quorum call:

mr. wyden: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: i ask unanimous consent to vacate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wyden: mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent to yield back the remainder of the time, and i would ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: without objection. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the question is on the nomination of michael h. simon to be united states district judge. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i ask the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. durbin: i rise in strong support of president obama's nominee to serve as our 23rd secretary of defense, leon panetta. big shoes to fill. gates has had a remarkable term as secretary and a remarkable term in public service. in addition to the challenges -- the challenges our military faces in this economic climate are significant. we must have a serious discussion about crafting a sustainable way forward. i sat down with director panetta earlier this month to discuss these challenges. i can say with certainty leon panetta is up to the test. he has the experience and wisdom required, and i look forward to working with him once the senate gives its advise and connecticut to his nomination. i have known leon panetta for a long, long time. we served together in the house of representatives and we worked

together in government for many years. he has an amazing history of public service to america. we served together on the house budget committee when we were both congressmen in the 199 1990's and he chaired that meet. he understands budgets and the challenges they present. as the director of the office of management and budget, he took that skill to the executive branch. as chief of staff to president william jefferson clinton, he crafted the proposal which brought us to balance our budget as a nation. it is hard to imagine that was only ten years ago, we had a balanced federal budget. in fact, we were generating a surplus, putting that money into the social security trust fund to make it stronger. ten years later, mired deep in debt, it's hard to imagine that that did happen, but it did and leon panetta was a big part of that occurrence. he advised president george w. bush on how to bring a close to the iraq war in a responsible

way, and for the last two years, he has had an awesome responsibility as director of the central intelligence agency. thanks to the president's strategic focus and director panetta's extraordinary leadership, special forces and c.i.a. operatives were able to locate and capture osama bin laden last month in pakistan. these are precisely the skills and experiences we need at the table at this moment. i know leon panetta is more than just a fellow colleague in the house and a person who shared some time in public service when i did. i know him as a person. i know his family. i know what he thinks. i know his values. i have to tell you, president obama and america are really fortunate to have a person of this quality who is willing to give even more of his life in public service. he could have stayed out in monterey, california, his home area -- and no hardship assignment -- but he chose not

to. he came to washington to head up the central intelligence agency and now has accepted this invitation to head up the department of defense. there is no question in my mind that he will bring to a an extraordinary skill level and amazing values. director panetta and i talked for a little bit about some subjects, and one near and dear to my heart, the dream act. the dream act is legislation that i introduced almost ten years ago allowing immigrant students who have no country an opportunity to contribute to america. these young people came to the united states with their parents when they were just kids and fants. they have lived here all their lives. all they want is a chance to prove how much they love this country. the bill i introduced said there are two ways they would be allowed to do it. one, to complete at least two years of college, to have obviously a high school diploma and a good background, but another to serve in our nation's military. i have been proud to have the

support of secretary of defense gates in this effort, and i look forward to the same support from the next secretary panetta. the dream act would strengthen our military, it would strengthen our nation, and i'm sure as general colin powell has said, immigration is what's keeping this country's lifeblood moving forward and these young people can help us move forward as a nation to be more -- to be safer and create more opportunity. we have a number of challenges ahead. our men and women are fighting wars in iraq, afghanistan and now libya. service members and their families have borne an incredible burden of sacrifice in these conflicts over the last decade. as a nation, we are spending tens of billions of dollars to sustain them in their efforts. at the same time, public support for these undertakings will not last forever. the current situation needs to change and the president is about to make an announcement when it comes to our troop levels in afghanistan. we have to craft a way forward that will deal honestly and responsibly with what is possibly one of our most

challenging situations in afghanistan. it has to begin, i believe, with a substantial redeployment of u.s. troops back to america from afghanistan. last week, i joined senator jeff merkley of oregon and 24 of my colleagues in a letter to the president expressing these concerns. i trust the president, the incoming secretary of defense and congress can find a responsible path forward. we need to take a hard look at every aspect of our federal budget including the department of defense to sustain our men and women in uniform but not to waste money on privatization, on contractors and on runaway contracts. as chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, admiral mullen has commented our greatest national security threat is our ballooning deficit. of course we need to protect our country but we need to do it in a fiscally responsible manner. even as we address the path forward in iraq, afghanistan and libya, even as we trim the

spending in the defense budget, we will not back away from our commitment to our men and women in uniform. i know that leon panetta shares that sentiment. mr. president, i support leon panetta as our next secretary of defense because now more than ever we need his steady hand, his leadership to tackle these challenges. in budgets, in management and the critical conflicts we're engaged in around the world. i congratulate president obama for selecting leon panetta for this awesome responsibility. i look forward to working with him on these issues and others in the years to come, and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: i would ask unanimous consent that dan engel defant of my office be granted the privileges of the floor for the remainder of the 112th congress. the presiding officer: ?r objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. reed: i rise to express my strong support for leon panetta to be secretary of defense. he comes to this post at an

extraordinary time confronting our nation. mr. panetta will oversee the completion of our direct military operations in iraq, the beginning of the transition of our forces in afghanistan, the enhancement of our defenses and the reduction of our defense budget. i have known leon panetta for many years, and i know he is particularly well suited to address all of these challenges. he is a man of great intellect, of great decency and great determination. at the end of this year, for example, in compliance with the status of forces agreement, we will conduct a withdrawal of our combat forces from iraq and hand over primary responsibility for our ongoing relationship with the department of state in regards to iraq. it remains to be seen whether the iraqi government will ask us to extend our military presence past december 31, but for now we are thoroughly and determinedly preparing our troops to leave.

having served as a member of the iraq study group, mr. panetta certainly understands the importance of this transition and will carry it out. as the next secretary of defense, leon panetta will also continue to focus our efforts on fighting terrorism in afghanistan and pakistan. we are facing a critical turning point in our operations. this week, we expect president obama to announce his plan to begin reducing our force levels in afghanistan this summer, a commitment he made in his speech at west point in 2009. along with the reduction in forces, we must sustain the security gains that we have accomplished during the past year and further build the capacity of the afghani forces so that they are able to take full responsibility for their own security. mr. panetta understands how important it is for all of our agencies to work together in this effort and all security missions, that using military force may be our primary weapon

in securing areas, but enduring success comes from coordination among the intelligence and law enforcement communities, from effective diplomacy, from effective assistance programs that are administered by the department of state and usaid. the conditions on the ground in afghanistan are directly related to our ability to successfully attack the terrorist networks that are operating along the border in pakistan. in its current position as director of the c.i.a., mr. panetta has reinvigorated these efforts. most notably with a successful raid on osama bin laden. indeed, i believe when history looks back, outside of the critical and ultimate decision by the president of the united states, one of the most important roles played in this effort to prepare the way for those courageous seals was the steady leadership of leon panetta at the central intelligence agency c.i.a. -- at the central intelligence agency. he understands the complexity of our relationship with pakistan and indeed throughout the world.

this expertise will be critical as we move forward, critical for our next secretary of defense. he will also lead the department of defense in preparing for the emerging threats to our national security, such as attacks to our cyberinfrastructure. indeed, every branch of government is working to define the roles of various organizations -- roles various organizations will play in protecting people, infrastructure and information within cyberspace. during his confirmation hearings before the senate armed services committee, i discussed with director panetta the strategy of the department of defense that they would employ in confronting the potential of a cyberattack against the united states, and he responded in no uncertain terms. his words -- "i have often said that there is a strong likelihood that the next pearl harbor that we confront could very well be a cyberattack that cripples our power systems, our grid, our security systems, our financial systems, our governmental systems. this is a real possibility in

today's world, and as a result i think we have to aggressively be able to counter that." end of quote. indeed, mr. panetta understands the future as well as the present, and he will bring his experience as well as his vision to bear on the emerging challenges that face the united states. and perhaps most challenging of all, leon panetta will lead the department in a time of great fiscal constraint. 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 ten years. we must do so in a way that moves unsustainable costs without losing vital capabilities. as a result of the high operational tempo and the duration of multiple overseas vote: operations, all of our services are facing serious reset and

recapitalization needs. serious decisions will have to be made to ensure that we have the right systems in place to meet the threats we face, all at a price level that we can afford. having served as the house budget committee chairman and as the director of the offices of management and budget, there is no one that has more knowledge, more experience, more sense of the details than leon panetta, and he is the most well qualified, i believe, individual to tackle the huge budgetary issues that are facing the department of defense. now, leon will have an extraordinary role to play, particularly in the wake of the extraordinary service of secretary of defense robert gates. i can't think of anyone i respect or admire more. i can't think of anyone who has served his country with more distinction, who has served it with more selfless dedication to

the nation and fundamentally who has made his decisions knowing full well that at the end of the day, young americans in the uniform of the united states will carry out his orders. bob gates has done a superb job, but i have every confidence that leon panetta will continue to carry on, will continue to meet those standards, will continue to lead the department of defense with distinction, with dedication and great loyalty and ultimately, just as secretary greats has done, we'll know that at the end of all the decisions emanating from the pentagon, there is a young american willing and able and ready to serve to support this nation and defend us. with that, i rise to express my vote: great support for secretary-designee panetta and wish him well in all of his endeavors and pledge to work with him closely. and with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor. mr. president, i would note the

absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: vote: quorum call:

the aries 6 4, the nays are 356789 the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the senate stphapbdz recess until when they return they will begin two hours of debate on

the nomination of leon panetta to be the new defense secretary. the final vote will be set at 4:15 later today. until the senate returns we'll show you mr. panetta's hearing before the senate armed services committee. he addressed a number of issues including withdrawal of troops in afghanistan, united states relationship with pakistan and the defense department budget. this was chaired by carl levin of michigan and we'll show you as much as we can until the senate gavels back in at about 2:15 eastern. >> good morning, everybody. this morning the committee meets to consider the nomination of leon panetta to be secretary of defense. director panetta is no stranger to testifying before congress. over the course of his long and distinguished career in public service we welcome you to the committee today and we thank you, mr. panetta, for your mr. manchin: mr. president? decades of dedicated service the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia.

