tv Today in Washington CSPAN February 13, 2013 7:30am-9:00am EST
>> thank you, mr. speaker. schools in cambridge have been underfunded for decades by those after government and the previous one. the latest figures show people -- at 600 pounds per pupil per year less than english average. the worst in the entire country. does the prime minister agree that this is simply unfair? will you support our school campaign and pledged to end this discrepancy in this parliament? >> prime minister spent i will look carefully at what my honorable friend said. what -- we have protected the schools budget so that the per pupil funding is the same throughout this parliament. so head teachers can plan on the basis, and by encouraging academy schools and preschools we are making sure that schools get more of the education money going directly to them. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the isf describes the chance was benefits cut is giving with one hand and taking away with many others. does the prime minister think that the sister on hard-working
families were at the same time he is giving to millionaires with both hands? >> i don't agree with the honorable lady but that's what the isf saves it as i quoted the lastly, the isf point out that actually the highest increase in terms of tax payments has come from the better off, and the changes the government has made our particularly helping hard-working people on the minimum wage who will see the income tax bill cut in half if that's what we're doing under this government and we won't forget the abolition of the 10 p. tax rate that is for every hard-working person in the country. >> i know the prime minister is aware about the community exchange which is happening on friday which is a meeting between 50 businesses and 50 charities and community organizations, and hope the prime minister will congratulate the freedom communications have
already offered 150 hours of their time to help local charities, including westfield. and i do hope the prime minister really encourages all colleagues in ministers to initiate these proceedings with their constituents because it's a big society impact. [shouting] >> i think my honorable friend is right, a very large part of the big society is businesses coming together to help all into groups and charities in local communities. and i think it's excellent that he is doing the good work and his constituents and i pretended to all those are joining a. as i said earlier it is good news that volunteering is up, the big society is getting bigger. >> is he still eating processed beef? >> i'm falling fred kempe what the food standard agency said, and what the food standard agency say is there's nothing unsafe on our shelves. >> thank you, mr. speaker.
a review into the procedures of the northern hospital has been carried out because of the high mortality rate. clearly this is a concern to my constituents. and the prime minister assure them that whatever recommendation come out of the review will be complemented in full? >> well, i concern to give that assurance. it is important we get to the bottom of any hospital that has an unnaturally high mortality rate. it's important these inspections and investigations are properly carried out and that we all learn the lessons of the report. >> order. urgent question. >> you on c-span2 we will be the british house of commons now as they move onto other legislative business. you have been watching prime minister's question time aired live wednesdays at 7 a.m. eastern while parliament is in session. you can see this weeks question time and again sunday night at 9 p.m. east and pacific on
c-span. and for more information go to c-span.org, click on c-span series for prime minister's question, plus links to international news media and legislatures around the world. you can watch recent data, putting programs dealing with other international issues. >> i think we hold background as this amazing seats that we accomplished this, that we rolled back segregation and then we look at what happened afterwards and we see on how incredibly difficult it was commuted, divided in some ways but also yet this very incremental progress after that that was a frustrating i think two people. and so it was a great victory but also it's important to look back and see what we didn't accomplish just. and so thinking of desegregation and how it was final implemented 20 years later after it was
handed down, but the way these programs are set up still maintain white privilege. >> sarah garland chronicles of the first but the only federal lawsuit brought up by african-american parents to challenge school desegregation in divided we fail sunday night at nine on afterwards, part of three days of booktv, presidents' day weekend on c-span2. >> speaking to a medical conference in washington yesterday, hhs secretary kathleen sebelius announced a new mental health initiative. she talked about the affordable care act and changes to the medical system. this is 20 minutes. >> well, good morning, everybody. >> good morning. >> it's really nice to have a chance to be back with ama, and
i want to start by thanking dr. lazarus, and congratulating him for his leadership and this year, to say hello to doctor madeira, ceo who i've worked with for a number of years, and recognize that following me this morning on the panel you'll hear from one of her former leaders who we get the opportunity to work with each and every day, dr. nancy nielsen, was a former ama president who is now part of our centers for innovation, helping to promote and drive a lot of the very exciting work going on in the delivery system. and also hopefully throughout the course of the day you will get to have a chance to talk to dr. nancy cullen, another great health leader at hhs who does a lot of outreach for the physician community. i told dr. lazarus as us coming in, i think it's a very
opportune time to have a psychiatrist lead the ama. you may all need his personal help and support, but also i think the country is primed for an important dialogue. there's no question that the recent tragedy in newtown broke the hearts of the nation. but it also gives us an important opportunity to address some issues which have gone unaddressed for too long, gun safety and mental health issues. often they are behind the shadows and not discussed. in the next few weeks, education secretary arne duncan and i are going to be launching a national dialogue aimed at ending the silence about mental health that keeps so many people from getting the help they need. i know the ama has already participated. you had one of her board members come to an at risk meeting
sponsored by the vice president and you've already sent a letter to the president and congress offering your expertise as our nation grapples with these issues. and dr. lazarus, i know you and the ama will continue to help lead this conversation across the country. tonight you're going to hear from the president about a number of things, and certainly progress in health care transformation is one of the issues he plans to address. but this morning i thought it would focus my remarks particularly on health care system. and today, i'm really pleased to report that the state of american health care is getting stronger, thanks in large part to those of you in this room, and doctors across the country. just consider some of the changes we've seen in the past few years. around the country, physicians are adopting new models of care in greater numbers than ever before.
250 health organizations, many of them physician led, have agreed to form accountable care organizations, and are now serving more than 4 million medicare beneficiaries, testing different models of care. and last month, more than 500 hospitals and other health organizations agreed to participate in an initiative that will test whether receiving a single bundled payment for an episode of care can really improve coordination between health care providers. now, similar models of care transformation are spreading rapidly in states and in the private market. these transformational models are no longer isolated pilots. they are becoming the face of american medicine. aiding the transformation is the accelerated adoption of new tools of sharing health information. since 2008, the number of
office-based doctors using a basic electronic health record has doubled, spurred in part by the incentive payment and technical assistance from our department, a development which has huge promise to reduce medical errors, facilitate better care, and lower cost. most important of all, the changes are already translating into significant measurable improvements in americans health. centerline bloodstream infections are down more than 40% since 2008. hospital grade missions and medicare have fallen dramatically in the past year, resulting in an estimated 70,000 fewer patients returning to the hospital with a dangerous and costly complications. and as part of a new affordable care act initiative, clinicians at some hospitals have reduced the early elective deliveries to
close to zero, meaning fewer at risk newborns and fewer admissions to the nicu. now meanwhile, we've achieved three consecutive years of historically low growth in underlying health care costs. and there is growing evidence that the slow down isn't just a result of the ongoing economic recovery, but a reflection of a fundamental transformation in care delivery happening across the country. america's doctors should be enormously proud of these achievements. it's true that the affordable care act and other legislation have helped speed up this transformation. but really it's been health care providers, doctors an and your m who have been hard work of improving care, episode by episode, patient by patient, organization by organizations across the country. because of these efforts, a daughter who might have passed away from hospital acquired infection is in school today.
