Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Would the Senator yield?

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I yield 2 additional minutes to the Senator from Mississippi.

Mr. INHOFE. Excuse me. Would the Senator from Michigan yield for a question?

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, I agree with a lot of what the distinguished chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee has said. Certainly Senator Hagel has had a brilliant military career. I sometimes look at my time in the Army and his time in the Army and mine is very unimpressive. That is not what the issue is. I do think it is interesting in the debate we have had on the floor, all the time from the Democrats has been talking about his military record. Nobody disagrees with that. That is a fact. But there are some things that have to come out because they are very significant. First of all, what we are going to vote on at noon is the vote. There is not any other vote. The vote after that is merely a simple majority and that would be automatic. Those who are expressing where they are on the Hagel nomination must be reflected in the vote that takes place now, the cloture vote at noon today. Our time is equally divided. Leadership time did take up some of that so we are a little bit scarce on time. First, let me make it real clear this is the one vote that makes a difference. If they are able to get 60 votes for the Hagel nomination, it is history. It is over. I do wish to say a couple things for clarification before others on our side start speaking. One is about the whole idea of a 60-vote threshold. I have been listening to some of the pundits on television. One of my favorites--I will not mention her by name, but she is kind of the leader of the far left on television. I was watching her a couple days ago and she was talking about how this is something that never happened before, we have never had a 60-vote margin on a Cabinet-level position. This is not true. It happens all the time. It is normal. This is how significant this confirmation vote is. It is not something that would make it go for a long period of time. Actually, I have lists. Later on, if there is time, I am going to go over some of these. Kathleen Sebelius, for example, that was a 60-vote margin; John Bryson for Secretary of Commerce, 60-vote margin. Here is an interesting one. Back when President Bush, who was a Republican, was President, he nominated Stephen Johnson to be the EPA Administrator. He was a Republican. The President was a Republican. Stephen Johnson was a Democrat. Of course the other side was saying, no, we are going to demand to have cloture, and they finally did get 61 votes on that; Dirk Kempthorne, same thing, Secretary of the Interior. This idea that this is the first time is just not right. I would appreciate it if people would be a little more honest when they are looking at that issue. They also have said we are in the middle of the wars, which we are. I am the ranking member on the Armed Services Committee. No one is more sensitive to it, no one spends more time talking to the troops than I do, and we do need to have confirmed a Secretary of Defense. Leon Panetta has said he will serve until such time as one is confirmed. But if we go ahead and if this should for some reason not be able to come up with 60 votes, I suggest they go ahead and nominate someone else and we will run it through. I would even help them. I called Leon Panetta not too long ago--I guess I should not say this on the floor--and asked: Why don't you agree to serve again? He has, of course, family reasons, and I certainly understand he was unable to do it. Michele Flournoy, I commented, would be one. I don't agree with her philosophically on a lot of things, but I think she is one who would not be controversial. Ash Carter--we have a number who could be confirmed in a matter of minutes, and I would be right there with them in order to help that take place. I do wish to say something about advice and consent. Sometimes people do not understand it. I had someone go back and research this. It started back in 1787. At the Constitutional Convention they talked about it. Back then they used the term ``approbation or rejection of the Senate.'' It means the same thing. This has been going on for a long period of time. Certainly, in the Federalist Papers, Hamilton talked about it as long as he talked about any other subject. So ``approbation or rejection of the Senate'' is the rejection language that was used at that time that is advice and consent today. Where are we today? Certainly, the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, from whom we just heard, is one of the strongest supporters of advice and consent who has said: ``It is shocking and sad to me that the Senate may vote on this nominee''--it doesn't matter, it could be any nominee--``while Senators are being denied critical, relevant information.'' The leader of the Senate has also said many times, he said ``raising the impression that the nominee and the White House have something to hide.'' This is exactly what now is going on in reverse. It goes on and on with different ones who have stated over and over again the significance of the role that the Senate has in advice and consent. John Kerry said: What the Senate has to decide is whether it is going to stand for the rights of the committees, the rights of advice and consent. The Senators ought to respect the fact that both the chairman and ranking members had requests and those requests had not been fulfilled. That is exactly what happened. We have one of the new Senators for whom I have a great deal of respect, Senator Cruz. I was talking to him last night. I said: You ought to come down and let them know why it is you are not speaking on this. He said: Look, what else can I do? I have requested over and over and over again for information on our nominee for Secretary of Defense and I have been denied. I have been stonewalled. What else can I say? I said--maybe it sounded a little extreme the other day when I said I would walk through fire for the ability of our members on the committee to get all the information they are entitled to. Senator Cruz has not received that information. That is something that I think is very critical. What I want to do, in the short time I have left over--by the way, I ask unanimous consent, if following me, if Senator Coats could be acknowledged for 5 minutes.