to our nation and your mr. manchin: i rise in total willingness to answer the call once again. support plaintiff -- the presiding officer: the we know your wife sylvia is senate is in a quorum call. not able to be here with you mr. manchin: i ask the quorum today. call be dispensed with. she has made her own the presiding officer: without objection. mr. manchin: mr. president, i sacrifices over the last 50 rise in total support of years, supporting your efforts in both the public mr. leon panetta as the new and private sector. i know i speak for the secretary of defense. he is an outstanding public committee when i say we would love to thank her in sraerpbt and is a -- servant and person for the sacrifices she's made. has been a tremendous leader in director panetta. please let your wife know of every role he has held. the committee's gratitude for your support and her that being said, i rise to talk sacrifice. if confirmed, director about the war in afghanistan. panetta will replace secretary robert gates at the president will face two of the greatest challenges our the helm of the department of defense. when secretary, when nation faces. president obama asked the great -- the first is the secretary gates, then president bush's secretary war in afghanistan. of defense, to stay on in the second issue is the nation's that position, it provided welcomed continuity and debt. experience in our defense to the average person, 2002 may seem unrelated but they are in leadership. director panetta's fact directly related. nomination to be secretary they are directly related to the of defense represents change hard fiscal and strategic that brings an impressive

choices our nation must make if level of continuity as well. we are to remain safe and secure the next secretary of in the coming decades. defense will face an with respect to the debt extraordinarily complex set ceiling, the budget realities we of demands on our armed face are striking and forces. foremost among them are the frightening. mr. president, while some may ongoing wars in afghanistan choose to ignore this threat, and iraq. mere words cannot give weight to between these two conflicts the fiscal peril our nation we continue to have approximately 150,000 troops faces. only numbers can. deployed. since 1992, we have raised the the u.s. military is also debt ceiling 16 times. providing support to nato in 1992 our national debt stood operations in libya. ,, at $4.1 trillion. between 2002 and today, our national debt rose from $5.# trillion to over $14.3 trillion. now for the first time in our nation's history, our yearly budget deficits may exceed $1 trillion for four years in a row. at the current pace of deficit spending, c.r.s. projects our national debt will exceed $23.1 trillion by 2021. the congressional budget office projects that net interest

payments will increase fourfold over the next ten years from $197 billion in fiscal year 2011 to $792 billion in fiscal year 2021. to put that number into perspective, one decade from today interest payments on our $23.1 trillion debt will exceed the amount we currently spend on education, energy, and national defense combined. mr. president, numbers of this size are not only unimaginable, they will prove catastrophic for our nation's future. the fiscal peril we face reminds me of the words of the former senator said on this floor in declaring why he chose in 2006 to vote against raising the debt ceiling when our national debt stood at that time at $8.18 trillion. he said -- and i quote -- "the rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy robbing our cities and states of the critical

investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports and levees, robbing our families and children of critical investments in education and health care reform, robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they counted on. every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar not going to investment in america's priorities. that former senator was president obama. while the perspective on these words may ring different today, i believe they accurately capture the difficult choices we face today. the choice is this: will we rebuild america's future or not? today with our nation facing a staggering economy and a debt, spiraling debt, we cannot have it all or pretend we can. we must choose what as a nation we can or cannot afford to do. our risky debt threatens our national security. as admiral michael mullen said -- and i quote -- "i believe that our debt is the greatest threat to our national security.

if we as a country do not address our fiscal imbalances in the near term, our national having afghan security forces in the lead, with power will erode. would deprive the taliban and the cost to our ability to much their biggest maintain and sustain influences propaganda target. the claim, that foreign could be great." troops are occupiers of mr. president, we can no longer in good conscience cut services afghanistan. and there is nothing and programs at home, raise inconsistent between transitioning security taxes or -- this is very, very responsibility to afghan security forces and a important -- lift the debt ceiling in order to fund long-term strategic nation-building in afghanistan. relationship with ten years ago when our mission afghanistan. in afghanistan began, it was a which is also important to just and rightful mission to sustaining a successful seek out and destroy those outcome. responsible for the terrorist attacks on 9/11 and the deaths another major issue facing the department is the stress on our armed forces after of thousands of innocent ten years of nonstop war. americans. we overthrew the taliban government that provided safe the repeated deployments of haven to al qaeda. our military over the lastóóno we have hunted down and killed osama bin laden as well as most of the senior members of this terrorist group. today in afghanistan, in a nation of 30 million people, intelligence estimates suggests there are only between 50 and

100 al qaeda terrorists harbored there. because of the incredible work answer the call. of our military men and women, that we must act to reduce the mission of destroying al the number of deployments. qaeda in afghanistan by all and to increase the time accounts has been a success. between deployments. but the real truth is after ten the next secretary of the defense will be required to juggle the competing demands years our current mission in afghanistan has become less on our forces while about destroying al qaeda and washington struggles with an extremely challenging fiscal more about building a country environment. where one, frankly, has never the defense budget, will not existed. in february i saw firsthand the and should not be exempt from cuts. significant challenges our brave this will require congress troop face as they pursue this working with the next nation-building mission. secretary of defense to during the trip i heard from scrub every program and ambassador eikenberry and expenditure in the defense general petraeus. i visited helmand province and budget and to make tough choices and tradeoffs kandahar and met with local between the requirements of travel leaders and president our warfighters today and karzai of afghanistan. preparations for the threats what i heard from many officials of tomorrow. and diplomats was that progress the administration in could be just around the corner but only if we get -- give it february submitted a defense budget for fiscal year 2012, more time and more money. which included some i heard that we must stay to efficiencies savings. tkourpbt the threat of -- to but in april, president obama announced he wanted to counter the threat of al qaeda.

but then was told that only a reduce security spending by $400 billion over 12 years. handful of al qaeda members existed in afghanistan. starting in the next fiscal year. i was told that governance was presumably, including, under improving but that corruption the umbrella of security was so rampant that billions -- spending, the budgets of the yes, billions -- of dollars were lost to corrupt officials who pentagon, the departments of state and homeland security. seemed more interested in improving their own lives than now we've asked the the lives of their people. administration what part of i was told that we need a the $400 billion reduction sizable force to defeat the threat posed by the taliban but do they recommend be that estimating the size of the pentagon cuts and how many enemy was difficult. of those for fy-2012? still everyone acknowledges that their force is a fraction of the number of troops that we have so far, we've gotten no there now. i was told that because of answer. rampant corruption and theft, hopefully today we'll get the very cost of moving our mr. panetta's understanding supplies was directly or of that matter and his opinion on the central indirectly funding the very enemy that we face. fiscal issues. i was told that china -- yes, his service as president clinton's director of office of management and mr. president, china -- could budget is invaluable because reap billions of extracting he understands the billions of dollars by inner-workings of the budget extracting resources from process and because he shaped the decisions that afghanistan. but guess what? helped achieve the budget they are not contributing

surpluses of the late anything to the cost of 1990's. fortunately for the nation security. i was told that after years of director panetta brings a spending billions, training a compelling record of new afghanistan military and police force, that it could be achievement and experiences well-suited to the demands years longer before they could of the position for he's fully defend their nation and been nominated. their people. leon panetta has repeatedly and even then it would demand billions more in funding from demonstrated an ability to work across party lines. us. i was also told that we were since entering public building schools, roads and service in 1966, he worked infrastructure as well as providing billions in aids for on the staff of the small businesses and job republican whip in the u.s. creation so that afghanistan senate, headed the office of could become more civil rights in the nixon self-sufficient. but that today 97% of the afghan administration. he later won election to the economy is based on foreign aid, house of representatives as a democrat where he served eight terms and became and that is after ten long chairman of the house budget committee. years. i have been told again and again throughout his time in that american aid is critical to public service leon panetta rebuilding afghanistan, but that local projects built with has been guided by a clear, moral compass. american tax dollars could not he has said, quote, in be branded as american-funded politics there has to be a line beyond which you don't projects out of fear of go. the line that marks the reprisals. i was told that the people of difference between right and afghanistan truly want us there, wrong, but what your but was then told in a meeting with president karzai that it conscience tells you is was time for america to leave.

right. too often people don't know the american people have been where the line is. my family, how i was raised, hearing all of these arguments my education, all reinforced and the sad facts for nearly a my being able to see that decade. now after ten years, i had truly line. finally, leon panetta has hoped progress in afghanistan would be clear and the afghan been intimately involved in people would be united and their the most pressing national security issues of our time government and leaders would be one defined by honesty, during his tenure as integrity and a shared president obama's director of the central intelligence determination to build a better agency. state. but the real truth is impossible this includes his having to ignore. after ten years, mr. president, personally overseen the we face the choice of whether we manhunt for osama bin laden and the impressive operation will continue to spend tens of that brought an end to billions of tax dollars and lose al qaeda's murderous leader. precious american lives not on this operation epitomizes fighting and killing al qaeda, the way in which the cia and terrorists in afghanistan, but the defense department are by policing and building a state finally working together to where the leaders seem support each other in the indifferent to the difficulties of their people and their people counterterrorism operations. seem indifferent, at best, if the assault on bin laden's not hostile, to our presence. hideout is the first significant instance i mr. president, tomorrow president obama will present to believe of an operation that the american people his latest could have been conducted under defense department review on the war in afghanistan authorities, under u.s. code and whether our mission will

title 10, but that was change. instead executed under the as is already clear, some in this esteemed body will argue authorities of title 50 with for the president to stay the course, and others will suggest the director of the cia a very different course. exercising operational the question the president control over our elite faces, and we all face, is quite military force. now let me conclude by simple. will we choose to rebuild expressing on behalf of this committee our gratitude and america or afghanistan? our deep admiration for the in light of our nation's fiscal man whose shoes director perils, we cannot do both, panetta has been nominated mr. president. i believe that if we are being to fill, secretary robert honest with the american people gates. about the depth of fiscal secretary gates's service to the country has been challenges we face at home, it exextrordinary, having is impossible to defend the worked in the administration of eight presidents. mission in afghanistan in which he left the comfort and we are rebuilding schools, rewards of private life, training police, teaching people to read; in other words, following a long career in government, to serve his building a country even at the country again in the expense of our own. critical post of president neither the president nor any senator can divorce the bush's secretary of defense difficult decisions we must now at a difficult time in our make in afghanistan from the history. throughout his tenure across equality -- from the equally the bush and obama difficult decisions we must now administrations, secretary make on cutting domestic gates's leadership, judgment spending in order to raise the and candor have earned him debt ceiling. while the truth is the war on the trust and respect of all

who have worked with him. terrorism must be fought and it must be won, that war is not in secretary gates has combined afghanistan. and yet, with every passing vision and thoughtfulness month we are choosing to spend with toughness and clarity and courageous, firm, billions that we can't afford to fight a war against an enemy decision-making. that is no longer there. i would add right from the start secretary gates established a direct and mr. president, since the day i was sworn in, i have heard from open relationship with congress and this committee countless of my fellow west in particular for which i am virginians who ask how is it possible that we are willing to personally most grateful. spend hundreds of billions of dollars in afghanistan while we face mountains of debt and spending cuts here at home? how is it possible that we will choose to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to build afghanistan when our children, our seniors, our veterans, the poor and the middle class are being asked to bear the brunt of massive spending cuts? i have carefully thought over these questions over these many months, and after hearing from my constituents, seeing afghanistan again with my own eyes, listening to our soldiers on the ground, hearing from dozens of diplomats, foreign policy experts and the military leaders over these many months as well as confronting the truth

about the fiscal and economic peril our nation faces in the coming years, i believe it is time for president obama to begin a substantial and responsible reduction in our military presence in afghanistan. i believe it is time for us to rebuild america, not afghanistan. it is why i strongly agree with senators merkley and lee and the words of 27 of my republican and democratic colleagues who made it clear in their letter they sent to the president last thursday -- and i quote -- "we must accelerate the transferred responsibility for afghanistan's development to the afghan people and their government. we should maintain our capacity to eliminate any new terrorist threats, continue to train the afghan national security forces and maintain our diplomatic and humanitarian efforts. however, these objectives do not require the presence of over 100,000 american troops engaged in intensive combat operations."