a grandfather who could've been stuck in a hospital bed is eating his breakfast at home. a newborn is playing in her room instead of lying in a neonatal icu. and that's what you failed to accomplish. now, i understand that the change is not easy. and most of you don't exactly have a lot of free time. even improvements that can save time in the long run, like upgrading to digital health records, can be enormously labor-intensive at first. and i also know that we have a lot to learn about these new models, and we look forward to hearing from you. the american health system has evolved over decades in ways that perpetually fragmented care for acute illness rather than coordinated care across settings. and as we transition into an era of integrated, patient-centered care, it's inevitable that there
will be some growing pains. but i do think moving forward is the only option. the health needs of the american people are changing. patients today are living longer, are more likely to have chronic illness that requires careful management. they are more likely to have multiple conditions that require coordination between physicians and other health professionals. they often want more control over decisions about their own care. and to be successful, our health care system most evolved to fulfill those needs. we also have put health care spending on a sustainable trajectory. if health care costs continue to rise unchecked, we will eventually reach a point where drastic cuts are needed that will harm both patients and doctors. and especially now as fiscal issues move to the center of a national debate, it's essential to demonstrate that there are
better ways to control health care costs and cut costs to provide her rates or shifting cost of beneficiaries or private payers. the choice really that we have today is not whether our health system will evolve, but when and how. or whether wait until it's too late and a far blunter approach is needed. now, i believe that thoughtful planning is best. and it's why i'm so grateful to the ama for leading the way on care improvement. that's also why i'm here today to challenge each of you to do more, to help us accelerate the transformation of health care in this country. if you part of a provider or cassation already participating in a new care model, let us know more about how it's going and
let us know how we can support your efforts. help educate us about what's working and what isn't so we can build those insights into our policies and incentives. and if you've been waiting to get involved in a new model, now is the time to take the leap. we know there's no one size fits all approach to modernizing health care, and we are committed to grading opportunities for health care organizations of all shapes and sizes. everyone can do something, whether it's pushing forward on patient safety or investing in electronic health records that help you better coordinate treatment. what i'm asking, ultimately, is for all of you to be leaders. whether you work for big hospitals, nonprofits, or for yourself, taking some responsibility of thinking about how your health care organization can do better care has never, at a better time.
in return, my pledge to you this point is that our administration wants to continue to listen to you and to respond to your concerns. for example, in discussions in the past when physicians call for new medical malpractice models that can improve patient safety and bring down liability premiums, president obama became the first chief executive in history to direct us to use our authority to provide funding for that effort. and we've got models going across the country. i'm pleased attended, and we will have a full report in the next few months, we have some very promising results from these models which are being scaled up in various parts of the country. many of which were developed, modeled and implemented by physicians. another example is accountable care organizations. when we released the first proposed aco rules, we received a lot of feedback, some of it not very positive, from the
physician community. much of it was -- much of it told us that the rules came up short, if you mentioned a few specific areas. you told us we needed to reduce the reporting burden. so we did, cutting the number of quality measures by about half. you told us there have to be an option for smaller organizations that need help with startup costs. so we agreed, creating the advance payment aco model. you told us we needed to create pathways for providers who wanted to take on less risk, and again, we responded to that request. and i think the results speak for themselves. not only do we now have hundreds of acos around the country, but they really reflect the full diversity of america's health care system, from major academic medical centers to rural health clinics and physician led organizations. and that never would've happened without your input.
our department has also tried to respond to your concerns about how to balance the need for measurement and accountability with the growing administrative burden on doctors. that's why we said that doctors will now be able to report one set of results for eq ours, many for use and the physicians value modified, instead of using three different sets. that's why we continue to proactively look for opportunities to slash red tape, including a set of reforms that sector of agriculture tom vilsack and i announced last week that's estimated to save health care providers, particularly in the rural areas, nearly $700 million a year. and, finally, we remain committed to a fix that will take america's doctors out of a prominent state of limbo. [applause] long overdue. now, as you know this reason
fiscal cliff deal signed by the president extends the sgr through the end of the year. but he and i have both said since the beginning of the term, temporary extensions are not good enough. we need to bring an end to the constant uncertainty for doctors and their patients. now, ultimately only congress can have a permanent sgr fix. at this administration continues to be committed to doing what we can to make that happen. that's what every year that the president has been in office, his budget has included a long-term sgr fix it and it's why we will continue to work with you and congress during this critical year for budget conversations that include the sgr fix. we also continue to believe that congress can and should take action to avoid sequestration cuts that are scheduled to take effect in just a few weeks. the way those impacts our
department are that medicaid and chip programs are not affected by sequester cuts but they're actually held. but other essential programs across the department will be cut, everything from medical research to personnel at health clinics. medicare cuts, up to 2%, are scheduled to take place beginning on april 1. and that would cut provide her rates across the country. that's why the president continues to call on congress to prevent these indiscriminate cuts that would harm families, would harm patients, it would harm doctors, and it certainly would do great harm to our economy. but it's important to realize that preventing these devastating cuts is just a first step. unless we come up with a credible plan for reducing health care spending going forward, we will ultimately end up in the same place with other
costs equally blunt and other approaches to cutting costs that don't make any sense. that's why more efforts to accelerate the transformation of care or need. now, i know that the ama has put forward a plan to do just that. it's encouraging to see recommendations for reducing unnecessary care advanced by specialty societies in choosing wisely. but physicians need to continue to play a major leadership role. now, your leadership also goes not only to the health transformation part of the new law, but the second part of the law, which is expanding access to affordable coverage so more individuals can access care from the outset. outset. this is ago that the ama and america's doctors have supported for decades because you better than anyone understand the consequences of going without health insurance.
