw what happens. i saw the consequences and the suffering. i did question a surge. it was not an aberration to me ever. i always ask the question "is this going to be worth the sacrifice?" there will be sacrificed. iraq we lostin 1200 americans and thousands wounded. was it required and necessary? senator mccain has his own opinion on that shared by others. i am not sure. i am not certain it was required. it is not mean i am right. it does not mean i did not make wrong votes, but that is what guides me. when the question me about my time in vietnam, i was a very insignificant part of this. we were just doing our job. as every military person knows that. some of this committee has rather distinguished members starting with senator mccain and the sacrifices he has made. it does condition you. i am not molded or consumed by that experience. of course not. it is part of me. i try to spend that in my opening statement. we are all shaped by those experiences. i hope that experience i have is for the better. i hope if i had the privilege of serving as secretary of defense it will put someone in charge of the pentagon not questioning the past secretaries, who understand the realities of consequences of war. it does not mean i am better. that is who i am. i do not walk away from that. it does not consume me. i do not see the lens of every world events and whether we should use american power through the lens of vietnam. it is part of me. i think that is for the better. i think we should be cautious with our power. we need to be wise. we have great, awesome power. no nation in the world is even in our league. we have done so much good. i do not think there is a nation in the history of man that has ever been as a judicious and careful with its power as we have a. i want to make sure we continue to do that. we will have differences on policies. all i can do is my best based on my own experiences. as i also said, also reaching out and never knowing enough, understanding that circumstances change. >> thank you. >> it is great to have you with us and to have this hearing and an opportunity to discuss important issues. i'd mar your service in combat experience is something we all admire and respect. i have been a member of the strategic subcommittee of this senate armed services committee from the time i have been in the senate and we came together. i have had some experience and knowledge about the great debate involving nuclear weapons and national security. i believe the secretary of defense should be the rock- solid person for defense of america. i believe he should project an image of solidity and steadfastness at the whole world so the american people can depend on it. i am more than a little troubled by the report you participated in that calls for the total elimination of nuclear weapons and clearly suggests it is an achievable goal in a realistic time. certainly not immediately. . writers defend you. the protest mildly and savy views are in the national security interest and squarely in the mainstream. they insist you're in the mainstream because your position is that the president obama. they assert you are out of the mainstream if you believe otherwise. your report explicitly calls for "an urgent and transformational change in the u.s. nuclear force structure, strategy, and posture." it is an exceedingly dramatic report. specifically, adding to the bedrock, your report calls for bilateral or unilateral elimination of the icvm triad leg. the report refers to itself as a diad report. you propose eliminating the 76 nuclear b-52 bombers entirely, leaving only 18 b-2 bombers, reducing nuclear submarines from 14to 10. to 10. you favor eliminated all taxing on nuclear weapons. according to the report, that would mean it would take from one-three days to place a weapon on the alert. i certainly agree that would be transformational change in our nuclear strategy and posture. i think it is a big historic thing. the present commander of the u.s. strategic command does not agree with the recommendation in this report. people you will supervise. general taylor told the press last year "i do not support the form of vice chairman. i do not think we're in the place he suggest now nor do i see that particular place anytime soon." you will be supervising him. would you share with us where you are today on that issue? do you support the view of general taylor or the commission report you signed? >> thank you. let me first correct some of your interpretation of what the global zero report was and is and what it actually said. it did not propose or call for anything. the word specifically used at the front end of the report was "illustrative." it proposed nothing but a dow different scenarios and possibilities and schedules. -- that laid out different scenarios of possibilities and schedules. this was summarized in a letter to president obama in 2009. bilateral, never unilateral. nothing was ever suggested on a unilateral basis to take down our arsenal. negotiating, and verifiable. these are all terms that were in the report. as was said in the opening statement, the mainstream thinking of most presidents we have had the last 65 years was reduction of nuclear weapons for obvious reasons. that is why we have engaged in treaties. those were bilateral arrangements. the u.s. and russians have about 90% of the nuclear weapons in the world today. there are others that have them. there are nine nuclear powers. the so-called loose nukes, terrorist groups getting ahold of these are threats. >> it is not clear in your report. your report says "these steps could be taken with russia in unison through reciprocal presidential directive or in implementing a unilateral." two more times in this report these ideas could be a less good approach to adopt this agenda at unilaterally. it suggested it should be adopted. it will not be as good. but you would do so. there is another reference to that. it does call for these reductions. in your conclusion the state united states should seek to such reductions and base the