Mr. INHOFE. After the remarks of the Senator from Illinois, I have no objection.

Mr. INHOFE. The problem I had is not with information I had. I didn't need any additional information. I didn't request additional information. Many of the members on the Republican side of our committee did not receive the information they asked for. That was the case with Senator Cruz. I had a different reason. My reason is that while I think so highly of Senator Hagel and the work he did while he was in the Vietnam war-- he was, in fact, a hero--I have to also look at nominees and ask what their philosophy is. Senator Hagel was one of only two who voted against sanctions for Iran. He was one of only four who voted against an effort to designate the Iran Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group, and one of only four who refused to sign a letter of solidarity with Israel. The Global Zero movement advocates a nuke-free world. That sounds so good, and it is something President Obama has talked about. He wistfully looks to the day when we have a nuke-free world. That sounded good back in the days of the Cold War. I look wistfully back at the days of the Cold War. Back then we had two superpowers. They were predictable. We knew what they had. Mutual assured destruction meant something to them. Mutually assured destruction doesn't mean much to some people in the Middle East, and I think we all understand that. So Global Zero sounds good until we realize that we have countries such as Iran--even our nonclassified intelligence says it is going to have the nuclear capability and delivery system by 2015. I am concerned with that. I was in shock--and, first of all, I have to thank the chairman of the committee because in the years I served on the Armed Services Committee, I have never seen this done before--when the chairman agreed to allow Senator Cruz, a member of the committee, to use a video that had the Al Jazeera interview where Senator Hagel agreed with Al Jazeera's position that Israel has committed war crimes, that Israel has committed sickening slaughter, and that America is the world's bully. These are things which concern me about the attitude toward Israel. I understand we can go back and get a lot of people in the past to sign a letter, but I have to say that is still very much a concern of mine. With that, I will yield the floor to my good friend from Illinois.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I know the distinguished Senator from Delaware, Mr. Carper, wishes to be heard. He is not on the floor now, so I think it is acceptable to go ahead with another Republican now; is that correct?