mr. president, i believe it is time for us to compel the elected leaders of afghanistan and its people to take responsibility for the destiny of their nation so that we can ensure the destiny of ours. in that spirit, i have sent president obama a letter calling on him to pursue significant reductions and end the scope of our current mission in afghanistan well before 2014. i believe any further mission in afghanistan should, as my senate colleagues suggested in their letter, focus primarily on responding to any resurgent terrorist threat as well as providing targeted training for the afghan military and police. throughout this transition period and beyond, i have asked the president to provide the american taxpayer a monthly accounting to be published online of every dollar that will be provided to afghanistan government officials and agencies so as to ensure that no american tax dollars are lost to corruption and greed. as for those on the right or the left who believe that leaving

afghanistan sooner is responsible, i simply ask them: is ten years not long enough? i ask them to tell the families of our brave military men and women who are on their third and fourth tour of duty how much longer must they wait to come home? i ask them to look into the eyes of any american child and ask them to surrender our nation's future for the sake of another. i ask all of them to explain to the american people the sanity of spending $485 billion more on top of the $443 billion that we have spend to build afghanistan over the next decade at the very same time our nation drowns in a sea of debt. mr. president, the time has come to make the difficult decision. charity begins at home. we can no longer afford to rebuild afghanistan and america. we must choose. and i choose america. as i made clear when i ran for this esteemed office, i would not put my political party

before country, but would do my best to do what is right for the people of my beloved state and great nation, to that end i promise to speak out and take positions as difficult as they may be not for the benefit of my next election, but that are best for the next generation. it is why i spoke out about the debt to tell the american people and the people of west virginia that i would not vote to raise the debt ceiling without a long-term permanent fix. i did this not because it was popular or easy but because we as elected leaders of this great nation have a solemn obligation to rebuild our nation before all others. our economy, our prosperity, our schools, our children, our veterans, our soldiers, our workers, our seniors, our nation's future must come first. i for one will not look west virginians in the eye and tell them that in order to raise the debt ceiling, vital programs and funding for social security,

medicare, our schools, roads, health care, veterans, seniors, infrastructure will be slashed, but we will continue to spend billions building schools, roads and infrastructure in afghanistan. the time has come for us to realize the people of afghanistan, to choose their own destiny. we cannot build it for them. the time has come for us to realize that in this time of fiscal peril, our solemn obligation is to build up our own nation and that by doing so we will make america safer and stronger for generations to come. the words of the great west virginia statesman robert c. byrd ring even more true today than in october, 2009, when he gave his last floor speech and about the war in afghanistan, our friend said this -- "during a time of record deficits, some actually continue to suggest that the united states should sink hundreds of billions of borrowed dollars into

afghanistan, effectively turning our backs on our own substantial domestic needs, all the while deferring the costs and deferring the problems for future generations to address. our national security interests lie in the feeding -- no, i go further, in destroying al qaeda. until we take that and only that mission seriously, we risk adding the united states to the long, long list of nations whose best-laid plans have died on the cold, bar revenue, -- cold, barren, rocky slopes of that country called afghanistan. may god bless the men and women who serve this nation and the united states of america. thank you, mr. president. mr. mccain: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: mr. president, i rise in support of the nomination of leon panetta to succeed robert gates, but first i feel compelled to respond to the statements by the senator from west virginia, which characterize the isolationist withdrawal, lack of knowledge of

history attitude that seems to be on the rise of america. in case the senator from west virginia forgot it or never knew it, we withdraw from afghanistan one time. we withdraw from afghanistan and the taliban came, eventually followed by al qaeda followed by attacks on the united states of america. the senator from west virginia has expressed his admiration for the men and women who are serving. i hope he would pay attention to the finest military leader who will now be the head of the c.i.a., general pet petraeus, wi think his knowledge and background may exceed that of the senator from west virginia. if we leave afghanistan in defeat, we will repeat the lessons of history, and it is not our expenditures on afghanistan that are the reasons why we are now experiencing the budget difficulties that we are

experiencing. i'm pleased that the senator from west virginia went to afghanistan once. i would suggest that he consult with the people who know best that since 2009 when the surge began we have had success on the ground in afghanistan and we are succeeding. there are enormous challenges ahead of us, but as secretary gates has said, withdrawal to fortress america, which is basically the message of the senator from west virginia, will inevitably lead to attacks from them upon the united states of america. i view the senator from west virginia's remarks as at least uninformed about history and strategy and the challenges we face from radical islamicic extremism, including al qaeda. i urge my colleagues in the senate to vote in favor of this nomination today. director panetta has had an

extraordinary career of public service. he served in the house of representatives, representing his california district, for eight terms. he served in the white house as president clinton's chief of staff and director of the office of management and budget. since february, 2009, he has been the director of the central intelligence agency, strengthening that agency and forging positive relationships in the interagency process, and with the congressional intelligence oversight committees. it's my expectation that director panetta will work closely with general david petraeus, the nominee to succeed him at the c.i.a. and continue the cooperation and commitment that enabled the finding and elimination of osama bin laden. i'm certainly hopeful that as secretary of defense, director panetta will successfully lead the effort to find and eliminate ayman al-zawahiri, who we are

told has assumed leadership of al qaeda and other al qaeda leaders. zawahiri is a sworn enemy of the united states and our way of life, and like bin laden must be dealt with in similar terms. before discussing the challenges mr. panetta will encounter, i want to express my thanks and admiration for the service of secretary gates as he nears the end of his four and a half-year tenure as secretary of defense. i recall that through much of 2007-2008 we heard about secretary gates' countdown wristwatch that displayed the number of days until the new administration would take over in january, 2009, and he and his wife becky would finally return to their peaceful lakeside home and retirement in washington state. it's fortunate for the country that president obama asked and secretary gates agreed to postpone retirement and that he

continued to serve and presumably discarded that wristwatch. secretary gates testified at his nomination hearing on december 5, 2006, that he agreed to leave texas a&m university and return to government out of love for his country, and he and his family have provided one of the greatest examples i have seen of that kind of patriotism. answering the call to duty when his talents were most needed. for this and for innumerable other contributions he has made to the men and women of the armed forces, he has truly earned a place in history as one of america's greatest secretaries of defense. in december, 2006, at a time when so many senators were clamoring for a cut and run strategy in iraq, just as they are calling for a cut and run strategy in afghanistan, secretary gates made the following statement at his nomination hearing, and i

quote -- "while i am open to alternative ideas about our future strategy and tactics in iraq, i feel quite strongly about one point. developments in iraq over the next year or two will, i believe, shape the entire middle east and greatly influence global geopolitics for many years to come. the course over the next year or two will determine whether the american and iraqi people and the next president of the united states will face a slowly but steadily improving situation in iraq and in the region or will face the very real risk and possible reality of a regional conflagration. we need to work together to develop a strategy that does not leave iraq in chaos and that protects our long-term interests and hopes for the region. mr. president, you could substitute the word afghanistan for exactly what secretary gates then said in december, 2006. then we had the surge. there was 59 votes against the

surge that would call for withdrawal in the summer of 2007. some of us knew what was right and fought for it, and we have succeeded in iraq, just as we will fight to continue the surge in afghanistan and we will succeed in afghanistan and we will come home with honor, and afghanistan will not deteriorate to a cockpit of conflict between regional countries that will then cause again the threat of radical islamicic extremism to threaten our very existence. certainly pose threats of attacks on the united states. secretary gates was, of course, correct then about iraq. today we must add afghanistan and libya who was warning about the future consequences of the decisions we make today. in the next few months, our country faces decisions related to our national security and

defense that will echo for decades to come. decisions that will determine whether we remain the world's leading global military power, able to meet our many commitments worldwide or whether we will begin abandoning that role. one of these decisions that will have perhaps the most impact on this outcome is our response to the president's stated goal of cutting $400 billion in national security spending by 2023. on top of the $178 billion in efficiencies and top-line reductions that secretary gates already has imposed. secretary gates and admiral mullen who sounded the alarm against misguided and excessive reductions in defense spending that cut into the muscle of our military capabilities. if we get this wrong, it will result in a dramatic drop in u.s. influence and as secretary gates has said -- quote -- "a

smaller military able to go fewer places and do fewer things. defense spending is not what is sinking this country into fiscal crisis, and if the president and congress act on that flawed assumption, they will create a situation that is truly unaffordable, the decline of u.s. military power and influence. it's inevitable that there will be cuts to defense spending and some reductions are no doubt necessary to improve the efficiency of the department of defense, but i also remember general edward meyer, chief of staff of the army, warned in 1980 that excessive defense cuts over many years have produced a hollow army. that is not an experience that we can or should repeat in the years to come. we must learn the lessons of history. i sincerely hope that director panetta, upon assuming office, will not focus exclusively on

how but on whether the president's proposal should be implemented and will apply his independent judgment in providing advice to the president on the cuts that can be made without damage to our national security. last week, the committee on armed services completed its markup for the defense authorization act for the fiscal year 2012. in a very tough fiscal environment, this markup represents an effort to support our war fighters and bolster the readiness of the united states military. unfortunately, the committee chose to authorize hundreds of millions of dollars in unnecessary and unrequested pork-barrel projects and rejected my efforts to stop the out-of-control cost overruns of the f-35 program. the defense authorization bill is an important piece of legislation. while our country continues to be engaged in two wars and therefore i voted to move the bill out of committee.