arsenal on a dyad of nuclear missiles. one half of the stock would be deployed on these carriers. the other half would be reserved. all of this would be eliminated. all of this would be eliminated from the stockpile. bombers would be completely dismantled. i do not believe this is insistence with the policy of the country as a whole. i support legislation several years ago to help us the other support did that. the house supported it to help us determine how much further we can continue to drop down a clear weapons. it had john glenn on its. . they have access to the defense department, a secret documents and information. they came out with quite a different view. they said maintain the triad. they said maintain its nuclear weapons. they recommended no change in the alert status. the defense department nuclear posture review explicitly found the alert status should not be altered in their review. they fundamentally i give you a chance to respond. before your report was issued they said "conditions that might make possible the glow elimination o nuclear weapons are not present today and their creation would require a fundamental transformation of the world political court." i think this is aimed at the idea that is practical and realist cal that the world will move to zero nuclear weapons. i want to ask you one question that you told me in our meeting that i appreciated. president obama stated when we did the treaty discussions and voting, quote, "i intend to modernize or replace the triad of strategic nuclear systems, a heavy bomber, and a cruise missile, and icbm and nuclear power ballistic submarines." he committed to the design of the crr and those is a building where the modernization would take place. let me ask you, would you support that vision and commitment to that the president made? >> i do feel that i'm uneasy about this have that is expressed in the your report. >> well, let me just briefly come back to what you said, senator, and i appreciate your giving me a chance to respond. first, my record has always been very clear. everything i voted on in my career in the senate. i have been a strong, agile, save, arsenal for the united states. that is not debatable. i believe that. you know the home of the strategic command is now in senator fisher's state, which used to be the state by represented. i used to be in that state as a senator. it has not changed. i know a little something about, not as much as you and others on the committee, but i have been to that facility many times. i know the general very well. and you know what the motto is. it is a pretty significant model. "peace is our business." there is that strong, nuclear deterrent. this prospective secretary of defense would never do anything or in any way take any action that would minimize or harm or downgrade that reality. again, i go back to, not to get caught up in this report, this report was about the illustrative possibilities, always bilateral, always bilateral, just as we have always done in our treaties. i will stop there. that is a commitment i made to you and the president. my record is clear. >> well, thank you, and i would just say that the vision stated in your report i believe is going to create instability rather than confidence and stability, create uncertainty among our allies and i do not believe it will meet the goals that you said not to weaken our abilities. so i am troubled. i appreciate your comments today, but i am troubled. >> thank you very much, senator sessions. but >> thank you, mr. chairman. in the six years i have served in this committee, i have served under senator warner as a ranking member and senator mccain as a ranking republican member, and i have to tell you that there has never been a time that i did not sense that we all agreed that our work on behalf of our nation in terms of protecting our country and defending our country, that it was a bipartisan effort. i believe very strongly that this committee needs to be bipartisan, and i hope that the new ranking member holds the same regard for that as senator mccain and senator warner did, because at all times, i felt that they were respectful and were willing to listen to our disagreements, and i am hopeful about will continue, and i am optimistic that it will. i will ask some questions. if you need more time, just say so. do you believe that all options should be on the table when we confront in iran? >> absolutely. >> do you believe that iran is a state sponsor of terrorism and provide support to hezbollah and hamas. >> yes, and i am on the record many times saying that. >> do you support sanctions against iran? >> yes. >> do you believe that the united states should unilaterally eliminate its nuclear arsenal? >> no. >> do you agree with four national security leaders, including henry kissinger, san nunn, william perry, and george shultz, president reagan's secretary of state, when they said, and i quote, "the four of us have come together in a non-partisan effort, deeply committed to building support for a global effort to reduce reliance on nuclear weapons, to prevent their spread into potentially dangerous hands, and to ultimately to end them as a threat to the world. we remain committed to working towards this vision and advancing the steps essential to achieve this goal." do you agree with those four bipartisan, national leaders in the area of national security and foreign policy? >> yes. >> i wanted to take some time to talk about some of the things we talked about in my office. what the defense department. i know you stayed with some of the advanced policy questions that you want to hold people accountable and profitability. i do not think most americans understand that as we face shrinking budgets and as we want to secure the pre-eminence of our military and not a hollow out the spending in the defense department, that auditability is a crucial agreement to us being able to find out if all of the money being spent there is being spent like americans would want it to be spent. can you reassure me that auditability