you see in patients who don't fill the prescriptions he wrote because they can't affor afford. ecd and the woman who shows up in the emergency room with consequences from a cancer that could have and should have been caught early. you see it in families saddled with medical bills that they will spend their entire life trying to pay off. and use it in the burden that many of you take on day in and day out to provide care to the uninsured. the uninsured americans in this country have never been invisible to america's doctors. and that's why you help in the fight that will finally bring america into the ranks of nations that make coverage affordable to all of their citizens. because of your efforts, beginning on october 1 of this year, millions of uninsured americans across the country will finally qualify for a health plan that fits their budget. user through a new state
marketplace or an expanded state medicaid program. about half the states have said they will expand medicaid, and many others are still delivered in. you can help make sure those debates are informed by facts about what expanded coverage means for people's health, about what it could mean to the local economy, and with the bottom line is for health care providers. no one has better credibility speaking about what's best for patients and doctors. so make sure your voices are heard. you can also help educate people about new insurance options that are coming. as you know all too well from personal experience, dealing with health insurance is not exactly a favorite things to do. for many americans, health insurance is confusing, it's frustrating, it's something people want to avoid thinking about intel they have to. but again, you and a lot of
people around you in your teens can be messengers to help educate your parents, family members, friends, neighbors about new coverage options that are beginning this october. a great place to start is our website at health care.gov. it has some pretty clear information about the law, about who is eligible for coverage, and how people will be able to get started on october 1. as i mentioned earlier, i hope you'll continue to lend your voices to the important debate about how we can come together as a country to prevent tragedies like the one we saw in newtown. we know there's no single solution to the problem of gun violence. but we all can agree as the president called the weasley that physicians should be able to talk to their patients about guns and about health safety. we can also agree that we need
to talk as a society about mental illness, about stress, about crisis and about what help may be available. as i said earlier, we will be launching a national dialogue about communities and their work to promote better emotional health and creating environments for young people and their families to feel comfortable asking for help. and i'm counting on america's doctors to help lead these community conversations. the care you provide for your patience will always be your first job. but today there are many other ways for doctors to make a difference in peoples lives. starting contributing to the transformation over health care system. we have made great progress in the last few years. now i look for to working on the progress and creating a health system that patients, doctors and this country deserve. thank you all for what you do each and every day. [applause]
>> when edith wilson's husband, president woodrow wilson suffered a stroke in office, her role as first lady changed. i myself have made a single decision to grant the disposition of public affairs. film decision that was mine was what was important and what was not come at a very important decision of when to present matters to my husband. >> c-span's new series first ladies come influence an image, examines the public and private lives of the women who served as first ladies in the first of its kind project for television. season one begins next monday presidents' day at 9 p.m. eastern and pacific on c-span, c-span where, and c-span.org. >> you're watching c-span2 with politics and public affairs. weekdays feature live coverage of the u.s. senate. on weeknights watch key public policy events. every week in the latest nonfiction authors and books on booktv. you can see past programs and get our schedules at our website. you can join in the conversation
on social media sites. >> yesterday, the senate armed services committee voted on defense secretary nomination of chuck hagel by approving the nomination in a partyline vote. 14 democrats and 11 republicans. before the vote, senators discuss the nominee and the reason for opposing or supporting his nomination. it begins with committee chairman karl levin. >> the committee meets today to consider the nomination of former senator chuck hagel to serve as the next secretary of defense. he -- we received the nomination through which the. we held a hearing 12 days ago.
senator hagel has provided the personal and financial information required by the committee. he has received letters from the director of the office of government ethics, and the acting defense department general counsel. certifying that he meets the ethics and conflict of interest standards. he has responded to our advanced policy questions and/or and the questions for the record, for these reasons i believe the time has come for the committee to act on this nomination. senator hagel has received broad support from a wide array of senior statesman in defense foreign policy organizations. at our january 31 nomination hearing, senator hagel was introduced and endorsed enthusiastically by two former chairmen of our committee, sam nunn and john warner. senator hagel's nomination has been endorsed by five former secretaries of defense who served under both democratic and republican presidents. bill cohen, bill perry, harold
brown and melvin leary. he has been endorsed by two former secretaries of state and by six former national security advisers. he has received letters of endorsement from nine former ambassadors who worked with him on middle east issues from 11 retired senior military officers, and from 50 retired ambassadors and national security officials. he's been supported by the major critics of american veterans, including the veterans of foreign wars, the iraq and afghanistan veterans of america, a.m. fed, vietnam veterans of america, the american legion. he has received support from the melted officers association of america, the foreign area officers association, and the non-commissioned officers association. senator hagel's credentials are underscored by his service in war and in peace. as a young man's senator hagel enlisted in the army and served in vietnam where he received two
purple hearts, the army commendation medal, and the combat infantry badge for his service. senator hagel served as deputy administrator of the veterans administration during the reagan administration and was twice elected to the united states senate. where he served on the foreign relations and intelligence committees. .. the raise questions about his views on the issues.
the senator explained or clarify statements and placed them in context. he apologized for watermark and told the committee that he would say other things differently if he had the chance to make them over. senator hagel was clear and firm in the position that he takes the day and that he will, if confirmed, take as secretary of defense. in particular, senator hagel stated forcefully and eloquently that first iran poses a significant threat to the united states, our allies, partners, our interest in the region and globally. iran continues to pursue well as a program that threatens to provoke a regional arms race and undermine the global nonproliferation regime. iran also of the mainstay sponsors of terrorism and could spark conflict, including against the yen the state's personal and interest.