Mr. INHOFE. I recognize the senior Senator from Texas, Mr. Cornyn.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it is my understanding we each have about 11 minutes. I will take my time and request to be acknowledged when I have 2 minutes remaining.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, this has been a good debate. We have repeated a lot of things that have been said before. There are just some things I think are worth repeating. I need to say over and over again, as often as I can, that nobody is impugning the integrity of former Senator Hagel. Everyone is very complimentary of the great service he has performed in military service. That is not the issue. That has nothing to do with it. The thing that is important is the fact that they have said continuously, over and over again, this is a filibuster. They have said this is the first time that there has been a filibuster on a Cabinet nominee. That is just not true. This happens all the time. In fact, in recent history there have been six demands for cloture on the Democratic side as opposed to only one on the Republican side. This is not a filibuster. Rather than take my word for it, take our Vice President Joe Biden's word for it when he said this is not a filibuster. He was talking about a controversial appointee. A letter was sent by him to his colleagues arguing that opposing cloture was not a filibuster. He said: ``It is a vote to protect the Senate's constitutional power to advise and consent to nominations.'' This is worth repeating. Vice President Joe Biden said it is not a filibuster. ``It is a vote to protect the Senate's constitutional power to advise and consent to nominations.'' This expresses the frustration of our new Senator from Texas, Senator Cruz, who finally just gave up. He said: You know, I have been wanting to exercise my constitutional rights all of this time. Senator Cruz said, I have said it over and over again, and I have requested over and over again the information to which I am entitled and to which I have a constitutional right. I am in a position to quote--I have already done it several times from this podium--our distinguished chairman, who also agrees we need to have those rights. Certainly, we have quoted Senator Kerry and others talking about the fact that requiring this information is simply something so ingrained in our system. This is not just Jim Inhofe and Alexander Hamilton talking, this is everybody throughout this country's history. This is one of the things that people should consider: This is not a filibuster, and we have not received the information to which we are entitled. It is not just Senator Cruz, it is others too. It doesn't happen to be me because I am opposing this nominee for many of the same reasons that the previous speakers, Senator Cornyn and Senator Wicker from Mississippi, have stated. I know we are close to running out of time. I think the senior Senator from Texas, Mr. Cornyn, brought out and has probably talked more--and has in the last month--about the concerns he has regarding the Middle East, with the attitude of former Senator Hagel to the various Middle Eastern countries and how Hezbollah, Hamas, all of those work into it. In the case of Iran, I am and have been concerned about the attitude of Mr. Hagel in terms of this group called Global Zero movement that wants to do away with nukes, even if it is unilateral. This isn't the way it used to be in the old days. As I said a minute ago, I look wistfully upon those days because it is not that way anymore. Our unclassified intelligence says Iran is going to have nuclear capability and a delivery system by 2015. Why would we want to bring down our nuclear capability in an environment like that? We also know and have watched recently what North Korea has done, all of them trading with China, Syria, and these other countries. It is not like it was in the old days. I need to mention this also because three of the previous speakers spoke about Iran, their concern about the statements that have been made in support of Iran by Mr. Hagel. If you look at some of the quotes that come from Iran, you need to remind people those guys are bad guys over there. One of their statements from their ministry was that people of the Middle East--the Muslim region and North Africa, people from these regions--hate America from the bottom of their hearts. Then they go after, of course, Israel. They said Iran's warriors are ready and willing to wipe Israel off the map. The Zionists will receive a crushing response from the Islamic Republic's armed forces, which will lead to their annihilation. This is the Islamist Revolutionary Guard, the same group which was to be declared a terrorist group when he was then-Senator Hagel, and he was only one of four Members of the entire Senate who objected to designating the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group. This quote is the one that received my attention the most, and it has directly to do with Israel. Iran said: They launched the myth of the Holocaust. They lied, they put on a show and then they support the Jews. This is interesting they would have that kind of a strong statement. I asked my staff this morning if they remembered a movie called ``Schindler's List.'' ``Schindler's List'' was a movie I never saw until it was on national TV 3 days ago, and I couldn't stop watching it. I couldn't turn it off. You need to look at the Holocaust from that perspective. Iran denies it even took place. You will not find any country or any area we have dealt with in the past that is more anti-Israel than Iran. I have to say also, if anyone wants to know some of my feelings, I have made over five speeches more than 1 hour each on the floor of this Senate about Israel, and they are entitled to the land. All of these issues are very important--the mere fact Iran would say the Holocaust didn't exist. Now, keep in mind--and I know the response to this is that we don't have any control over who supports him, but it is interesting, though-- that Iran supports Chuck Hagel's nomination to be Secretary of Defense. I mean, Iran arguably could be considered to be the greatest foe that is out there for the United