[Pages S680-S692]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

EXECUTIVE SESSION

______

NOMINATION OF CHARLES TIMOTHY HAGEL TO BE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to proceed to executive session to
consider Calendar No. 10.
The clerk will report:
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

Motion to proceed to the nomination of Charles Timothy
Hagel, of Nebraska, to be Secretary of Defense.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the motion to proceed is
agreed to.

Cloture Motion

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk and ask
the clerk to report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

Cloture Motion

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of
rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, hereby move to bring to
a close debate on the nomination of Charles Timothy Hagel, of Nebraska,
to be Secretary of Defense.
Harry Reid, Patrick J. Leahy, Sheldon Whitehouse, Barbara
Boxer, Al Franken, Christopher A. Coons, Jack Reed,
Carl Levin, Kirsten E. Gillibrand, Claire McCaskill,
Robert P. Casey, Jr., Richard Blumenthal, Tom Harkin,
Dianne Feinstein, Bill Nelson, Jeanne Shaheen, Sherrod
Brown.

Mr. REID. This is the first time in the history of our country that a
Presidential nominee for Secretary of Defense has been filibustered.
What a shame, but that is the way it is.
I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum under rule XXII be
waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. I also ask that under the rule the cloture vote will occur
on Friday. Membership should plan accordingly.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Michigan is
recognized.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, now that the nomination of Senator Hagel is
before us, I want to begin this discussion and debate with a few
remarks about him. The committee approved this nomination and sent it
to the floor of the Senate yesterday by a vote of 14 to 11.
Senator Hagel has received broad support from a wide array of senior
statesmen, defense, and foreign policy

[[Page S681]]

organizations. At his January 31 nomination hearing before the Armed
Services Committee, Senator Hagel was enthusiastically introduced and
endorsed by two former chairmen of our committee, chairmen who have
huge bipartisan support and respect by everybody in this body and
everybody outside of this body who knows them. Those two chairmen are
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: Bob Gates, Bill Cohen, Bill Perry, Harold Brown, and Melvin
Laird. He has been endorsed by three former Secretaries of State--
Madeleine Albright, Colin Powell, and George Shultz--and by six former
National Security Advisers who served in that position for more than 20
years under six of the last seven Presidents.
Let me just share with our colleagues a few of the words of Senator
Nunn when he introduced Senator Hagel to our committee:

I believe our Nation is fortunate to have a nominee for
Secretary of Defense with the character, experience, courage
and the 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.

Continuing:

Chuck received two Purple Hearts in Vietnam, and when he
returned home he continued to fight for veterans and for
Active-Duty military personnel. He knows that our people are
our strongest asset. Second, Chuck's experience in Vietnam
shaped his life and his perspective. War for Chuck Hagel is
not abstraction. I am confident, if confirmed, he will ask
the hard and smart questions before sending troops into
battle. Chuck Hagel knows 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 our
vital interests.

Senator Nunn continued:

Certainly there is a tension in these values, but it is a
tension that we should welcome in the thought process and in
the advice that our Secretary of Defense gives to our
Commander in Chief and to this Congress.
From our service together on the Defense Policy Board in
recent years, I know that Chuck Hagel has a clear world view
and that it aligns with the mainstream of U.S. foreign and
defense policy, and also with President Obama. Chuck Hagel
believes that we must build and preserve America's strength
as a force for good in the world. He recognizes that
protecting our interests requires strong allies and friends,
as well as strong American leadership.

Senator Warner's extraordinarily powerful and warm comments included
as follows:

There is 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. He will lead them and they will know in their
hearts that we have one of our own.

Senator Hagel has received a letter of endorsement from 11 retired
senior military officers who say Chuck Hagel is uniquely qualified to
meet the challenges facing the Department of Defense and our men and
women in uniform.
He has received a letter of endorsement from nine former Ambassadors
who worked with him on Middle East issues. That letter says, in part:

Each of us has known the Senator over the past 20 years and
has found him invariably one of the best informed leaders in
the U.S. Congress on the issues of U.S. national security. .
. . Senator Hagel's political courage has impressed us all. .
. . Time and again he chose to take the path of standing up
for our nation over political expediency. . . . He has
invariably demonstrated strong support for Israel and for a
two-state solution and has been opposed to those who would
undermine or threaten Israel's security. We can think of few
more qualified, more nonpartisan, more courageous, or better
equipped to head the Department of Defense.

That is from nine former Ambassadors who worked with Senator Hagel on
Middle East issues. Let me read who those Ambassadors are: Nicholas
Burns, former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs,
Ambassador to NATO and Greece; Ryan Crocker, former Ambassador to Iraq
and Afghanistan; Edward Djerejian, former Ambassador to Israel and
Syria; William Harrop, former Ambassador to Israel; Daniel Kurtzer,
former Ambassador to Israel and to Egypt; Samuel Lewis, former
Ambassador to Israel; William Luers, former Ambassador to Venezuela and
Czechoslovakia; Tom Pickering, former Under Secretary of State for
Political Affairs, Ambassador to Israel and Russia; and Frank Wisner,
former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and Ambassador to Egypt
and to India.
Senator Hagel's nomination has been supported by the major groups of
American veterans, including the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Iraq and
Afghanistan Veterans of America, AMVETS, Vietnam Veterans of America,
and the American Legion. He has received support from the Military
Officers Association of America, Foreign Area Officer Association, and
the Non Commissioned Officers Association.
Senator Hagel has been endorsed by numerous newspapers, including USA
Today, which stated:

Many of the supposed weaknesses that Republican Senators
hammered him on are actually proof that Hagel takes
thoughtful positions and doesn't bend easily to pressure.

I would like to read just a few quotes from those organizations of
veterans who have endorsed him. The Veterans of Foreign Wars says the
following:

It is not the place for America's oldest and largest combat
veterans organization to advise or recommend to the President
who he should nominate for cabinet positions. However, the
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States considers Chuck
Hagel, twice wounded Vietnam War veteran, war infantryman,
and former two-term United States Senator from Nebraska, to
be uniquely qualified to lead the Department of Defense.

That is signed by Robert Wallace, who is executive director of the
VFW.
The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America wrote the following:

Without Senator Hagel's leadership in Washington, there
would not be a post 9/11 GI bill. Senator Hagel has always
been a strong advocate for veterans at the Department of
Defense. There is no doubt he will continue that legacy. Time
and time again, from Vietnam to the VA to the USO, Senator
Hagel has answered his country's call to serve, demonstrating
courage, character and resolve at every turn. We encourage
the Senate to approve his nomination swiftly.
Paul Rieckhoff, Founder and Chief Executive Officer.

The AMVETS National Commander Cleve Geer endorsed President Obama's
nomination of Chuck Hagel with the following comments:

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

The organization votevets.org wrote the following in a petition
signed by over 8,000 veterans and military families:

Senator Hagel is a tremendous pick for Secretary of Defense
who I know very well, and I have little doubt that he will
serve President Obama with distinction both as a voice of
reason within the administration and as a faithful advocate
for carrying out the policies of the Commander in Chief.

That was signed by John Soltz.
The Military Officers Association of America wrote the following:

While the Military Officers Association of America does not
endorse or oppose specific candidates for elected or
appointed office, we believe Senator Hagel is certainly a
candidate who is fully qualified for appointment to this
extremely important position. Our past work with Senator
Hagel has been very positive, and we believe that he brings
an important sensitivity to the human side of budget and
operational considerations. His experience as a combat
wounded Vietnam veteran, as deputy administrator of the VA,
and his two terms in the Senate provide a range of
perspectives that would serve any Secretary of Defense well.
We previously recognized Senator Hagel's efforts to protect
the interests of military beneficiaries with our Arthur T.
Marix Congressional Leadership Award. We do not believe that
cabinet nominees should be held hostage to political litmus
tests.

That was signed by ADM Norbert Ryan, USN, retired, President of the
Military Officers Association of America.
The Non Commissioned Officers Association of the United States wrote
the following:

We strongly support the appointment of Chuck Hagel to be
Secretary of Defense. His

[[Page S682]]

military service, including being twice wounded in action,
has instilled the values of service and personal sacrifice
for which he knows well the human cost of war. He has been an
advocate for soldiers, Marines, sailors, airmen and coasties
to ensure the training and equipage of America's 21st
military force coincide with a solid revised defense posture
to meet conventional and unconventional world challenges.
Senator Hagel has also championed personnel issues relating
to combat dwell time, force protection, transition issues,
including electronic medical issues, preparation for future
employment and training, and veterans benefits, including
enhancements to post 9/11 educational benefits. He also
recognizes the value and the sacrifice of families of the men
and women who serve in this Nation's uniformed services.

That was signed by Richard Schneider, executive director for
government affairs.
The Vietnam Veterans of America wrote:

We like Hagel. We think he is a great guy, and having a
combat veteran in there would be a good thing.

The American Legion wrote:

Hagel is a long-time member of the Legion. He served right
after he returned from Vietnam. He is a long-time advocate
for veterans in the VA, and especially for veterans exposed
to Agent Orange. Our organization has consulted with him,
among others, on various national security matters. Having
said that, the American Legion is prohibited by our
congressional charter from endorsing any candidate for
elected or appointed office.

The Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund, Jan Scruggs, founder and
president, wrote the following:

I first met Mr. Hagel in 1981 when he was the No. 2 man at
the Veterans Administration. He had just thrown out of his
office some people who were demanding that he stop his
support for Maya Lin's design for the Vietnam veterans
memorial. His integrity and toughness were impressive then.
Both qualities have grown since. Long before he became a
Senator, Mr. Hagel was an infantryman in Vietnam. He fought
the enemy up close, and he had to put Americans in body bags.
I am sure as defense secretary he would not hesitate to use
military force aggressively if our Nation or its allies are
in danger, yet he knows well that war is terribly
unpredictable and needs to be avoided. He has shown some fury
at those who have never seen war, but encouraged it during
the past decade. This is called courage. He has earned his
stripes.

Senator Hagel's credentials are underscored by the service in war and
in peace that has been described so eloquently in all those letters
from those veterans organizations. As a young man, Senator Hagel
enlisted in the Army and served in Vietnam, where he received two
Purple Hearts, the Army Commendation Medal, and the Combat Infantryman
Badge for his service.
He volunteered to go to Vietnam. He answered the question, where are
you, by answering, here I am. Senator Hagel served as Deputy
Administrator of the Veterans' Administration during the Reagan
administration. He was twice elected to the Senate, where he served on
the Foreign Relations and Intelligence Committees.
Since he left the Senate 4 years ago, Senator Hagel has served as
chairman of the board of directors of the Atlantic Council. The
Atlantic Council counts among its other directors and honorary
directors seven former Secretaries of State and four former Secretaries
of Defense, along with numerous other senior officials from the
administrations of both parties. The Atlantic Council is very much a
part of the mainstream of the American foreign policy establishment.
Much of the time and attention at our committee hearing was devoted
to a handful of statements Senator Hagel made over the course of his
career that raised questions about his views on Israel, Iran, and other
issues.
Senator Hagel explained and clarified these things and placed them in
context. He apologized for one remark, and told the committee he would
say other things differently if he had the chance or was making them
over. Senator Hagel was clear in the positions he takes today and that
he will take if confirmed as Secretary of Defense. In particular,
Senator Hagel stated unequivocally, first:

Iran poses a significant threat to the United States, our
allies and partners, and our interests in the region and
globally. Iran continues to pursue an illicit nuclear program
that threatens to provoke a regional arms race and undermine
the global non-proliferation regime. Iran is also one of the
main state-sponsors of terrorism and could spark conflict,
including against U.S. personnel and interests.

Second, he is ``. . . fully committed to the President's goal of
preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon . . . all options must
be on the table to achieve that goal . . .'' and his policy, if
confirmed, will be ``one of prevention, not of containment.''
Third, while he believes ``engagement is clearly in our interests,''
``engagement is not negotiation.'' He stated:

I've never thought engagement is weakness. I never thought
it was surrender. I never thought it was appeasement. I think
it's clearly in our interest. . . . [G]et the international
sanctions behind you, keep military options on the table. If
the military option is the only option, it's the only option.

Finally, he said that he is ``a strong supporter of Israel,'' and
believes that ``we have a special relationship with Israel.'' If
confirmed, he ``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
terrorist rocket attacks.''
Senator Hagel 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. Senator
Hagel told the committee:

[Sequestration] if allowed to occur, would damage our
readiness, our people, and our military families. It would
result in the grounding of aircraft and returning ships to
port, reducing the Department's global presence and ability
to rapidly respond to contingencies. Vital training would be
reduced by half of current plans and the Department would be
unable to reset equipment from Afghanistan in a timely
manner. The Department would reduce training and maintenance
for non-deploying units and would be forced to reduce
procurement of vital weapons systems and suffer the
subsequent schedule delays and price increases. Civilian
employees would be furloughed for up to 22 days. All of these
effects also negatively impact long-term readiness. It would
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 world.

One of our colleagues has alleged that Senator Hagel has failed to
provide complete financial disclosure and suggested, despite the
admitted lack of evidence of any kind, that Senator Hagel may have
received money that ``came directly from Saudi Arabia, came directly
from North Korea.'' There is no evidence for that, but that is the kind
of innuendo which was made and I believe should not have been made.
As a matter of fact, Senator Hagel has provided the exact same
financial disclosure the committee requires of all nominees, including
at least the last eight Secretaries of Defense. As required by the
Armed Services Committee and by the Ethics in Government Act, he has
disclosed all compensation over $5,000 that he has received in the last
2 years. As required by the Armed Services Committee, he has received
letters from the Director of the Office of Government Ethics and the
Acting Department of Defense General Counsel certifying that he has met
all applicable financial disclosure and conflict-of-interest
requirements. As required by the Armed Services Committee, he has
answered a series of questions about possible foreign affiliations.
Among other questions, the committee asked whether, during the last 10
years, the nominee or his spouse have ``received any compensation from,
or been involved in any financial or business transaction with, a
foreign government or an entity controlled by a foreign government.''
Senator Hagel's answer was, ``No.''
Senator Hagel, like all of our nominees, has undergone a thorough FBI
background investigation. Senator Inhofe and I have reviewed the FBI
file. The innuendo that Senator Hagel could somehow be hiding the fact
he is on the payroll of a foreign power is offensive to those of us who
have served with him and beneath the dignity of the U.S. Senate.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a series of
letters in which certain Senators requested certain financial
disclosure and the letter with which I responded.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[[Page S683]]

U.S. Senate,

Committee on Armed Services,

Washington, DC, February 8, 2013.
Hon. Jim Inhofe,
Ranking Minority Member,
Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate.
Dear Jim: I read with some concern a February 6, 2013,
letter that you signed with 25 other Republican Senators,
demanding that former Senator Chuck Hagel provide additional
financial disclosure information in connection with his
nomination to serve as Secretary of Defense. This letter
appears to insist upon financial disclosure requirements that
far exceed the standard practices of the Armed Services
Committee and go far beyond the financial disclosure required
of previous Secretaries of Defense.
Our committee has a well-defined set of financial
disclosure and ethics requirements which apply to all
nominees for civilian positions in the Department of Defense.
We require each nominee to provide us with the following: a
copy of the Nominee Public Financial Disclosure Report
required by the Ethics in Government Act--OGE Form 278; a
response to a standard committee questionnaire, which
includes questions on future employment relationships,
potential conflicts of interest, personal financial data, and
foreign affiliations; and a formal ethics agreement, which
outlines the steps the nominee will take to avoid any
potential conflict of interest, including a commitment by the
nominee to divest DOD contractor stocks within 90 days of
appointment to office, avoid buying DOD contractor stocks
while in office, and resign from non-Federal boards and
activities.
Before these materials are provided to the committee, they
are reviewed by the U.S. Office of Government Ethics (OGE)
and the DOD General Counsel's office--both of which are
familiar with the unique conflict of interest requirements
imposed by our committee--to ensure that the required
disclosures of information meet our standards. The leader of
each of these offices sends us a letter certifying that the
office has reviewed the financial disclosure and determined
that the nominee will be in compliance with applicable laws
and regulations governing conflicts of interest. Our majority
and minority counsels review these materials and work
together, through the DOD General Counsel's office, to
address any questions that may arise about the completeness
of the materials provided or the nominee's compliance with
our requirements.
We have applied these disclosure requirements and followed
this process for all nominees of both parties throughout the
16 years that I have served as Chairman or Ranking Minority
Member of the committee. I understand that the same financial
disclosure requirements and processes were followed for at
least the previous 10 years, during which Senator Sam Nunn
served as Chairman or Ranking Minority Member. During this
period, the committee has confirmed eight Secretaries of
Defense (Secretaries Carlucci, Cheney, Aspin, Perry, Cohen,
Rumsfeld, Gates, and Panetta), as well as hundreds of
nominees for other senior civilian positions in the
Department.
There are two unprecedented elements to the financial
disclosure demanded by the February 6, letter: (1) the
disclosure of ``all compensation over $5,000 that [Senator
Hagel has] received over the past five years''; and (2) the
disclosure of any foreign funding of eight private entities
from which Senator Hagel has received compensation since
leaving the Senate (including the date, source, and specific
amount of each foreign contribution). Each of these demands
goes well beyond what the committee has required of any
previous nominee.
With regard to the demand that Senator Hagel disclose all
compensation over $5,000 that he has received over the past
five years, the standard financial disclosure form which the
committee requires all nominees to provide calls for the
disclosure of all entities from which the nominee has
received compensation in excess of $5,000 (including clients
for whom the nominee personally provided more than $5,000 in
services, even if the payments were made to the nominee's
employer, firm, or affiliated business) during the previous
two years. The two-year disclosure requirement that has been
consistently applied by the committee is established in
section 102(b)(1)(A) of the Ethics in Government Act and
applies not only to all nominees for Senate-confirmed
positions, but also to all candidates for federal elective
office.
With regard to the demand that Senator Hagel disclose
foreign funding for private entities from which he has
received compensation, the February 6 letter asserts that
this information is needed because ``If it is the case that
[Senator Hagel] personally [has] received substantial
financial remuneration--either directly or indirectly--from
foreign governments, sovereign wealth funds, lobbyists,
corporations, or individuals, that information is at the very
minimum relevant to this Committee's assessment of your
nomination.''
In fact, the committee questionnaire addresses the issue of
foreign affiliations in a manner that is equally applicable
to all civilian nominees coming before the committee. Among
other questions, the committee questionnaire asks whether,
during the last ten years, the nominee or his spouse has
``received any compensation from, or been involved in any
financial or business transactions with, a foreign government
or an entity controlled by a foreign government.'' Senator
Hagel's answer to this question was ``No.''
The demands of the February 6 letter go beyond this
standard disclosure regime and would subject Senator Hagel to
a different requirement from all previous nominees, under
which he alone would be required to somehow ascertain whether
certain entities with whom he has been employed may have
received foreign contributions. In particular:
Senator Hagel serves without compensation as the Chairman
of the Board of Directors of the Atlantic Council--a ``think
tank'' that includes among its other Directors and Honorary
Directors seven former Secretaries of States and four former
Secretaries of Defense. The Atlantic Council's public website
provides a diverse list of corporate contributors, including
both domestic companies (such as Chevron, General Dynamics,
Lockheed, Raytheon, Boeing, Citigroup, Duke Energy, and Exxon
Mobil) and foreign entities (such as Polish Telecom, Saab,
All Nippon Airways, and the Istanbul Stock Exchange). Over
the 16 years that I have served as either Chairman or Ranking
Minority Member of the committee, we have considered numerous
nominations of individuals who were associated with similar
think tanks, universities, and other non-profit entities.
Even in the many cases where a nominee received compensation
from such a nonprofit entity, we did not require the nominee
to disclose the sources of funding provided to the non-profit
entity.
Senator Hagel has also served as an Advisory Board Member,
Senior Advisor, Director, Special Advisor, or Board Member to
seven domestic for-profit entities identified in the February
6 letter since he left the Senate in January 2009. His
financial disclosure report and committee questionnaire
indicate that he left four of these entities (Wolfensohn &
Company, National Interest Security Company, Elite Training &
Security, and Kaseman, LLC) in 2010 and has received no
compensation from them during the two-year reporting period
covered by the Ethics in Government Act. Nonetheless, the
February 6 letter demands that Senator Hagel provide ten
years of corporate financial data on foreign investments or
funding received by these entities. The forms and committee
questionnaire indicate that Senator Hagel continues to serve
as an Advisory Board Member for Corsair Capital, a Senior
Advisor to McCarthy Capital, and a Special Advisor to the
Chairman of M.I.C. Industries and that he has received
compensation for his service to these three entities. I am
doubtful that, as mere advisor to these companies, Senator
Hagel has either access to the corporate financial
information that is sought in the February 6 letter or the
authority to release such information if he were able to get
access to it. In any case, over the 16 years that I have
served as either Chairman or Ranking Minority Member of the
committee, we have considered numerous nominations of
individuals who were employed by for-profit entities of every
variety. We have considered board members, officers,
directors, and employees of companies doing business across
the full range of our economy. In this time, we have never
required the nominee to attempt to ascertain and disclose the
names of investors in such an entity.
The committee cannot have two different sets of financial
disclosure standards for nominees, one for Senator Hagel and
one for other nominees.
Sincerely,
Carl Levin,
Chairman.
____