is a priority, that it would be an essential priority of your time as secretary of defense? >> as i told you, senator, i will make that commitment to this committee. >> and then turning to contract in. i have yet to have provided to me other than the numbers that we spent, any data that would indicate that major infrastructure rebuilding as part of a counterinsurgency strategy works. there are many things that work in a counterinsurgency strategy, and one of them as it was originally posed to me back some six years ago on this committee by general petraeus was the commander emergency response program, but walking around money to fix a plate glass windows in neighborhoods, that that was an essential part. that change into our military infrastructure projects. without really any data really to indicate that the billions of dollars that we were spending was, in fact, advancing our mission, our military mission. in addition to that, it is clear, if you want to look at iraq, and the failures that iraq represents in some ways, one of the failures is the crumbling investments that this country made in iraq. the health centers that never opened. the water parks that's it crumbling. the facilities that were blown up before they even had an opportunity to operate. i can go down billions of dollars of waste because we did not do the analysis on sustainability after we left. i am convinced that we have made the same mistakes in afghanistan, and i would like your response to this issue of major infrastructure building while we are in a conflict being conducted by our military, not by a.i.d. or by the state department, analyzing whether or not there is data to support that aspect of the strategy. >> well, i will make that commitment, and it is part of a larger series of questions and factors always involved when a nation gets clearly committed, as we were and still are in afghanistan and were in iraq for eight years. when you are at war, the highest, first priority is to take care of your people, and as a result of that, all of the rest of the normal latitude and guidance, fury, policy is secondary, and so i think in both of those wars, because we got ourselves in so deep with so many people, and the welfare of our men and women was paramount, we tried a lot of things. we had never been this way before. we had never seen anything quite like these two situations, and as a result, as you know, our special inspector generals have come up with billions and billions and billions of dollars that are unaccounted for. corruption. fraud. waste. abuse. it really is quite astounding, but when you think about the universe of money that went in, no one should be surprised. now, how do we fix it? what do we do? to your point, how do we learn? how do we learn from this? we need to learn from this. it was not the fault of the military. of the military was asked to do everything. we overloaded circuits of our military korea we said, "you do it. you have got the structure. you have got the organization. you have got the people. so now go do it. so we put these young captain's in very difficult spot. they were given $100,000 in cash, essentially walking around money to take care of things and so on. it was not their fault. they were told to do this, what was part of the strategy. so i do not question necessarily any particular strategy or part of it, but i do think it is part the whole you're talking about. i will take a look at this, and we will go deeper in this because we owe it to our people. we owe it to the people of this country who pay the bills, and for future, what did we learn for future challenges? >> thank you. >> thank you, senator. senator chambliss? >> thank you. again, congratulations on your nomination. as we talked the other day, you and i have been good friends since i came to the senate in 2002, sat next to each other for six years on the intel committee, and during that process, there were some things that i question, but we were always able to dialogue. there is our friendship, and i appreciate that. you were also introduced by two of my friends. i want to drill down, chuck, probably the number-one issue you will have to deal with assuming that you are confirmed, and that is the issue about our relationship with iran and where do we go in the future, short-term as well as long term. you wrote in your book, and i quote, "we blundered into iraq due to flawed judgments and ideologically driven motives. we must not repeat these errors with iran, and the best way to avoid that is to maintain an effective dialogue." you then go on to advocate again a direct and strategic, diplomatic relationship. i heard you in your opening comments say that your position on iran is prevention, not containment when it comes to their nuclear weaponization. i want you to expand on that. iran is the number-one terror sponsor in the world. i do not think there is any disagreement about that. i want you to expand on your position on a nuclear weaponization -- iran, and if your position is true about prevention and not containment, chuck, what is the point? we know there are some things happening right now that are very serious, so how far do we go? do you still advocate direct negotiations with iran, it as you said, any made clear that all options were on the table, and you would say it again that military options is one of those. if you will, talk about that. we have never negotiated with a terrorist state. why do you feel that we ought to dialogue with them, even on this issue today? and lastly, what alterations, if any, do you think are necessary to our military force posture in the gulf region to deter iranian regional ambitions and support international diplomatic efforts to support -- to prevent iran from developing nuclear weapons capability. it is a broad statement on my part, a broader question, but this is the issue from the national security standpoint, chalk, and i would like you to be very specific. >> right. let's start with a very specific question on a vote. what is designated as the revolutionary