secondly, he is fully committed to the president's goal of preventing iran from obtaining in a clear option. his policy, if confirmed, will be one of prevention, not of containment. third, while he believes in gauge is clearly in our interest in dayton is no negotiation and he stated that have never thought engagement is weakness. and never thought it was surrender. and never thought it was appeasement. clearly in our interest. the key international sanctions behind you. if the military option is the only option, it's the only option. finally, he is a strong supporter of israel and believes that we have a special relationship with israel and if confirmed he will insure our friend and ally maintains its qualitative military edge in the
region and will continue to support systems like iron dome, which is today saving is really live from terrorists rocket attacks. the senator has also recognized the very real risks posed to our national security as a result of the unique budgetary pressure arising out of cuts previously agreed upon by congress. the budgeting by continuing resolution and the impending threat of a sequester. this is what senator hagel told the committee. sequestration, if allowed to occur, would damage our readiness, people, and our military families. we will result in the grounding of aircraft returning ships support reducing the part of its global presence in the ability to rapidly respond to contingencies. vital trading, he said, would be reduced by half of current plans, and the department would be unable to reset equipment from afghanistan in a timely manner, and the continued, the
program would reduce training and maintenance for non deploying units that would be forced to reduce procurement of vital weapon systems and suffer the subsequent schedule delays in price increases. civilian employees would be furloughed for up to 22 days. all of these effects -- all of these effects also negatively impact long-term readiness. it would, he said, send a terrible signal to our military and civilian workforce, to those we hope to recruit, and to both our allies and adversaries around the oral. some members of this committee strongly opposed president obama's foreign-policy. regardless of how we may feel about the president's policies, or float on senator hagel nomination will not change those policies. there is a risk here it is that the defeat of this domination will leave the department of defense leaderless at a time when we face in this budgetary challenges in our military is engaged in combat operations
overseas. such an absence of senior leaders would be unlikely to benefit either our national defense or men and away uniform, and i would add, given the recent explosion of a nuclear device by north korea, the delay in adopting this nomination and approving it, i think, will send the exact wrong message to north korea. the president needs to have a secretary of defense in him he has stressed 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, and he is well qualified to lead department of defense. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me first of all say to my have said many, many times going back to my first meeting with senator hagel when he was first
elected, how much i admire his service to his country, the job he did, his purple hearts and all of that. the question is in my mind, is that and that alone enough justification for confirming him to the nomination for the secretary of defense. and also mr. chairman, in what you said was accurate in terms of what he said now during these hearings. my problem is, that is not what he said and that is not what he lived in the past. i was -- i guess i was the first one who decided that i was going to oppose them, his nomination, and that was before we knew nearly as much as we have today. at that time was aware that he was one of two senators who voted against sanctions against iran, one of four senators who voted against labeling or
declaring the iranian revolutionary guard as terrorists, one of four who did not sign the letter, and i remember because i helped take the letter of solidarity around to the various senators and one of only four who did not sign that. i was also concerned about that zero movement. it sounds it. who want to nuclear-free world. the problem is, and i heard all is answers call with a group that he is part of is for, if necessary to my unilaterally doing away with our nuclear capability. i was concerned with the fact that arguably you could say that iran could be one of the most severe terrorist types states, and they have said things like, we want to wipe is well off the map. israel is a cancerous tumor in the heart and america is rotten from the bottom up. all of these things, and yet they, that country is endorsing
his confirmation. and then lastly, i mention this several times. the senator showed it, mr. chairman commander wanted to you much personally appreciate your been in the rules a little bit to allow him to put the video of where he agreed with the comments about as well committing war crimes committing sickening slaughter in america is the world's bullies. so i just can't, for those reasons and others have other reasons, but those of the reasons that i oppose him and i still oppose his confirmation. >> thank you, senator. go we're going to do is give everyone an opportunity to make a statement. we will then vote. the time of the vote will be determined by how many of us want to make statements. i cannot set that time until we get a feel for how many members
want to make statements. what i will do, and i have not had enough chance to chat with the center of this in terms of a specific time, but my inclination is to say that we should make statements with and that some of it minutes. >> very fair. >> thank you. i am not urging anybody to speak to use their eight minutes, by the way. i hope that was not implied by my decision. so, after we get a feel again for about how many want to speak and we will try to set a fixed time later on this afternoon so that everybody will be given, perhaps, 20 minutes or so warning at least as to what that fixed time is ended best we can. i now call upon senator reid. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i will try to set the example by taking much less than eight minutes. as you pointed out, some of the most respected experts on
foreign policy and national defense policy in the united states who have served both republican and democratic presidents are strongly and enthusiastically supportive of senator chuck hagel nomination to be secretary of defense. bob gates, bill cohen, madeleine albright, bill perry, thomas pickering. these two ladies and gentlemen have represented the united states interest through the lifetime of service. they are, i think, some of the strongest evidence of the support and the confidence that they have, and we should have in the nomination to the secretary of defense. there has been a lot of discussion about to kill the of his approach to our strong historic partnership with the state of israel, and i was particularly struck by the words of deputy israeli prime minister . former ambassador to united states, now one of the senior members of the foreign ministry command he has said, i have met
him, senator hagel many times to answer their regards israel as a true and natural u.s. ally. that is coming from someone who is a serving member of the israeli government. i think that is the case and that is what his lifetime of effort as a senator, as an it of 85 individual, business hitter points out. ben babbler just conclude by echoing the point that the chairman made, this is a very dangerous moment. i don't have to remind anyone in this room. we are facing budget issues. we're facing national security issues. in the process of our retrograde operations in afghanistan just within hours ago the north koreans to admitted nuclear devices. this is a time that the men will of the department of defense the is secretary of defense command i would urge our strong support of senator chuck hagel. >> thank you, mr. chairman.
, believe that senator hagel as far as i can determine has complied with the requirements for her the parameters for the information that needs to be disclosed to this committee. i am somewhat disturbed to hear that today there are two more speeches that he had not reported that may be just surfaced faugh. and at the same time i believe he has complied. i do not believe that we should move forward with this nomination until questions are answered that senator gramm and senator -- and i have asked to be answered. and i for the first time in my political career find myself in agreement with mr. robert kids who stated on sunday television
show that it was the performance of senator hagel before the senate armed service committee was the most unimpressive and unfocused that i have ever observed. i agree with them. the lost an impressive performance i have seen in watching many nominees came before the committee for various positions. he did not even know that our policy toward iran is not one of containment and that to be corrected by the chairman of the committee. of course of his failure to answer specific questions that i asked is very disturbing. let me point out that the search was an issue of the lives of thousands of american servicemen and women who were serving in iraq. senator gramm and i and others, not many, parsley critical of the bush of ministration, called
for the resignation of secretary rumsfeld when he said that there was only a few dead and kids left in iraq and took on our own administration, president of the secretary of defense. senator hagel also thought we losing end when the surge was implemented give a statement that the surge was the worst blunder since vietnam and then went on with some nonsense about whether lyndon johnson was in cambodia or not. he continued to oppose the surgeon said that it would fail. think we're all responsible for our record. i will be glad and have quite often pointed out or have wrong. for him to fail to agree that what was clearly and obviously a success to me indicates that he
really did not want to be forthcoming to this committee, and i don't think he complied with the requirements of answering the questions members of this committee had. i am aware this something that it became rather tense. we're talking about thousands of young americans who had their lives on the line in iraq, including some people that -- well -- and the senators judgment was wrong, continues to be wrong, and he refuses to submit that he was right on this issue and many other issues. and his gratuitous attacks, for example, saying that president bush is the worst president since herbert hoover, of course, just gratuitous attacks on the presidents of the united states. you can only judge somebody by their past performance.