States, recognizing the capabilities they are going to have and the statements they have made about the United States of America. That is frightening. So those are the reasons I was concerned initially about this nomination--and I think it has been said and said very well by the Senator from Mississippi, who went over all the details--and I think it is something that has to be looked at and looked at seriously. The idea that this process of requiring a 60 vote margin is new at a Cabinet level--I mentioned that a very prominent leftwing television station was talking about that over and over again, that this has never happened, there has never been a Cabinet position that has been filibustered. First of all, it is not filibustering. We know that because we heard that from John Kerry, Joe Biden, and all the rest of the people who have been concerned about the fact that there is something improper about cloture when it comes to nominees. There is nothing more important than a President nominating someone for these Cabinet positions, and it is very common that they are questioned by the opposition, by an opposition party to the President in the Senate. We are the ones who have that constitutional responsibility. I remember because I was sitting here when Kathleen Sebelius went through the same thing. She, obviously, had to finally have a 60-vote margin. John Bryson, Secretary of Commerce--I remember what he went through. Also, I recall very well Miguel Estrada. I remember being down here with Miguel Estrada, and they rejected him seven different times. They required a 60-vote margin. He always got in the fifties. The highest he got was 55. But he was rejected. So what we are saying is that this is not anything unusual. We all know about Dirk Kempthorne and Steven Johnson. Steven Johnson happened to be an appointee of Republican President Bush, yet he was a Democrat, and he was one where finally we were able to get the 60 votes. We got 61 votes. So, again, there is nothing unusual about this. My only plea is that we consider some of the things that are in the background of this nominee to be Secretary of Defense, as has been stated before. The fact that he is one of only two who were against sanctions in Iran, one of only four who opposed designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as terrorists, one of only four who refused to sign a letter of solidarity with Israel, and the fact that--and I do applaud and appreciate the chairman of the committee for allowing Senator Cruz to show the video of an interview on Al Jazeera--Senator Hagel agreed with the comment that Israel made war crimes or the statement that Israel committed sickening slaughters and that America is the world's bully. These all underscore the fact that Senator Hagel is not the kind of person we need as Secretary of Defense for the United States of America. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me just say everything has been said, not everyone has said it. However, I would like to make sure everyone understands the actual statements were made by the former Senator Hagel in terms of the relationship of our country with Israel and Iran prior to the time he was nominated because many of those statements were changed at that time. I encourage a ``no'' vote.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am very pleased that we have just confirmed Judge Bacharach. He is going to make a great Federal judge. I have just been real pleased, I have to admit; I was literally running from the airport to get here because they had plane troubles, and I saw Senator Pryor was in the same situation. So let me, first of all, thank the leadership for holding that vote open so I would not find myself in the embarrassing position of not voting to confirm my best friend from Oklahoma. So we are in that situation. Let me just say that I am very proud of him. He actually started on the Tenth Circuit as a clerk. So he really knows this stuff. He has been there for a long time. As part of his profile, as a future goal, he intended to improve. He has actually made that statement. I believe ``always working to improve'' has been a defining characteristic of Judge Bacharach's career. He graduated in the top 4 percent of his class in law school. He received all kinds of academic awards and maintained memberships in the highest orders of law school students. He began his legal scholarship on Law Review and has continued writing in a number of law journals. As I said, he actually started in the Tenth Circuit working as a law clerk for the chief judge. So he knows that circuit. I do not think there is anyone out there who would know it better. Judge Bacharach has multiple years of litigation experience working for the firm Crowe and Dunlevy in Oklahoma City and in public service as a Federal magistrate for the U.S. District Court in the Western District of Oklahoma. As evidence of his career of distinction, when Judge Bacharach was chosen to be a magistrate judge from a pool of many well-qualified candidates, the chief judge characterized the decision as ``an easy one.'' Since that time his colleagues have characterized his service as remarkable, demonstrating superb judicial temperament, and being a real asset to the Western District family and the legal community. As with any position in the judicial branch that comes with a lifetime appointment, the Senate must deliberate carefully; and we did and gave all the thought to this nominee, as was shown, clearly demonstrated by a unanimous vote for confirmation. You do not see this very often, but you saw it with Judge Bacharach. So I appreciate the opportunity to support him today and to have been able to call and be the first to congratulate him in this new part of his career, of which we are going to be very proud. I can assure the Presiding Officer and all the rest of us this is a guy of whom we will always be proud. So I say congratulations to Judge Bacharach. You are going to do a great job. We will depend on that, and we will be watching to make sure that happens. Thank you, Mr. President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Reserving the right to object, may I ask how much time remains on our side?

Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent that the last two speakers on our side--the last would be me, the next to last would be Senator Graham-- be given 5 minutes for Senator Graham and 7 minutes for me.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, my colleague, Senator Cruz, is ill and unable to speak on this nomination. He has, however, expressed his concerns to me in the form of a letter. I appreciate his contributions to this debate throughout the committee process. I ask unanimous consent the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, let me start off by saying that I agree with almost everything they have said on both sides about Chuck Hagel. I agree that he was a hero. I think of my own Army career and I think of his and how much greater his was. That isn't the issue. I think both Senator Graham and Senator McCain said it very well. Yes, his character is wonderful. We love the guy. He served his country. All of those things are true. The problem is the stances he has taken regarding Israel and countries like Iran. Israel has historically been a very, very close ally of ours and, I have often said, our only true ally in the Middle East we can count on. But we need to take a close look at Senator Hagel and how he would act, judging from his past performance, as the Secretary of Defense. The vote that is coming up at 4:15 is the vote for or against Senator Hagel. All of this talk about a procedural vote and filibustering: no. This is the vote to determine whether Chuck Hagel should be the next Secretary of Defense. This statement about filibustering has been made over and over again. They say this the first time this has ever happened. Look, we have people nominated all the time for Cabinet positions who are subjected to a 60-vote threshold. I will describe some of them right now, starting on the Republican's side: Kathleen Sebelius is now the Secretary of Health and Human Services. In 2009 there were a lot of people who didn't think she would be good, and so they objected to force a 60-vote threshold. That is what happened. John Bryson was up for Secretary of Commerce. I didn't think he would make a very good Secretary of Commerce. I opposed him, and he was subjected to the 60-vote margin. Here is the interesting thing. Today we have Barack Obama, who is a Democratic President of the United States, and then we have Harry Reid, who is the majority leader, so the Democrats are in control. During the last Bush administration, we had exactly the reverse. George Bush was President of the United States and a Republican, and the Democrats were in the minority--the same situation. So what happened? First of all, we had John Vogel come up. It was the same thing--subjected to a 60-vote margin. We had Senator Dirk Kempthorne. There were a lot of people who did not approve of him. He was nominated by President Bush, a Republican, and the Democrats didn't like him. They subjected him to a 60-vote margin. That wasn't a filibuster then. This isn't a filibuster today. People are trying to blame me as the bad guy who is causing a filibuster. That is not the case at all, any more than it was the case back in 2005, 2006, and other times when we had a nominee who was put forth by President Bush who was objected to by the Democrats. When Dirk Kempthorne was nominated to be the Secretary of Interior, there was a lot of opposition to him by the Democrats. Of course they said: We have to subject him to a 60-vote threshold. The Secretary of the Interior is a Cabinet position, but they seem to be drawing a distinction, for some reason, between the Secretary of Defense and any other Cabinet positions. As Cabinet positions, they are the same. And the process of requiring a 60-vote threshold happens over and over again. Senator Rob Portman--the same thing happened to him when he was appointed by President Bush to be the U.S. Trade Representative. The cloture motion was vitiated later on, but it was objected to first so that he would have been subjected to a 60-vote threshold. One that is kind of interesting is Stephen Johnson. President Bush appointed him to be the EPA Administrator. Actually, he was a guy whom I thought a lot of, and he was a Democrat. So we have here President Bush, a Republican, appointing a Democrat who was objected to by the Democrats. Now we have President Obama, a Democrat, nominating a Republican who is objected to by the Republicans. It is exactly the reverse. There is no difference at all. I am the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee. I will stand up and walk through fire to make sure every member of the committee has all their questions answered. That is what advice and consent is all about. We want to look at the individual. In the case of our committee, we want to make sure every member of the Committee has a chance to look at the process and make sure everything is out there. This is kind of a funny thing. The distinguished junior Senator from Texas, Mr. Cruz, lost his voice. For a Senator to lose his voice--what worse can happen than that? So he is not able to speak, but if he could, I believe he would say: It is not so much my concern, the issues that have been articulated by Senator McCain and by Senator Graham. My concern is about the process. Madam President, I give myself 3 additional minutes. The fact is this new member of the committee, a new Member of the Senate, knew he was entitled to have all his questions answered. He has tried now for weeks. He was stonewalled. He can't get them. So this is about the process. Senator Cruz is not making any accusations. He says: I just want the information I have asked for. I have the utmost respect for Carl Levin. He and I, despite what the media wishes, get along great. I love the guy. We disagree now and then on policy, but I really like him. The other day, Carl Levin said: Every member, every member should add his or her voice to the demand for the production of relevant documents which Senators need to decide on confirmation or for any other legitimate reason. I agree wholeheartedly with that, and that is exactly what these individuals are asking for. They are asking for that information. Senator Cruz is very articulate. I regret that he lost his voice today. In the past, every time the minority has objected and has wanted as a matter of procedure, to have a 60-vote margin, that is what has happened. It has happened with a consent agreement. I asked for that, and I think we have that now, but we had to force it. This is not a filibuster. It is the same thing that was required and requested by Harry Reid, back when he was the minority leader, against John Bolton, against Stephen Johnson, against Robert Portman, and against Dirk Kempthorne. This is a normal way of operating. A lot of us still don't have the information we want, but I am willing and they are willing. I have checked with the people who have not gotten all the information they want. They said: Let's go ahead and have the vote. So, in a way, are they caving in? In fact, they are just doing all they can to be conciliatory. I think we are doing everything we can. We are not filibustering, and we don't want to string this out. I repeat one last time that this vote is the vote on Chuck Hagel. It is not on procedure or anything else. It is a vote on Chuck Hagel. Madam President, I retain the remainder of my time.