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC, February 6, 2013.
Hon. Chuck Hagel,
Distinguished Professor in the Practice of National
Government, Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service,
Georgetown University, 37th and O Streets, NW,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Hagel: On January 29, two days before your
confirmation hearing, you received a request, via email, from
several Senators on the Senate Armed Services Committee for
additional information necessary to fairly assess your
nomination to be Secretary of Defense. The written copy of
the letter (delivered the next day) was signed by six
Senators, including the Ranking Member of the Committee. The
letter requested that you respond to the request before the
hearing, so that you could then answer questions concerning
your responses.
You declined to respond to the request for additional
financial disclosure.
At the hearing, you were told by Members of the Committee
that a response to our request for information would be
necessary before the Committee could vote on your nomination.
The Chairman of the Committee expressly asked you to submit
your response by Monday, February 4.
Monday came and went, and you still did not respond.
At the end of the day on Tuesday, February 5, you submitted
a short ``response'' to our request. In that response, you
explicitly declined to answer many of the questions asked of
you.
You were asked to disclose all compensation over $5,000
that you have received over the past five years. You declined
to do so.
You were asked to disclose if--and to what specific
extent--the Atlantic Council has received foreign funding in
the past five years. You declined to do so.
You were asked to disclose if--and to what specific
extent--McCarthy Capital has received foreign funding in the
past ten years. You declined to do so,

[[Page S684]]

You were asked to disclose if--and to what specific
extent--Corsair Capital has received foreign funding in the
past ten years. You declined to do so.
You were asked to disclose if--and to what specific
extent--Wolfensohn and Company has received foreign funding
in the past ten years. You declined to do so.
You were asked to disclose if--and to what specific
extent--M.I.C. Industries has received foreign funding in the
past ten years. You declined to do so.
You were asked to disclose if--and to what specific
extent--the National Interest Security Company has received
foreign funding in the ten years. You declined to do so.
You were asked to disclose if--and to what specific
extent--Elite Training and Security, LLC has received foreign
funding in the past ten years. You declined to do so.
You were asked to disclose if--and to what specific
extent--Kaseman, LLC has received foreign funding in the past
ten years. You declined to do so.
Your own financial records are entirely within your own
control, and you have flatly refused to comply with the
Committee Members' request for supplemental information.
The records from the other firms--more than one of which,
you have disclosed, paid you $100,000 or more--are highly
relevant to the proper consideration of your nomination. Your
letter discloses no affirmative efforts on your part to
obtain the needed disclosure, and your lack of effort to
provide a substantive response on this issue is deeply
troubling.
If it is the case that you personally have received
substantial financial remuneration--either directly or
indirectly--from foreign governments, sovereign wealth funds,
lobbyists, corporations, or individuals, that information is
at the very minimum relevant to this Committee's assessment
of your nomination. Such remuneration may be entirely
appropriate, but that determination cannot be made without
disclosure.
If you have not received remuneration--directly or
indirectly--from foreign sources, then proper disclosure will
easily demonstrate that fact.
Your refusal to respond to this reasonable request suggests
either a lack of respect for the Senate's responsibility to
advise and consent or that you are for some reason unwilling
to allow this financial disclosure to come to light.
This Committee, and the American people, have a right to
know if a nominee for Secretary of Defense has received
compensation, directly or indirectly, from foreign sources.
Until the Committee receives full and complete answers, it
cannot in good faith determine whether you should be
confirmed as Secretary of Defense.
Therefore, in the judgment of the undersigned, a Committee
vote on your nomination should not occur unless and until you
provide the requested information.
Sincerely,
(Signed by 26 Senators).
____

February 8, 2013.
Hon. Carl Levin,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. James Inhofe,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Levin and Ranking Member Inhofe: I appreciate
the opportunity to respond to the February 6, 2013, letter
from 25 Senators, including several members of the Senate
Armed Services Committee. I remain committed to providing the
Committee with complete personal financial disclosure, in
accordance with the applicable requirements of law and
regulation. In the spirit of cooperation, I have gone beyond
those requirements in several areas. For example, although
the committee questionnaire requires that nominees provide
copies of ``any formal speeches,'' I have sought transcripts
of informal speeches of which I did not have copies, and
provided those transcripts to the committee.
In that same spirit of cooperation, I have reviewed each of
the specific requests for information described in your
letter. While some of these requests appear to go beyond what
is either in my control or is mine to release under the law,
I am committed to providing what I can--and when I cannot, to
explain why not.
As you know, I previously submitted all of the information
required by the Committee's standard financial disclosure
processes. This includes information regarding compensation
that I received over the past two years, as reported on the
Nominee Public Financial Disclosure Report in Schedule D. To
assist you in reviewing this information, I have prepared a
chart that reflects all compensation over $5,000 I received
for that time period.
Further, you asked questions about whether, and the extent
to which, eight identified entities (with which I have been
affiliated) have received foreign funding in the past. As I
explained in my response to the Committee, dated February 5,
2013, my legal and fiduciary obligations prevent me from
releasing this kind of corporate financial information for
those entities that are privately owned/held. One of the
entities that you inquired about, Atlantic Council, is a
501(c)(3) organization which permits greater public
disclosure of its funding Streams. While Atlantic Council
does not make public a comprehensive list of all its donors,
it does publicly acknowledge its foreign corporate and
foreign government donors of $5,000 or more. I have attached
a copy of Atlantic Council's publicly available list of these
foreign donors over the past five years. Because I serve
without compensation, I have not been a direct or indirect
beneficiary of these contributions. Of the remaining seven
companies, McCarthy Capital, Wolfensohn, M.I.C. Industries,
National Interest Security Company, Kaseman, and Elite
Training & Security have authorized me to inform you that
they have not compensated me with any foreign-derived funds.
Corsair Capital has been advised by its outside counsel that
it cannot provide further information regarding its finances.
I wish to reiterate that I have not received any
compensation from or been involved in any financial or
business transactions with a foreign government or an entity
controlled by a foreign government. This is reflected in my
response to the SASC Questionnaire, Question 3, Part E--
Foreign Affiliations.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to your questions.
Sincerely,
Chuck Hagel.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the Department of Defense right now needs
its new leader. Its current leader, who has done a great job, has
announced he is leaving and has set a time for that departure.
We face a budgetary challenge of immense proportions--not just in the
Department of Defense but in all of our agencies. Our military is
engaged in combat operations overseas. North Korea has exploded a
nuclear device--highly provocative, highly objectionable--and must be
countered. The absence of senior leaders in the Department of Defense
will harm our national defense, will harm our men and women in uniform,
and sends exactly the wrong message to both our friends and our
adversaries around the world.
If confirmed, Senator Hagel would be the first former enlisted man
and the first veteran of the Vietnam war to serve as Secretary of
Defense. This background gives Senator Hagel an invaluable perspective
not only with respect to the difficult decisions and recommendations a
Secretary of Defense must make regarding the use of force and the
commitment of U.S. troops overseas but also with respect to the day-to-
day decisions a Secretary must make to ensure our men and women in
uniform and their families receive the support and the assistance they
need and deserve. It would be a positive message for our soldiers, our
sailors, our airmen, and our 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.
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 and he is well qualified to
lead the Department of Defense.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown.) The senior Senator from Rhode
Island is recognized.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when Senator
Lee concludes his remarks, I be recognized.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Utah is recognized.
(The remarks of Mr. Lee are printed in today's Record under ``Morning
Business.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Rhode Island is
recognized.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the
nomination of Senator Chuck Hagel to be the next Secretary of Defense.
He comes to this job at an extraordinarily challenging time for the
Department and for our Nation. Among the many issues he will confront,
Senator Hagel will oversee the drawdown of our forces out of
Afghanistan, the enhancement of our cyber defenses, and the management
of various fiscal constraints on the defense budget. In fact, I cannot
think of a more critical juncture of national security issues, budget
issues, and technology issues, all coming together, facing the next
Secretary of Defense.
I have known Chuck for many years, and I know he is particularly
well-suited to tackle these challenges. Chuck was born and raised in
Nebraska, the oldest of four sons of a World War II veteran. Public
service, military service is in that family's core. When his father
died suddenly at the age of 39,