his performance for this committee was the worst by a scene of any nominee for office. he refused to answer a simple straightforward question as to whether the surge was a success or not and whether he supported the not. that was a key moment in the history of this country. and so, mr. chairman, i hope that we will get the answer that others and myself a vast to be answered and i hope that that will happen, but i cannot vote to report out senator hagel nomination favorably. >> thank you very much. senator demint order of appearance. not here. do you wish to make a statement? >> yes.
i think, though i appreciate the concerns that have been raised about senator hagel, and i certainly would like to have seen him be much more -- much feistier and his hearing, i do think for anybody to suggest that he is not qualified, they haven't really looked at what his background has been. he was the deputy minister of the viejo. he managed a quarter of million employees during the reagan years. he turned around the u.s. so when it was in financial difficulty. we all know much about his record as senator when he helped to shepherd the september 11th gi bill through the senate. his serve and the defense policy board of the pentagon as co-chairman of the president's intelligence advisory board, not
to mention all the things that have been said about his service in vietnam and his heroism as an enlisted man. so i think -- i understand that people disagree with his position on certain issues and therefore everybody has the right to vote in the way it they say, but the concern that i have is the suggestion that this man who has served his country really since he was a young man and it listed in vietnam is not qualified to be the secretary of defense, i think is just not accurate and reflects certainly a different understanding of his background and his experience that i have. so i intend to vote for him. think he will be an excellent secretary of defense, and the help of we will confirm of. >> thank you, senator.
>> thank you, mr. chairman. it think the members of the committee. first, let me say up front that i think all of us deeply respect the senators service to his country in vietnam and service in this body. we know that there are always difficult decisions that must be made, and i certainly respect and service that he has given to our country. in thinking about this nomination and certainly committed from a perspective which i understand that the president deserves a certain level of deference with respect to who serves of his cabinet. fact, that is why i voted, for example, for my colleague, senator kerrey, who had an overwhelming vote in the senate, even though he and that probably vote very differently and many issues certainly he was confirmed overwhelmingly in this body. i find myself on this nomination in a very different place. very much agree with my colleague, senator reid, who is
here, as he describes the set of our country and the state of our national defense and the challenges we face around the world right now. it is a very, very difficult time in the dangerous time around the world. i -- one of the first challenges that we face and i think one of the greatest national-security threats that we face is the march of iran toward obtaining a clear weapon. and i find myself in reviewing some the record of senator hagel and also what he said when he appeared before us in a very lengthy hearing before the committee to be very much at odds with him on this issue, and i think also some of his prior positions are at odds with members of both sides of the aisle. for example, as has been mentioned previously by senator mccain, i was very troubled that he did not know clearly what our position was when it came to containment. particularly since, i believe
everyone in this room voted -- except for the newer members, we recently voted in a vote of 90-1 in the u.s. senate explicitly rejecting a policy of containment toward a nuclear-armed iran. senator hagel seemed to believe that his for statement was that the president had a strong position of containment toward iran and then switched his position to say that we don't have a position on containment and then finally, of course, the chairman corrected and to let him know what our position was. this is one example, i think one of many within the hearing where there were some issues that i felt that he needed to give us answers on. this one, i thought this is one of the biggest threats facing the world right now. i was deeply troubled by his statements with regard to containment and also, i think if you look at his prior history of when he served in this body where he has been on sanctions as has already been described, i
think all of us here hope that we can stop iran faugh from containing and a clear weapon. the only way to do that is through sanctions. yet when he was in this body he was one of two senators to oppose sanctions in 2001, again in 2008 in the banking committee, one of two senators to oppose sanctions command of aston during the hearing, senator reid, the majority leader came to the floor on october 2nd 2008 and brought forward a iraq sanctions at that is very similar to the one that we have passed and blocked unanimous consent for consideration of that before this body. think it is important to note that a similar iran sanctioned act was co-sponsored by secretary carey, clinton, and then president -- it then senator, now president obama. this is an issue that we have been strongly on that he is to the french of both parties to
where we have been on sanctions which troubles me given the threats that we face around the world right now. of course, he also voted against the senate in designating the islamic revolutionary guard corps as a terrorist organization and told us during the hearing because it was part of an elected legitimate iranian government. i don't think that the people who rose up in 2009 in the green movement who were persecuted and shot at by the iranian government would call that government a legitimately elected government, nor would come at the time that he voted against designating the islamic revolutionary guard corps a terrorist organization, would at the time they were assisting those in iraq that were murdering our troops. and so that troubles me that he would not think of designating the guard corps at that time a
terrorist organization. two other issues i would like to talk on, and that is, we are facing great budget challenges right now command a remember when the senator asked him about a prior statement that he made after the budget control act was passed he was asked about the across-the-board cuts made to our military, and he said, different than what our secretary of defense panetta has said now, that he felt that the pentagon was bloated and needed to be teardown. during your hearing he said that those are statements he made prior to the budget control act being passed, but that was not the case and that was later corrected. in terms of shipping the pentagon, i certainly don't think that we want to be in a position of thinking, especially in light of the testimony we heard this morning, the pentagon is bloated bodies to be pared down. all of us agree that there are things that we could do better in the pentagon, and i know that
many of us have worked on things that we could do better and more efficient in the pentagon, but sequestration is not the answer to that. finally, you know, hours ago, as senator reed mentioned, the north koreans had detonated a nuclear device. yet a year ago the senator was a signatory toward a report that essentially would eliminate a portion of our nuclear triad. we have three legs our nuclear triad, and he was a signatory for report that recommended that that be a manner in which we could eliminate a leg of our nuclear triad. it seems to me with the north koreans testing, iran marching toward nuclear weapon, that is a deep concern and our secretary of defense less than a year ago would sign on to a report that would state the position. during his hearing he tried to claim that this was just an illustration, but that is actually differ from what the
report itself says. the report itself says on the first page that these are next steps possible and desirable. so i was not satisfied with his explanation of this being an illustration for your hearing and deaf concerned faugh that is really where his viewpoints are. concern that they will drive his recommendations as the secretary of defense. for all those reasons, respectful of the service to our country, i just think that with the challenges we face around the world right now, i judge him based on his record. respect to service, but also, i have to judge him best of his performance before us and the senate armed services committee, and i cannot support his nomination. >> thank you. senator. >> mr. chairman, i want to thank you for the fair, open,
transparent process that this committee is followed as we have considered the support nomination. after spending several weeks of closely reviewing his qualifications, meeting with him personally, participating in the nomination hearing, will vote for his nomination to become our country's neck secretary of defense. the senators serving as shared my concerns about the serious negative consequences that sequestration would have on north carolina. as we heard at the hearing this morning, and it is important that our next secretary of defense be strong, an advocate for stopping these cuts that would be devastating to our military strength. i also believe that senator hagel will continue to look for ways to enhance our military and intelligence collaboration with israel, one of our most important allies. i appreciate and respect the senator service to our country as an enlisted soldier in vietnam and it is my hope and expectation that this perspective that he has will aid in the support of the many
service members and their families who call north carolina , and certainly all of our other states and was pleased to hear his assurances that he will monitor and be a helpful partner in getting the answers about the water contamination. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. senator fisher. >> thank you, chairman. thank you, ranking member. for the past several weeks i have carefully reviewed the senator's record. i know the senator, met with them privately and participated in the committee's hearing questioning him in both rounds. ultimately, while respect his military service i did not believe he is the right choice for this job. i am concerned by the senator's record of important topics and his testimony before this committee did nothing to clarify those questions. as many of you have said, this is a very dangerous moment for our country.