Mr. INHOFE. Parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. INHOFE. Parliamentary inquiry before the clock starts: I understand we have 3 minutes left on our side. How many minutes are left on the majority side?

Mr. INHOFE. I don't see anyone seeking recognition, so I will go ahead and take the last 3 minutes. First of all, it is very interesting that all of those on the other side who are supporting Senator Hagel to be the next Secretary of Defense, not one of them has said anything at all about the issues. They all talk about the things with which we agree. He was a hero; we said it. Senator McCain said it and Senator Graham said it. We all agree he was a hero in the war, and he is deserving of this type of thing. Why is it that no one has mentioned that Senator Hagel is one of only two Senators who voted against sanctions against Iran? Why is it they don't mention that he was one of only four--in fact, all of them in the Majority signed a letter for solidarity with Israel. Senator Hagel was one of four Senators who didn't sign that letter of solidarity for Israel. The same thing with declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group. He was one of only four Senators who did that. I would only say this is not a filibuster. Everybody knows it is not a filibuster. I hope the media is listening: This is not a filibuster. This is the same process that was required by the Democrats in the case of John Bolton, in the case of Steve Johnson, in the case of Rob Portman, and in the case of Dirk Kempthorne. It is a prerogative of the Senate. It is not a filibuster. We merely want a 60-vote margin. We received it in all of those cases. I commented earlier that when we had a Republican in the White House and a Democratic majority in the Senate they made that same requirement. I was here in the Senate for all four of them. I never objected to requiring a 60-vote threshold. Then, of course, we had a 60-vote threshold for the nomination of Kathleen Sebelius, who is serving now in a Cabinet position. The same thing. This is a Cabinet position. We had the Secretary of Commerce, John Bryson. I objected to him. He passed the 60-vote margin. The only issue is the 60-vote margin, and that is what we are talking about. It is not a filibuster. The last thing I will do is read--since our last speaker is my very good friend and chairman of the committee--what he said the other day. I wholeheartedly agreed with him when he said every Member should add his or her voice to the demand for the production of relevant documents which Senators need to decide on confirmation. I agree with that. What we object to is the process where we have Members who have made requests for information that is relevant to this appointment, and they have been unable to receive that information. So it is a process. As the ranking minority on the Senate Armed Services Committee, I will stand up for the rights of every single minority member of that committee. Senator Levin would do the same thing and stand up for the rights of every majority member of that committee in this process. I thank the Chair.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Yes, I will.

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 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.

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.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. First of all, let me make a comment, if I could, to the Chair. It is my hope that we don't have sequestration with the military, with the Defense Department. I have been very much concerned about that. I am going to do everything I can to preclude that from happening. In the event that did happen--we are looking at about a month from now--I have an amendment I wanted to put on this bill. I could do it another way too, but perhaps as a freestanding bill. I wish to explain what it is, and then I wish to ask the distinguished majority leader a couple of questions. The amendment I had, or that could be in a freestanding bill, would give the Secretary of Defense the flexibility to implement the cuts under the sequestration in the least harmful way possible, that would authorize him to have the power to make adjustments within the confines of the sequestration so if there would not be any more money, it would not change that. It would allow the Chiefs to examine and determine whether they could make some changes to make something that could be catastrophic maybe less catastrophic. I have supplied a copy to the leader's office. What I wish to do--I don't want to object to this, because I want to make sure this continues. I wish to ask if I could have some latitude to help me to get this before the Senate so we could accomplish this. I would say this, through the Chair, to the leader, that I have already talked to not just the Chair of the Joint Chiefs but all of the Chiefs. They all say that in a period of 1 month, quite frankly, they are starting right now to see if there is something they could put together to make it less onerous should we have to have that. So I would like to ask if there is something that could be done through the leadership to help me get this done if the worst should happen and we should be faced with sequestration a month from now.

Mr. INHOFE. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. INHOFE. Through the Chair, I would make a comment that many times the distinguished leader has been helpful, such as with the highway bill and the pilots bill of rights and others, and I have to say I would not have been able to get them through without that support. What I would ask for is the same support to help me overcome some of the problems that would come with sequestration. To give an example, sequestration would cancel flying operations for four out of nine aircraft carriers, which would take about 9 to 12 months to restore at a cost of two to three times as much. What they could do with this bill, which I plan to introduce tomorrow, is have the latitude, while spending the same amount of money, to keep the flying hours where they are so they would not have to be restored in another vehicle. Little things such as that are significant. It also would address the problems we hear of every day from the Secretaries in the military--the various departments and the Chiefs-- having to do with the other problems on the CR. So this would address both of them and give latitude and make it better. I would just say I hope the leader could assist me in getting this bill through in a timely fashion that I will be introducing tomorrow.