guard as a terrorist organization. you recall because you were there that there were 22 senators voting against it. the effort against it, the main point made came from senator jim webb, and his point was we have never ever designated it a part of a legitimate government state, and i say legitimate, it does not mean that we agreed iran, but it is a member of the united nations. almost all of our allies have embassies in iran, so that is what i note an elected, legitimate government, whether we agree or not. designated them or made them part of a terrorist organization. we have never done that, so you say, so what? what is the big problem? the problem was that least 22 of us believed, both republicans and democrats, by the way, in that vote. it was jim webb on the floor, he said if you do that, that is tantamount to giving the president of the united states the authority to use military force against iran without having to come back to get a resolution from or partner with or cooperate with the congress of the united states. essentially, if we vote for this, we are giving the president in a sense that authority. we can agree or disagree with that, but i listened to that debate, and there were some pretty thoughtful debates, and that debate i thought was pretty powerful with me. we were already in two wars at the time, and i thought that this made sense, and so i voted against it. that is why i voted against it. you might also remember that the, secretary of state john kerry voted against it, and then senator obama gave speeches against it. vice-president biden voted against it. dick lugar voted against it. there were some other republicans. as to the iranian red line, persian gulf, some of the iranian questions you asked, i support the president's strong position of containment, as i said, and i will speak more specifically to a couple of the examples used from my book. but his position i think is right, and when you ask the question about red line, red line, i think the president has gone as far as he can go publicly on that, and he said clearly that in his words, he has israel's back. he said his policy is not to allow the iranians to get a nuclear weapon. what constitutes when the action would be taken? i think that is always something that should not be discussed publicly or debated publicly or out in the public domain. your quotations from my book, which you acknowledge as well, and i always say military options should be on the table, and i had said that consistently, as well as engaging with iran. i have always thought it is far smarter to approach these very serious threats, including iran, who is probably as significant a threat as we have out there today, although north korea is beyond a threat. it is a real nuclear power and quite unpredictable. i think pakistan is another very complicated reality, but staying on iran, i think we are far smarter to do what the president is doing, and i lay out in my book -- i have two chapters on iraq and a chapter on the middle east. getting the world community behind us with the u.n.-sanctioned sanctions through the security council of the united nations. these are tough sanctions. they are having a tremendous impact. you know that. on iran. if, in fact, the military option is the only one required -- i think we are always on higher ground in every way. national law, domestic law, people in the world, people in the region to be with us on this if we have tried and have gone through every possibility to resolve this in a responsible, a peaceful way, rather than going to war. everything i said in my book was about that. i do not have a problem with engagement pre-empt i think great powers engaged. it is clearly in our interest. that is not negotiation. engagement is not surrender. i think if the time is right, the climate is right, the dynamics are right, we should find the ways, if we can find ways. we cannot force it, but i think we are smarter and wiser to take that approach initially. posture in the persian gulf. as you know, senator, our fifth fleet is located in the persian gulf, bahrain, and as you also know, we have a couple of carrier battle groups in that area. our military posture in there is a very strong. it is very ready. it is very capable. these are contingencies and options that the secretary of defense, working with his chiefs and the combatcommanders always have to give with the president to make sure we are prepared, so let me stop there, and i may have missed some of the specific things you want to discuss. >> i am understating you saying you are not ready to discuss red lines and a specific way. am i hearing that right? >> i do not think that is my role now, to start with, as i am not the secretary of defense, but i think the president is wise in his course of action in not discussing that publicly. i think it is a far smarter way of handling it, and i think he has said what he needs to say. i think it has been understood in iran. i think the world understands his position. by the way, i have just been handed a note that i misspoke and said i supported the president's position on containment. if i said that, i meant to say that obviously we do not have a position on containment. i recognize the idea that more attention paid to my words and the last eight weeks than i ever thought possible, so i do not take any chances. thank you. >> i think i understood you correctly on containment. >> just to make sure your correction is clear, we do have a position on containment, which is we do not favor containment. >> we do not favor containment, so that is the president's position in my position. >> clarify be clarified. >> if you need further, i am here. >> thank you, senator. >> thank you, senator. >> good morning, senator hagel. thank you for once again heeding the call to lead the department of defense. we had a great private meeting last week. we covered many of the threats and challenges that our country faces, shrinking budgets, strategic national security shifts, and we continue to provide fair and equal opportunities for all of our service members and their families. when we met, you emphasized your determination to keep all options on the table with regard to iran, including a military strike if iran continues to pursue a program of defiance of its international obligations. you also discussed your longstanding support of israel and your longstanding relationship, but you have critics out there, i do not have to tell you that, who maintain that your record on iran is in question and that you are anti-israel. these are serious charges, so let me direct some questions your way. why should americans trust that you would consider every option when it comes to one of the most serious national security threats facing us today, which is iran? >> well, first, thank you for an opportunity to clarify these issues. my record has been very clear on iran. senator chambliss noted from my 2008 book, a chapter, specifically noting that i said the military option must remain on the table. i said that as recently as an op-ed that i've co-authored last june and the washington post with two former centcom commanders. one of the things we brought out is that the military option must remain on the table along with the other areas of effort and expertise and diplomacy and economics and sanctions that the president is using, which i have already said i support, so my record is pretty thorough on this, and i will continue to support that position, and i strongly support the president's position. >> senator, talk about your view on israel, our relationship with israel. how can we continue to have a special alliance with a country with whom we share more than an economic or political philosophy but with eight broader moral connection that we have with israel? >> well, i have said many times, just as i am said in regards to the military option with iran, many times in my book, speeches on the floor, he interviews i have given, i am a strong supporter of israel. i will continue to be. i am also said, and i believe this is in my book, that we have a special relationship with israel, so, again, my record is pretty clear. i voted for 12 years in the senate for every authorization, every appropriation that i had an opportunity to vote on for israel. i have been to israel many times and have met with their leaders many times. so, again, if you look at my record, i think my record is pretty clear in my strong support for israel. >> senator, i've heard you say when you discussed your vote against the resolution applying to the iranian revolutionary guards that in the end, you were protecting congress broadly when it comes to declaring war. is that correct? >> that is exactly it. that is exactly what i was saying, and i guess i did not say it that way, but that was the point, and again i say like an answering the other questions, it was not a question of the objective, and i shared the objectives, and i suspect all 22 members who voted against that resolution supported the objective, but as jim webb made the case, i think, pretty effectively, and senator webb was an individual who had a rather considerable experience -- he had been secretary of navy under ronald reagan. he had been assistant secretary of defense under ronald reagan. he was one of the most decorated veterans of vietnam, a united states senator, a celebrated author and lawyer. i thought he made a strong persuasive case, as did many of us. >> let's turn to cybersecurity. i was pleased you mentioned cybersecurity in your initial remarks. the pentagon's move to significantly expand its cybersecurity assets and knowledge, i have to talk about colorado, since i represent them. the air force academy is well-positioned to train those cyber security experts. we are also a command point. when you talk more about your take on cybersecurity, what we need to be doing, what types of resources we made. >> as you know, i have been to those facilities in colorado a few times and to know as much about it as you do, but i am pretty familiar with it. they are essential to our national security. cyber, i believe, represents as big a threat to the security of this country as any one specific threat. for all of the reasons that this committee understands. it is an insidious, quiet kind of a threat that we have never seen before. it can paralyze a nation. not just a power grid or a banking system, but it can knock out satellites. it can take down computers on all of our battleships. it can do tremendous damage to our national security apparatus. that is the larger threat, but when you start defining it down, this body, i know, i watched it. we went through a pre-agonizing three months at the end of 2012 trying to find a bill that they could agree on on cyber. i know, or i believe, that the congress will come back in this new congress. i think he must, and you know that, because we have got different intergovernmental authorizations here. the dod. where is the capacity? where are the budgets? where are the authorities? this is law enforcement. this is privacy, business, a lot of complications that we have never ever had to face before. the other national defense reps do this country. so cyber will be an area that we will continue to focus on. we must. it is an area i will put a high priority on if i am confirmed to be secretary of defense. >> senator, the 2013 -- there is a provision that compels the military to accommodate the conscious moral principles and religious beliefs of all members of the armed forces. this seems reasonable on the surface, but i am especially concerned this could lead to misguided claims as a right to discriminate against lesbians or gays or bisexuals or some with other beliefs. the president has said that they will not permit or condone discriminatory actions that compromise good order or discipline, or otherwise affect the military code of conduct. would you assure that the department of defense, in accommodating religious beliefs or matters of conscience, does not tolerate discrimination in regards to others? >> absolutely. i will faithfully, diligently enforce our laws. all men and women deserve the same rights, and i can assure you that will be a high priority. i will assure that in every way through the entire chain of command and accountability. >> thank you, senator i look forward to the second round of questions. it is now the afternoon, and it is a good afternoon. >> thank you, senator. senator? >> let me follow up on that. does that mean a chaplain would have to perform a same-sex marriage, if he objected based on conscience? >> i think the pentagon regulations show, senator, that same-sex marriage it is legal in nine states. >> no, with a chaplain be able to bounce out of that procedure based on conscience? >> certainly. what we do not want though, senator, the point is someone to be denied to be married. in a chapel for a facility and so on, but, certainly, as a matter of conscience. what i am talking about is a strict interpretation of defending the law, which defends rights. >> thank you very much for clarifying that, and thank you for calling me early on. we had our conversation on january 8, and i appreciated that opportunity. you just said that your statements over time have gotten a lot more attention than you ever dreamed possible, and i hope you agree that is entirely appropriate in this context. chairman levin mentioned that in speaking your mind, you had said several things that had caused him concern. senator inhofe mentioned what some people feel our policy reversals based on expediency, so those are concerns. you and i talked about two of these topics during our conversation, and one of them was with regard to sanctions against iran. you told me in our conversation that you opposed unilateral sanctions because they do not work, they isolate the united states. you had made that statement to the omaha paper just the day before. you have not supported unilateral sanctions because when it is bus alone, they do not work, and they just isolate the united states, in the omaha paper. i have to say that that statement seems to be in direct contradiction to your letter to senator boxer one week later. when you told her, and i quote, "i agree with iran's continued rejection of diplomatic overtures, further sanctions, both multilateral and unilateral may be necessary." now, one week before that, you said that you have opposed them because they do not work. another senator said that he disagrees with that. he says they do work. you gave him an answer to that statement, and we have it on the record, but let me just suggest to you, senator, if words have meaning, there is no two ways about it. the statement you gave in the, paper that you gave to me the following day is substantially and substantively different from what you wrote to senator boxer one week later. the office of secretary of defense is one of the most powerful positions in the country and arguably in the world, and this official, the weber who he or she is must leave with clarity and precision, and people around the world need to rely on the clear meaning of the words of the secretary of defense. the other thing we discussed that gave me concern during our conversation on january 8 was your statement about the jewish lobby. and you told me that you have apologized for using that, and you retracted the use of the term the jewish lobby. what you said is that the jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here. this was in an interview you gave. you said, "i have always argued against some of the things because i do not think it is in the interest of israel." here is my problem at this point. you have corrected the term "jewish lobby." and i think the correct term now would be the israel lobby or the israeli lobby. do you stand by the idea that they succeed in this town because of intimidation? and that it amounts to causing us to do dumb things, because i want to say this, senator. you are here today as a potential secretary of defense, and it would seem to me that however you characterize them, you have suggested that there is any effective lobby out there, whether you call them the jewish lobby or the israel lobby or the israeli lobby, and that they succeed in doing dumb things through intimidation and that u.s. policy has been the wrong approach because the intimidation has worked, so when you talk about the jewish lobby, were you talking about a pack? were you talking about christians united? and do you still believe that their success in this town is because of intimidation and because they are, as you stated, urging upon our government that we do dumb things? >> well, first, i never been accused of political expediency. i do not do that. it has probably gotten me into some trouble, senator. second, addressing the last comment, and then going back to sanctions, i have already said i regret referencing the jewish lobby. i should have said the pro-israel lobby. i think that is the only time on the record that i never said that. now, you all have done a lot of work with my record, and yes, it is appropriate for any nominee on the record, what he or she thinks and has done, absolutely. i was on your side of the dais for 12 years, so i understand that and that responsibility, so i do not have any problem with that. so i have already noted that i should have used another term. i am sorry, and i regret it. the use of intimidation. i should have used "influence." i think that would have been more appropriate. we were talking about in that book, you have evidently read it, and, by the way, it is a book -- to the promised land, he has spoken out directly recently about my position because it has gotten some attention, as you have noted, and has been quite favorable to me and said much of that was taken out of context, and he was offended, and those were his words. those of you know something about him know that he is jewish. he is a highly respected individual who has counseled presidents and secretary of states. in that fairly short interview, he mentioned that i am a strong supporter of israel. that is in the interview. so i think that says something. i should not have said "dumb" or "stupid," because i appreciate there are differing views on these things. we were talking about the middle east. we were not talking about armenia or turkey or the banking influence or the chamber of commerce influence. that was the context of what my comments were about. on your point on the unilateral sanctions conversation and the quote, a couple of points. let's go back to the vote. about the regional vote during the clinton administration, and connect that to a comment i made in the world harrold above they do not work, they are ineffective. and, by the wycombe i have already noted for the record that i am supported and voted for unilateral sanctions. i think there are three specific ones i recall, but your specific question about this specific comment, just to give you an example of partly what i was talking about, you were not in the senate at the time, some were, but those that were herein the senate might recall the european union's reaction to that act. i was not in the senate when it was voted on originally, so i did not have a vote, but in 1998, the european union passed a resolution against the united states and threatened to take the united states to the world trade organization. as a consequence, secretary albright had to get into this, and as a consequence of that, president clinton had to sign a waiver to allow a french oil company not to be part of that u.s. unilateral waiver. now, i am not suggesting united states actions should be hostage to the european union or any other country, but what i am suggesting is many times there are consequences do these actions. now, every senator has their own position on these and exercises their own judgment, as they should, and cast their own vote, so i do not necessarily that there was a disconnect from what i said in the world harold to where i have been on international subjects. as your specific point about supporting unilateral sanctions as well as international sanctions, a letter with senator boxer, it is a different situation. we already have very effective international sanctions on iran. >> are you saying those two statements do not contradict each other? the one to the, paper and the one to senator boxer? >> there are two points, and that me finish, if i could, senator, thank you, for my second point. the second point is where we are today, international sanctions that have been placed on iran, that puts iran and united states in a far different place than where we were in 2000 or 1998 or 2001, when i did not support the reimposition -- and by the way, the bush administration did not either. they did not want a five-year reimposition. some of the things i questions that. but my point in making where we are today, connecting at to unilateral sanctions, then we have got a different situation. unilateral sanctions, because we have already got strong international sanctions, it should be considered. i think the president is right to consider those. i would support that. it is different than what it was back in 2000 or 1998. >> thank you, senator. senator? >> thank you. senator hagel, thank you for being here. thank you for your service to the country in the military and your service in the u.s. senate, and i also want to thank your wife and your family for standing with you today. you played an important role in supporting vietnam veterans impacted by the exposure to agent orange, but i a been involved in a similar set of issues facing veterans stationed at camp lejeune, and they continue to look into the effects of water contamination there. as many as 1 million marines and their families stationed at the base between the early 1950's and the 1980's may have been exposed to harmful chemicals that could have lead to cancer and other elements. looking into this has been long. it has been drawn out, and recognition that men, women, and children were dying or going broke paying out of pocket for their treatment while they're waiting for these various studies to be completed on the water contamination. we in congress took action last year. the house and senate passed a bill that would provide for the treatment of veterans and their family members through the v.a., but i continue to believe that the families of those stationed at camp lejeune during this time period, they deserve answers from the u.s. government about who was exposed to the harmful chemicals, about what type of impact that may have had on their health, and what the government knew about this exposure, and i up and fighting for answers with a group of other committed senators on a bipartisan basis, and along the way, progress has been slowed by endless bureaucratic delays and obstacles. my question to you is do you agree that these marines and their families deserve complete answers about the water contamination that occurred at camp lejeune, and if confirmed, do you pledge to work with us to overcome any bureaucratic hurdles that may halt or delay the pursuit of answers for the affected marines and their family members? >> well, thank you. you noted that we had a long conversation about this. i committed to you in your office, and i will make that commitment in front of this audience. there should never, ever be a question about the health and the safety and the environment that we put our men and women and their families and when we ask them to make sacrifices to serve this country, and i am committed to do that. we will have further conversations. >> thank you, senator. i know u.s. answered a number of questions about israel already today, but i do have one i want to ask you also. there is a special and historic bond between the u.s. and israel, and i am personally committed to israel's security and identity as a jewish state. when we met earlier this week, i was pleased to hear you agree and that you support a two-state solution and oppose any unilateral declaration of a palestinian state. we also discussed the need for a strong military and intelligence engagement between the u.s. and israel. just last fall, i was in israel, and i have spoken with senior military officials from both countries, and i have continually heard that the ties between our military and intelligence organizations have never been stronger. if confirmed, do you intend to maintain its close relationship, and do you any ideas as to how we can further strengthen this coordination? >> well, i would, once again, reaffirm the commitment that i made to you to this committee. i absolutely support the continuation and strengthening of our relationship with israel, as has been noted before in my book. in the chapter i have on israel, i talk about the special and historic relationship between the united states and israel. it is critically important that the qualitative military edge that we have assured israel since 1948 be maintained and be enhanced. the iron dome is i think but one example. the latest military exercise we had with the israelis last fall, the challenge, it was the largest military exercises between our two countries in the history of our two countries. i think our intelligence agencies are working closely and are stronger and more coordinated than ever before. i think this president has done as much to support israel as any president, as i mentioned earlier, since harry truman, and i will look forward to continuing to follow those policies and enhance those policies. >> thank you. i wanted to ask a question on sequestration. stopping sequestration from occurring is very important to me. north carolina, we have seven military installations, and we have over 100,000 active-duty service members in my state, and i believe that these cuts are going to harm our national security, will impair our readiness, will defer necessary maintenance that will help keep our troops sake, that delay important investments in research and procurement as well as stunt our economic recovery at this time. i do not believe we can allow these cuts to move forward. congress needs to work on a bipartisan basis on a bipartisan plan that will help eliminate this threat of sequestration. also, we have to reduce our deficit and protect the investments in the areas of national defense. when we spoke earlier, i was pleased to hear that you did not support these indiscriminate, on prioritized cuts that sequestration would cause. if allowed to take effect, how would sequestration impact the department's ability to meet the future threats and challenges could as i've shared with you, highchair the subcommittee of this committee on emerging threats and capabilities, so i am particularly interested on your thoughts. you were commenting earlier to a senators' questions on cybersecurity issues. obviously being considered in the emerging threats and capabilities subcommittee. my question is, what impact do you believe that these cuts would have on our service members and their families at home and abroad, and in particular, the cuts with the sequestration, how would this impact areas such as cybersecurity and the other areas? >> well, first, as we have said this morning, you know the chiefs have made very clear, secretary panetta, there will be consequences, significant consequences, to the management of our defense department and our ability to have the flexibility to make the decisions, not just for the immediate but for the future. when you hang in that kind of uncertainty over any institution, but especially the institution charged with national security in our country, it is very dangerous. readiness is obviously the number one priority, and we will continue to do that. the chiefs have already decided to work through this, and i think in some of the public statements they have made, we are preparing for that. they will be prepared in the event sequestration does take effect. we will be ready to deal with it. but this is going to be very difficult, and we talked a little earlier here this morning about how we were going to have to reduce training, flying time, but i think the american people do need to be reassured, as i said, as secretary panetta and the chiefs have, the security of this country will not be in jeopardy, but it will be difficult. and it will affect longer-term kinds of planning, but make no mistake, if this happens this is going to be a severe problem. >> my time is up. thank you for your comments. >> senator, thank you so much. we are going to work right 3 vote that is going on, but we will take a 10-minute recess right now and come right back, and then we are going to call on the two senators who are next in line, and i urge them to go vote and come back, so we will now recess for 10 minutes. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> the committee must vote on senator hagel's nomination and that could come as early this week. so far among republicans have announced they will support the haguele mom nakes -- nomination. >> john mccain's 2000 campaign, when he ran for president, is the most memorable campaign of any that i've covered or been around. it was just -- we'll never see it again. here he was facing george w. bush who had all the republicans backing him and all the money. john mccain went out and held 114 town meetings. he stayed there until every question was answered. you would see the light bulb go off and say when are we going to get the, patient's bill of rights? he would say we're not going to get that as long as my party is owned by the trial lawyers an the democrats are own bird the insurance company. he was totally open to the press. there was a candor and a welcomeness that no one had seen before and no one has seen since. >> long-time clull any fact on his career in -- column any fact --ist. >> she was the oldest first lady hen her husband was president. her husband died one month after his naurgs. meet the other women that served at first daily in c-span's original series, "first lady, their private and public

Vietnam
Republic-of
Jerusalem
Israel-general-
Israel
Japan
Australia
North-carolina
United-states
Afghanistan
Armenia
Iran

vimarsana © 2020. All Rights Reserved.