nevertheless, i will continue my efforts, fight the egregious and wasteful spending during debate on the floor of the senate and i will urge director panetta, once he is confirmed, to caverrably endorse the proposals i will make to properly use precious national defense dollars. in addition, especially in this budget environment, it will be important to continue to eliminate weapons programs that are over cost, behind schedule and not providing improvements in combat power and capabilities. after ten years of war, we must continue to eliminate every dollar of wasteful spending that siphons resources away from our most vital need, enabling our troops to succeed in combat. one of the key criteria that i'm looking for in the next secretary of defense is continuity, the continuation of the wise judgment policies and decisionmaking that have characterized secretary gates' leadership of the department of

defense. as director of the c.i.a., mr. panetta has demonstrated that he possesses the experience and ability to ensure that we achieve our objectives in the three conflicts in which u.s. forces are now engaged. iraq, afghanistan and libya. in iraq, the key question now is whether some presence of u.s. forces will remain beyond the end of this year. pending an iraqi request and approval, support iraq's continuing needs and our enduring national interests. i believe such a presence is necessary, and i encourage the administration to work closely with the mall can i government -- with the malaki government to bring about this outcome. in afghanistan, the main question is the size and scope of drawdown of forces beginning this july. here, too, i would agree with secretary gates that any drawdown should be modest so as to maximize our ability to lock

in the hard-won games of our troops for the next fighting season. i hope director panetta as the secretary of defense will support modest reductions and take into action that would undermine the hard-won games in afghanistan. finally, we know that there is growing opposition to continuing the u.s. involvement in libya. there has already been one legislative attempt to bind the president's authority as commander in chief, and there will likely be others. in short, the accumulated ponzi of the administration's delay, confusion and lack of meaningful consultation will be a wholesale row volt in congress against the administration's policy. although i have disagreed and disagreed strongly at times with aspects of the administration's policy in libya, i believe the president did the right thing by intervening to stop a humanitarian disaster in libya. amid all

our arguments about legal and constitutional interpretations, we cannot forget the main point: in the midst of the most groundbreaking geopolitical event in at least two decades, a pesful protest for democracy sweeping the middle east, with qadhafi's forces ready to strike in benghazi and with arab and muslims in libya pands across the region pleading for the u.s. plilt to stop the bloodshed, the united states and our allies took action and prevented the massacre that qadhafi had promised to commit in the city of 700,000 people. by doing so, we began creating conditions that are increasing the pressure on qadhafi to give up power. director panetta has been nominated to lead our armed forces amid their 10th year of strained overseas combat. not surprisingly, this has place add major strain on our forces

and their families. yet our military is performing better today than at any time in our history. that is thanks to the thousands of brave young americans in uniform who are writing a new chapter in the history of our great country. they have shown themselves to be the equals of the greatest generations before them, and the calling that all of us must answer in our service is to be equal and forever faithful to the sacrifice of these amazing americans. i have outlined some of the challenges that lay before director panetta. i have the highest confidence, however, that he is their equal. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia -- the presiding officer: i ask to answer the senator.

the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum. a senator: i ask to dispense with the quorum. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. manchin: i can only report what i was seen. i've been there twice, i was there as a governor in 2006 in afghanistan, representing the great national guard of west virginia. i went back in 2010. i did not see an improvement. i see deterioration. i did not see a country that had an infrastructure. i saw corrupt leadership. with that, i know that the senator has had much more experience than that. i can only speak from a sense of common sense and speaking to the people of west virginia and what they feel. ware very patriotic state. -- we are a very patriotic state. if ten years is not enough, how long is enough? and i think that's the question being asked. the sacrifices that are being asked by them. when we can't build the water lines and sewer lines in west

virginia and fix the roads and repair the bridges, yet they hear the billions we're aide spending in a country that really doesn't want us there, i think it is time to leave. and respectfully, sir, that might be the disagreement we have. thank you. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the

senator from south carolina. mr. graham: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. graham: i ask that the quorum call be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. graham: i rise today in support of leon panetta for secretary of defense to the president. you have chosen wisely. you have a terrific national >> they put their lives on the security team in place. line to fight for america. general petraeus to become the c.i.a. director, mr. done l.a.n. and i will just as surely fight for them and for the families has done a great job as national who support and sustain them. security advisor. as director of the cia, i had no leon panetta -- could not have chosen better. so i am very pleased with more solemn duty than sending ambassador crocker, young people into harm's way to ambassador eikenberry and general petraeus put their lives on the line. after we lost seven of our dondone a heck after job over in colleagues in afghanistan, in afghanistan. december of 2009, i had to do leon panetta heading up the department of defense is just a what my colleagues in the home-run choice. military do all too often. i've known leon for quite a while, and i just want to let visit the wounded at bethesda. the country know that i think the president made a very wise attend the ramp ceremony at decision. now, tomorrow night he's

supposed to tell us about dover. offer a prayer at the site of an afghanistan. it's my -- from my point of view, for what it's worth -- arlington cemetery grave site. mr. schumer: will nigh colleague yield senator a moment? mr. graham: yes. mr. schumer: before he goes on to afghanistan, if the gentleman would yield, i want to add my accolades about leon panetta. no one day will pass for the i know him well. brave souls who fought and died we actually roomed together for and who fought today for our 11 years here in washington. he is a strong man. he is a smart man. freedom. as secretary gates emphasized in he is an honorable man. his last trip to the troops, he he's devout plan, and he will be will always be in my thoughts a great secretary of defense. so i wanted to thank my and my prayers. colleague for praising him and i pledge to you that i will always keep our troops foremost in my mind. add my accolades. that i will be a careful steward mr. graham: thank you. of our nation's precious that shows you -- that's about as bipartisan as it will get. resources. it shows you the depth of the and that you'll always have my best and most candid advice and way leon panetta view him up that i will always, always seek here. one of the first decisions he will have to make is what to tell the president about afghanistan. yours. as you know, i am the son of i know we're war-weary.

we've been there ten years. the reason we went there to italian immigrants. begin with, we didn't just throw my father used to say to me time and time again, to be free we a dart at a map. that's the place where the taliban were controlling and have to be secure. that's the pledge that i make to vinted al qaeda to come in to be their honored guest. bin laden had a welcome home in you. that i will do everything i can to keep america secure so that afghanistan. the rest is history. so president bush understood the it can be free. taliban were a force for evil. they allowed bin laden to come to afghanistan and planned the i will as confirmed as secretary atasks fil 9/11. of defense. we went in to take the taliban thank you. >> thank you, director panetta, a powerful and very moving and down. we have a war in iraq. we can debate whether we should have went into iraq or not. but the truth of the matter is, straightforward statement. we have standard questions which one of the reasons that we're still sort of in the infant we ask of nominees before we stage -- not the infant stage, take turns at asking our own but we're a not where we'd like to be ten years later, is that a questions, and i'll put those lot of of the resources we had in afghanistan went to iraq. questions to you now. have you adhered to the but now we finally got this applicable laws and regulations right. for the last 17 months we've had governing conflicts of interest? enough troops in afghanistan to >> yes, i will. make it a difference. >> do you agree to give your and to president obama, i know that was a very hard decision personal views even if those for you to make, to add 30,000

views differ from the administration in power? additional troops at a time when >> yes, i will. >> have you assumed as duties or most people said, why are we undertaken any actions which still there? would appear to presume the can't we come home? outcome of the confirmation the president chose wisely. process? >> no, i have not. 2014 is the transition goal, the >> will you ensure that your transition to afghan control. so tomorrow night the president staff complies with deadlines is going to tell us about established with communications withdrawing troops. including questions for the i believe we can, not because record in hearings? >> yes, i will. we're tired, but because success >> will you cooperate in on the ground. providing witnesses and briefers and let me point out some in response to congressional requests? >> yes, house bill successes in my view would allow >> will those witnesses be protected from reprisal for the president to make a reasoned their testimony or briefings? judgment to withdraw troops. but the one thing i would urge >> yes, they will. >> you agree if confirmed you the president to do is never will appear and testify upon lose sight of the fact that why requests before committee? >> yes, i will. we went and wha where our >> and finally, do you agree to national security goals are in provide documents including afghanistan. he'll be judged, all of us will copies of electronic forms of be judged, by what we left communication in a timely manner behind what. when requested by a duly do we want to leave mind? the ability of the afghan people constituted committee or to to say "no" to the tail band an consult with the committee regarding the basis for any good reject extremism. faith delay or denial in they have the will. they just don't have the providing such documents? capacity yet. but they're getting there. >> yes, i will. so anytime you have a desire of >> i think that we will do -- we

people who have been oppressed by groups like the taliban and will be here -- we will break al qaeda and you can help them for lunch and then we're going help themselves, it makes us all to go into a classified session safer. here's what's happened since the president sent surge forces in. this afternoon. in november of 2009, there were let's start with a 7 minute two nation nations and 30 nation first round for questions. trainers. two nations helping train the director panetta in answer to afghan security forces from nato questions, you said you support and you had a combined 30 people. you could put them all on a bus. the 2011 debate for obama for the one thing the president did is when he surged american the process of transferring forces, he insisted that nato increasing responsibility for especially up their game. afghanistan security to the and here we are today, we have afghan security forces and of drawing down u.s. forces to 1,300 nato trainers in afghanistan, with 32 countries afghanistan. president obama recently said providing assistance. that the size of u.s. troop we have 49 different countries reductions from afghanistan will helping in some form of be, quote, significant. director panetta, do you agree training. in the last 17 months, we've that the u.s. troop reductions from afghanistan beginning in added 90,000 afghan army and july should be significant? police forces. >> i agree with the president's so there's been a surge far beyond the american coalition

statement. >> there are approximately surge of afghan forces. 100,000 afghanistan soldiers and how did that happen? police than there were in 2009. we have better training. the nato training mission in afghanistan is ahead of schedule in -- in september of 2009, 800 in meeting the target of 305,000 afghan security forces by this people were joining the afghan fall. in addition, the new target of army per month. they were losing 2,000 a month. 352,000 afghan security forces that was a terrible trend. by 2012 has been set to ensure in december of 2009, because of that these forces have the specialized skills needed to this new construct we came up sustain these units over the long term. with, we've been averaging 6,000 and i very much support that army recruits a month, 3,000 for decision. do you agree, director panetta, that training and partnering the police. with the afghan army and police today we have 160,000 in the in getting those forces in the lead on operations is key to the afghan national army, 126,000 in success of our counterinsurgency the afghan national police. strategy in afghanistan. by the end of the year, we'll >> yes, i do. have 305,000 army and police under arms in afghanistan, and >> now, pakistani leaders deny being aware of the presence of the reason that's happened is because we've trained. we've changed the way we train osama bin laden. the afghan security forces. it's counterintuitive to believe so i hope that the president that none of their leaders knew of it but nonetheless that's not listening to leon panetta,

secretary gates and secretary my question. petraeus, will tell the american people we can start bringing pakistan's leaders are well aware and acknowledge their forces home beginning this summer. awareness of the sanctuaries in because we've been successful and we're not going to do pakistan by the haqqani network anything to undermine that success because it's come at and the afghan taliban in qweta. such a heavy price. in reality we've been those people are attacking our in afghanistan with the right troops, afghan troops, coalition configuration for about 18 troops across the border in months. afghanistan and then go back to the army retention rates today in the afghan army are 69%, their sanctuary in pakistan. a recent defense department almost doubled. report called the extremists the literacy rate among the afghan army and police forces is haqqani network, quote, the most twice that of the national significant threat in eastern population because we focused on afghanistan. and yet the haqqanis continue to literacy. it's hard to be a policeman or an army officer if you can't enjoy open safe haven across the read or write. we're helping a people that have been dirt poor, that have been border in pakistan. i think this is a totally at war for 30 years, that have been treated so poorly by unacceptable situation. i'm wondering if you agree, and if so, what should be done about everybody in the world, and at the end of the day it is in our i national security interest to make sure the country where the taliban took over and allowed

