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. Lets 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. Ive been to those facilities in colorado a few times and dont 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. Its 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 weve really never had to face before on other National Defense threats to this country. So cyber will be an area that well continue to focus on. We must. And its an area that i will put a high priority on if i am confirmed to be secretary of defense. Senator in the 2013 ndaa, theres 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. Its 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 samesex marriage in your view if he objected based on conscience . Well i think the pentagon regulations show that samesex marriage is legal in nine states. Would a chaplain be able to bow out of that procedure based on conscience . Certainly. What we dont 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 im 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 dont 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 its us alone they dont work and they just isolate the United States. In the omaha paper. Ill 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 irans 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 dont 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, theres 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, ive always argued against some of the dumb things they do, because i dont think its in the interest of israel. Heres 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 well go back to sanctions. Ive already said i regret referencing the jewish lobby. I should have said pro israel lobby. I think its the only time on the record that ive ever said that. Now, you all have done a lot of work with my record, and yes, its appropriate, by the way. Any nominees 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 dont have any problem with that. As ive already noted that i should have used another term, and im 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 youve evidently read it aaron david millers book and by the way, its a book much to promised land, he has spoken out directly in the last few weeks, written an oped about my opinion because its noten a lot of attention, but its 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 highlyrespected individual and also says in that interview, which is a fairly short interview mentions that i am a strong supporter of israel. Thats 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. Thats what the context of my comments were about. On your point on the conversations and the quote. A couple of points. Lets 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 dont work. They are ineffective. And by the way, ive 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 Unions reaction to that ilsa act. I was not in the senate when that was voted on original, so i didnt 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, im 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 dont think necessarily that there was a disconnect from what i said in the world herald to where ive 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 dont 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 didnt either. They didnt want a fiveyear reimposition on ilsa. My point in making where we are today connecting that to unilateral sanctions, then weve got a different situation. Unilateral sanctions, because weve already got strong International Sanctions, should be considered. I think the president is right to consider those. I would support that. Because its 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. Ive 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 1980s 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 israels security and identity as a jewish state. When we met earlier i was pleased to hear you agree and also support a twostate 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 dont 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 im 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, its very dangerous. Readiness is obviously deemed number one priority. And well 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, well be ready to deal with it. But this is going to be v