[[Page S685]]

Chuck quickly shouldered the responsibility of helping his mother raise
his brothers. And when our Nation was in the midst of a bitter and
divisive fight in Vietnam, he volunteered to fight, serving alongside
his brother Tom. This was an era when there were many people who were
looking for ways through deferments to avoid service, to avoid wearing
the uniform of the United States. He was unusual in that he not only
sought service, but he sought service in Vietnam alongside his brother.
He rose to be an infantry sergeant, and both he and his brother were
wounded twice, with each saving the other's life. In that experience as
a combat infantryman, he knows, perhaps better than anyone who has been
nominated for this office, the ultimate cost of our policies that are
made here in Washington.
When he returned home, Chuck used the GI bill to attend the
University of Nebraska in Omaha, and after graduating from there, he
went to Washington to work for a freshman Congressman from his home
State.
In 1980 President Reagan, recognizing his skill, his talent, his
patriotism, and his devotion to the country, nominated him to be Deputy
Administrator of the Veterans Administration. He ultimately left that
post on a matter of principle. He thought there was inadequate support
from that department for veterans suffering from exposure to Agent
Orange. At that time, the effects of Agent Orange were being dismissed
by some as nonconsequential, as something that was just a made-up
malady by these veterans.
Chuck knew differently, and later the science would prove him right.
He continued to fight as he left the Veterans Administration, helping
to ensure that these veterans who were physically affected by their
service in Vietnam received compensation as the victims of Agent
Orange.
In that tenure as the Deputy Administrator of the Veterans
Administration, he had the responsibility of running a large Federal
department. So he is now bringing not only his service as a common
infantryman but his service running a large department devoted to the
veterans of these United States. That will serve him well as Secretary
of Defense. Again, it makes him singularly if not uniquely qualified.
But it doesn't stop there because he has extraordinary experience in
the private sector. In the mid-1980s he cofounded Vanguard Cellular
Systems, which became one of the largest independent cellular systems
in the country. Again, someone from modest means with great
imagination, after serving his country both as a soldier and as an
administrator under the Reagan administration, went back and started a
business and made it successful--so successful that he was able to
devote himself to other public activities.
He served as deputy commissioner general of the United States for the
1982 World's Fair. He was president and chief executive officer of the
USO, the agency devoted to helping servicemembers and their families.
Again, his commitment to the American soldier, sailor, airman, and
marine has been consistent, constant, and unrelenting.
Then he became chief operating officer of the 1990 Economic Summit of
Industrialized Nations--the G7 summit--in Houston, the president of an
investment bank, and he was on the board of some of the world's largest
companies.
So you already have at this juncture a soldier, a successful
entrepreneur, and a successful Federal administrator.
Then in 1996 he came to the Senate to represent the people of
Nebraska. He was the first Republican Senator from Nebraska in a
generation. We came here together. He came with all of these skills,
and he added more skills, understanding the political process from the
inside and from the outside that helped shaped national security
policy, the budgets and the policies of the Department of Defense and
every other Federal agency.
During his time in the Senate as a member of the Senate Foreign
Relations and Intelligence Committees, he championed national security
policies with the goal of ensuring that our military remains the
strongest in the world. Senator Hagel believes in working closely with
our allies and partners and that, in his words, ``a nation must
strategically employ all instruments of its power--diplomatic,
military, economic--to defend its interests.'' So he brings a broad,
comprehensive approach to national security, which is essential for our
next Secretary of Defense because so many of the national security
challenges we face are not simply military; they are diplomatic, they
are economic, and they are environmental. They require the kind of
broad-ranging approach that he takes to national security policy.
As he stated during his nomination hearing 2 weeks ago, he has one
fundamental question he has asked himself on every vote he took while
serving in the Senate: Is the policy worthy of the men and women we
were sending into battle and surely to their deaths? Is this going to
be worth the sacrifice, because there will be sacrifices.
It is one thing to study the art of war in lecture halls and to speak
profoundly as a pundit. It is something else to be in the mud, under
fire, seeing others fall. I have not had that experience. I served 12
years in the U.S. Army, but very few people, very few people in this
Chamber, very few people who would be considered for Secretary of
Defense, have been under fire, have seen comrades fall, know that
ultimately what we do here is borne by what those brave young Americans
do across the globe. He knows it intellectually and viscerally. I know
he will bring that perspective, that concern for our men and women in
uniform, to every decision before him as Secretary of Defense.
In this role, he will continue to focus our efforts on fighting
terrorism in Afghanistan and throughout that region. We are facing a
crucial turning point. In his State of the Union Address last night,
the President announced his plan to further reduce our force levels in
Afghanistan next year as the Afghan National Security Forces will take
full responsibility for securing their nation. I think Senator Hagel is
very well positioned to carry out this policy, to ensure it is
done effectively, to ensure that our forces are protected and that we
are able to help enable the Afghan forces to carry the burden to defend
their country and provide stability.

Senator Hagel will also lead the Department in preparing for emerging
threats to our national security, such as attacks on our cyber
infrastructure. We are at a critical point in our history, perhaps akin
to the 1920s when air power first began to emerge as a credible
military dimension, then later as space became a possible military
dimension. Cyber is now a new dimension in warfare.
We are at a similar juncture to the one when some of our colleagues
in the 1920s were wondering how we use these contraptions that fly
around the sky. But in a short period of time, air power made a
profound difference on the world. The attack on Pearl Harbor was
launched by aircraft from aircraft carriers, not by the bombardment of
battleships and not by the landing of military forces. You can see the
effect it had not only through World War II but in every conflict to
today.
We are at another critical juncture, and that is with respect to
cyber security. How will we defend ourselves? What policies will we
adopt to use this new technology to protect the United States and our
allies? It will require integration across our government. It will
require thoughtful, conscious deliberation. I believe he is prepared to
do that and will do that very well.
I am pleased that President Obama has just issued an Executive order
that will improve coordination and information sharing with our
industry partners so we can better protect our Nation's critical
infrastructure, but there is more to be done, and I believe that in the
context of a Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel can do it.
Perhaps most challenging of all, Senator Hagel will lead the
Department in a time of great fiscal constraints and uncertainty. As
our Nation continues to find a path forward to rebound from the
economic challenges of the last few years, there is an ever-growing
pressure to reduce the size of the defense budget, which has nearly
doubled over the past 10 years. But we must be very careful to do so in
a way that eliminates unsustainable and unproductive costs without
losing vital capabilities. That is a great challenge. As a result of
the high operations tempo of our services, the multiple operations and
deployments, all of our services are facing serious reset and
recapitalization

[[Page S686]]

needs in terms of equipment and also significant efforts to help our
military members and their families readjust, retrain, reequip, and
prepare for a challenging future.
Serious decisions will have to be made about the threats we face and
as we anticipate new and emerging threats. Again, he is well prepared
through his entire life of public service, military service, private
service, administrative and business activity to confront this
extraordinary range of challenges.
A lot has been made about some comments Senator Hagel has made in the
last years, going back 5, 7, 8, or more years. But I know, indeed,
which was reflected in his testimony, that he did not seek out this
position. President Obama chose to nominate Chuck Hagel because he knew
of his record, of his service to our country. He knew of his incredible
commitment to the men and women who wear the uniform of the United
States. He knew about his experience in the private sector. He knew
about his experience as a governmental leader. He knew there was an
ability to rely upon his judgments, Senator Hagel's judgments, with
confidence in times of crisis. I expect that the President of the
United States is not going to turn to Chuck Hagel, particularly among
crises, and ask him if can he quote verbatim what he said 10 years ago.
He is going to say: What are my options? What is your advice? You know
about war better than anyone. You know about military policy. You know
about international security. You know about the interaction of
diplomacy, economics, and environmental policy. Give me your judgment.
I have to make a decision.
I believe, reflecting what the Senator, my chairman, Carl Levin, has
said, that in this difficult moment, the President of the United States
needs a Secretary of Defense to provide that kind of perspective, and
the men and women of the Department of Defense have to have the ability
to have their voice heard decisively and definitively in those serious
discussions, particularly about the deployment of military force.
As I said, I am extremely confident he can do this. Let me also say I
am impressed with those who have served our country in diplomatic and
military roles who have endorsed Chuck Hagel strongly and
enthusiastically. These endorsements are from men and women who have
served in both Democratic and Republican administrations. Among them
are Bob Gates, William Cohen, Madeleine Albright, William Perry, Brent
Scowcroft, Ryan Crocker, and Thomas Pickering. These men and women have
devoted themselves to protecting the United States, and they have done
it with extraordinary energy and effectiveness. This list of
Secretaries of Defense will rank as some of the best we have ever had,
and they are absolutely confident Chuck Hagel can and should do this
job.
There are Ambassadors on this list who have handled delicate and
difficult issues involving international law. There are several
Ambassadors who have been Ambassadors to the State of Israel and
strongly support Senator Hagel. All of these individuals know him. They
also know as well--if not better than I and many of my colleagues--of
the threats, dangers, and opportunities which face this country, and
they are strongly supporting Chuck Hagel. In fact, they have concluded
in a letter that he is ``uniquely qualified to meet the challenges
facing the Department of Defense and our men and women in uniform.''
There has been a lot of discussion about Chuck Hagel's appreciation
of the strong, important, and critical relationship between the United
States and State of Israel. All I can say is I was so impressed by the
comments of the Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon, who was
also the Ambassador to Washington, and who has met and dealt with
Senator Hagel on a number of issues involving the relationship with the
United States. The Deputy Foreign Minister said: ``I have met him many
times, and he certainly regards Israel as a true and natural U.S.
ally.''
In another quote he said:

I know Hagel personally. . . . I think he believes in the
relationship, in the natural partnership between Israel and
the United States.

Here is an Israeli patriot who understands and has spent a great deal
of time devoted to the relationship of the United States and Israel. In
his own words, he concludes that Chuck Hagel regards Israel as a true
and natural U.S. ally and will act accordingly. He is a dedicated
patriot. He is an individual who has served this country in so many
different ways. I support his nomination, and I urge my colleagues to
do the same.
Also, I think it is important to state that this nomination--as we
have done with every Secretary of Defense for decades--deserves an up-
or-down vote on the floor of the Senate. People may choose to cast a
vote against him for many reasons, and that is the prerogative of that
Senator. I strongly believe, if we want to stay true to the traditions
of this body and to the presumption that the President should be
allowed to at least have his nominee voted up or down, then we have to
bring this vote to the floor of the Senate for an up-or-down vote as
quickly as possible.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Blumenthal). The Senator from New
Hampshire.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a
colloquy with my colleague, the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Sequestration

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, Senator Collins and I are here because
we agree we must take action in this body and in this Congress to avoid
sequestration. Sequestration is a term we have all been throwing
around, and it refers to the automatic cuts that are scheduled to take
effect on March 1. Those cuts were designed to force Congress to make a
tough decision and to take comprehensive action on our debt and
deficits.
I think we all agree there is no question we need a comprehensive and
balanced plan to put us on a more sustainable fiscal path. I think that
plan should look at all areas of spending. It should look at domestic,
mandatory, and defense as well as comprehensive tax reform. I think
there are many areas of bipartisan agreement on deficit reduction,
including controlling the long-term cost of health care.
Unfortunately, Congress has missed several opportunities to enact a
long-term plan to get our debt and deficits under control. That is why
we are again facing a deadline at the end of this month to address
those automatic cuts. As a result of that, we are starting to see the
very real and negative consequences of our inaction. We are seeing it
on our national security, and we are seeing it on our economy as
businesses and agencies alike begin to prepare for the automatic cuts
under sequestration.
Last week, Senator Collins and I wrote to the leadership in the
Senate urging bipartisan action on sequestration and the need to find a
better approach. In our letter, we talked about the impacts we are
starting to see in New Hampshire and Maine, including the threat to
jobs, our national security, and to the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard,
which is critical not only to New Hampshire and Maine but also to this
country's national security. We called attention to the drastic effects
we face for our economy, for our jobs, and for our national security.
Today we are here to reiterate the importance of addressing
sequestration and doing it now.
I wish to thank the senior Senator from Maine, my colleague, for
joining me to talk about this important issue, and I am looking forward
to hearing her remarks. I know it is something she cares about as much
as I do and as much as I think most of the Members of this Chamber do.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, first, let me say, I am very pleased to
join with my friend and colleague from New Hampshire to speak out
against the indiscriminate meat-ax cuts known in Washington as
sequestration that are scheduled to take effect in just 2 weeks' time.
We simply must take action to avoid this self-inflicted harm to our
economy and to our national security. But what I find inexplicable is a
growing acceptance that sequestration is going to go into effect
despite the fact that virtually everyone should concede that across-
the-board cuts

[[Page S687]]

where we don't set priorities do not make sense.
There are good programs that deserve to be preserved, there are
programs that have outlived their usefulness and should be eliminated,
and then there are programs that could be cut and reduced. That is not
the approach we are taking. We are not going through the budget in a
careful way by identifying programs that could be eliminated or
reduced, setting priorities, and making investments. No, we are
allowing to go into effect across-the-board cuts that fall
disproportionately on the Department of Defense.

Indeed, we are already seeing the effects of these cuts on our
military because each of the military services has begun planning for
the likelihood of deep budget cuts. The Navy is preparing for a
civilian hiring freeze and cutting workers at shipyards and base-
operated support facilities.
I wish to be clear exactly who these employees are. These are the
nuclear engineers, the welders, the metal trades workers repairing
submarines and ships at the Navy's four public shipyards, including the
Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in my home State of Maine, which employs half
of its workforce from my colleague's State of New Hampshire. I know the
senior Senator from New Hampshire shares the concern about this
particular installation on the border we share. But, of course, the
damage of sequestration extends far beyond just one installation or two
States.
Just this morning I was over at the Pentagon, and I took advantage of
the opportunity to sit down with the Navy's top shipbuilding official
to discuss what the impact of sequestration would be for our naval
fleet. Well, one example we have already seen. The Navy will keep the
USS Abraham Lincoln, a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, in port rather
than repairing and deploying it. Across the fleet, the Navy is being
forced to reduce deployments, maintenance, and overhauls for critical
repairs. When we look at the shipbuilding budget, it is evident that
sequestration and the continuation of a partial-year funding
resolution, known as the continuing resolution, would be absolutely
devastating for our Navy, for shipbuilding, and for our skilled
industrial base. That includes Bath Iron Works in Maine, which I am so
proud of, which builds the best destroyers in the world. This has
consequences not only for our workforce, but also for our national
security.
It is important to note Secretary Panetta has made clear that
allowing these sweeping cuts to go into effect would be
``devastating,'' in his words, and would badly damage the readiness of
the U.S. military.
The fact is defense has already taken a huge reduction in future
spending. The defense budget has been slated to be cut by $460 billion
over 10 years, and that is before sequestration. When this number is
added to the defense cuts scheduled to begin on March 1, we are looking
at an enormous impact on our national security.
Now, it is important to recognize we are not saying the national debt
is not a problem. Certainly, when we have a $16.4 trillion debt, that
is not sustainable, and the national debt is a security concern in its
own right. Just last year, in 2012, the Federal Government spent $223
billion in interest payments alone. That means we are spending more on
interest on the national debt each month than we spent in an entire
year on naval shipbuilding and the Coast Guard budget.
Just think about that. The interest payment in one month exceeds the
entire Coast Guard budget and the entire budget for shipbuilding in the
Navy. The estimates are that by the middle of this decade--not some
distant year--our interest payments to China, our largest foreign
creditor at $1.2 trillion, will be covering the entire cost of that
Communist country's military. Think of the horrific irony of that. At
the same time America is bound by treaties to defend our allies in Asia
against Chinese aggression, the American taxpayers are bankrolling the
threat through the interest payments we are paying to the Chinese.
Neither the Senator from New Hampshire nor I am saying the Pentagon
should be exempt from budget scrutiny or even future cuts, but the
disproportionate impact that sequestration would have on our troops and
on our national security is dangerous and it must be averted. The
Department cannot continue to operate on a continuing resolution that
increases costs, prevents long-term planning, and makes it impossible
for the Department to function effectively.
I yield to my colleague from New Hampshire to expand on some of these
points. Then we will talk further about the impact.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maine for
laying out what we are seeing in terms of the potential impact of those
automatic cuts. The comments and the statistics the Senator from Maine
had about China and what they are going to be able to do with the money
we are paying is really eye-opening and scary.
The Senator from Maine spoke about some of the impacts we are
beginning to see at the ports of naval shipyards. As the Senator
pointed out, it is something very important to both Maine and New
Hampshire. It employs about 4,000 workers, almost evenly split between
our two States. As a result of the sequester, starting March 1, one of
their major projects, the repair of the USS Miami, which was damaged in
a fire, is going to be halted immediately. Just stopped--16 days from
now. The Navy is going to cut over 1,100 temporary civilian workers,
mostly from shipyards such as Portsmouth. The needed maintenance and
military construction will be postponed indefinitely. It is not just
about those jobs at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard or at the shipyards
across the country, but that has a ripple effect across our economy,
and it affects the grocery stores and the restaurants and all of the
small contractors and small businesses doing work at those shipyards.
There will be ramifications for our national defense across the
services. Yesterday, we had some harrowing testimony in front of the
Armed Services Committee from all of the chiefs of the military
outlining what they see coming as a result of the consequences of the
sequester and the continuing resolution the Senator from Maine spoke
about.
DOD-wide--so across the Department--they expect to lay off a
significant portion of the 46,000 temporary and term employees. All
services and agencies will likely have to furlough most DOD civilian
employees for up to 22 working days. Imagine that. That is a whole
month of paychecks that those workers are not going to have to support
their families, to be able to spend into the economy, and that is going
to have a huge impact.
It is possible that DOD might not have enough funds to pay for
TRICARE, health care coverage for our veterans through the end of the
fiscal year. As we saw on the front pages of the paper this week, the
Department delayed the deployment of the USS Harry Truman, the carrier
strike group that was headed to the Persian Gulf. If sequestration goes
into full effect, the Navy will shrink by about 50 ships and at least
two carrier groups.

By the end of the year, the Navy, if we do nothing, will lose about
350 workers a week or 1,400 a month from our civilian industrial base.
That will have a huge impact in New Hampshire, as I know it will in
Maine as well.
So there are real, significant impacts, as the Senator from Maine
pointed out, on the defense industry, on this country's national
security, and on the domestic side of the budget. It is already
starting to have ramifications on our economy and job growth. We saw in
the last quarter of 2012 that our economy contracted for the first time
since 2009, and much of that decline was due to sharp reductions in
government spending in anticipation of the sequester coming into
effect.
We saw it in New Hampshire, in some of our businesses that are
dependent on government contracts, particularly in the defense
industry. So our failure to act is not only irresponsible, but it is
beginning to have a real impact in slowing down this economy.
It is simply unacceptable that we are not addressing this issue. We
need to act. If we let the sequester go into effect, we stand to lose,
according to the Congressional Budget Office, up to 1.4 million jobs. A
recent forecast from Macroeconomic Advisers suggests that sequestration
would reduce our gross domestic product by .7 percentage points this
year.

[[Page S688]]

We can't risk putting our economic recovery in jeopardy with these
indiscriminate cuts. They are going to have an impact on research and
education vital to our ability to grow this economy and remain
competitive.
The National Institutes of Health would face a $2.5 billion cut. They
would have to halt or curtail scientific research, including needed
research in cancer and childhood diseases. The Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention would see a $464 million cut. States and local
communities would lose billions of Federal education funding for title
I, for special education grants, and for other programs.
As many as 100,000 children will lose their places in Head Start,
25,000 teachers could lose their jobs, and we will see those impacts
immediately in Maine and in New Hampshire.
I wish to turn back to the Senator from Maine to share what she is
seeing in Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, first I wish to commend the Senator from
New Hampshire for broadening the debate and reminding all of us of the
macroeconomic impact, as well as the impact on our two States.
The estimate is that Maine's defense industry--which includes not
just the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Bath Iron Works, and our Pratt &
Whitney plant, but a lot of smaller contractors and suppliers--could
lose as many as 4,000 jobs as a result of sequestration. Think about
that. That means, as the Senator from New Hampshire pointed out, these
are people who are supporting their families and who are supporting
other businesses in the community. The impact, the ripple effect, is
just devastating.
That is why it does not surprise me that the Congressional Budget
Office has pointed to sequestration as the primary cause for the slow
growth we have seen already, and CBO projects as well; that our economy
would grow at a faster rate--at 2 percent--if we averted sequestration.
These aren't meaningless numbers. They affect real people. The
estimates are that we would lose between 1.4 million and 2 million jobs
if this is allowed to go into effect nationwide.
It is also a failure on the part of Washington to make decisions. If
we are going to allow these mindless, indiscriminate cuts to go into
effect, why are we here? We might as well have computers or robots
making decisions for us. Our job is to do the hard, painful work of
setting priorities and making decisions. That is why I am so frustrated
by the approach we appear to be on the verge of taking.
The Senator from New Hampshire makes a very important point. While
the Department of Defense would take a disproportionate impact from
sequestration, and I am extremely concerned about that, there are other
important programs that would be affected as well. The superintendents
groups have met with me and talked about what it would mean for
schoolchildren in Maine if halfway through the school year--more than
halfway through the school year--all of a sudden they get a reduction
in title I money that goes to low-income schools, to special education
grants, to other important programs such as Head Start, and the TRIO
Program, which helps low-income and first-generation students attend
and excel in college.
Think about the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, biomedical
research that is so critical, cuts in the FAA workforce that could
reduce air traffic control, disrupting air traffic during the busy
summer months.
The list goes on and on: essential education, health care, research,
transportation programs that deserve support that do not deserve to all
be treated the same.
Again, I want to emphasize that we recognize spending must be cut and
the debt, at $16.4 trillion, is way out of control. That amounts to
something like $52,000 for each man, woman, and child in this country.
We are committed to seeking pragmatic solutions through compromise
and to avoiding this devastation of our economy and our national
security. We recognize we have to look at all areas of spending and
that we need to overhaul our Tax Code and make it more pro-growth,
simpler, and fairer. If ever there were a moment when Members of
Congress and the President should put aside their politics for the
greater good of the Nation, now is the time.
So I, for one, want to thank the Senator from New Hampshire for
caring so much about this issue. We have agreed to work together--and
continue to work together--to address this. These automatic cuts were
never supposed to take effect. I remember being told: Do not worry. It
is never going to happen. It is too unpalatable. It will just never
occur.
Well, they were supposed to force us to make the difficult decisions
necessary to put our economy on a sound footing and to deal with our
unsustainable debt. Our Nation's leaders--the President, Democrats and
Republicans alike--have denounced sequestration for the most part, and
yet here we are.
So I hope we can work together to avoid this fiscal cliff which will
have such damaging effects for the people of this Nation.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Collins very much for
her kind words. I know we both care a great deal about this situation
we are in, as I think most of the Members of the body do. What is so
frustrating is that it is avoidable. This is not something that has to
happen because we are facing a crisis. This is happening because of
what we have done in our actions. So we can undo these actions, as the
Senator points out.
I share the Senator's belief that we need a comprehensive solution.
We have to look at all aspects of the budget. We need to look at
domestic, defense spending, mandatory programs, and we need to look at
revenues. Comprehensive tax reform--that is a way we can address that.
There are areas of bipartisan agreement that we ought to be able to
take action on right away. We have had a number of GAO reports that
make recommendations on duplicative programs within government. We are
already working to control the long-term costs of health care, to close
tax loopholes, and on defense spending, we all know there are still
reforms that can be done, as the Senator pointed out. We can get better
physical controls. We can end some of the fraud and abuse in
contracting. That is just the beginning of a list that, I am sure, if
we all dedicated ourselves to coming up with a compromise on how we
avoid the sequester, we could do.
We should not delay because our failure to resolve this issue is
having damaging effects on our economy, and it is only going to get
worse if we do not find the solution.
So, again, I thank Senator Collins for her commitment to address this
challenge we face, for her willingness to come down and engage with me,
and for us to work together, along with our colleagues, to try to get a
resolution so we do not have these devastating cuts going into effect.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator would yield for one
moment, without losing his right to the floor.
Mr. INHOFE. Yes, I will.
Mr. LEVIN. Before the Senators from New Hampshire and Maine leave the
floor, I just want to commend them for their statements, for their
conversation. It is so critically important we avoid sequester. The
more Senators and the more Members of the House who look for ways on a
bipartisan basis to avoid it, the better. We only have 2 weeks left to
go. With the kind of energy and creativity that these two Senators
bring to this body, it makes me a little bit more hopeful that we are
going to be able to avoid this unbelievably bad outcome.
So I just want to thank both Senators and thank my friend from
Oklahoma for yielding for a moment.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me, first of all, respond to the
chairman of the Armed Services Committee. I agree. We have talked about
the anguish.
We had a hearing yesterday where the service chiefs discussed the
disaster facing our armed forces if we go through sequestration. I do
not think most Members of this body fully understand what it means, not
just to the defense of our country as a whole, but to each of the
individual States.
In my State of Oklahoma, I am very concerned about Tinker Air Force
Base

[[Page S689]]

and its 16,000 civilian employees. What is going to happen there?
Anyway, let me just wind up this part by saying I have been ranked as
the most conservative Member for many years. But I have always said: I
am a big supporter of using our resources in two areas: One is national
defense and the other is transportation and infrastructure.

A short while ago, the majority leader was kind enough to call my
office and tell me I would be objecting to the consideration of the
nomination of former Senator Hagel to be Secretary of Defense.
However, this is not a filibuster. I keep getting stopped by people
out in the hall: Oh, we are going to filibuster. Who is going to
filibuster?
What we are doing is not a filibuster. We are seeking a 60 vote
threshold for a controversial nomination. If the majority really wanted
to move forward quickly, all they have to do is agree to a 60-vote
margin, like they did with the Sebelius and Bryson nominations.
In addition, as ranking member of the Senate Armed Services
Committee, I am obligated to assist the members of the committee.
First of all, the vote in the committee was a 100-percent partisan
vote. Every Republican there voted against moving the Hagel nomination
out of committee. Well, there has to be a reason for that.
One of the reasons--the major reason, I would say--and if you do not
believe this, go back and look at the tape of the meeting yesterday
where many of our members said: Why is it we are rushing to confirm
Chuck Hagel to be Secretary of Defense when he has not given us the
information we have requested? One such Member is the junior Senator
from Texas, who is in the Chamber with me right now.
But let me first clarify there is nothing unusual about requesting a
60-vote threshold. This happens all the time. I can remember when the
majority leader agreed to a 60-vote threshold in the 2009 nomination of
Kathleen Sebelius. She was confirmed.
There is nothing unusual about a 60-vote threshold.
John Bryson was nominated to be the Secretary of Commerce. Several of
us had concerns about this nomination. Ultimately, he was confirmed.
But once again the entire Senate agreed to a confirmation vote by a 60-
vote margin.
I can remember when the majority leader--let me say this about the
majority leader. He has been exceptionally good to me on things I have
been involved in. I have two major bills that were my bills. One was in
concert with Barbara Boxer--the highway bill. Frankly, I could not have
gotten it passed without them. Another was my pilots' bill of rights. I
could not get a hearing on it in committee. I tried for a year. He
stepped in and helped me. I have said in national publications I could
not have gotten it passed without Leader Harry Reid. So we have a very
good relationship, and one which will continue.
However, Senator Reid, on numerous occasions, was concerned about
Republican nominations. During the Bush Presidency, Stephen Johnson--
who, incidentally, was a Democrat--was nominated to be EPA
Administrator. I thought he would be good Administrator. There were
several Democrats who thought he would not be good Administrator. So
Harry Reid did what he is supposed to do, and he interceded on behalf
of the Democrats who opposed him. As result, cloture was filed and,
therefore, the nomination needed 60 votes to proceed. Well, the
Administrator got 61 votes.
Another example was Dirk Kempthorne. He was nominated to be Secretary
of the Interior. My colleagues will remember he is a former Senator
from Idaho. Some objected to his confirmation. Of course, this was
during the Bush administration. Senator Kempthorne was nominated, and
he went ahead and was confirmed. It was a 60-vote margin. There is
nothing unusual about this.
Getting back to Stephen Johnson, this is even more analogous to what
we have right now because he was a Democrat who was nominated by a
Republican President. Unfortunately, once again we were forced by the
Democrats to have a cloture vote which requires 60 votes.
Stephen Johnson was a Democrat. So here we had the Republicans
wanting Stephen Johnson and the Democrats not wanting Stephen Johnson.
It is very analogous to what we have today. Today, we have former
Senator Chuck Hagel, who is a Republican.
But in this case, we have a situation where cloture has been filed by
the majority leader. I have no objection to voting. I do not want to
wait. I do not want to string this out. I have other places to go other
than hanging around here. I would vote tonight if we could just get the
information that has been requested by the Republican members of the
Senate Armed Services Committee.
Keep in mind, the Hagel nomination was reported out of committee by a
100-percent partisan vote. All Republicans voted against sending him
out. Why did they do it? They did it because we have not gotten the
information we want.
I have a letter. This is a letter that is signed by 25 Republicans
stating that we have not received the information necessary for a
proper vetting of the Hagel nomination.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent it be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC, February 6, 2013.
The Hon. Chuck Hagel,
Distinguished Professor in the Practice of National
Government, Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service,
Gerorgetown University, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Hagel, On January 29, two days before your
confirmation hearing, you received a request, via email, from
several Senators on the Senate Armed Services Committee for
additional information necessary to fairly assess your
nomination to be Secretary of Defense. The written copy of
the letter (delivered the next day) was signed by six
Senators, including the Ranking Member of the Committee. The
letter requested that you respond to the request before the
hearing, so that you could then answer questions concerning
your responses.
You declined to respond to the request for additional
financial disclosure.
At the hearing, you were told by Members of the Committee
that a response to our request for information would be
necessary before the Committee could vote on your nomination.
The Chairman of the Committee expressly asked you to submit
your response by Monday, February 4.
Monday came and went, and you still did not respond.
At the end of the day on Tuesday, February 5, you submitted
a short ``response'' to our request. In that response, you
explicitly declined to answer many of the questions asked of
you.
You were asked to disclose all compensation over $5,000
that you have received over the past five years. You declined
to do so.
You were asked to disclose if--and to what specific
extent--the Atlantic Council has received foreign funding in
the past five years. You declined to do so.
You were asked to disclose if--and to what specific
extent--McCarthy Capital has received foreign funding in the
past ten years. You declined to do so.
You were asked to disclose if--and to what specific
extent--Corsair Capital has received foreign funding in the
past ten years. You declined to do so.
You were asked to disclose if--and to what specific
extent--Wolfensohn and Company has received foreign funding
in the past ten years. You declined to do so.
You were asked to disclose if--and to what specific
extent--M.I.C. Industries has received foreign funding in the
past ten years. You declined to do so.
You were asked to disclose if--and to what specific
extent--the National Interest Security Company has received
foreign funding in the ten years. You declined to do so.
You were asked to disclose if--and to what specific
extent--Elite Training and Security, LLC has received foreign
funding in the past ten years. You declined to do so.
You were asked to disclose if--and to what specific
extent--Kaseman, LLC has received foreign funding in the past
ten years. You declined to do so.
Your own financial records are entirely within your own
control, and you have flatly refused to comply with the
Committee Members' request for supplemental information.
The records from the other firms--more than one of which,
you have disclosed, paid you $100,000 or more--are highly
relevant to the proper consideration of your nomination. Your
letter discloses no affirmative efforts on your part to
obtain the needed disclosure, and your lack of effort to
provide a substantive response on this issue is deeply
troubling.
If it is the case that you personally have received
substantial financial remuneration--either directly or
indirectly--from foreign governments, sovereign wealth funds,

[[Page S690]]

lobbyists, corporations, or individuals, that information is
at the very minimum relevant to this Committee's assessment
of your nomination. Such remuneration may be entirely
appropriate, but that determination cannot be made without
disclosure.
If you have not received remuneration--directly or
indirectly--from foreign sources, then proper disclosure will
easily demonstrate that fact.
Your refusal to respond to this reasonable request suggests
either a lack of respect for the Senate's responsibility to
advise and consent or that you are for some reason unwilling
to allow this financial disclosure to come to light.
This Committee, and the American people, have a right to
know if a nominee for Secretary of Defense has received
compensation, directly or indirectly, from foreign sources.
Until the Committee receives full and complete answers, it
cannot in good faith determine whether you should be
confirmed as Secretary of Defense.
Therefore, in the judgment of the undersigned, a Committee
vote on your nomination should not occur unless and until you
provide the requested information.
Sincerely,
(Signed by 26 Senators).

Mr. INHOFE. This letter is signed by several Senators, but it was
promoted, more than by anyone else, by the Senator from Texas. The
Senator has repeatedly requested this information. I have personally
heard Senator Cruz request this information, just yesterday, and on
several previous occasions.
In a previous letter, he said: We express our concern--several
Senators also signed this letter--on the unnecessary rush to force
through a vote on Chuck Hagel's nomination before he has been able to
respond adequately to multiple requests from members of the Armed
Services Committee for additional information.
I'm reading now from the letter: Those requests have included a
request to Chuck Hagel for the disclosure of his personal compensation
he has received over the past 5 years.
We are talking about Chuck Hagel.
This is information which he controls. He can provide this
information. It is there.
The letter also requests the disclosure of foreign funds he may have
received indirectly. This is important because some have raised
questions of a potential conflict of interest.
Why does he not want to disclose this? Somehow he would like to be
confirmed without disclosing this information.
As Senators we have a responsibility here. I do not care if you are a
Democrat or Republican. If a member of the Armed Services Committee
requests this information and the information is available and he is
able to obtain it and does not provide it, we have a process problem.
Mr. President, my primary objection to Chuck Hagel's confirmation is
for policy reasons. That is why I think he is not qualified for that
job. Others do not agree with that. That is fine. But they have to
agree on the process.
In fact, I cannot remember--and I have been on the Armed Services
Committee in both the House and Senate for 25 years. I do not remember
one time when information that was requested, which was perfectly
within the purview of the committee was not provided. This has not
happened. This is unprecedented.
I heard some people say: you are filibustering a Cabinet appointee.
That is not what we are doing. What we are trying to prevent is an
unprecedented event where committee members do not receive information
which is important for Members to have in order to consider a
nomination.
So I will continue to read the letter.
The letter includes a request for a complete list of his prior public
speeches, notably, multiple additional speeches on controversial topics
that have been made public by the press.
For example, I understand FOX News is going to run a story tomorrow
regarding some speeches made by former Senator Hagel. If so, these
speeches would certainly give rise to a lot of interest because, I have
been informed, we are talking about speeches which were made and paid
for by foreign governments. I have also been told, some of these
foreign governments may not be friendly to us.
Therefore, I believe Senators are entitled to review this
information. Are we entitled to that? Yes; we are entitled to that.
So this letter includes a request for a complete list of his prior
public speeches, notably, additional speeches on controversial topics
that have been made public in the press, despite those speeches having
been omitted from his own disclosure.
I remember in the early stages of the confirmation process, requests
were made of Senator Hagel about information we knew existed because
the press had written about it in the past. Some may argue that
Senators are not entitled to review these speeches. I disagree. A
member of the Armed Services Committee has a responsibility to review
that information.
The letter also makes the critical request from the administration
for additional information on their precise actions during and
immediately following the tragic murder of four Americans in Benghazi,
Libya on September 11, 2012.
Regardless, if the administration has answered these questions, the
Senate is entitled to review speeches that have been made by the person
who is up for confirmation to be Secretary of Defense.
I would say to the majority leader, the request for a 60 vote
threshold is based on precedent. It is what the majority leader agreed
to on the John Bryson and Kathleen Sebelius nominations. It is what he
insisted upon when the Democrats forced cloture to be filed on the Dirk
Kempthorne and Stephen Johnson nominations. There are several others.
Michael Leavitt was one. John Bolton went through this twice. We all
remember Miguel Estrada. We remember Robert Portman, now one of our
fellow Senators.
So there is nothing unusual about this. But there is a problem with
the process we are entering now. That process is, we have made
requests--I am talking about Members such as Senator Cruz from Texas
and other members of the Senate Armed Services Committee who have made
perfectly reasonable requests for information. In this case, it is on
speeches reportedly made to foreign audiences. However, these concerns
can be clarified in a matter of minutes.
That is why we should not rush. If this information is provided we
could resolve this matter tonight. The information is out there. I have
personally talked to Senator Cruz. He said: Look, if they will just
give us that information we have been requesting now for weeks, we can
have the vote tonight.
That is our reasonable request. We are not talking about merits. We
are not talking about substance. We are talking about a process. Never
before in my memory has a Senate Armed Services member's reasonable
request been denied before someone has come up for a confirmation. It
is a simple request. It has been done on a regular basis. A 60-vote
margin is not a filibuster. We are merely saying the Senate is entitled
to this information. Hopefully, this will jar some of the information
loose. Maybe we can get it now. I hope we do.
I want to move this on and move it as rapidly as possible.
I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business for up to 15 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Climate Change

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I am here again to talk about the
effects of climate change on the health of our families and our
communities. Just as we know that secondhand smoke and too much sun
exposure are bad for human health, we know pollution and variations in
climate conditions are as well.
I wish to thank our chairman on the Environment and Public Works
Committee, Mrs. Boxer, for the briefing she held today with a number of
scientists, including one who spoke specifically about the human health
effects we can see from climate change. Climate change is threatening
to erode the improvements in air quality we have achieved through the
Clean Air Act.
EPA-enforced emissions reductions have led to a decline in the number
and

[[Page S691]]

severity of bad air days in the United States. These are the days I
know the Presiding Officer is familiar with because I am sure they
happen in Connecticut as well as in Rhode Island, where the air quality
is so poor that it is unhealthy for sensitive individuals: the elderly,
infants, people with breathing difficulties to be outdoors. Even
healthy people are urged to limit their activities when out-of-doors.
In Rhode Island, about 12 percent of children and 11 percent of
adults suffer from asthma. Both are higher than the national average.
Our Rhode Island Public Transit Authority runs free buses on bad ozone
days to try to keep car traffic down because these days are so
dangerous to the public. Of course, the major air pollutant behind bad
air days is ozone, commonly known as smog. Ground-level ozone or smog
makes it difficult to breathe, causes coughing, inflames airways,
aggravates asthma, emphysema and bronchitis and makes lungs more
susceptible to infection.
That all means asthma attacks, emergency room visits,
hospitalizations, which, in turn, result in missed school and work and
a burden not only of worry but also a burden on the economy. Smog, of
course, forms more quickly during hot and sunny days. So as climate
change drives more heat, it increases the number of warm days and the
conditions for smog and for bad air days become more common.
Climate change is also prolonging the allergy season. I am sure there
are a number of people listening who suffer from hay fever in the late
summer and early fall. Some people suffer from it most acutely. It is
most often caused by ragweed pollen. Since 1995, ragweed season has
increased across the country. It has increased by 13 days in Madison,
WI. It has increased by 20 days in Minneapolis, MN. It has increased by
almost 25 days in Fargo, ND. The further north you go, the greater the
increase in the ragweed season. So for folks in Fargo, for instance, it
is 25 more days of sniffling and sneezing and 25 more days that ragweed
pollen might trigger a child's asthma attack.
Not only does more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere mean warmer
weather and therefore longer pollen seasons, it also means a higher
pollen count. At 280 parts per million, which was the concentration of
atmospheric carbon back in the year 1900, each ragweed plant would
produce about 5 grams of pollen.
At 370 parts per million, which is where we are now--year 2000 levels
to be precise--pollen production more than doubles. It doubles again at
72 parts per million, which is the concentration that is now projected
for the year 2075. So as we work to improve air quality and to reduce
respiratory illnesses and the allergic conditions that trigger
respiratory distress, we need to fight the growing trigger, climate
change.
Warming oceans and lakes can also harm our health. Higher water
surface temperature is associated with harmful blooms of various
species of algae. These blooms are often referred to as ``red tide.''
They deplete oxygen, block sunlight, and they produce toxins. The
toxins are very often captured by clams and oysters and other
shellfish.
When they are consumed, it can result in neurotoxic shellfish
poisoning, which causes debilitating respiratory and gastrointestinal
symptoms. A warming climate also is predicted to change the range of
disease-spreading parasites, such as ticks and mosquitoes. With longer
summers and shorter winters, we will face more exposure to these pests
and to the diseases they can carry.
We in New England and Connecticut and Rhode Island and Massachusetts,
of course, are very familiar with lyme disease, which is a tick-borne
illness that can have very grave and serious effects.
Slow and steady warming is also causing sea levels to rise, which
threatens coastal infrastructure and human safety as well. In South
Kingstown, RI, Matunuck Beach Road is the only means of access to
approximately 500 homes. That road also covers the public water main.
For years, the sand erosion has eaten away at the beach. Now the road
is immediately vulnerable to storms. Indeed it has been overwashed in
recent storms. A breach in Matunuck Beach Road cuts off those 500 homes
from emergency services. If it were damaging enough, it could cut off
their water.
Our water quality is also threatened. Many of Rhode Island's
wastewater treatment plants are in low-lying areas and flood zones near
the coast. It is the story in many other States. In California, for
example, the rising sea level has put 29 wastewater treatment plants,
responsible for 530 million gallons of sewage processing every day, at
increased risk for flooding.
As we know, climate change loads the dice for more extreme weather:
heat waves, droughts, storms, all serious threats to human health and
safety. Climate change has led to an increase in the likelihood of
severe heat waves. Extreme heat causes heat exhaustion. It can cause
heat stroke. The need for air-conditioning in heat waves also strains
the power infrastructure, which can cause electrical brownouts and
blackouts. This hinders emergency services and exacerbates wildfires
and drought. These are the kinds of conditions--from extreme heat--that
led to literally tens of thousands of deaths in the record-setting
Russian heat wave of 2010.

Heavy rainfall can cause physical damage, flooding erosion, and
sewage overflow. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that
118,000 sanitary sewer overflows occur annually from storms overwashing
through combined sewer systems, overloading those systems, and being
released directly into the open, releasing up to actually 860 billion
gallons of untreated sewage and wastewater. In 2010, heavy rainfall and
flooding caused millions of dollars in damage in spilled raw sewage in
Warwick, RI, my home State. The flood led to the temporary shutdown of
the local wastewater treatment facility. These overflows, like the one
in Warwick, can result in beach closures, shellfish bed closures,
contamination of drinking water supplies, and other environmental and
public health problems.
Extreme rainfall, meaning both way too little and way too much
rainfall, promotes waterborne outbreaks of disease. In the northeast
United States, heavy rainfall has increased by 74 percent since my
childhood in the 1950s.
As we have seen with Superstorm Sandy, Hurricane Irene, and Hurricane
Katrina, storms can very quickly affect millions of people and require
tens of billions of dollars to clean up. The threat gets worse as sea-
level rise allows storm surges to reach farther inland and create more
damage than just a few decades ago. Much of the east coast was fearful
of flooding during Superstorm Sandy last year, including, of course,
southern Rhode Island. Because of erosion and sea-level rise, the storm
surges on our shores can reach homes that were originally built
hundreds of feet from the coastline.
I had the experience of standing with a man who had a childhood home
that had been through at least three generations of his family. He was
now actually older than me, and that childhood home--which had stood
well back from the beach--was canting toward the sea and tumbling into
the ocean. The ocean had claimed his home of multiple generations as
its victim.
This map shows by ZIP code where the 800,000 people displaced by
Hurricane Katrina sought refuge after that terrible storm. Hundreds of
thousands of people were strewn across every corner of the country.
Hundreds of thousands of lives were disrupted as a result.
Thankfully, not everybody is sleepwalking through these alarming
realities. In 2010, Rhode Island created our Climate Change Commission,
which has identified risks to key infrastructure and is analyzing data
from events such as Hurricane Sandy and the 2010 flood. Other States
have formed similar commissions.
I brought last night to our President's State of the Union Address
Grover Fugate, who is executive director of our Coastal Resources
Management Council, which has to look at and address every day and plan
for the effects of our rising sea level, increased storm activity, and
the risk that that portends to the shores of our ocean State.
For the past 3 years, Rhode Island has also been part of a regional
greenhouse gas initiative nicknamed ReGGie, along with our neighbors in
Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire,

[[Page S692]]

New York, and Vermont. Our region caps carbon emissions and sells
permits to emit greenhouses gases to powerplants. This has created
economic incentives for both the States and our utilities to invest in
energy efficiency and in renewable energy development. And consumers
have reaped the benefit of lower prices. In 2012, regional emissions
were 45 percent below the annual cap, so just last week the State
announced an agreement to cap future emissions at the 2012 rate.
I am proud of the work done in my State, and I know the Presiding
Officer's home State of Connecticut is working equally hard on this
issue. We are working to both slow climate change and to prepare for
what are now its inevitable effects. But sadly, when it comes to this
particular threat to our national security and our prosperity, Congress
is asleep. It is time for us to wake up. The health and safety of
Americans and of people all over the world is at risk. We must awaken
to what is happening in the world around us and to the fact that the
carbon pollution we are emitting is causing it. This is our
responsibility. This is our generation's responsibility. It is, indeed,
our duty. It is time for us to wake up.
Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Heinrich). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

____________________