bin laden to come in as an it? >> senator, share your concern honored guest never goes back in the hands of extremists. i am account that leon panetta has the wisdom and background as to the safe haven in pakistan c.i.a. director, member of certainly as it goes to the congress, successful businessperson to lead the pentagon at the most challenging haqqanis. time since world war ii. i want them to take steps to do whatever they can to prevent he's taking over from bob gates, these kind of cross-border and there's not enough we can attacks and to prevent the safe say or do for secretary gates to havens that do exist on the thank him. he's had the job for five years. pakistani side of the border. when he came on board, iraq was a hopeless, lost cause in the minds of many, and he and general petraeus, ambassador crocker and many others -- the relationship with pakistan mainly our troops and coalition is at the same time one of the forces -- took iraq that was on most critical competitive one of the most complicated and the verge of the abyss and we're now on the verge of a frustrating relationships that we have. it's extremely critical in that representative government that can defend itself and be an ally of the united states. we are conducting a war against having saddam hussein saddam our primary enemy in the fatah, hussein replaced by a representative government in iraq aligned with us is

in their country. it is critical because supply priceless. if we could as a nation take the lines, vital supply lines go through their country. place that we were once attacked from, turn it over to people who it's critical because they are a want to go a different way than nuclear power and there's the danger that those nukes could the taliban and they have the ability to fight back and say wind up in the wrong hands. at the same time, it's very "no," all of us will be safer. so, mr. president, complicated. it's complicated by the fact congratulations on picking leon panetta to be secretary of that they maintain relationships defense. i know you've had a lot of hard with certain terrorist groups. decisions in the war on terror. one of the biggest decisions that they continue to not take you're going to make is coming up maybe tomorrow night. aggressive action with regards i want to work with you, republicans and democrats to these safe havens. together, making sure that our and that their concern about the nation is never attacked again sovereignty results about the from afghanistan. criticism in the united states when, in fact, my view is that the terrorists in their country that is possible. we're on the verge of getting are probably the greatest threat that right. to their sovereignty. as we draw down troops, please, having said all of that, we have mr. president, tell those who are left behind in afghanistan to maintain the relationship. we got to do everything we can to try to strengthen that still fighting that you haven't lost sight of the prize. relationship so that both of us the prize is not just bringing can work to defend both of our our troops home. the prize is to make sure that

countries. >> director panetta, as i their children never have to go mentioned in my opening back and fight in the future. statement, the president has called for $400 billion in that's the goal, is to withdraw from afghanistan in a way that reductions to national security we're safer, our national spending over the next 12 years. security is enhanced and we're on the verge of achieving that now, do you have any goal. understanding of the proposed what secretary panetta and breakdown of that $400 billion others are going to be as to how much he's proposing challenged with as we go forward for reductions in pentagon in the 21st century is going to be substantial. spending? how much in intelligence the enemy is still alive even spending, in the intelligence organizations and how much he's though not well. we have punished the enemy, al proposing to reduce in the qaeda and other extremist homeland security department? >> no, i do not. groups, but they will not give >> can you try to find that out up easily. and the goal at the end of the for us 'cause we need to find that out and to give us an day for our country to be safe is to do more than kill bin answer for the record? laden. killing bin laden was a form of >> i will certainly ask whether or not that decision has been justice long overdue, and it did made. make us safer. >> and do you know whether we but the ultimate security in this world lies not with our are going to receive a budget ability to kill individuals, but amendment for the fiscal '12 d.o.d. budget? with our ability to help those >> i do not know the answer to

that. >> all right. who could fight in their own on the question of torture, do you in your answer to the backyard, protect themselves from terrorism. that really is security that's committee's policy questions said the following, quote, i will ensure that all sustainable. interrogations conducted by the if we can leave afghanistan in department of defense personnel are conducted consistent with 2014 in a fashion that they have the army field manual and in the capacity to marry up with their will to say "no" to the accord with the geneva taliban and turn their country conventions. my question, is the around toward the light, not the darkness, then i can say without waterboarding consistent with the army field manual and the any doubt that our country did geneva conventions. the right thing. if we cut this operation short >> i've taken the same belief of because we're tired and weary, president obama, i believe waterboarding with the use of we will pay a price. that tactic with regards in at the end of the day our values interrogations. and as you know, the president outlawed the use of that plus are so much better than the other enhanced interrogation enemy's, we will win. techniques in an executive order that he he should when he first they have patience and bad came into the presidency. ideas. we have a lot of good ideas for the future of mankind. >> recently, i don't want to switch gears here a lot on you the question is do we have the patience to make sure those because time requires that we do

ideas can flourish? that, senator webb and i this is a long, hard war fought recently went to okinawa, guam by a few. we're on the verge of success. and senator webb was in contrary i could not think of a better person to lead us to complete -- korean, and senator mccain -- and senator mccain has success than leon panetta. a great personal experience in this area. senator mccain, senator webb and so i look forward in a bipartisan fashion to voting i proposed changes to basing planes in okinawa and guam. for, i think, one of the best choices the president could have we urged a review of the plans made as secretary of defense. in korea because we believe that and to bob gates, whatever you the current plans are do in retirement, wherever you unrealistic, unworkable and unaffordable. and then independently, the gao go, you have the -- you have my concluded that the cost of these military realignments are higher than expected. and in many cases largely respect, admiration, and on behalf of the american people, unknown. you will go down in history as a highly, excuse me -- a highly one of the steadiest hands america could have ever had during challenging times. critical gao report of this with that, i yield the floor. direction that we currently are

the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. moving. mr. levin: madam president, first let me thank the senator and i'm wondering whether or not from south carolina for his you are familiar with this issue. and if confirmed in any event, analysis in afghanistan as well as his great support for leon whether you're familiar with these issues or not in those panetta and his comments about three places, whether you will bob gates, which i very much agree to review this matter and share. he commented earlier this afternoon in a very similar way. work with us to find a solution i particularly want to commend that helps advance our strategic senator graham for his analysis objectives in the region 'cause of what's changed in afghanistan in the last 17 or 18 months, so we have strategic objectives in the region, that they are currently unaffordable and that the reductions which will unknown in terms of costs and be announced tomorrow are not whether you would be willing to review this matter and to work based on getting tired, but are with us? >> yes, i will, senator. being based, i'm sure, on the you discussed this with me when conditions on the ground, or in i met with you and also senator afghanistan, and on the critical changes which have taken place webb discussed his concerns in afghanistan. i very much agree with his about that area. i agree with you that it's a assessment about the surge in the afghan forces. very important strategic area for the united states. i was listening to his comments we do have to maintain a from a monitor, and when i heard presence there. but there are a lot of issues to be resolved and worked on. his analysis about 90,000

and i look forward to working additional afghan forces, he's with you, senator mccain, exactly right. senator webb and others to try the surge has not just been to determine what the best and most cost-effective approach 30,000 of our troops, but they have been three times that much would be. >> thank you, senator mccain? in terms of afghan troops. and the importance of that is >> thank you very much, not just the numbers, not just the training, and not just the mr. chairman. thank you, director panetta. literacy -- which the senator pointed out -- but also the what is your assessment of the mentoring and the partnering in the field with coalition forces. battlefield situation in and we've tracked this very, afghanistan since we inaugurated very carefully, and there's been a significant increase in the the surge? number of afghan units that >> i think the assessment is consistently are in the field that we made -- we have made partnering with our troops and with other coalition members' progress with regards to troops, and that makes a huge security in that country. difference too. albeit fragile and reversible. because when the afghan people see afghan troops in the lead i nevertheless believed that instead of foreign nation's progress has been made to try to troops in the lead, they advance security. understand that in fact the we also have made good progress taliban and their argument that in training the forces there in they're being occupied is a false propaganda argument, and afghanistan. both their police and military that weakens the taliban tremendously as well.

force. i think the area where, frankly, mr. graham: would the gentleman yield? greater progress needs to be made on the governance side to this is a time to have some try to ensure that they improve good, health yes bipartisanship. their governance so that senator levin -- good, healthy ultimately they can take responsibility for that country. bipartisan. senator levin, is it not true, you have been saying the surge >> and so would you agree is on the afghan size. with -- when you point out that you focused like a laser for the last couple of years on training it's fragile and reversible and capacity. not only are we producing 90,000 i think that's absolutely accurate. would you agree with secretary additional afghan army and gates' repeated statement that police forces, 97% of them now can pass western shooting withdrawals in july should be, quote, modest? standards. two years ago less than a third. >> i agree they should be conditions-based and i'm going to leave it up to secretary of the noncommissioned officers gates and general petraeus and graduating from the schools in the president to decide what that number should be. afghanistan, about 80% literacy >> well, if you're the secretary of defense, when that decision rates; two years ago it was less is made, obviously, you will than 50%. what i want to acknowledge is have significant influence? that senator levin has been you just came from a position focusing on what i think is the where you have a very good ticket home with honor and security. assessment of the military building up an afghan army and police force that can fight the situation. fight wourt 100 -- without i think it's not inappropriate for you to answer to ask if you 100,000 americans. we're well on the way, and if we

agree with secretary gates' had not changed our training assessment that will withdraw program, which you've been focused on for a very long time, should be modest? >> senator, if i'm confirmed, we would not have this success. i'll have to, obviously, arrive general caldwell i think is one at a decision myself that i'll of the unsung heroes this have have to ultimately present to the president, but i'm not in war. but i couldn't agree with more that position now. and that decision really does with my colleague from michigan, the reason we can bring the rest with general petraeus and troops home is because of more secretary gates and the afghans fighting. you mentioned during the surge president. and, obviously, i have in helmand for every afghan tremendous admiration for secretary gates. there were ten american forces. he and i pretty much walk it's almost 50-50 today. hand-in-hand on these issues. with a climb to where it will but with regards to specific be, afghans in the lead. numbers, i just am not -- the final thought is among the >> i wasn't asking for specific trainers themselves, the goal by 2013 is to replace nato trainers numbers. with afghan trainers. on the subject of iraq, if the we're well on our way to having a majority of the training done by afghans themselves. afghan government and all of its so if we can get the fighting ratios to 1-1 this year and elements agree that there should improve on that by 2014, we will be a residual u.s. military be able to turn the country over presence in iraq, particularly to the afghan security forces. and i think we've got a good in three areas, air defenses, plan. let's just stick with it.