the next secretary of defense will likely make critical decisions with respect to budgeting for national defence that will define its future for decades to come. confronting a pre-nuclear iran, dealing with an increasingly belligerent nuclear-armed north korea and a bellicose china. i do not believe he will chart the right course for our country , and the effect of his decisions on these topics will last for decades. i do appreciate that the president will nominate candidates that hold very different views that i do. my support for senator kerrey's nomination indicates this. but i cannot support a candidate whose views are so far afield. as the "washington post" editorial board indicated, these positions are far to the left of those held by president obama. for all those reasons i cannot support his nomination. thank you, mr. chairman. >> inky very much.
senator donnelly. not here at the moment. senator cain. >> thank you, mr. chair, mr ranking member, and colleagues. i am honored to serve with you on this committee, one of my personal and political heroes appeared and talked about his committee service that in most blow it away. a decorated war veteran of two service breaks is, navy and marines and was a secretary of the navy but said his proudest public service was his service says committee member, both raking in chair this committee and i try to approach this question thinking about the senator in the way he approached his job. although for the senators nomination to be secretary of defense for three reasons. first, the standard i think we should apply. second aspect of the experience and character and finally some thoughts about the inquiries and objections that others have raised. with respect to standard command of the point that was merely a. i think we of deference to a
president for choices to executive positions command i think that is a very important thing to a gravel with. the american public chooses someone to the president of giving that individual a mandate to govern which includes the assembly of a team with the president feels is appropriate. differences and other rivers step does not mean that you cannot vote no, but i think it is an important thing in my approach in the executive nomination with that in mind. of the particularly to senator hagel, the his unlisted service and the fact to be the first former enlisted to be secretary of defense as an incredibly important thing. what are secretary of defense to go to sleep every night and wake up every day worrying about our men and women. and i have no doubt that that would be his overriding concern and want that to be so. he has been a powerful veterans advocate in his position with the viejo ended his service to help revise the u.s. soap.
his role in the senate is important to my job that is not only an internal management job but helps someone to have that understanding of the different branches of government and the relationship that is the appropriate one between the executive and legislature in a think the senator will bring that to a table. finally, he has private sector experience and a variety of ways, both in the for-profit and ngo world. he truly has a well rounded base of experience to bring to the job. of the character side he has shown again and again that he is willing to sacrifice and as carriage. sacrificing in service, sacrificing for his country again and again in is willing to step up and do it again, and i give him credit for that. the think he has shown courage, including the courage to say how was wrong which is something that is hard for me to do in public life, are for a lot of us to the public or private leak and the senator has had the courage and the independence to acknowledge that he was wrong when he felt that it was commanded think what he goes to the president, what any cabinet secretary as to the president is the best advice to give at the
time. the president will make the call, but do not want cabinet secretaries hedging device based on what they think will be popular, what the president will like, and i have no doubt that senator hagel would give advice as secretary that he thinks is right and the trusting in the chain of command that the commander-in-chief of the call. finally i think that the center's philosophy is one that understands america's role in the world. our strength is not just military strength. ever since teddy roosevelt won the nobel prize, america has played a big role of the stage of the globe, and an important one. we are exceptional and exceptional in the role we play in the world. we get it rival we appropriately balance military strength to diplomatic strength of economic strength, and strict moral example, and that the center understands that those on have to be in balance and i appreciated. finally, number of tough questions and objections were raised and more of fair. the senator said the same thing, he did not mind answering for
anything he said kevin much as i would say he could see some things she might have said better, i feel that pretty much every day in public life. while the questions were fair, i think a fair answer to them is to review the entire record. two examples. when you first year at the senator voted in the senate against the designation of the average he is a terrorist organization it does make you sit back and wonder why. a day we were together he explained why. many senators voted against that designation because they believed that there was a potentially perilous consequence to designating a department of a government is a terrorist organization and that they could come in fact, lead to an executive of regent potentially be a preliminary step toward hostilities or even war-like activity without appropriate consultation with congress. i'm going to be an incredible stickler on the need from executive to consult with congress. things that might serve as a
pretext for executive action need to be avoided which is why a number of other senators, including center web : predecessor in this seat, voting is the same night argie designation. when i was explained in the context of the committee hearing it made sense. we might have voted differently, but he a credible rationale. i did not see the back and forth over contain the as the senator saying he wants to have a containment policy. we were talking prevention and containment short and on the floor and he said he supported the president's ideas, policy views. we all of the president's policy of containment is there not about to contain the nuclear iran because a nuclear iran would jeopardize israel and would also inspired a very kind of arms race in the middle east that the president and senator have always been against. i think a fair reading of that discussion was that he understood what the president's policy was in if you read the writing and think he has been very, very clear about that the we had no containment policy,
the answer we have to containment is who will prevent iran from bidding in a clear weapon and i believe he will. the questions and objections are fair. i think there were answered, and i'm going to support his nomination. >> they keep. senator gramm. >> i am often asked what happened to the committee. nothing? we just disagree on occasion. this is a good committee. we have a good chairman, good ranking member. i like my colleagues. it is the times in which we live. democrats will get almost universal support the republicans and republicans would get almost no republican support. and while -- how is that? well, john kerry is a good friend. so is chuck hagel. i find myself disagreeing with senator kerrey on occasion, but i think he is in the mainstream of thinking and will do a good job for the country. i don't vote against nominees very often. senator obama to me if we use this standard, i think we would all be in pretty good shape over
here and vote a lot. the we're not. at the end of the day, it is just not the vote about the iranian revolutionary guard but a series of votes and statements that paid a unusually disturbing picture. there is the left lane in politics, the right man to man the middle-income and when it comes to some of the iranian israeli issues there is the chuck hagel lane. he is in the league of his own. there is nobody with this kind of a series of votes in the series of statements. it's is not one thing. i see dumb things every day. it is a series of things, a series of votes, and edge about him that makes many of us very unnerved about his selection to a time when the world is on fire. ferias a contagion will take that king of jordan down and if these press reports are true about our policy in afghanistan we're going to have 8,000 troops left behind, 41 percent below the commander recommendation and
will be done to a thousand by 2017. afghanistan will fall apart in 18 months. the next secretary of defense is going to have to deal with it world on fire. and i just believe that the testimony was not reassuring. i don't think he came across clear and convincing that he understood our policies toward iran, and the fact that you don't understand why and cannot clearly articulate the bad news for america for the iranians to get a nuclear capability sharply into the point is unnerving for the times in which we live. this committee has a bipartisan reputation of holding presence accountable. i join with the chairman and many others to look into the abuses of the bush a administration went into interrogation techniques. help my colleagues and the other side will hold the obama administration accountable for what i think was a complete breakdown.