mr. levin: i want to, first of intelligence capability and all, thank my good friend from south carolina for those security in the areas around comments. he's been very perceptive of the kirkuk around that part of iraq, importance of turning over this whether it's been significant responsibility to the afghans as tensions, would you agree that that would be a wise thing for soon as possible. and we are clearly on that track to do exactly that. us to do? >> i believe that if -- if prime and it is that improvement in the situation on the ground that minister maliki -- the iraqi will allow hopefully for a significant reduction that will government requests that we be announced tomorrow. maintain a presence there, that that's our hope, my hope. ought to be seriously considered by the president. but the senator from south >> do you think it would be in carolina has, i think, seen this right from the beginning that we our interest to do that given wanted success, and we could the situation -- >> senator, i have to tell you, have success in afghanistan. and indeed we see some real there are 1,000 al-qaeda that are still in iraq. evidence of that success in the we saw the attack that was made military situation on the just the other day. ground, if only that could be it, too, continues to be a equivalent to the governance situation, we all would be a lot more comfortable. fragile situation, and i believe mr. graham: one final thought. that we should take whatever steps are necessary to make sure two big impediments to our that we protect whatever success in afghanistan are pakistan and poor governance. progress we've made there. the reason the taliban came back >> do you know of anyone in

was because the governance in authority there in the congress afghanistan was poor, not or in the administration who represented by the people, and lack of security. believes that we should send we now have better security and ground troops in to libya? i do see signs of better governance. we've got to fix the pakistan >> i haven't met anybody yet who saoeuftd equation. on the -- side of the equation. report that. on the afghanistan side of the >> i haven't either, nor do i. border, we're doing everything i think all of us believe it we can do to build up the would be a great mistake. do you believe that it is a people. we will deal with governance but none is possible without better proper role of congress to security. now we have a security restrict the powers of the environment that i think will lead to better governance. president of the united states but don't lose sight of the prize, and that is to leave the to act? in other words, you and i were country in a sustainable manner. around when there was a vote for i look forward to working with cutoff of funds for vietnam, senator levin to push the afghan whether that was right or wrong, government to do their part and that was the appropriate role of also to engage pakistan and say what you're doing in pakistan is congress? does it worry you that congress unacceptable. stop the double-dealing. get involved. thank you. begins to tell the commander in mr. levin: i know our presiding officer, senator chief as to exactly what he can and cannot do? shaheen, have very much -- is what the president can or cannot very much into the issue of do in any conflict? putting real pressure on >> senator, i believe very pakistan to end the intrusions strongly that the president has and excursions into afghanistan.

the constitutional power as i think we're all together on commander in chief to take steps that he believes are necessary that essential goal of changing to protect this country and pakistan behavior in terms of protect our national interests. what they are allowing to occur and, obviously, i think it's on their soil, which is that important for presidents to safe haven particularly for the consult and have the advice of congress but in the end, i economies. again i want to thank my friend believe he has the from south carolina. i'm reminded by seg said about constitutional power to do what he has to do to protect this early visit that i paid to afghanistan, by the way. country. >> i agree. a number of colleagues who were with me -- i think senator reid in 2007, the last time we went and one other senator was with through a very serious crisis it was concerning whether we should me -- and we were with a bunch of afghan leaders in a small withdraw from iraq or not, and i town. this is what they call their shura. it just happened they were having this the day we were see some parallels is the rising visiting. maybe 50 or 60, 70 guys, old war weariness of the american people continues to be guys, all guys, sitting on the manifested. ground on a dirt floor. one of the things that we did at we intruded and barged in. that time was set up some i asked one question. benchmarks that we expected to i said: you want us here? be met by both the iraqis and and the answer was: we want you the united states.

to train our army and leave. as i recall, there was 13 or a number of those and over time, and then we will invite you back most of those benchmarks were as guests. met. don't you think it would be you can't say it much more appropriate for us to do the succinctly. same thing as far as afghanistan i thank you, and i yield the floor and note the absence of a is concerned? we have -- we can measure quorum. the presiding officer: the progress by certain metrics. clerk will call the roll. i think it would be important in quorum call: order to gain or keep the confidence of the american people that we should set up some benchmarks for progress both in afghanistan and as far as pakistan is concerned since we are sending billions of dollars of taxpayers' money to pakistan as well? >> senator, i think -- i think we all -- we all know what the fundamental goal is here as to try to develop a stable-enough afghanistan that it will never again become a safe haven for al-qaeda or -- >> my specific question --

>> but for other terrorists but for achieving that goal, i think that working with the administration, working with the president, working with the secretary of defense, establishing some of those -- you know, those areas where we need to make progress and identifying those, i think that's something that would be worth pursuing. >> thank you. i thank you for your service and i thank you for your willingness to continue to serve. my time has expired. but one of the biggest problems that i see and i apologize, mr. chairman, but -- is this whole issue of acquisition. we have terrible out of control costs for literally every weapon system that we have acquired in the last 10 years that i know of and i believe that you have a good team there in the pentagon and i think mr. carter is doing a good job, but we're going to have to get our arms around

this. we cannot afford aircraft that trouble and triple the original estimated costs and don't meet the timelines that are set up. and the f-35 is just the most outstanding example. so i hope -- i know you will quorum call: make this as one of your highest priorities simply not affordable for us to continue business as usual the way we acquire weapons today. and it may require some really fundamental changes in addition to the legislation that we've already passed to try to address this issue. i thank you, mr. chairman. i thank you, sir. >> thank you, senator. i agree with you fully on that issue. >> thank you. and he speaks, i think, for the entire committee for saying that and i think it's also clear you got the background to really do something about it and do tig into it. thank you very much, senator mccain. senator lieberman? >> thanks, mr. chairman, director panetta, thank you for the answer to serve your country again. i have the greatest confidence

in your ability and you are principles. i love the quote from your father. our fathers must have come out of the same cough, which is to value the freedom that america of our unique contribution to governance but without security there is no freedom. and i can't think of anything i'd rather hear from a nominee for secretary of defense than that. i want to begin with a few quick questions about iran. do you agree that the islamic republic of iran is working very hard to develop a nuclear weapons capability? >> our concern with iran is that they continue to try to develop some kind of nuclear capability. as to whether or not they made certain decisions as to how far

they should go, those are questions that i would probably have to address in another forum. but there's no question that they continue to work to try to develop some kind of nuclear capability. >> right. and also to the best of your knowledge, is the islamic republic of iran working to develop increased capacities in intercontinental ballistic missile systems to deliver nuclear or other weapons? >> that's correct. >> as i'm sure you know, there's a lot of -- there's been a lot of both diplomatic and economic sanctions work being done to attempt to discourage iran's nuclear ambitions and really to end them. however, as president obama has said, all options have to remain on the table. i wanted to ask you whether as secretary of defense you will consider it to be one of your

responsibilities to have credible military plans to strike and destroy iran's nuclear facilities if the president as commander in chief decides to use that option. >> i think in line with the president's statement that we should keep all options on the table and that would obviously the presiding officer: the require appropriate planning. senator from michigan mplet mr. levin: i ask unanimous >> thank you. consent that further proceedings let me go to afghanistan and see under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. if i can approach at this way. mr. levin: madam president, we are prepared to yield back the balance of our time, and i do i thought the president made so. a -- not only a correct but a i don't know how much time is left on the other side. none. the presiding officer: all time is expired. courageous decision in 2009 in the question occurs on the nomination of leon e. panetta to deciding to raise the number of be secretary of defense. our forces in afghanistan by mr. levin: i ask for the yeas 30,000 plus. and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. a so-called afghanistan surge. the clerk will call the roll. at the time the statement was made that we would begin to draw

vote: those troops down around july of this year, 2011, there was a lot of anxiety in the region, particularly in afghanistan and pakistan, and beyond about whether that was the beginning of a kind of early withdrawal and again, a retreat from the region and discussions were had particularly between us and the afghans and president obama settled with president karzai, as you well know, as a plan that will begin the transition around july of this year, but the goal is to remove effectively all of our forces unless there's a mutual agreement to the contrary, before then by the end of 2014. you've said today and in your -- in answers to the questions we submitted earlier, that you thought we were making measurable progress -- the

american military is making progress in afghanistan but the progress was reversible. so rather than asking you to adopt an adjective that someone else has put on it, is it fair to say that the standard you would apply to the drawdown of american forces that would begin in july of this year -- is it that it not be so great as to risk the gains we have made which as you've said are reversible? >> well, there's no question we ought not to take any steps that risk the gains that have been made as to, you know -- and i have great confidence, frankly, that general petraeus and secretary gates and the president will make the right decision in a transition that has to take place going towards 2014. >> and is it fair to say, if you're confirmed as secretary of defense, that the goal here that

you see is to turn responsibility of afghanistan to the afghans at the end of 2014 and not to jeopardize our capacity to do that before then? >> that's absolutely correct. at the lisbon conference made the decision that there would be a transition going to 2014 and it would be then that, hopefully, we would be able to transfer responsibility. we ought to do nothing that jeopardizes that path. >> i appreciate that. let me just briefly read you, secretary gates, this weekend in afghanistan. i think, quote -- i think that once you've committed that success of the mission should override everything else -- because the most costly thing of all would be to fail?

>> i agree with that. >> let me go to another part of the world. i think at the end of the last century, if you ask most people up here and the defense department, defense department, cia, what would be our focus in this century, they probably would have said that the asia pacific region would be the strategic center of gravity of the 21st century. we were, obviously, and necessarily distracted by the attack on us on 9/11 and i think we responded with remarkable courage and effectiveness. but i think the asia pacific remains the strategic center of gravity for the 21st century. as i think you know and those of us who have been there recently have found, there is an anxiety among our friends in asia about,

one, china's growing military capabilities and, two, about america's staying power and commitment to the region. and i wanted to give you an opportunity to speak to that anxiety. that if confirmed as secretary of defense, notwithstanding, the budget pressures on the u.s. government, would our strategic involvement in the asia pacific region, in your opinion, continue to be a national security priority? >> absolutely. i think that region is very important to us from a strategic point of view. we've got to maintain a presence in the pacific arena. and i think we also, in line with that, have to maintain a relationship with china. building that kind of relationship for the 21st century, i think, is extremely

important. obviously, there are concerns, concerns about some of the things they're doing in modernizing their military. at the same time, i think we have to be able to work with them in terms of scale and transparency so that we are working together and not in opposition to one another in order to make sure that we protect the security of that region. >> but in your watch as secretary of defense, you certainly don't anticipate any essentially withdrawal or retreat of america's commitment to the asia pacific region and our allies. >> not at all. not at all. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, senator lieberman, senator chambliss. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and director panetta, thanks for your willingness to exhibit great public service. and you and i have had the privilege for working together for many years now, since i was a freshman member of the house and you were a member of the clinton administration. we don't need to talk about how many years that's been, but i

respect your service and value our friendship. and i would just say that i know that you will be the first to credit the many hard-working and very professional men and women in the intelligence and military community that led to the successful takedown of bin laden and you'd be right to do that. but the fact is, without strong leadership at the top, that mission would not have been successful and i give a lot of the credit for that mission to you and it's well deserved. you and i had the opportunity to talk about the issue of rising health care costs in the department of defense budget when we visited a couple weeks ago and i noticed you had several questions on that issue in your advanced policy questions and i should your responses. i don't have a question on this, but as the chairman said earlier, you're going to have a very difficult job when it comes to trying to find savings and become more efficient at the department of defense.

and there is no bigger expense, at least from the standpoint of increasing annually then the health care costs. so i just want to reemphasize the fact that this is an extremely important issue and we need to get our arms around it and i look forward to working with you. i encourage you to think creatively but how to bring these costs down without negatively impacting the quality of service to those who depend on that system. i want to go back to the line that senator mccain was addressing on afghanistan. and regarding the troop withdrawals, i think it's clear from any operational perspective that withdrawal of u.s. troops at this point makes no sense. it may make sense from a domestic political perspective. it may make some level of sense in terms of waking up the afghans to the fact that we're not going to be there forever and they need to step up to the plate, but i am concerned that a

significant withdrawal of u.s. forces will reverse the progress that we've made in afghanistan and that the afghans have made. i'm glad to see you saying your responses to questions that you, quote, support a responsible conditions withdrawal, closed quote. however, i'd prefer there would be no withdrawal until it's clear that the gains we made will not be reversed. my question for you, as we withdraw troops from afghanistan, if it becomes clear from an operational perspective that the withdrawal is negatively affecting progress and stability, will you advise the president that the withdrawal should be stopped and that if necessary, additional u.s. forces be sent back to afghanistan? >> as i've said and as the president has said and the secretary have emphasized, this has to be a conditions-based withdrawal. and that means you look at the

conditions on the ground as it proceeds. and -- i mean, obviously, we need to do everything we can to try to stay, hopefully, on target with regard to the 2014 date. but again, it is conditions-based and i think based on what changes take place, then obviously the president and the secretary would have to make adjustments. >> well, i would hope that from a conditions-based standpoint, leon, that you would give strong consideration to the safety and security of our soldiers. i know they are of number 1 importance to you. and a withdrawal of troops puts our men and women in greater harm's way, i hope that we would make it conditions-based and that we would cease the withdrawal. and i hope that would be your recommendation to the president. >> yes. >> another issue that i want to bring up with you is the discussion of tactical aircraft and fifth generation fighters.

let me just say that several years ago secretary gates made a push to place the future of tactical aviation on basically one weapon system and that's the f-35. he argued that it had stealth and other advance capabilities that made it the airplane of the future. however, at a recent hearing, last month secretary carter indicated, in fact, that d.o.d. has taken money out of the f-35 program to buy fourth generation fighters. not only are these fourth generation fighters will cost billions of dollars but they will be in the inventory for 20 to 30 years and we're going to be paying to maintain them even at a greater cost. yet, they're utility is greatly limited against any kind of modern threat. and in my view this does not seem to be a very good way to expend taxpayer dollars. what's your perspective on this issue and if confirmed, will you absolutely be committed to preserving u.s. supremacy and

air dominance and ensuring our resources are spent most wisely towards that end? >> senator, obviously, i want to make sure that -- that we have the very best in terms of our fighter planes. and i know the f-35 is a plane vote: that's being developed as the next generation fighter. but i also know there are extensive costs associated with how that plane is being developed and i think we have to watch it very carefully. i think -- i want to assure you that one of my responsibilities in line with what senator mccain said is take a very hard look at weapon systems to make sure they are cost-effective and that they are in the end providing the very best equipment our forces need. >> well, what really concerns me about where we are with that program is exactly what senator mccain alluded to and that is

that we just seem to be out of control. and that we keep moving the goalposts with contractors and then blaming contractors for an increase in costs when, frankly, part of it is due to our inefficient management of the systems. and if we're going to spend the kind of money that we're committed to spend on that fifth generation fighter because it is -- i mean, that's where we're headed, and we all know that, and we've got to have that airplane in the inventory. the decisions that are going to be made by you as secretary of defense relative to procurement, to acquisition, as well as to the testing of that airplane are going to be critical. and you bring a wealth of knowledge with -- from that perspective from your years at omb as well as where you are today. so i -- again, we look forward to dialoging with you between you and this committee on that

issue as well as our other acquisition issues that are going to be before you. let me ask you one other matter relative to libya. i noticed that you agree that the gadhafi regime must go. how are we going to do it? based on what we're doing from our participation in the nato operation? how are we going to make that happen? >> well, that is as the president has said the objective. and it has to be done by a number of means. number 1, we are bringing strong economic sanctions against them. number 2, we're bringing a strong diplomatic pressure against them. we have implemented embargoes and more importantly, the work that nato is doing pursuant to the u.n. resolution and the nato

forces that are there are bringing tremendous pressure, i believe, on them. not only fighting, obviously, to protect civilians but to put -- to implement the no-fly zone. but to, in addition to that, target the command and control elements of the regime. i think all of those factors have to continue in order to put pressure on gadhafi. frankly, i think there are gains that have been made. we have seen the regime weaken significantly. we have seen the opposition make gains both in the east and the west. i think there are some signs that if we continue the pressure, if you stick with it, that ultimately gadhafi will step down. >> well, again thanks for your service. and i look forward to continuing to work with you. >> thank you, director, for your extraordinary public service,

for your particularly in the last few months, your decisive and courageous advice to the president which led to the successful raid against bin laden. it would not have been as successful or as effective without your participation. and thank you personally for your friendship over many years. let me return to the topic of afghanistan. we're looking at a decision shortly that will be based on conditions on the ground, but it strikes me and i think implicit in what you said in your testimony, those conditions on the ground might be more relevant vis-a-vis pakistan than afghanistan. that, in fact, as long as the government of pakistan at least appears to see some of these groups -- these terrorist groups on their soil as strategic assets and not liabilities, that our operations in afghanistan are going to be very, very difficult. and so going to the real conditions on the ground, your

comment on whether those conditions are really more about pakistan than afghanistan and our strategy and our focus has to be there as much as afghanistan and better focused. and i would also include in this context some type of regional dialog including pakistan, afghanistan, and india. your comments, mr. director. >> i would agree with that, senator. i think it's pretty clear, you know, we can't -- we can't succeed in afghanistan if we're not succeeding in pakistan in terms of controlling the safe havens and the cross-border operations. and so we've got to work it both in order to ensure that we're able to stay on path with what we would like to achieve in afghanistan. in addition to that, i agree with you this is a regional issue and to the extent the countries in that region can work together and relate to each

other instead of being suspicious of each other and creating the kind of dynamic that, frankly, has not been very helpful, i think it would be in the interest of peace in that region if we could get all three to continue to work together to advance the same goals. >> one of the points that i believe your predecessor and i do will join my colleagues in commending him for exemplary service, indeed, one of the challenges you have is following the extraordinarily talented and successful human being. you'll do it, i know. but you got a challenge. secretary gates pointed out how important non-d.o.d. operations were at the department of state, agricultural operations, department of agriculture. you know, now we're getting also into the specter with this -- these violent climate episodes throughout the globe of, you know, scientists and noaa and

others. and yet there's a real danger here that those budgets might suffer. and in afghanistan, my colleagues in the foreign affairs committee yesterday issued a report criticizing the bill stage of the operation. can you comment upon that partnership and how critical it is and, again, when we look ahead at the conditions on the ground, if we could be successful interdicting terrorist groups seizing caches of weapons, even interdicting transmission from pakistan, but if there's no political capacity, a governmental capacity, in health care, education, anything, we're going to have a population that's disgruntled and probably destructive towards us? >> senator, i agree with what you said. it has to be a whole of government approach as we deal with these issues. clearly, state department play

as very important role in providing assistance to individuals to ensure that an area remains secure, a.i.d., education area, justice department provides assistance. the area of agriculture also provides important assistance. you know, look, i know -- i know the department of defense is our primary military weapon in terms of securing areas. but if we don't follow it up with these other important assets, we will never be able to fully secure these countries. >> let me change topics for a moment. it strikes me that -- and this is not particularly of great insight. but i'm hold enough to remember when there were three dimensions of conflict, air, land and sea. i did some land stuff and

technically i jumped out of airplanes but there's a whole new dimension of cyber. i don't think we're -- i don't think we know enough yet to be fully prepared, fully conversant but can you comment briefly on the strategy that you will try to develop? i presume that strategy will involve some deterrence? preemption, offensive defense and as we just indicated, the policy now of justice, you know, within the context of the rules of war, you know, what would constitute some type of -- i think this is -- you're stepping in at a critical moment where we're just beginning to develop a strategy for a new dimension of warfare that we've never really confronted yet. >> there's no question that the

whole arena of cyberattacks developing technologies in the information area represent potential battlefronts for the future. i've often said there's a strong likelihood against pearl harbor that we confront could very well be a cyberattack that cripples our power system, our grid, our security systems, our financial systems, our governmental systems. this is a real possibility in today's world. and as a result, i think we have to aggressively be able to counter that. we need to have aggressive measures to deal with that. but most importantly there has to be an comprehensive approach in government to make sure that those attacks don't take place. so i will be -- obviously, i have a huge responsibility if confirmed in this new position in dealing with the cyberarea

through nsa and others. my goal would be to work together. not only with the capability but also the law that i think we need to have in order to determine how we approach this challenge in the future. >> i've really been echoing what senator mccain has said and senator chambliss there's an biowave as you capitalize on our military forces. and that's been pushed off a bit. it's been deferred a bit. but it is coming. and one of the aspects as secretary chambliss pointed out is not simply the sheer number of systems that we have to buy, land, sea and air and it's the price tag on some of these systems. and i know the secretary has been working very hard to make affordibility part of the design. but all those efforts are going

to be necessary because there will be no room within a generous budget to do everything that has to be done we make significant progress in that area and just your comments again, mr. director. >> in the briefings that i have had, it's obvious that -- that this is an area that we've got to pay a lot of pay attention to because of efficiency, because of competition and the nature of expanding contracts that have taken place there. we've seen these weapon systems grow in cost. it takes an extraordinary amount of time to be able, you know, from the beginning of moving that kind of weapon systems to the time it's finally developed, finally deployed. it almost becomes outdated. we have got to improve that

process. i know the congress has taken steps in that arena but i look forward to working with you and with the members of this committee to take greater steps to make sure we are looking at every possible efficiency in the procurement arena in order not only to save dollars but to make sure we are getting better equipment as a result of that. >> thank you, mr. director. thank you. >> thank you, senator reed. senator brown. >> thank you, mr. chairman. good to see you again, sir. i appreciate you taking time from yesterday. as you know, i look forward to voting to confirm you and, mr. chairman, thank you for, obviously, holding this hearing. you know, i echo a lot of the same thoughts that my colleagues do regarding the cross-border operations. there's a tremendous amount of aid that we give to pakistan, 4 billion, i think, give or take. and i have deep concerns as we try to move forward with completing our mission and bringing our men and women home

in afghanistan, that we're having these areas where you have the safe havens, yet, we're giving them billions of dollars in aid. it's either you're with us or you're helping us or not? and what is your position with regard to, you know, carrying that message that, you know, people like me and others in congress are getting a little bit frustrated with that duplicity? >> senator, i want to assure you that secretary clinton, chairman mike mullen who meets with him regularly, myself, my deputy, who was just there, have all made the same point that -- >> testimony in the confirmation hearing before the senate arms services committee for defense secretary leon panetta earlier this month. this afternoon the full senate will take up the nomination of mr. panetta. he currently serves as the director of the cia.