so mr. chairman, you are a good chairman. this committee will get over this aberration and get back to doing business and find common ground regarding sequestration, i hope. the reason i am voting against the nomination is that there are very few people with his voting record when it comes to iran and israel. very few people who have been this wrong about so many different things. i cannot in good conscience support this nomination because i think he is sending the worst possible signal to our friends and our enemies alike. >> thank you, senator gramm. senator can. >> thank you, senator. as i think about this to my approach it as if we are doing a hiring exercise. we are not -- the president, of course, makes the nomination,
but we are acting in partial capacity. when i hire somebody the first thing of the kendis experience. as i mentioned at the hearing, i think the senator's experience as an enlisted man is importance . a lot of there's a possibility of the defense department will be dealing with people returning from combat command dealing with soldiers, men and women who have been come at in iraq in afghanistan and i think having somebody in the position that he has been nominated for who has been there, who has been on the front lines and understands the stresses and the pressures, i think it is important. think it is important for the morale of the entire enterprise. in addition, he has experience in the senate. he is experiencing managing large organizations from experience an ongoing questions of public policy. and so that is where i start, experience.
look at the resonate. number two, the next thing to do when i hear somebody is check references. the references, mr. chairman, you read at the beginning of the meeting a list of people that are supporting him from both sides of the aisle. former secretaries of defense, people that are a who's who of national security policy in the estate's has supported him, and these are people that know him better than i do. upper lot of weight on that. what i see people like bill cohen and the secretary of defense secretary gates and gerry, those are serious people who we know that the interest of the united states and a very high level, and there would not be recommending someone that they did not feel confident. the third thing, of course, and it the interview. i think the interview was the confirmation hearing. and we had an opportunity to question him and high don't
think he was as -- i think the word feisty was used. i don't think he was as forceful as you might have been. and not sure how all of us would have done in nine hour here or ever was. it was a pretty long day, and i would say parenthetically, i remember the containment mistake i remember the moment he made it , and it was a mistake. he was using, he knew the policy as prevention, not containment. the word popped out. he used the wrong word. it was not a deliberate statement of a policy difference with the president. it was literally a slip of the tongue. the same thing of the legitimacy of the iran government. the party was making was, it is an established government. he used the word legitimate not in the sense that it was to the elected and met our standards but was an established government and as the senator indicated to my thinking and irrational reason for taking that position because he was afraid if he took that vote, as
senator website command would have been used as a license by the administration to take aggressive action for the nation of iran, so i think that was a national -- rational policy. the final thing i look for when looking to hire somebody's character. and this man has character. mr. chairman, at the beginning of the hearing you used the phrase committee would give the president and cars device with integrity. and that is a very high quality, very have my list. that is what the president needs to mind are as device, not someone who will agree with them but someone who will give him his best judgment and has absolute integrity. think it would have been very easy for him to agree with senator mccain in the hearing and avoid that content, but he was not there and did not do it. that shows me some integrity. finally, i agree with other people that have already stated, i think all role is not to
substitute their judgment for the presidents, not to say, this is to we would necessarily hired, but the difference goes to the president to build his team. i happen to think chuck iraq is a man of great integrity, great intelligence, and the kind of person that i think will be a strong leader for the department of defense and particularly for the men and women who are actually the war fighters. so i intend to vote for his nomination with confidence and enthusiasm. >> thank you very much, senator. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i am really concerned about process. i am concerned that this committee of and this entire nomination is being rushed and that we're being asked to vote, may be forced to vote before all reasonable requests for a commission had been received.
i am concerned about two categories in particular. one is financial disclosure information. i will leave the details of that up to the senator because he has been focused on that. i certainly echo his concerns. i want to focus on speeches. one clear category have the normal president of what the committee asks is speeches the nominee has made in last five years. that is standard, not anything outside the norm. senator hagel in response to that said he conducted an exhaustive search for all of my speaking engagements of the past five years. after that so-called exhaustive search here identified 80 speeches, 29 we have text for, 51 we go to. so one flag is 51 speeches he
has identified the we don't yet have the substance. that is not the biggest flag for me. the biggest flag is that we have found six outside speeches that he never identified. our staff has found them. we have a lot less of permission to go on that heated, and we found six additional speeches. five of those we just recently got text or video and have not been able to review. we have literally gotten those i think in the last 24 hours. one of those we know the deal exists. it is the june 13th 2008 keynote speech to the arab-american anti-discrimination committee. we know the video exists, but we don't have it yet. so my request is pretty simple, that we get that video and that we have some reasonable amount of time to review text or video
of these six speeches and any others that surface. that is squarely, squarely within the information the committee always requires. we are just delayed because senator hagel did not disclose it. we had to find it. and so that should not penalize us, and we should not reward him . again, right -- my request is simple. fine speeches have them but have not been reviewed yet, gun in the last 24 hours. when we know video exists to do not yet have it, solid like to be able to review that with others before this committee vote, and i think that is a pretty darn reasonable request. i would ask for unanimous consent to submit for the record the information regarding the speeches. >> i just ask for your response to that request. >> the question is that we ask of all nominees provide the committee with two copies of any formal speeches they you
delivered during the last five years of which you have copies and he answered that question. >> mr. chairman, my point is a pretty obvious one. he answered it -- >> did not have copies. he give us copies of everything that he had. irritable define transcripts of speeches from the organizations to which spoke informally, and that's fine, the audience to the questionnaires are reasonably did not answer accurately. formal speeches, two copies, last five years of which she had copies. unless you believe he had cabbies and did not provide them then your document will be except for the record, but that's it. >> mr. chairman cameos identified a total of eight speeches, including speeches which she did not have copies. >> that's correct. >> my point is, these six speeches were not most of the. >> and he did not remember the speeches. is that trying to hide speeches. he gave as 80. i could give you a list of every
speech i made in last five years, particularly in formal speeches. there is no way. i give you a list which had 90 percent of the speeches that i had tried doing pretty well, so unless you think that he intentionally misled this committee and an evidence of that will accept your list for the record. >> putting aside his fault it was or what his intent was, i can tell you what his intent was a consistent you the facts. putting that aside, is it not reasonable for us to review these six speeches we now know about before we vote? >> you have time in the next 44 hours to review many speeches that you have access to. the speeches, you can continue. far atf did he has spoken, 80 organizations after. ♪ comment to me may discover, hey, there are two other organizations and found transcripts. this can go on forever.
we need a secretary of defense. we've had the use of a nuclear weapon and north korea. we have made every single effort to provide all the information which this committee ever requires comment he has answered this question. unless you have evidence that he is not answer that honestly we will proceed. >> just in closing at think that request is per reasonable. of sorry it's being denied.
>> i heard all the different rhetoric that was going on and wanted to find out for myself so i ask the same questions i'm sure most of my colleagues had. what to make sure this was a personnel would not hesitate to defend their country under any circumstances. and i looked at his character pin unremembered he and die from the same era. the vietnam war very well. at that time. drafted by the hundreds every day. i removing some of my classmates . they'd come back in a box. and remember all that. here's natalie a person that waited to get drafted. he listed. not only did the analyst, he asked to go to the front. that told me right there everything i needed to know, he would not hesitate to defend this country. also, it was said that today's testimony, and i was there, and
that start thinking about the things that we have talked about here. it was less than stellar performance. i'm thinking if we were -- if we were all judged on our less than stellar performances as a senator would we be a senator day? so we have all had -- is been a bad day and we all had maybe a less than stellar performance if that is overlooking it. in the the thing is, the executive role, no, governor and most of you of putting your offices together, you're going to choose a person that you know that basically you have confidence that to me you believe then that would follow the orders that you are giving, and there is nothing that leads me to believe that he would have been nominated by president if the president did not have complete trust that he would do that. and so with all of that in mind and also, i ask the question directly about as well because i
believe very strongly is truly the greatest ally in the only ally we have been a part of the world and now want to make sure that his commitment to israel and i felt very comfortable with his answer is standing by israel. also his commitment that we would do whatever we could to prevent iran from having a nuclear weapon command have no doubt to believe -- i would say to all of us in this committee we would have to think that either the president or the commitment we have made to the state would not be followed through the thinking that he would not follow through on his orders that would be given to him. so i have not found any reason why i would not support the senator. also, the endorsements that were mentioned. so many people from both sides of the alcan route. if it was going to be a political -- the difference that we head down party lines would have thought that he would have only had made democrats or on
the other side of the republicans that would have been speaking for him, but when i saw the senator command to that hearing in the respect i have to republican from virginia, one of the -- i think one of the great centers, it gave me a little bit more confidence. let's put it that way. saw watch that. the eloquence beaches that have been given here. he is an independent thinking senator and a lot of things he said the things that we say as senators elected to represent our states but to speaker might command he did that. and it seems like now that is being held against him. i felt that was unfair. so for his commitment is prayer free, his willingness to not only fight but put his life on the line, and when i look around how many of us have really had that i pritchett your privilege
making the supreme sacrifice of called, -- called upon. senator mccain was said a minority of us have had their virginity the you had in the service they you have given to this country . that weighs heavily on me, too, making that commitment to vote for senator hagel who has done that. so i would hope that does not become a political vote, if you will. i would like to see a bipartisan about. i intend to support him, and i appreciate the opportunity to be able to speak on that. >> thank you, senator. senator, i don't know. i am sorry. were you here after? thank you.
okay. >> i am happy to defer to the senior senators. >> okay. we're going to the -- well, we are going to call on your side. it will be crews, wicker, sessions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. you will get me in trouble. >> better you than me. >> let me say it is a true honor to have your opportunity to serve on this committee which has a long tradition of bipartisan cooperation, working in the interest of the stations national-security. think there are few, if any decisions that will have a greater import than this committee's decision confirming or not confirming the secretary of defense and the potential impact of a national security of the united states. what i would like to address is
my views on the merits of chuck hagel nomination and also might use but his failure to disclose what i think are very relevant financial disclosures. on the merits, would like to say at the outset that my foreign policy views are considerably less hawkish than some members of this committee. i have concerns about the united states acting as the world's policeman after and take seriously george washington's admonition that we bull where foreign entanglements. that being said, i also agree strongly with the doctrine of peace through strength. i think the surest way to avoid military conflict is for the united states to stand strong against those who would initiate hostilities potentially instance and senator hagel, although i
very much respect his personal heroism and character and service putting his life on defending the station, his foreign-policy views laid out over two decades put him in the words of the "washington post", no conservative publication, near the french of the senate's in fact his views in the senate longer articulated have consistently made him the senator who has expressed the greatest degree of antagonism to the nation and as relevant and member of this body and the greatest degree of skepticism toward sanctions, toward any firm response to iran and those terrorist organizations that would seek to harm or to murder innocent americans. indeed, we saw with his
nomination something truly a extraordinary which is the government of iran formally and publicly praising the nomination of defense secretary. i would suggest to you that to my knowledge that is unprecedented to see a foreign nation like iran publicly celebrating a nomination, and on the merits in my view if chuck hagel is confirmed it will make military conflict in the next four years substantially more likely because in my view chuck hagel being confirmed will be encouraged the nation of iran to continue and accelerate its program to develop a clear weapons capacity, and if that occurs, the chances are far greater than our young men and women will be sent into harm's way. i don't want to see that happen, and i think encouraging those who would do harm to this country is not to ultimately in the interest of this nation. that is on the merits.