debate on his nomination will last until about 4:15 when they hold a final vote. now live coverage of the u.s. mr. reid: madam president? senate here on c-span2. ern could we have order? no one can hear. and i'd yield myself ten the presiding officer: the minutes, mr. president. senate will come to order. the nomination of leon panetta are there any senators? the chamber wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? to be secretary of defense is a hearing none, the yeas are 100, wise and a solid nomination. the nays are zero. director panetta has given decades of dedicated public the nomination is confirmed. service to this nation, and we should all be grateful that he the majority leader. is once again willing to answer the call and take the helm of under the previous order, -- the the department of defense. we're also grateful to his wife senate will be in order, please. sylvia for her significant under the previous order, the motions to reconsider are considered made and laid upon sacrifices over the last 50 years in supporting leon the table. the president shall be panetta's efforts in the public immediately notified of the and the private sectors. senate's action, and the senate when mr. panetta appeared before shall resume legislative session the armed services committee at his nomination hearing, all of session. mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the our members commented invariably majority leader. mr. reid: madam president, if we could have order? in the same way, reflecting the way that we were grateful that the presiding officer: please mr. panetta is willing to take take your conversations outside.

on this position. mr. reid: we have ten minutes, he's going to bring a reassuring level of continuity and in-depth senators should listen to the debate. it's very important. experience. we have an important vote in he's been a critical member of president obama's national just ten minutes. security team during his tenure so we have -- and it's my as director of the central intelligence agency. the department of defense will understanding that senator boxer need director panetta's skill would close. she would have the final five and his wisdom to navigate the minutes. is there any problem with that? i would ask consent that be the extraordinarily complex set of case. the presiding officer: without challenges in the years ahead. objection. under the previous order, the foremost among those demands are senate will resume consideration of s. 782, which the clerk will the demands on our armed forces, and these are exemplified by the report. the clerk: calendar number 38, ongoing wars in afghanistan and s. 782, a bill to amend the iraq. public works and economic development act of 1965 to between those two conflicts, we reauthorize that act, and for continue to have approximately other purposes. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will 150,000 troops deployed. be ten minutes of debate only, the u.s. military is also equally divided between the two providing support to nato leaders or their designees. operations to protect the libyan

people. in addition, even after the who yields time? extraordinary raid that killed osama bin laden, we face potential terrorist threats the senator from wyoming. against us, against our allies a senator: madam president, i'd like to yield back which emanate from pakistan, republican time. yemen, somalia, and other the presiding officer: without places. objection. the senator from california. the risk of a terrorist mrs. boxer: madam president? organization getting their hands on and detonating an improvised nuclear device or other weapon the presiding officer: the senate will please be in order. of mass destruction remains one of the gravest possible threats mrs. boxer: madam president, we've spent many days talking to the united states. about the importance of the gill to counter that threat, the s bill before the -- importance defense department is working with the departments of state, of the bill before us which would reorganize the economic energy, homeland security, and development administration. other u.s. government agencies the e.d.a. is a proven success. i think it's instructive that no to prevent the proliferation of one on the other side is nuclear weapons, fissile speaking out against it. materials, and dangerous it's amazing to me that they technologies, and as secretary don't speak out against it, but of defense, director panetta's i have a feeling we may not get this cloture vote. leadership in this area will be i hope that i'm wrong. of vital importance. and here again, it is that as i look at ways for us to be experience as director of the bipartisan, there are a couple

c.i.a. which will be so of areas where i think we can invaluable. in the coming weeks, president come together. one would certainly be deficit obama and his advisors will face reduction. a number of key national we democrats know how to do it. we did it under bill clinton. security decisions. and we're the only party in 50 while the drawdown of u.s. years to pass a budget that forces in iraq remains on track, actually brought to us a there have been recent signs of surplus. we can do that with our friends on the other side. instability in that country. and i'm glad there are talks as a result, it's possible that going on. but the other area, iraq's political leadership may madam president, is job creation ask for some kind of continuing and job preservation. u.s. military presence beyond the other side says they want to do it with us. this is a golden opportunity for the december 31 withdrawal them to join with us. we have seen, and leader reid deadline, which has been agreed to by president bush and prime knows this because he has minister maliki in the 2008 selected various jobs bills to bring to the senate floor. security agreement. it wasn't by chance that this another key decision point is bill came. he wanted commit chairmen to say looming in afghanistan regarding reductions in u.s. forces which bills had bipartisan support in their committee. starting next month. madam president, we voted this president obama said the other bill out near unanimously. we had one objection. day -- quote -- "it's now time for us to recognize that we've at a time when things are pretty accomplished a big junk of our contentious. why is it? i'll tell you why it is.

mission and that it's time for afteafghans to take more it's -- one of the best ways to tell you is to quote john responsibility." close quote. cornyn, senator john cornyn the president also said a few whorbgs said a $2 million e.d.a. months ago that the reductions starting next month will be -- grant for water tower in texas quote -- "significant." will -- quote -- "pave the way for creation of new jobs and business opportunities." that says it all. hopefully they will be. we have 27 republicans who went and director panetta, while not assigning a specific number, on the record saying the e.d.a. agreed that they need to be was a good job-creation bill. significant. a significant reduction in our we know that historically $1 of troop level this year would send a critical signal to afghan e.d.a. investment attracts $7 in leaders that we mean it when we private-sector investment. say that our commitment is not so while this is a $500 billion, open-ended and that they need to be urgently focused on preparing madam president, if you see that it's $7 for each $1, it's into afghanistan's security forces to the billions in terms of the job assume security responsibility creation that will follow. for all of afghanistan. as a matter of fact, we know the more that afghan security forces do that, the better are that the jobs created here will the chances of success because be between about 250,000 and a the taliban's biggest nightmare is facing a large, effective million over the life of the bill. a million jobs.

afghan army, an army which is all we need is a cloture vote. already respected by the afghan people but now hopefully and this e.d.a. started in 1965, and soon in control of afghanistan's it has been supported by security. another major issue facing the democrats and republicans. i gave you an example of senator department is the stress that cornyn and what he said. ten years of unbroken war has these are just some of the placed on our armed forces. people who are supporting us: over the last decade, many of the conference of mayors, public our servicemen and women have works association. been away from their families it goes on into all of our and homes for multiple tours. states. the university economic not only is our force stressed, development association. why do they support it? so are our military families. because they know that this we owe them our best efforts to particular program is a spark reduce the number of deployments plug. you put in $1, you attract $7 of and increase the time between deployments. the next secretary of defense private-sector investment. people get to work again. will have to struggle with the so i'm just hopeful that we competing demands on our forces don't see this bill die today. while washington struggles with this is a moment in time we can an extremely challenging fiscal show that we mean what we say. environment. the defense budget will not and senator crapo said e.d.a. should not be exempt from cuts, business grant will help keep but congress, working with the idaho firms on the cutting edge.

senator lugar said e.d.a. next secretary of defense, will funding is essential in our need to scrub each defense efforts to improve the quality program and expenditure and make of life and the standard of the tough choices and trade-offs living for hoosier families. between our war fighters' it goes on. requirements today and senator collins has some beautiful statements. preparations for the threats of 27 of our colleagues, tomorrow. last week the armed services republicans and democrats, have always supported this committee marked up the fiscal legislation. the last time it was signed into year 2012 national defense law, it was signed by george w. authorization act. the committee cut about $6 bush. billion from the president's yes. and it passed this senate budget request. unanimously. if this bill goes down because however, the president has decided to reduce the national our friends on the other side keep wanting to offer -- they've security budgets for the next 12 offered tens of amendments. years by $400 billion, but we it's up to about 100 amendments. one about the prairie chicken. don't know how much of that $400 another one about a lizard. billion he will recommend to come from the defense budget and all fun, doesn't belong on this how much from the intelligence bill. this bill is about jobs. so i hope that our friends will and homeland security budgets or how much is recommended to be in vote, you know, their hearts, the first of that 12-year and will look back on their press releases. period, fiscal year 2012. and i certainly think if they did that, they would cast an aye the nation is fortunate that

vote, and we would pass this and director panetta's compelling record of achievement and do something for jobs in this experiences is well-suited for nation. thank you very much, madam president, and i yield the demands of the position of back my time, and i ask for the the secretary of defense. yeas and nays. the presiding officer: the mr. panetta is the right person clerk will report the motion to to help our military through the invoke cloture. the clerk: we the undersigned fiscal challenges that confront senators in accordance with the this nation. provisions of rule 22 of the his service as president standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close clinton's director of the office of management and budget is the debate on s. 782, a bill to invaluable because he amend the public works and economic development act of understands the budget process and because he shaped the 1965, to reauthorize that act, and for other purposes, signed decisions that helped achieve by 17 senators. the budget surpluses of the the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory late-1990's. kwourb has been waived -- the leon panetta has repeatedly mandatory quorum call has been waived. demonstrated an ability to reach the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on across party lines and work in a s. 782, a bill to amend the bipartisan spirit since entering public works and economic public service 45 years ago. development act of 1965, to he worked on the staff of the reauthorize that act, and for republican whip in the u.s. senate and headed the office of other purposes shall be brought to a close? civil rights in the nixon administration. the yeas and nays are mandatory he later won election to the under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. house of representatives as a

democrat. where he served 16 years earning the respect of his pearce and vote: becoming -- earning the respect of his peers and becoming the chairman of a committee. leon panetta has been guided by a clear, moral compass. he has said that -- quote -- "in politics, there has to be a line beyond which you don't go, a line that marks the difference between right and wrong, what your conscious tells you is right. too often people don't know where the line is," he said, "and in my family, how i was raised," he said, "my education all reinforced my being able to see that line." close quote. leon panetta has been intimately involved in the most pressing national security issues of our time. during his tenure as director of the central intelligence agency, president obama turninged to

director panetta to personally oversee the manhunt for osama bin laden and the awe-inspiring operation that brought an end to al qaeda's murderous leader and provided a measure of relief to the families and friends who have suffered since september 11, 2001. the raid on the bin laden compound epitomizes the way in which the c.i.a. and defense department are finally working together to support each other in counterterrorism operations. director panetta deserves credit for this close coordination. before concluding, i want to pass along my gratitude and deep admiration for the man who is stepping down as head of the department of defense, secretary robert gates. secretary gates has provided extraordinary service to this country, spanning the

administration of eight presidents. four and a half years ago he left the comfort and rewards of private life following a long career in government to once again serve in a critical post in president bush -- as president bush's secretary of defense in one of the most difficult times in recent history. throughout his tenure, across the bush and obama administrations, secretary gates' leadership, judgment, and candor have earned him the trust and respect of all who have worked with him. secretary gates has combined vision and thoughtfulness, with toughness, clarity, and courageous decision making. secretary gates established a direct and open relationship with congress and with our senate armed services committee in particular. as chairman of that committee, i will always be personally grateful for that. secretary gates' tenure as

secretary of defense will be judged by history to have been truly exceptional. so our next secretary of defense will have enormous responsibilities but also big shoes to fill. i'm confident that leon panetta is the right person to take on that challenge, and i urge our colleagues to support this nomination. mr. president, i yield the floor and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. mr. levin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: skilled that that be -- unanimous consent that that be called off. that the quorum call be called off. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. levin: and now i would ask unanimous consent that the quorum call time be equally divided between both sides. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. levin: now i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: