[Senate Hearing 107-749]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
S. Hrg. 107-749
NOMINATIONS BEFORE THE SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE,
FIRST SESSION, 107TH CONGRESS
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before the
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
NOMINATIONS OF
DONALD H. RUMSFELD; PAUL D. WOLFOWITZ; DOV S. ZAKHEIM; CHARLES S.
ABELL; VICTORIA CLARKE; EDWARD C. ALDRIDGE; WILLIAM J. HAYNES II;
POWELL A. MOORE; DR. DAVID S.C. CHU; THOMAS E. WHITE; GORDON R.
ENGLAND; DR. JAMES G. ROCHE; ALFRED V. RASCON; DOUGLAS JAY FEITH; DR.
JACK DYER CROUCH II; PETER W. RODMAN; SUSAN MORRISEY LIVINGSTONE;
JESSIE HILL ROBERSON; THOMAS P. CHRISTIE; ALBERTO J. MORA; DIANE K.
MORALES; STEVEN J. MORELLO, SR.; WILLIAM A. NAVAS, JR.; MICHAEL W.
WYNNE; DIONEL M. AVILES; REGINALD JUDE BROWN; STEVEN A. CAMBONE;
MICHAEL MONTELONGO; JOHN J. YOUNG, JR.; JOHN B. STENBIT; DR. RONALD M.
SEGA; MICHAEL L. DOMINGUEZ; MICHAEL PARKER; DR. MARIO P. FIORI; H.T.
JOHNSON; NELSON F. GIBBS; GEN. JOHN P. JUMPER, USAF; GEN. RICHARD B.
MYERS, USAF; GEN. PETER PACE, USMC; GEN. JOHN W. HANDY, USAF; ADM.
JAMES O. ELLIS, JR., USN; LINTON F. BROOKS; MARVIN R. SAMBUR; WILLIAM
WINKENWERDER, JR.; EVERT BECKNER; MARY L. WALKER; JOSEPH E. SCHMITZ;
SANDRA L. PACK; R.L. BROWNLEE; DR. DALE KLEIN; PETER B. TEETS; AND GEN.
CLAUDE M. BOLTON, JR., USAF
----------
JANUARY 11; FEBRUARY 27; APRIL 24, 26; MAY 1, 10; JUNE 5, 7, 22, 27;
JULY 31; AUGUST 1; SEPTEMBER 13, 25; OCTOBER 11, 23; NOVEMBER 8;
DECEMBER 4, 2001
----------
Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services
NOMINATIONS BEFORE THE SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE, FIRST SESSION,
107TH CONGRESS
S. Hrg. 107-749
NOMINATIONS BEFORE THE SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE,
FIRST SESSION, 107TH CONGRESS
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before the
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
NOMINATIONS OF
DONALD H. RUMSFELD; PAUL D. WOLFOWITZ; DOV S. ZAKHEIM; CHARLES S.
ABELL; VICTORIA CLARKE; EDWARD C. ALDRIDGE; WILLIAM J. HAYNES II;
POWELL A. MOORE; DR. DAVID S.C. CHU; THOMAS E. WHITE; GORDON R.
ENGLAND; DR. JAMES G. ROCHE; ALFRED V. RASCON; DOUGLAS JAY FEITH; DR.
JACK DYER CROUCH II; PETER W. RODMAN; SUSAN MORRISEY LIVINGSTONE;
JESSIE HILL ROBERSON; THOMAS P. CHRISTIE; ALBERTO J. MORA; DIANE K.
MORALES; STEVEN J. MORELLO, SR.; WILLIAM A. NAVAS, JR.; MICHAEL W.
WYNNE; DIONEL M. AVILES; REGINALD JUDE BROWN; STEVEN A. CAMBONE;
MICHAEL MONTELONGO; JOHN J. YOUNG, JR.; JOHN B. STENBIT; DR. RONALD M.
SEGA; MICHAEL L. DOMINGUEZ; MICHAEL PARKER; DR. MARIO P. FIORI; H.T.
JOHNSON; NELSON F. GIBBS; GEN. JOHN P. JUMPER, USAF; GEN. RICHARD B.
MYERS, USAF; GEN. PETER PACE, USMC; GEN. JOHN W. HANDY, USAF; ADM.
JAMES O. ELLIS, JR., USN; LINTON F. BROOKS; MARVIN R. SAMBUR; WILLIAM
WINKENWERDER, JR.; EVERT BECKNER; MARY L. WALKER; JOSEPH E. SCHMITZ;
SANDRA L. PACK; R.L. BROWNLEE; DR. DALE KLEIN; PETER B. TEETS; AND GEN.
CLAUDE M. BOLTON, JR., USAF
__________
JANUARY 11; FEBRUARY 27; APRIL 24, 26; MAY 1, 10; JUNE 5, 7, 22, 27;
JULY 31; AUGUST 1; SEPTEMBER 13, 25; OCTOBER 11, 23; NOVEMBER 8;
DECEMBER 4, 2001
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
75-903 PDF WASHINGTON : 2002
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
JOHN WARNER, Virginia, Chairman
STROM THURMOND, South Carolina CARL LEVIN, Michigan
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts
BOB SMITH, New Hampshire ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
RICK SANTORUM, Pennsylvania MAX CLELAND, Georgia
PAT ROBERTS, Kansas MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado JACK REED, Rhode Island
TIM HUTCHINSON, Arkansas DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama BILL NELSON, Florida
SUSAN COLLINS, Maine E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Maine
JIM BUNNING, Kentucky JEAN CARNAHAN, Missouri
MARK DAYTON, Minnesota
Les Brownlee, Staff Director
David S. Lyles, Staff Director for the Minority
CARL LEVIN, Michigan, Chairman
EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts JOHN WARNER, Virginia
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia STROM THURMOND, South Carolina
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
MAX CLELAND, Georgia BOB SMITH, New Hampshire
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
JACK REED, Rhode Island RICK SANTORUM, Pennsylvania
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii PAT ROBERTS, Kansas
BILL NELSON, Florida WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado
E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska TIM HUTCHINSON, Arkansas
JEAN CARNAHAN, Missouri JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
MARK DAYTON, Minnesota SUSAN COLLINS, Maine
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
David S. Lyles, Staff Director
Les Brownlee, Republican Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF WITNESSES
Page
January 11, 2001
Nomination of Donald H. Rumsfeld to be Secretary of Defense...... 1
Statements of:
Durbin, Hon. Richard J., a U.S. Senator from the State of
Illinois....................................................... 9
Fitzgerald, Hon. Peter G., a U.S. Senator from the State of
Illinois....................................................... 10
Rumsfeld, Donald H., Nominee to be Secretary, Department of
Defense........................................................ 13
February 27, 2001
Nomination of Dr. Paul D. Wolfowitz to be the Deputy Secretary of
Defense........................................................ 209
Statements of:
Sarbanes, Hon. Paul R., a U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland 212
Wolfowitz, Dr. Paul D., Nominee to be Deputy Secretary of Defense 214
April 24, 2001
Nominations of Dr. Dov S. Zakheim to be Under Secretary of
Defense, Comptroller; Charles S. Abell to be Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Force Management Policy; and Victoria
Clarke to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs. 301
Statements of:
Zakheim, Dr. Dov S., Nominee to be Under Secretary of Defense,
Comptroller.................................................... 306
Clarke, Victoria, Nominee to be Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Public Affairs............................................. 308
Abell, Charles S., Nominee to be Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Force Management Policy.................................... 309
April 26, 2001
Nominations of Edward C. Aldridge to be Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition and Technology; William J. Haynes II to
be General Counsel of the Department of Defense; and Powell A.
Moore to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative
Affairs........................................................ 371
Statements of:
Thompson, Hon. Fred, a U.S. Senator from the State of Tennessee.. 374
Aldridge, Edward C., Nominee to be Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition and Technology..................................... 376
Moore, Powell A., Nominee to be Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Legislative Affairs........................................ 381
Haynes, William J. II, Nominee to be General Counsel of the
Department of Defense.......................................... 382
(iii)
May 1, 2001
Pending Military Nominations..................................... 449
May 10, 2001
Nomination of Dr. David S.C. Chu to be Under Secretary of Defense
for Personnel and Readiness; Thomas E. White to be Secretary of
the Army; Gordon R. England to be Secretary of the Navy; Dr.
James G. Roche to be Secretary of the Air Force; and Alfred V.
Rascon to be Director of Selective Service..................... 455
Statements of:
Sarbanes, Hon. Paul, a U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland... 460
Mikulski, Hon. Barbara, a U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland 461
Gramm, Hon. Phil, a U.S. Senator from the State of Texas......... 462
Bartlett, Hon. Roscoe, a Representative from the State of
Maryland....................................................... 462
Chu, Dr. David S.C., Nominee to be Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness........................................ 464
Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey, a U.S. Senator from the State of
Texas.......................................................... 464
White, Thomas E., Jr., Nominee to be Secretary of the Army....... 466
England, Gordon R., Nominee to be Secretary of the Navy.......... 458
Roche, Dr. James G., Nominee to be Secretary of the Air Force.... 469
Rascon, Alfred V., Nominee to be Director of Selective Service... 472
June 5, 2001
Nomination of Douglas Jay Feith to be Under Secretary of Defense
for Policy; Dr. Jack Dyer Crouch II to be Assistant Secretary
of Defense for International Security Policy; and Peter W.
Rodman to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for International
Security Affairs............................................... 581
Statements of:
Feith, Douglas Jay, Nominee to be Under Secretary of Defense for
Policy......................................................... 582
Rodman, Peter W., Nominee to be Assistant Secretary of Defense
for International Security Affairs............................. 582
Specter, Hon. Arlen, a U.S. Senator from the State of
Pennsylvania................................................... 584
Bond, Hon. Christopher ``Kit'', a U.S. Senator from the State of
Missouri....................................................... 586
June 7, 2001
Nominations of Susan Morrisey Livingstone to be Under Secretary
of the Navy; Jessie Hill Roberson to be Assistant Secretary of
Energy for Environmental Management; and Thomas P. Christie to
be Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, Department of
Defense........................................................ 867
Statements of:
Livingstone, Susan Morrisey, Nominee to be Under Secretary of the
Navy........................................................... 875
Roberson, Jessie Hill, Nominee to be Assistant Secretary of
Energy for Environmental Management............................ 877
Christie, Thomas P., Nominee to be Director of Operational Test
and Evaluation, Department of Defense.......................... 878
June 22, 2001
Nominations of Alberto J. Mora to be General Counsel of the Navy;
Diane K. Morales to be Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for
Logistics and Material Readiness; Steven J. Morello, Sr., to be
General Counsel of the Army; William A. Navas, Jr., to be
Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Manpower and Reserve
Affairs; and Michael W. Wynne to be Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition and Technology......................... 935
Statements of:
Morello, Steven J., Sr., Nominee to be General Counsel of the
Army........................................................... 941
Wynne, Michael W., Nominee to be Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition and Technology......................... 942
Morales, Diane K., Nominee to be Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense for Logistics and Material Readiness................... 942
Navas, William A., Jr., Nominee to be Assistant Secretary of the
Navy for Manpower and Reserve Affairs.......................... 943
Mora, Alberto J., Nominee to be General Counsel of the Navy...... 944
June 27, 2001
Nominations of Dionel M. Aviles to be Assistant Secretary of the
Navy, Financial Management and Comptroller; Reginald Jude Brown
to be Assistant Secretary of the Army, Manpower and Reserve
Affairs; Dr. Steven A. Cambone to be Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense for Policy; Michael Montelongo to be Assistant
Secretary for the Air Force, Financial Management and
Comptroller; and John J. Young, Jr., to be Assistant Secretary
of the Navy, Research, Development, and Acquisition............ 1031
Statements of:
Inouye, Hon. Daniel, a U.S. Senator from the State of Hawaii..... 1034
Stevens, Hon. Ted, a U.S. Senator from the State of Alaska....... 1035
Reyes, Hon. Silvestre, a U.S. Representative from the State of
Texas.......................................................... 1036
Montelongo, Michael, Nominee to be Assistant Secretary for the
Air Force, Financial Management and Comptroller................ 1040
Brown, Reginald Jude, Nominee to be Assistant Secretary of the
Army, Manpower and Reserve Affairs............................. 1041
Cambone, Dr. Steven A., Nominee to be Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense for Policy............................................. 1041
Aviles, Dionel M., Nominee to be Assistant Secretary of the Navy,
Financial Management and Comptroller........................... 1042
Young, John J., Jr., Nominee to be Assistant Secretary of the
Navy, Research, Development, and Acquisition................... 1042
July 31, 2001
Nominations of John B. Stenbit to be Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Command, Control, Communication, and Intelligence;
Dr. Ronald M. Sega to be Director of Defense, Research and
Engineering; Michael L. Dominguez to be Assistant Secretary of
the Air Force for Manpower and Reserve Affairs; Paul Michael
Parker to be Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works;
Dr. Mario P. Fiori to be Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Installations and Environment; H.T. Johnson to be Assistant
Secretary of the Navy for Installations and Environment; and
Nelson F. Gibbs to be Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for
Installations and Environment.................................. 1139
Statements of:
Dominguez, Michael L., Nominee to be Assistant Secretary of the
Air Force for Manpower and Reserve Affairs..................... 1144
Stenbit, John B., Nominee to be Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Command, Control, Communication, and Intelligence.......... 1145
Sega, Dr. Ronald M., Nominee to be Director of Defense Research
and Engineering................................................ 1146
Lott, Hon. Trent, a U.S. Senator from the State of Mississippi... 1159
Cochran, Hon. Thad, a U.S. Senator from the State of Mississippi. 1161
Parker, Paul Michael, Nominee to be Assistant Secretary of the
Army for Civil Works........................................... 1165
Fiori, Dr. Mario P., Nominee to be Assistant Secretary of the
Army for Installations and Environment......................... 1166
Johnson, H.T., Nominee to be Assistant Secretary of the Navy for
Installations and Environment.................................. 1167
Gibbs, Nelson F., Nominee to be Assistant Secretary of the Air
Force for Installations and Environment........................ 1167
August 1, 2001
Nomination of Gen. John P. Jumper, USAF, for Reappointment to the
Grade of General and to be Chief of Staff United States Air
Force.......................................................... 1309
Statement of:
Jumper, Gen. John P., USAF, Nominee to be Chief of Staff, United
States Air Force............................................... 1313
September 13, 2001
Nomination of Gen. Richard B. Myers, USAF, to be Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff.......................................... 1377
Statement of:
Myers, Gen. Richard B., USAF, Nominee to be Chairman, Joint
Chiefs of Staff................................................ 1383
September 25, 2001
Nominations of Gen. Peter Pace, USMC, for Reappointment in the
Grade of General and for Appointment as the Vice Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Gen. John W. Handy, USAF, for
Reappointment in the Grade of General and for Appointment as
Commander in Chief, United States Transportation Command and
Commander Air Mobility Command; and Adm. James O. Ellis, Jr.,
USN, for Reappointment in the Grade of Admiral and for
Appointment as Commander in Chief, United States Strategic
Command........................................................ 1445
Statements of:
Handy, Gen. John W., USAF, for Reappointment to the Grade of
General and for Appointment as Commander in Chief, United
States Transportation Command, and Commander, Air Mobility
Command........................................................ 1451
Pace, Gen. Peter, USMC, for Reappointment to the Grade of General
and for Appointment as the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff.......................................................... 1451
Ellis, Adm. James O., Jr., USN, for Reappointment to the Grade of
Admiral and for Appointment as Commander in Chief, United
States Strategic Command....................................... 1451
October 11, 2001
Nominations of Linton F. Brooks to be Deputy Administrator for
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, National Nuclear Security
Administration; Marvin R. Sambur to be Assistant Secretary of
the Air Force for Acquisition; William Winkenwerder, Jr., to be
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs; Everet
Beckner to be Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs,
National Nuclear Security Administration; and Mary L. Walker to
be General Counsel of the Air Force............................ 1529
Statements of:
Domenici, Hon. Pete V., a U.S. Senator from the State of New
Mexico......................................................... 1531
Beckner, Everet, Ph.D., Nominee to be Deputy Administrator for
Defense Programs, National Nuclear Security Administration..... 1535
Brooks, Ambassador Linton F., Nominee to be Deputy Administrator
for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, National Nuclear Security
Administration................................................. 1537
Winkenwerder, William, Jr., M.D., Nominee to be Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs........................ 1538
Sambur, Marvin R., Ph.D., Nominee to be Assistant Secretary of
the Air Force for Acquisition.................................. 1539
Walker, Mary L., Nominee to be General Counsel of the Air Force.. 1539
October 23, 2001
Nominations of Joseph E. Schmitz to be Inspector General,
Department of Defense; and Sandra L. Pack to be Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Financial Management and Comptroller. 1623
Statements of:
Schmitz, Joseph E., Nominee to be Inspector General, Department
of Defense..................................................... 1627
Pack, Sandra L., Nominee to be Assistant Secretary of the Army
for Financial Management and Comptroller....................... 1628
November 8, 2001
Nominations of R.L. Brownlee to be Under Secretary of the Army;
Dr. Dale Klein to be Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for
Nuclear and Chemical and Biological Defense Programs; and Peter
B. Teets to be Under Secretary of the Air Force................ 1693
Statements of:
Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey, a U.S. Senator from the State of
Texas.......................................................... 1700
Klein, Dr. Dale, Nominee to be Assistant to the Secretary of
Defense for Nuclear and Chemical and Biological Defense
Programs....................................................... 1706
Brownlee, R.L., Nominee to be Under Secretary of the Army........ 1707
Teets, Peter B., Nominee to be Under Secretary of the Air Force.. 1709
December 4, 2001
Nomination of Claude M. Bolton, Jr., to be Assistant Secretary of
the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology............ 1789
Statement of:
Bolton, Maj. Gen. Claude M., Jr., USAF, Nominee to be Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and
Technology..................................................... 1792
APPENDIX......................................................... 1863
NOMINATION OF HON. DONALD H. RUMSFELD TO BE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
----------
THURSDAY, JANUARY 11, 2001
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m. in
room SD-106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Carl Levin
(chairman) presiding.
Committee members present: Senators Levin, Kennedy,
Bingaman, Lieberman, Cleland, Reed, Warner, Thurmond, McCain,
Inhofe, Roberts, Allard, and Sessions.
Other Senators present: Senators Akaka, Bill Nelson, Ben
Nelson, Carnahan, Dayton, Collins, and Bunning.
Committee staff member present: David S. Lyles, staff
director.
Majority staff members present: Richard D. DeBobes,
counsel; Richard W. Fieldhouse, professional staff member;
Creighton Greene, professional staff member; Gerald J. Leeling,
counsel; Peter K. Levine, counsel; and Michael J. McCord,
professional staff member.
Minority staff members present: Romie L. Brownlee, staff
director; Judith A. Ansley, deputy staff director; Charles S.
Abell, professional staff member; Charles W. Alsup,
professional staff member; John R. Barnes, professional staff
member; Edward H. Edens IV, professional staff member; William
C. Greenwalt, professional staff member; Mary Alice A. Hayward,
professional staff member; Lawrence J. Lanzillotta,
professional staff member; George W. Lauffer, professional
staff member; Thomas L. MacKenzie, professional staff member;
Ann M. Mittermeyer, assistant counsel; Joseph T. Sixeas,
professional staff member; Cord A. Sterling, professional staff
member; Scott W. Stucky, general counsel; and Eric H. Thoemmes,
professional staff member.
Staff assistants present: Beth Ann Barozie, Thomas C.
Moore, and Michele A. Traficante.
Committee members' assistants present: Menda S. Fife,
assistant to Senator Kennedy; Erik Raven, assistant to Senator
Byrd; David Klain, assistant to Senator Landrieu; Christopher
J. Paul and Walter E. Fischer, assistants to Senator McCain;
Gregory C. McCarthy, assistant to Senator Inhofe; George M.
Bernier III, assistant to Senator Santorum; Thomas A.
Vecchiolla, assistant to Senator Snowe; Robert Alan McCurry and
James Beauchamp, assistants to Senator Roberts; Douglas
Flanders, assistant to Senator Allard; Michael P. Ralsky,
assistant to Senator Hutchinson; Scott Douglass, assistant to
Senator Sessions.
Other Senate staff present: Richard Kessler, assistant to
Senator Akaka; Pete Contostavlos, assistant to Senator Bill
Nelson; Sheila Murphy, assistant to Senator Ben Nelson; Larry
Smar, assistant to Senator Carnahan; Christopher Ford and Sam
Patten, assistants to Senator Collins; and Jeff Freeman,
assistant to Senator Cochran.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN WARNER
Senator Warner. The history of this committee in the annals
of the Senate reflect that we have achieved, through successive
chairmen, a high degree of bipartisanship that our Nation is
entitled from this committee. I have been privileged to serve
23 years on this committee with my distinguished colleague. We
came together 23 years ago. It has been my privilege to serve
as the Chairman for the past 2 years. If the high water does
not rise and flood us out, I will return to that position in a
week or so.
But in the meantime, in the spirit of bipartisanship, I am
privileged to pass the gavel to Senator Levin. Senator Levin
and I and Senator Inouye, Senator Stevens, and other members of
the House went down to visit with President-elect Bush on
Monday and we had a very good, thorough, and searching
examination of defense issues and that struck the note of
bipartisanship that is so essential as we, the collective
members of our committee, represent this Nation in national
security.
So, Mr. Chairman, it is with privilege I pass the gavel to
you.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN, CHAIRMAN
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Warner. I have been
Chairman of this Committee for all of about a week. I cannot
tell you how many people have noted to me just how you have
thrived under my chairmanship already. [Laughter.]
Before I proceed, I want to thank you for the many good
years of friendship we have enjoyed over two decades now that
we have been in the Senate. I will have some more comments
about your chairmanship and that of Senator Thurmond and others
in a moment. This is just a personal thank you to you.
The committee meets today to consider the nomination of
Donald Rumsfeld to serve as Secretary of Defense.
As the first order of business, I want to welcome all of
our Members back to the committee and extend a special welcome
to our prospective new members. On our side, we are joined by
Senator Akaka, Senator Bill Nelson, Senator Ben Nelson, Senator
Carnahan, and Senator Dayton. On the Republican side, we are
joined by Senators Collins and Bunning. This is a great
committee to serve on. I know that Senator Warner and I and all
the members of this committee look forward to our new members
joining us.
On behalf of the entire committee, I extend a warm welcome
to Mr. Rumsfeld and his family. I understand that you are
accompanied by your wife, Joyce Rumsfeld, your daughter Marcy
Rumsfeld, and your granddaughter Kayley Rumsfeld. We know the
sacrifices that your family will make while you are in this
position and we want to thank them in advance for their support
of you and the sacrifices which they will make.
We also welcome Senators Durbin and Fitzgerald who have
joined us today.
Mr. Rumsfeld is well known to this committee from his
recent service as Chairman of the Commission to Assess the
Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States and his many
other endeavors. A couple of the senior members of the
committee may also admit to their age by remembering Mr.
Rumsfeld's previous service as Secretary of Defense in the Ford
administration. Don Rumsfeld was the youngest Secretary of
Defense in our history. After a few years of service in the
upcoming Bush administration, he will earn the distinction of
being our oldest Secretary of Defense as well--at least until
Senator Thurmond is sworn in as his successor sometime in the
future. [Laughter.]
We convene this hearing at a unique moment in the history
of this country and in the history of the United States Senate.
We have just concluded the closest presidential election in our
history. For the first time ever at the beginning of Congress,
the Senate is equally divided. A practical arrangement to
accommodate that unusual situation was worked out by our
leaders and approved by the Senate last week.
Times like these call out for, and necessitate,
bipartisanship and cooperation. Fortunately, this committee, as
Senator Warner has said, has a long tradition of working in a
bipartisan manner to address the national security challenges
facing this country. Chairman Warner has consistently led the
committee in this spirit, as have the chairmen before him. At
times when the rest of Congress has suffered from gridlock, our
committee's legislative achievements--like the Goldwater-
Nichols DOD Reorganization Act, and the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative
Threat Reduction Program--have been marked by bipartisanship.
Even our disagreements on issues have rarely been along
partisan lines. For instance, while debates on the withdrawal
of troops from Kosovo and on additional rounds of base closures
have divided this committee in recent years, the division has
not been on partisan lines.
It is my hope that the ease with which we hand the
chairman's gavel back and forth in the course of this month
will symbolize the close working relationships on this
committee over the decades and help set the tone elsewhere.
Our new Secretary of Defense will inherit the most dominant
military force in the history of the world. Over the last two
decades, our military has incorporated a series of
technological improvements that have revolutionized their
military capability--from precision guided munitions and
stealth technology to satellite reconnaissance and electronic
warfare capabilities. The members of this committee, the
Appropriations Committee, and our counterparts in the House of
Representatives have played a key role in those changes. Today,
each of our military services is more lethal, more
maneuverable, more versatile and has greater situational
awareness on the battlefield than at any time in history.
During the 1990s, Congress and the administration worked
together to enhance our national security by achieving a
balance between the needs of today's troops, including their
current readiness, with the need to develop and field weapons
that will enable us to retain our technological advantage in
the future. This effort led to the enactment of comprehensive
improvements to the military's health care system, military pay
and retirement systems, and the substantially increased
acquisition spending to recapitalize and modernize the force.
We have also been engaged in a constant struggle to
maintain funding for operations and maintenance accounts that
support current readiness, given the high rates of deployment.
The terrorist attack on the U.S.S. Cole last fall
demonstrated once again that our enemies are most likely to use
indirect, asymmetric means to attack us. They realize it would
be suicide to confront the United States military directly. The
most likely threats to our national interest will come from
regional conflicts due to ethnic, religious, or cultural
conflicts and from terrorists and terrorist states.
If states are involved, they will seek to hide their
involvement, because the retaliatory power of the United States
is so massive and survivable as to guarantee the destruction of
the principal goal of a totalitarian regime--its own survival.
In the area of national missile defense, the outgoing
administration chose to aggressively pursue research and
development, while stating a determination to consider in any
deployment decision not only the threat, but the system's
operational effectiveness and affordability, and the impact
that deployment would have on our overall national security.
This approach gives appropriate weight not only to the effect
that large expenditures on missile defense would have on
resources available to meet other vital defense needs, but also
to the negative impact that the unilateral deployment of a
national missile defense could have on our allies and on the
proliferation of nuclear weapons, given the likelihood that the
Russian and Chinese response to such unilateral deployment
would be to increase (or stop reducing) the number of nuclear
weapons and the amount of nuclear material on their soil. As
Senator Baker and Lloyd Cutler found in their report released
yesterday, the most urgent unmet national security threat to
the United States is that weapons of mass destruction or
weapons usable material located in Russia could be stolen and
sold to terrorists or hostile nation states and used against
American troops abroad or citizens at home.
We need to analyze the extent to which we spend defense
resources on threats that are the least likely to occur. A
ballistic missile attack from a terrorist state against the
United States is a threat, but it is one that we have
successfully deterred and against which we have a continuing
overwhelming deterrent. There are cheaper and easier means of
attacking the United States than an ICBM--means such as truck
bombs, poisoning of water systems, or infiltration of computer
networks--which may not open the unknown attacker to massive
destruction in return. Those are just a few of the issues that
we will be grappling with as a committee and you will be
grappling with as Secretary of Defense.
We are blessed to live in a Nation whose political
institutions and economy are respected throughout the world.
With the end of the Cold War, our core values of freedom,
democracy, and human rights appear to be stronger than ever
with democratic revolutions changing the history of nation
after nation. Our military, when used wisely, at once makes our
Nation secure and enables us to play a unique role in
influencing the course of events outside our borders in a
peaceful and stable direction.
But the ability to influence events does not necessarily
mean, of course, the ability to control them. We live in such a
complex world, where we must deal with many interests that are
contrary to our own. We should be proud of all that we have
achieved in the world, including the reversal of ethnic
cleansing in Europe for the first time in history, which also
enabled nearly a million refugees and displaced persons to
return to their homes. At the same time, we must be prepared to
deal with new threats--particularly the terrorist threat--with
new technologies, more mobile forces, and improved intelligence
capabilities. Chairman Warner, with my support, created a
subcommittee that is specially aimed at addressing these new
threats. In the most recent defense authorization bill that we
have adopted, we have paid special attention to the need to
address the new threats.
The new administration will develop its own strategy for
addressing these difficult issues and for maintaining the
superiority of America's military force. Today's hearing
provides an opportunity for all of us to begin the process of
discussing that strategy. The nominee before us today has a
strong commitment to the national defense. He is well-qualified
to address the issues facing the Department of Defense and he
is an extremely well-qualified nominee for this position. We
congratulate him. We also congratulate the President-elect for
this nomination. I now call upon Senator Warner for his opening
statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN WARNER
Senator Warner. Thank you very much, Chairman Levin. I join
you in welcoming our new members. Our new members put this
committee at the highest level membership in history at 24.
In years past, we recruited members. Now we have certainly
an indication of strength among our entire membership as
reflected by so many wishing to join us. We welcome you.
To you, my dear friend for over 30 years, we have had a
friendship and a personal relationship and indeed a
professional one, having served together in the Ford
administration, I as Secretary of the Navy and you as one of
our troublemakers over in the White House.
I join in welcoming your lovely wife and family. Anyone
taking on particularly your responsibilities as Secretary of
Defense 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and that phone is always
by your side. Indeed, your family fully shares the heavy
responsibilities. You are so fortunate to have such a wonderful
family to share that burden.
If I may say, Mrs. Rumsfeld, you will be an integral part
of reassuring the other families of the service persons
throughout the world by your strong support of your husband and
indeed them.
So we welcome you as a team to the department. I look back
over the hearing record of November 12, 1975. It was a very
short hearing I note and perhaps not as well attended. But that
reflects the importance of the Senate advice and consent today.
This committee, as to other committees of the Senate, take that
responsibility very seriously.
So our hearing today will be lengthy and we will probe
deeply into many areas of our security relationships and your
responsibility and how you intend to fulfill it.
First, I would like to say that based on my good fortune to
have known you, I say without any reservation you are
competent. You are experienced. You are trustworthy. You have
the character, the honesty, to do this job second to none.
I was so pleased, and indeed I think the country should be
grateful that you are willing to come back again, sign on for a
second hitch, as we say in the military, for this important
post. I note behind you two old-timers who are not paying any
attention to what we are saying, Mr. Schneider and Mr.
Korologos. [Laughter.] I do not know why they are here, but we
welcome them anyway. [Laughter.]
We also commend you, Mr. Rumsfeld, for keeping active and
informed on defense and security issues since your last
Pentagon service. The committee is familiar with the excellent
work you have done in both the Commission to Assess the
Ballistic Missile Threat which issued its report in 1998 and
the ongoing Commission to Assess United States National
Security Space Management and Organization which coincidentally
the report will be issued today.
Now, Senator Levin and I and others have received a
briefing on the work of this commission. It is a job well done.
It is another serious wake-up call to America about the threats
directed at us.
Our committee played a central role in establishing both of
these commissions and I commend its membership. We thank you
again and the members of the committee for your work.
We are familiar with the findings and recommendations of
the Ballistic Missile Threat Commission and the influence that
that report had. It came at a critical time I say to you. In
many ways, the Ballistic Missile Threat Report changed the
entire debate over national missile defense by convincing many
in Congress, and, respectfully, in the Clinton administration,
that the potential threat is more serious and more imminent
than previously understood throughout our Nation.
I look forward to your comments on this subject and my dear
friend and colleague here I think quite appropriately in his
opening statement indicated some of his strong views. We have
not always agreed on it, but it is a subject that is the
centerpiece of the new Bush administration. No one is better
qualified than yourself to advise the President on the
directions to be taken.
We still have, as you well know, you are a former sailor,
former naval aviator the best-trained, best-equipped military
force in the world today. There are certainly many areas in
which we need to continue to make improvements.
We are not pleased at all with the retention levels,
difficulty of recruiting. When we recruit today, we recruit
families. We recruit unlike when you and I went in many years
ago into the service. It is families today.
When that critical decision is made about retention the
wives are usually co-equal partners. It was a family decision
to stay or to go out and seek the lucrative opportunities that
these well-trained individuals have in the private sector.
Readiness and modernization have been the highest priority
of this committee. We have achieved some gains, but not enough.
Procurement. We have almost dropped to levels which are
just totally unacceptable. We have to modernize and restore the
best we can within the budget a much higher level of acquiring
new and modern weapons.
Just look at the truck inventory in the United States Army.
No civilian, no private sector, would operate a truck force
like we are operating in the military. That is just one thing
people can understand all across America.
So therefore, Mr. Secretary, we have to increase defense
spending. When we, Senator Levin and I, had an opportunity to
visit with President-elect Bush, Vice President-elect Cheney,
on Monday, we did not talk about specific levels. But there was
the clear consensus that we have to increase substantially
defense spending.
Now, this morning we cannot establish those levels with any
precision. But I was heartened to see that the President-elect
wants to first task you to examine how the current budget,
those of past years, being expended, to determine whether or
not you should redirect funding, to determine whether there are
efficiencies within which you can gain some cash needed for
other programs.
Then after doing that, you can establish that level of
increase in the context of not only the other budget factors,
but most importantly the President-elect said the defense
budget has to have a direct relevance if not in fact be driven
by the threats poised against this Nation, threats quite
different than our generation of active service in the
military. Quite different.
Senator Levin expounded on terrorism and the work of this
committee, and I commend this committee for its work. We have
constantly had to push the current administration for higher
levels of funding in a wide range of areas to combat terrorism
and the risks here in the United States which I will address
momentarily. We call it homeland defense.
President-elect Bush used that very phrase in his statement
at the Citadel which is a foundation document of his thinking.
Now, historically, the Joint Chiefs of Staff have had, of
course, a vital role in the planning in the Department of
Defense. But I commend them, especially for the past 2 years,
and indeed the years before under my distinguished predecessor,
Senator Thurmond, for coming before this committee and
testifying about the need for additional funds over and above
the recommendations and the submissions by the Commander in
Chief, the President of the United States at that very table.
The past 2 years we have taken that testimony which has
been essential as this committee has gone to the floor of the
United States Senate to get higher authorization levels for
spending. We have gotten what I regard as modest sums, but
nevertheless very important increases in the past 2 fiscal
years.
You will be faced early on with first the supplemental. We
have talked about that together. We talked with Senator Stevens
and Senator Inouye about it. Followed by a budget amendment to
the current Clinton administration budget which is
traditionally submitted to Congress by the outgoing President.
Those are some of the key things that you will have to address
immediately. Within both, you will have additional sums needed
desperately for our defense.
President-elect Bush has articulated a vision for the U.S.
military and have set three broad goals for national defense.
First, to strengthen the bond of trust between the
President which is so essential, from the four star officer
down to the private or the seaman, that bond of trust between
the commander and chief and those in uniform and indeed their
families.
Second, to defend the American people against missiles and
terror. Very few in the United States recognize we are
virtually defenseless against missile attack. That, of course,
is the subject that my colleague discussed and we will have
further discussions on that.
Third, to begin creating the military of the next century.
How well you know from your own study the old slogan they are
always preparing to fight the last battle. Well, that worked
maybe in World War II when we had the time to catch up because
of the protection of the oceans. But those protections are gone
today. Warfare is instantaneous. It is the arsenal we have of
weapons and trained people in place that will be used.
Cyber warfare. No one envisioned that a decade ago. But
today it is a threat which I and others think is just as lethal
as anything.
I commend your predecessor, Secretary Cohen. He has
recognized would you not say, Mr. Chairman, the oncoming and
the changing threats in just the 4 years that he has been
present as Secretary of Defense?
I want to say at this time, and I think the members of this
committee would want to reflect, our respect for the work that
Secretary Cohen and his team have done in his administration.
You understand these goals.
I want to go back to the President's speech at the Citadel.
He said, and I quote, ``Those who want to lead America accept
two obligations. One is to use our military power wisely
remembering the cost of the war. The other is to honor our
commitments to veterans who have paid those costs.''
People. Those who have served in the past, those who are
serving today, and those we need to have come in and serve for
tomorrow.
I am proud of the way this committee, this last bill, began
to reach back and take care of those veterans, particularly the
career veterans, in terms of their medical needs. This
committee is very conscious of the fact that they are the best
recruiters in the world, those who have served once. We have in
the past, I think, neglected them. That has come to an end with
the work of this committee.
The start point President-elect Bush has said that he will
recommend a substantial pay raise, a billion. This committee
has worked on two successive pay raises. We are ready to accept
that challenge of that billion dollar mark. Perhaps it has to
be adjusted maybe up or sideways or down a bit. But we will
back him in working through that very important thing because
that is key again to the retention and the care of the
families.
We all know that most of the retention decisions as I
mentioned are made on a family basis. That is critical to care
for those people.
Homeland defense will be a high priority for President-
elect Bush and yourself, if confirmed. President-elect Bush has
said that he will deploy both theater and national ABM systems
to guard the United States, our allies, and troops deployed
overseas against missile attack or the threat of attack.
Defense against domestic terrorism, including detecting and
responding to such threats, will also be a priority for the
next administration. You will be at the very forefront.
We also need an immediate and comprehensive review as
President-elect Bush advised us when we visited with him of our
military today, its structure, it strategy, its capabilities,
and its modernization priorities.
President-elect Bush has promised such a review. In my
conversations with you, you are fully prepared to undertake
that the first day you arrive in the department.
We must look beyond the modest improvements we have had to
our current systems and find ways to enhance and strengthen our
military in many areas.
I want to include among that base closure. It has been a
very contentious subject. In past years, I was privileged to
join with my friend, the Chairman, in originating those bills.
Senator McCain has been very active on that front. I urge you
to take a look at that at the earliest opportunity. There is
infrastructure out there that can be withdrawn and I think
constructively and in many instances will help local
communities to get that infrastructure back and put it to good
use. There will be a cost savings to the military which those
dollars can be applied elsewhere. In most instances, it will
eventually help the local communities. These are some of the
initiatives that you must undertake.
So I support this nomination very enthusiastically. It is
my intention to cast that vote for you subject to the work of
this committee and I wish to commend President-elect Bush for
putting together an absolutely outstanding team on the areas of
national defense, national security, and international affairs.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Warner. Two of our
friends and dear colleagues have joined us to introduce Mr.
Rumsfeld. Senator Durbin, we will call on you first. Then we
will call on Senator Fitzgerald.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD J. DURBIN, U.S. SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS
Senator Durbin. Thank you, Chairman Levin, and the members
of the committee. It is an honor to introduce to the committee
today my distinguished colleague from the land of Lincoln. I
know that presidents have often complained about the Senate
confirmation process. Herbert Hoover, upon the birth of his
granddaughter, said, ``Thank God she doesn't have to be
confirmed by the Senate.''
Donald Rumsfeld has so much experience, I am sure he will
have less trouble winning confirmation than President Hoover's
granddaughter would have had if she had required the Senate's
blessing.
Don Rumsfeld's resume is impressive. Four-term Congressman
from Illinois, Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity,
U.S. Ambassador to NATO, White House Chief of Staff, the
youngest ever Secretary of Defense, CEO of several major
corporations, and a special envoy for President under President
Reagan.
We have heard a lot about bipartisanship lately. When Don
Rumsfeld came by my office to talk about this hearing, he told
me that when he served in Congress before Baker versus Clark
that Speaker Sam Rayburn had a congressional district of about
89,000. Is that what you remember, Don? His congressional
district was the largest in the nation at 1.1 million.
The Illinois district that Don Rumsfeld represented in the
House of Representatives was split in two in Congress after he
departed. One district represented by a conservative Republican
and one by a liberal Democrat. His ability to serve such a
diverse district speaks well of his ability to bridge a
Congress and a country almost equally divided.
While all Senators may not agree with Mr. Rumsfeld on every
issue, he has certainly earned our respect. In fact, I want to
warn my Senate colleagues to be reluctant to go to the mat with
Don Rumsfeld. Not only was he Captain of Princeton University's
wrestling team, and All Navy wrestling champion, he was also
inducted in the National Wrestling Hall of Fame and Museum. He
joined Speaker Hastert as another famous wrestler who hails
from Illinois.
I for one plan to keep in mind that wrestling depends on
strategy and making the right move at the right time as much as
it does on strength and power.
Some of his critics have complained Mr. Rumsfeld's
experience with defense is from a bygone, Cold War era. Those
critics ignore the obvious. Mr. Rumsfeld's valuable
contributions chairing several commissions, including the
Ballistic Missile Threat Commission, and the obvious experience
that he has had in managing major corporations in a new
economy. Mr. Rumsfeld has kept up and I would challenge his
critics to try to keep up with him.
In 1775, in our revolutionary era, Patrick Henry said, ``I
have but one lamp by which my feet are guided and that is the
lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging the future but
by the past.''
It is only because the United States was so steadfast in
fighting for freedom and democracy that the world enjoys an
unprecedented era of freedom and prosperity today.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Rumsfeld carries the lamp of experience.
I wish him for our country's sake every success as he travels
by that light. It is with pride that I present to you one of
Illinois' favorite and most distinguished sons.
Chairman Levin. Senator Durbin, thank you.
Senator Fitzgerald.
STATEMENT OF HON. PETER G. FITZGERALD, U.S. SENATOR FROM
ILLINOIS
Senator Fitzgerald. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
members of this distinguished committee. It is a great honor
and privilege for me to join with my colleague, Senator Durbin,
to present to this committee one of Illinois' most
distinguished residents, Donald Rumsfeld.
The day after President-elect Bush announced his selection
of Donald Rumsfeld, I noted that in the New York Times the
reporter had asked Henry Kissinger his opinion of the Defense
Secretary designate. Dr. Kissinger said, and I quote, ``I
literally cannot think of a better person for the post.''
That was exactly my impression. I believe it was the
impression of many of the members of this body and certainly of
many of the newspaper editorial boards around the country.
It is kind of an irony, Don. You were actually my
Congressman when I was growing up. I was one of those 1.1
million constituents Senator Durbin referred to.
Now, lest this committee conclude that either I am too
young to be in the United States Senate or that he is too old
to serve as Defense Secretary, I would point out that he was a
very young Member of Congress, one of the youngest Members of
Congress at the time, in his early 30s. I would note that in
one of life's unfair ironies, he has more hair than I do today.
As Senator Durbin said, I would not recommend that anybody try
to wrestle with Don Rumsfeld.
Shortly after I got sworn in, I was very familiar with
Donald Rumsfeld's record in business and in government. I knew
of his impressive resume. But what I would urge you to reflect
upon is, this man is not simply a resume who has held all these
impressive posts. He is someone who has collected a lot of
wisdom from his years of experience.
Shortly after I was sworn in, he shared with me a little
pamphlet that he put together and compiled over the years known
as ``Rumsfeld's Rules''. If any of you have not seen that, I
would recommend that you get a copy of it. It has many of his
words of wisdom and advice to Members of Congress or those in
the administration. I read that carefully after I got sworn in.
I remember certain pearls and chestnuts that you had, such as,
``no Member of Congress is here by accident, if you get to know
your fellow colleagues in this body, you will see that there is
some special reason each one of them is here. In getting to
know that special reason, you will come to respect that member
and you will also learn a lot about America.'' So I recommend
``Rumsfeld's Rules'' to all of you. It has a great deal of
wisdom in it.
As Senator Durbin said, Mr. Rumsfeld is a graduate of
Princeton University, and captain of the wrestling team, and I
believe, captain of the football team. He went on to be a naval
aviator, was the Navy wrestling champion, served four terms in
Congress, became the White House Chief of Staff, then was named
Defense Secretary. He was regarded as having a wonderful record
and having been an outstanding Secretary of Defense the first
time around. I can only imagine him being better this time
around.
Now, there is a lot of talk about investment opportunities
these days with the market having gone up so much the last few
years and then coming down. A good investment strategy over the
last 20 years would have been to invest in companies that were
chaired or the CEO was Donald Rumsfeld.
G.D. Searle Company, a major Illinois pharmaceutical
company, was in dire straits back in 1977 when Don Rumsfeld
took over. By the time he left in 1985 and the company was
sold, the stock had quadrupled.
There was a similar success story with General Instrument
Corporation. Many of you are familiar and are friends with Ted
Forstman who runs a fund that invests in corporations. Ted
Forstman, of course, is known for his philanthropy and his
generosity in creating scholarships for young children all over
the country. That philanthropy might not have been possible had
his fund not bought General Instruments, put Donald Rumsfeld in
charge who within 3 years had tripled the stock of that
corporation. They took it public.
He has continued on in advisory roles to this body and to
the executive branch. He has stayed engaged in defense issues.
This is a rare individual who has literally succeeded at almost
everything he has done in life. I think I can only say, I can
only conclude, as some of you have already concluded, that we
are simply fortunate to have a person of this caliber who is
willing to re-enter public service and to assist our country.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask leave to introduce into the
record prepared remarks that I have. I want to thank you all
for your consideration. I recommend Donald Rumsfeld with whole
hearted enthusiasm and confidence. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Senator Fitzgerald follows:]
Prepared Statement by Senator Peter G. Fitzgerald
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee.
I am honored to be here today to introduce to you a man whom I have
admired and respected throughout his distinguished career of public
service. Introducing Don Rumsfeld to the Armed Services Committee is a
little like introducing Sammy Sosa to the Chicago Cubs. Secretary
Rumsfeld has hit home runs in literally everything he has done in his
long and influential career.
Don Rumsfeld was my congressman when I was growing up. I first met
Don in 1988, when he ran for President, and my family has known him for
nearly 40 years. I am proud to be before this committee today in
support of this extraordinary individual.
Don Rumsfeld attended Princeton University on a scholarship, and
then was a Navy pilot and All Navy Wrestling Champion, before being
elected four times to Congress from my home state of Illinois.
Don was an energetic and effective congressman, a rising star, who
quickly caught the eye of Gerald Ford, then a Representative from
Michigan. In 1969, President Nixon appointed Don as Director of the
Office of Economic Opportunity, and later as U.S. Ambassador to NATO.
In 1974, President Ford selected Don to be his chief of staff, and
Don's sound management and political instincts helped President Ford
heal the wounds of Watergate and the Vietnam War. In 1975, President
Ford appointed Don as Secretary of Defense, the youngest ever to serve
in the position. Once again, Don displayed his extraordinary talents as
a tough, skillful manager, strategist, and advocate. Don helped restore
the confidence and credibility of our Armed Forces, warned of the
growing Soviet threat, and built bipartisan support in Congress for
strengthening and modernizing our military.
Don then applied his extraordinary energy and talent to the private
sector, restoring profitability to two large, Illinois-based blue chip
corporations. G.D. Searle, a major worldwide pharmaceutical company,
was foundering when Don took over, but made a dramatic recovery under
his leadership. Don then returned GI Corporation, a pioneer in
telecommunications, to profitability--GI's market value tripled under
Don's leadership.
Throughout Don's years in business, he continued to serve Illinois
and the Nation, on numerous non-profit philanthropic boards, as an
adviser to the State and Defense Departments, as President Reagan's
Special Envoy to the Middle East, and as Chairman of the U.S. Ballistic
Missile Threat Commission, among other things.
The President's most important job is Commander in Chief.
President-elect Bush has demonstrated in selecting Don Rumsfeld as his
Secretary of Defense that he will ensure that our Nation can face the
security challenges of the 21st century. These challenges require that
we create and maintain a flexible military force that is able to adapt
quickly to changing threats. I know Don is committed to ensuring that
America's Armed Forces are modernized to meet the challenges of the new
century. He understands that today's procurement is tomorrow's
readiness. He knows that the men and women of the Armed Forces must
remain the best trained and best equipped in the world.
President-elect Bush has committed himself to building an effective
missile defense system to protect our country from ballistic missile
attack and nuclear intimidation. Don, as Chairman of the bipartisan
Ballistic Missile Threat Commission, warned the Nation that the missile
threat to the U.S. is real and growing, and that the United States will
have little or no warning before a rogue state deploys ballistic
missiles with the capability to inflict major destruction on the United
States. As Don put it so well, the surprise is not that there are
surprises, but that we are surprised that there are surprises.
We in Congress, by passing the National Missile Defense Act of
1999, made it the policy of the United States to deploy, as soon as is
technologically possible, an effective National Missile Defense system.
Don Rumsfeld is the right individual to make the hard choices and the
tough calls that must be made to select and deploy an effective and
affordable system that meets the threat.
Finally, providing the resources for the defense of this country is
one of the greatest responsibilities we have as U.S. Senators. While we
often get deeply involved in the pros and cons of this or that fighter
plane or battleship, we can never forget what the defense of this
country really rests on: our men and women in uniform. Don Rumsfeld
knows this to his very core.
Don's 3 years of service in the U.S. Navy as a jet pilot and flight
instructor, and his work as Secretary of Defense in the post-Vietnam
years rebuilding the morale and pride of our military, are legendary.
Don clearly understands the sacrifice that has been made by our service
members. I am confident Don will help provide our military with the
best equipment and training America has to offer and will ensure that
every service member and his or her family has the quality of life they
were promised. The recently released report on the U.S.S. Cole tragedy
underscores the need to beef up security for our troops stationed
abroad against the threat of terrorism.
In short, I cannot imagine anyone more capable of serving as
Secretary of Defense than Don Rumsfeld, and I commend President-elect
Bush for his bold choice. I am grateful that Don has agreed to return
to what is, without doubt, one of the toughest jobs in the world. We
are fortunate to have someone of Don's caliber willing to take on this
difficult responsibility once again. It is therefore a great privilege
to join my colleague, Senator Durbin, in introducing Don Rumsfeld, and
urge the committee to give prompt and favorable consideration to his
nomination.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. It will be made part of the record. We
thank both of you for coming. It makes a real difference to the
nominee I am sure and to this committee. Mr. Rumsfeld, now you
have to live up to all of that and investment advice while you
are at it.
STATEMENT OF HON. DONALD RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE NOMINEE
Mr. Rumsfeld. Wow. Well, I must say I thank Senator
Fitzgerald and Senator Durbin for those very generous words. I
will try to live up to them.
Mr. Chairman, Senator Warner, members of the committee: It
is a privilege and an honor to appear before you today as the
nominee for the post of Secretary of Defense. I am certainly
grateful to President-elect George W. Bush for his confidence
that he's placed in me. I thank the committee and you, Mr.
Chairman, for your courtesy in arranging this hearing so
promptly.
I would like, with your permission, to make some remarks
off my prepared statement and have the statement made a part of
the record.
Chairman Levin. It will be made part of the record in full.
Mr. Rumsfeld. As has been said, it was 25 years ago that I
had the privilege of appearing for the first time before this
committee as President Ford's nominee for Secretary of Defense.
Certainly, we lived in a very different world then. In the
intervening quarter of a century, the world has changed in ways
that we could really only have dreamed of.
America was locked in a nuclear and ideological standoff
with the Soviet Union. Today, the Soviet Union is no more. The
world of superpower standoff has given way to a world of
expanding freedom and, I would add, expanding opportunity.
The last time I appeared here for a confirmation hearing,
the Armed Forces and those of our NATO allies stood toe-to-toe
facing the militaries of the Warsaw Pact--ready to clash at a
moment's notice on a battlefield with Poland, Hungary,
Czechoslovakia, and East Germany.
Today, the Warsaw Pact is no more; Berlin is again the
capital of a unified Germany; and Warsaw, Prague, and Budapest
are the capitals of our new NATO allies. As one who served as
U.S. Ambassador to NATO, I must say I find these changes
breathtaking and fundamental.
When I appeared previously, American industry was facing an
industrial challenge from Japan. You will recall the
productivity and competitiveness made American industry look
fat in overhead, excessively layered in management, sluggish in
confronting change and innovation.
Today, U.S. industry has shaken off those handicaps and--in
a process that I have had the privilege to witness first hand--
become a leader and a model for the rest of the world. The end
of the Cold War and the collapse of Soviet military power have
brought the twentieth century--possibly the most violent and
destructive century in human history--to a remarkably peaceful
close.
U.S. and allied military power was the indispensable
instrument that contained the Soviet Union, confronted Soviet
power and its surrogates at the geographic extremities of its
advance, and provided the shield within which democratic order
and economic prosperity could evolve and develop.
When the great struggle that was World War II had passed,
this country found itself facing new challenges with the advent
of the Cold War and the development of nuclear weapons. Today,
with the Cold War Era history, we find ourselves facing a new
era, often called the Post Cold War period or possibly more
properly the Era of Globalization.
It is an extraordinarily hopeful time, one that is full of
promise, but also full of challenges. One of those challenges,
one that, if confirmed, I look forward to working with
President-elect Bush and this committee and Congress to meet,
is the challenge of bringing the American military successfully
into the 21st century, so that it can continue to play its
truly vital role in preserving and extending peace as far into
the future as possible.
As President-elect Bush has said, ``After the hard but
clear struggle against an evil empire,'' the challenge that we
face today ``is not as obvious, but just as noble: To turn
these years of influence into decades of peace.'' The
``foundation of our peace'' is a ``strong, capable and modern
military.'' Let there be no doubt.
The end of the Cold War did not bring about an end to armed
conflict, or the end to challenges and threats to U.S.
interests. We know that. Indeed, the centrifugal forces in
world politics have created a more diverse and less predictable
set of potential adversaries whose aspirations for regional
influence and whose willingness to use military force will
produce challenges to important U.S. interests and to those of
our friends and allies as Chairman Levin mentioned.
President-elect Bush has outlined three overarching goals
for bringing U.S. Armed Forces into the 21st century: First, we
must strengthen the bond of trust with the American military.
The brave and dedicated men and women who serve our country in
uniform active, guard, and reserve--must get the best support
their country can possibly provide them so that we can continue
to call on the best people in the decades to come.
Second, we must develop the capabilities to defend against
missiles, terrorism, the newer threats against our space assets
and information systems as members of the committee have
mentioned. The American people, our forces abroad, and our
friends and allies must be protected against the threats with
modern technology and its proliferation confront us.
Third, we must take advantage of the new possibilities that
the ongoing technological revolution offers to create the
military of the next century.
Meeting these challenges will require a cooperative effort
between Congress and the Executive Branch, and with industry
and with our allies as well. If confirmed, I look forward to
developing a close working relationship with this committee and
with the counterpart committees in the House of Representatives
to achieve these goals, and to fashion steps to help to
transform our defense posture to address those new challenges.
We must work together if we are to be able to address the
problems of inadequate funding, which has been the case,
unreliable funding, pertebations in funding and resistance to
change. Change is hard and institutions are difficult to move.
With cooperation and collaboration, we can make real progress.
Without cooperation, we will surely fail.
President-elect Bush is committed to a strong national
defense. If confirmed, one of our first tasks will be to
undertake a comprehensive review of U.S. defense policy that
Senator Warner mentioned. This review will be aimed at making
certain that we have a sound understanding of the state of U.S.
forces and their readiness to meet the 21st century security
environment.
We need to ensure that we will be able to develop, deploy,
operate, and support a highly effective force capable of
deterring and defending against new threats. This will require
a refashioning of deterrence and defense capabilities. The old
deterrence of the Cold War era is imperfect for dissuading the
threats of the new century and for maintaining stability in our
new national security environment.
If confirmed as Secretary, I plan to pursue five key
objectives needed to support and make progress on the
President's goal.
First, we need to fashion and sustain deterrence
appropriate to the new national security environment. The
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of
delivery are a fact of life that first must be acknowledged and
recognized for what it is. They must be managed. While striving
to slow proliferation remains essential, a determined state
may, nonetheless, succeed in acquiring weapons of mass
destruction and increasingly capable missiles.
As a consequence, a decisive change in policy should be
aimed at devaluing investment in weapons of mass destruction
and their delivery systems by potential adversaries. Credible
deterrence no longer can be based solely on the prospect of
punishment through retaliation. It must be based on a
combination of offensive nuclear and non-nuclear defensive
capabilities, working together to deny potential adversaries
the opportunity and the benefits that come from the threat and
the use of weapons of mass destruction against our forces, our
homeland, as well as those of our allies.
Second, the readiness and sustainability of deployed forces
must be deferred. The price of inadequate readiness is paid in
necessary risks to American interests and in unnecessary risks
to the lives of American service men and women.
But inadequate readiness exacts a further price in the
future quality of the force. Our Armed Forces today are all
volunteers. Whether Active Duty, Reserve or National Guard,
they are men and women who have willingly answered the call to
serve our country and accepted the burdens and dangers that go
with that service.
As President-elect Bush has said, ``even the highest morale
is eventually undermined by back-to-back deployments, poor pay,
shortages of spare parts and equipment, and declining
readiness. . . . A volunteer military really has only two paths
it can travel. One is to lower standards to fill the ranks. Or
it can inspire the best and brightest to join and stay.'' If
confirmed, I look forward to working with the President and
this committee that has been so interested in this subject to
make sure that our country's service is able to attract and
retain the best of our country.
Third, U.S. command-control-communication, intelligence and
space capabilities must be modernized to support our 21st
century needs. A modern command, control, communications, and
intelligence infrastructure is the foundation upon which U.S.
military power is employed. The development and deployment of a
truly modern effective command, control, communication, and
intelligence system is fundamental to the transformation of
U.S. military forces, and it is indispensable to our ability to
conduct effective diplomacy.
I am committed to strengthening our intelligence to serve
both our short-term and our long-term national security needs.
I will personally make establishing a strong spirit of
cooperation between the Department of Defense and the rest of
the intelligence community, under the leadership of the DCI,
one of my top priorities. We simply must strengthen our
intelligence capabilities and our space capabilities, along
with the ability to protect those assets against various forms
of attack.
Fourth, the U.S. defense establishment must be transformed
to address our new circumstances. The need to swiftly introduce
new weapons systems is clear. The transformation of U.S.
military power to take full advantage of commercially created
information-technology may require undertaking a near-term
investment to acquire modern capabilities derived from U.S.
scientific and industrial pre-eminence, rather than simply
upgrading some existing systems.
The present weapons system acquisition process was designed
in an environment different from the one that exists today. In
my view, it is not well-suited to meet the demands posed by an
expansion of unconventional and asymmetrical threats in an era
of rapid technological advances and a period of pervasive
proliferation.
The cycle time from program start to initial operational
capability for major acquisition programs conducted over the
past several decades has, I am told, generally been between 8
and 9 years. Some efforts obviously have taken far longer.
But such processes are not capable of harnessing the
remarkable genius and productivity of the modern, information-
based commercial and industrial sectors that have done so much
to revolutionize our civilian economy.
Fifth, reform of DOD structures, processes, and
organization. The legacy of obsolescent institutional
structures, processes, and organizations does not merely create
unnecessary costs--which, of course, it does--it also imposes
an unacceptable burden on the national defense. In certain
respects, it could be said that we are in a sense disarming or
under arming by our failure to reform the acquisition process
and to shed unneeded organizations and facilities.
If confirmed, we will examine, in consultation with
Congress, omnibus approaches to changing the statutory and
regulatory basis for the most significant obstacles to reform.
This agenda for the new security environment is admittedly
ambitious. It is an achievable one if the legislative and the
executive branches work together.
If confirmed, I will work closely with the committee and
with the other appropriate committees of Congress to develop,
fund, and implement an overall defense program that can achieve
our goals for the future and for the future of our children.
I again want to express my appreciation to the President-
elect for his confidence and to you, Mr. Chairman, and the
members of the committee for inviting me here today. Thank you,
sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rumsfeld follows:]
Prepared Statement by Hon. Donald H. Rumsfeld
Mr. Chairman, Senator Warner, members of the committee: It is a
privilege and an honor to appear before you today as the nominee to be
the next U.S. Secretary of Defense. I am grateful to President-elect
George W. Bush for nominating me to this important post and for the
confidence he has placed in me. I thank you and this Committee for your
courtesy in scheduling this confirmation hearing.
With your permission, I will make a few opening remarks and request
that my prepared statement be included in the record.
Some 25 years ago, I had the privilege of appearing for the first
time before this Committee as President Gerald R. Ford's nominee for
Secretary of Defense. We lived in a very different world then. In the
intervening quarter century the world has changed in ways that we could
once only dream of.
The last time I appeared before you in this capacity, America was
locked in a nuclear and ideological standoff with the Soviet Union.
Today, the Soviet Union is no more, and the world of superpower
standoff has given way to a world of expanding freedom and, I would
add, expanding opportunity.
The last time I appeared here for a confirmation hearing, U.S.
Armed Forces and those of our NATO allies stood toe to toe facing the
militaries of the Warsaw Pact--ready at a moment's notice to clash on
the battlefield with Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and East Germany.
Today, the Warsaw Pact is no more; Berlin is again the capital of a
unified Germany; and Warsaw, Prague, and Budapest are the capitals of
our new NATO allies. As one who once served as U.S. Ambassador to NATO,
I find these changes both breathtaking and fundamental.
When I appeared previously, American industry was facing an
industrial challenge from Japan, whose productivity and competitiveness
made American industry look fat in overhead, excessively layered in
management and sluggish in confronting change and innovation. Today,
U.S. industry has shaken off those handicaps and--in a process that I
have witnessed personally--has become a leader and a model for the rest
of the world.
The end of the Cold War and the collapse of Soviet military power
have brought the 20th century--possibly the most violent and
destructive century in human history--to a remarkably peaceful close.
U.S. military power was the indispensable instrument that contained the
Soviet Union, confronted Soviet power and its surrogates at the
geographic extremities of its advance, and provided the shield within
which democratic order and economic prosperity were able to develop. As
part of this process, the peoples of Russia and other states of the
former Soviet Union have, or are in the process of, throwing off
communism and reaching for democratic order and market economy. The
United States has emerged from the 20th century in a strong position in
every measure of national strength--military, economic, scientific,
industrial, diplomatic, political and, I believe, even spiritual. Even
more important, the U.S. and our democratic allies in Europe, Asia and
elsewhere enjoy a special position in the world that, if we can work
together, offers the possibility to make the new century one of the
most peaceful in history.
When the great struggle that was World War II had passed, this
country found itself facing new challenges with the advent of the Cold
War and the development of nuclear weapons. Today, with the Cold War
Era history, we find ourselves facing a new era, one that is often
called the Post Cold War Era or the Era of Globalization. It is an
extraordinarily hopeful time, one that is full of promise, but also
full of challenges. One of those challenges, one that, if confirmed, I
look forward to working with President-elect Bush and Congress to meet,
is the challenge of bringing the American military successfully into
the 21st century, so that it can continue to play its vital role in
preserving and extending the peace as far into the future as possible.
As President-elect Bush has said, ``After the hard but clear
struggle against an evil empire,'' the challenge that we face today
``is not as obvious, but just as noble: To turn these years of
influence into decades of peace.'' The ``foundation of our peace'' is a
``strong, capable and modern military.''
The end of the Cold War did not bring about an end to armed
conflict, or an end of challenges and threats to U.S. interests.
Indeed, centrifugal forces in world politics have created a more
diverse and less predictable set of potential adversaries whose
aspirations for regional influence and whose willingness to use
military force may well produce challenges to important U.S. interests
and those of our friends and allies.
President-elect Bush has outlined three overarching goals for
bringing U.S. Armed Forces into the 21st century:
First, we must strengthen the bond of trust with the American
military. The brave and dedicated men and women who serve our country
in uniform-active, guard and Reserve--must get the best support their
country can possibly provide them, so that our country can continue to
call on our best people to serve in the decades to come;
Second, we must develop the capabilities to defend against
missiles, terrorism, and newer threats against our space assets and
information systems. The American people, our forces abroad, and our
friends and allies must be protected against the threats with which
modern technology and its proliferation confront us; and
Third, we must take advantage of the new possibilities that the
ongoing technological revolution offers to create the military of the
next century.
Meeting these challenges will require a cooperative effort between
Congress and the Executive Branch, and with industry and with our
allies as well. If confirmed, I look forward to developing a close
working relationship with this Committee and your counter-parts in the
House to achieve these goals, and to fashion steps to transform our
national defense posture from its current form to one that will address
the challenges of 21st century security. Bonds of trust need to exist
not only between the President and the Armed Forces, but between the
Department of Defense and Congress as well. We must work together if we
are going to be able to address the real problems of inadequate
funding, unreliable funding and resistance to change. Without
cooperation and collaboration we will fail.
President-elect Bush is committed to a strong national defense.
Therefore, if confirmed, one of our first tasks will be to undertake a
comprehensive review of U.S. defense policy. This review will be aimed
at making certain that we have a sound understanding of the state of
U.S. forces and their readiness to meet the requirements of the 21st
century security environment.
We must ensure that we will be able to develop, deploy, operate and
support a highly effective force capable of deterring and defending
against new threats, so that our country can contribute to peace and
stability in the world. This will require a refashioning of deterrence
and defense capabilities. The old deterrence of the Cold War era is
imperfect for dissuading the threats of the 21st century and for
maintaining stability our new security environment.
primary objectives
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the explosive advance of
modern technology, and the forces of globalization that are making the
technology available to ally and adversary alike, make the
transformation of U.S. military power essential. While much of the
existing defense establishment can be adapted to 21st century needs, a
good deal cannot. We must move forcefully to rationalize the costly
burden of force structures and practices that do not contribute to
current and future U.S. security needs.
If confirmed as Secretary, I plan to pursue five key objectives and
implement policies and allocate resources needed to achieve those
objectives.
First, we need to fashion and sustain deterrence appropriate to the
contemporary security environment--a new national security environment.
The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of
delivery are increasingly a fact of life that first must be
acknowledged and then managed. While striving to prevent further
proliferation remains essential, a determined state may, nonetheless,
succeed in acquiring weapons of mass destruction and increasingly
capable missiles. As a consequence, a decisive change in policy should
be aimed at devaluing investment in weapons of mass destruction and
their delivery systems by potential adversaries.
In a world of smaller, but in some respects more deadly threats,
the ability to defend ourselves and our friends against attacks by
missiles and other terror weapons can strengthen deterrence and provide
an important compliment purely to retaliatory capabilities. Moreover,
the ability to protect our forces is essential to preserving our
freedom to act in a crisis. To this end, effective missile defense--not
only homeland defense, but also the ability to defend U.S. forces
abroad and our allies and friends, must be achieved in the most cost-
effective manner that modern technology offers.
Nuclear deterrence remains an essential element of our defense
policy. The credibility, safety, reliability, and effectiveness of the
Nation's nuclear deterrent must remain unquestioned. But it must be
adapted to 21st century deterrence needs. Credible deterrence no longer
can be based solely on the prospect of punishment through massive
retaliation. Instead, it must be based on a combination of offensive
nuclear and non-nuclear defensive capabilities working together to deny
potential adversaries the opportunity and benefits from the threat or
use of weapons of mass destruction against our forces and homeland, as
well as those of our allies.
Second, the readiness and sustainability of deployed forces must be
assured.
When U.S. forces are called upon, they must be ready to cope with
any contingency they may face, and be able to sustain military
operations over an extended period of time if necessary. The pace of
modern military operations in the Kosovo campaign revealed the kinds of
demands placed on the readiness and sustainability of U.S. forces.
The price of inadequate readiness is paid in unnecessary risk to
American interests and lives of American service men and women. But
inadequate readiness exacts a further price in the future quality of
the force. Our armed forces today are all volunteers. Whether Active
Duty, Reserve, or National Guard, they are men and women who have
willingly answered the call to serve our country and accepted the
burdens and dangers that go with that service. But, as President-elect
Bush has said, ``even the highest morale is eventually undermined by
back-to-back deployments, poor pay, shortages of spare parts and
equipment, and declining readiness. . . . A volunteer military has only
two paths. It can lower its standards to fill its ranks. Or it can
inspire the best and brightest to join and stay.'' If confirmed, I look
forward to working with the President and Congress to make sure that
our country's service continues to attract and keep our very best.
Third, U.S. command, control, communication, intelligence, and
space capabilities must be modernized to support 21st century needs.
In his speech at the Citadel, President-elect Bush talked about how
the threats to our security are changing: ``We see the contagious
spread of missile technology and weapons of mass destruction. All the
unconventional and invisible threats of new technologies and old
hatreds.''
As the threats we face change, our defense capabilities must adapt
and change with them. A modern command-control-communication and
intelligence infrastructure is the foundation upon which U.S. military
power is employed. The development and deployment of a truly modern and
effective command-control-communication and intelligence system is
fundamental to the transformation of U.S. military forces, and
indispensable to our ability to conduct effective diplomacy.
I am committed to strengthening our intelligence to serve both our
short-term and long-term national security needs. I will make
establishing a strong spirit of cooperation between the Department of
Defense and the rest of the intelligence community, under the
leadership of the Director of Central Intelligence, one of my top
priorities. We must strengthen our intelligence capabilities and our
space capabilities, along with the ability to protect those
capabilities against various forms of attack.
Fourth, the U.S. defense establishment must be transformed to
address 21st century circumstances.
The DOD has been unable to procure advanced weapon systems that can
lower the cost and increase the performance of the Armed Forces. The
need to swiftly introduce new weapons systems is paramount. The
transformation of U.S. military power to take full advantage of
commercially created information-technology may require undertaking a
near-term investment to acquire modern capabilities derived from U.S.
scientific and industrial pre-eminence, rather than simply upgrading
existing systems.
The present weapons system acquisition process was designed for a
different environment than the one that exists today. It is ill suited
to meet the demands posed by an expansion of unconventional and
asymmetrical threats in an era of rapid technological advances and
pervasive proliferation. The cycle time (from program start to initial
operational capability) for major acquisition programs conducted over
the past several decades has averaged between 8 and 9 years. Some
efforts take far longer. Such processes are not responsive to urgent
new challenges that involve considerable uncertainties. They are not
capable of harnessing the remarkable genius and productivity of the
modern, information-based commercial and industrial sectors that have
done so much to revolutionize the U.S. civilian economy.
In the 1960s and 1970s, the time from initial concept to actual
deployment was significantly shorter than it is today. In short, the
pace of development has become slower while the pace of technological
change has become far more rapid. These two opposite trends conspire to
create a situation where it is difficult for the acquisition process to
produce anything other than capabilities that are already a generation
behind when deployed. This problem must be addressed.
Simply tinkering with the present acquisition system will not
provide the innovation and speed necessary to satisfy future military
needs and take advantage of powerful new technologies. If confirmed, I
will work with this committee to develop a new acquisition strategy--
one designed to take advantage of modern U.S. industrial practices--
that will enable us to develop and field weapon systems at a speed that
reflects the needs and possibilities of the new century.
Fifth, reform of DOD structures, processes and organization.
The legacy of obsolescent institutional structures, processes and
organizations does not merely create unnecessary costs, it imposes an
unacceptable burden on the National defense. In certain respects, it
could be said that we, in a sense, are disarming ourselves by our
failure to reform the acquisition processes and to shed unneeded
organizations and facilities. If confirmed I will examine, in
consultation with Congress, omnibus approaches to changing the
statutory and regulatory basis for the most significant obstacles to
reform.
This agenda for the new security environment is admittedly an
extraordinarily ambitious one. It is an achievable one if the
Legislative and Executive branches of our government strengthen the
bond of trust, and work together in a determined and collaborative
fashion. If confirmed, I will work closely with this committee and the
other appropriate Committees of Congress to develop, fund, and
implement an overall defense program that can achieve our goals for the
future and for the future of our children and grandchildren.
Again, I want to express my appreciation to the President-elect for
his confidence and trust. I thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Mr. Rumsfeld. In accordance with
the practice of the committee, without objection, your
responses to our pre-hearing policy questions and your response
to the committee questionnaire will be made part of the record
of this hearing.
We have not yet received all of the paperwork on Mr.
Rumsfeld's nomination. That paperwork, which may be lengthy,
will be reviewed by the committee and it could require
additional discussion between the committee and the nominee.
Before we begin our first round of questions, there are
several standard questions which we ask every nominee who comes
before the committee. In your response to advance policy
questions, you agreed, Mr. Rumsfeld, to appear as a witness
before congressional committees when called and to ensure that
briefings, testimony and other communications are provided to
Congress.
Have you adhered to applicable laws and regulations
governing conflict of interest?
Mr. Rumsfeld. I do not know. First of all, the laws and
regulations and rules are different for the various entities to
which I have submitted this massive amount of information: the
Pentagon, the Office of Government Ethics, the committee. I do
not know that they all agree among themselves, but they are
reviewing it. I think probably one of the reasons for the delay
in getting the stack of hundreds of pages of materials to you
is because it is still down in the Office of Government Ethics.
I have a large number of investments and activities that
would have to be characterized as conflicts were they to be
maintained during my service as Secretary of Defense. I have,
however, indicated in my response to you, Mr. Chairman, and to
the other organizations, that I am ready and able--I believe
able, but certainly ready--to take whatever steps are
appropriate to eliminate anything that anyone of the various
entities might feel would be inappropriate, both with respect
to investments and with respect to relationships and boards and
associations and that type of thing.
Chairman Levin. Then to rephrase the tense of the verb,
will you adhere to applicable laws and regulations governing
conflict of interest?
Mr. Rumsfeld. Yes, sir. Of that you can be certain.
Chairman Levin. Have you assumed any duties or undertaken
any actions which would appear to presume the outcome of the
confirmation process?
Mr. Rumsfeld. No, I have not. I have talked to two people
about--on a contingency basis that in the event that I am
confirmed, they are individuals I would like to have join me in
the department. But it has been purely on a contingency basis.
I might just say that because the outcome of the election was
delayed so long, the process is delayed. I hope that when we do
get to the point of my recommending to the President-elect
names to join me in the Pentagon, that the committee will move
as promptly as possible with consideration of those people.
Because when I think of the massive review you have
characterized in your opening remarks that is facing me at the
Pentagon, it is not something I would look forward to doing
alone. I will need all the help I can get.
Chairman Levin. I am sure that our next Chairman will have
the support of this full committee in trying to expedite the
nominees for those positions.
Mr. Rumsfeld. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Levin. Will you ensure that the Department
complies with deadlines established for requested
communications, including prepared testimony and questions for
the record and hearings?
Mr. Rumsfeld. I will certainly try to. I have been told
that the number of requests for studies and responses to
questions from various elements of the committees of interest
to the Executive Branch to the Department of Defense is
enormous. I would have to look at it and see how we can manage
that process in a way that is satisfactory to both Congress and
to the Executive Branch. But I certainly would make every
effort in the world to do so.
Chairman Levin. Will you cooperate in providing witnesses
and briefers in response to congressional requests?
Mr. Rumsfeld. Yes, sir.
Chairman Levin. Will those witnesses be protected from
reprisal for their testimony?
Mr. Rumsfeld. Well, if it is honest, certainly. If some
witness came before a committee and said something that was
inaccurate, I certainly would want to visit with them.
Chairman Levin. I think we would, too.
Mr. Rumsfeld. I do too.
Chairman Levin. I think we would too. But other than that
qualification, you will take steps to make sure that there is
no reprisal against witnesses who intend to honestly present
testimony and their opinions.
Mr. Rumsfeld. Yes, sir. I would certainly want to see that
witnesses were honest and forthright with the committees of
Congress.
Chairman Levin. Now, we are going to proceed to a first
round of questions which, because of the number of Members who
are here, we are going to limit to 8 minutes for each Senator.
First, we will do that on an alternating basis between the two
sides. Then following the early bird rule, we will recognize
current Members of the committee first, followed by our newly
designated Members. That's a bit of an awkward way to go at
this, but I hope that our designated Members who are not yet
formally Members of the committee will understand that. If
there is a difficulty with that, we can try to adjust among us
to accommodate schedules. But I did not know any other way to
proceed until our new Members are actually Members of the
committee which will not occur apparently until next week. The
second round and any subsequent rounds will be limited to 6
minutes for each Senator. It is my intent to recess the
committee for lunch at about 1 o'clock and to resume the
hearing at 2 o'clock. If necessary, we will schedule additional
hearings.
First, relative to missile defense, Mr. Rumsfeld, press
reports have occasionally suggested that the Ballistic Threat
Commission, which you chaired, advocated the deployment of a
national missile defense system.
Am I correct in stating that the mandate of the Commission
was limited to examining the ballistic missile threat to the
United States and that you and your commission did not take any
position whether we should deploy a national missile defense
system?
Mr. Rumsfeld. That is correct.
Chairman Levin. It has also been suggested that the
incoming administration has already made decisions about the
architecture of a national missile defense system should it
seek to deploy such a system. It has been stated by, I believe,
one of our colleagues that a decision presumably has been made
already, a phased layered plan and a reconfigured plan for the
ground-based program including land, sea, and space components.
Do you know whether or not the incoming administration has
made any decisions relative to the architecture of a national
missile defense system, if in fact a decision is made to
recommend such a system?
Mr. Rumsfeld. Well, we know that the President-elect--and I
suppose in terms of trying to characterize an administration
that does not exist yet and where there are prospective
participants who have really not had opportunities to meet and
discuss these things, the President-elect has indicated that it
is his intention to deploy a missile defense system. I know of
no decisions that have been made by him or by me with respect
to exactly what form that might take.
Chairman Levin. The National Missile Defense Act, which was
adopted by Congress and signed by the President, contains two
equal statements of U.S. policy. The first statement is that it
is the policy of the United States to deploy as soon as
technologically possible an effective national missile defense
system to defend against limited ballistic missile attacks. The
second statement is that it is the policy of the United States
to seek continued negotiated reductions in Russian nuclear
weapons.
Do you believe that we should consider the possible
negative impact that the deployment of a national missile
defense system could have on our policy to seek continued
negotiated reductions in Russian nuclear weapons as indicated
by that statute?
Mr. Rumsfeld. Well, you were kind enough to give me a copy
of that statute. I have read it. It seems perfectly reasonable
to me. The only thing I might have added to it, had I been a
Member of Congress, I might not have included the word
negotiated in the second phrase where it says seek continued
negotiated reductions in Russian nuclear forces.
It seems to me you may or may not do it on a negotiated
basis. There had been instances in relationships with countries
where they had each taken actions that were not a result of a
final negotiated agreement but rather were understood and were
agreed to be in both parties' interests. But I find nothing in
here that is surprising or unusual or with which I would
disagree.
Chairman Levin. You believe that both of those goals are
legitimate goals with that qualification?
Mr. Rumsfeld. There is no question but that I think that we
should deploy a missile defense system when it is
technologically possible and effective. I think that you
obviously would want to be in discussions with Russia about the
sizes and shapes of their capabilities and ours.
Chairman Levin. Do you believe that it is a legitimate
policy and an important policy to seek reductions in those
nuclear weapons on Russian soil, as indicated by that statute?
Do you agree with that as a goal?
Mr. Rumsfeld. I do. I think that to the extent we can
manage those capabilities down--I must say I think that the
Russian stockpile or capabilities are going to go down anyway.
Simply because of the circumstance of their economy. But I have
no problem in talking with them about that. Although it is
principally the responsibility of the Department of State.
Chairman Levin. Is it in our interest that there be fewer
nuclear weapons on Russian soil rather than more nuclear
weapons on Russian soil?
Mr. Rumsfeld. Sure.
Chairman Levin. Is that something which would be in
America's interest and the world's interest?
Mr. Rumsfeld. Yes, indeed.
Chairman Levin. On the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, we
have recently received a letter from former Secretary of
Defense Laird, who now joins General Shalikashvili, in
believing that there should be reconsideration of the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty with certain safeguards relative
to verification. Given your previous position as having doubts
about the question of verification, I am wondering whether you
would be willing to take a look at the position of our Joint
Chiefs which favors the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and
believes that it is verifiable? Would you be willing to take a
look at the recommendations of General Shalikashvili, and
Secretary Laird, relative to that treaty?
Mr. Rumsfeld. Former Secretary of Defense Mel Laird was
kind enough to send me the material that he communicated with
General Shalikashvili about. I have not had a chance to study
it. But my concern on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty--and I
forget when it was before the Senate, but as I recall, I
testified on the subject.
My concerns were two-fold really. One was the number of
issues that were raised by people whose judgment I respect in
the scientific community about the risks to the reliability and
safety of the stockpile. I think that is something that is
terribly important. We simply must have confidence in the
safety and reliability of our weapons.
The second was the difficulty of verification. I am aware
in the press of what General Shalikashvili has come forward
with. Certainly, I would want to look at it and think about it
as any reasonable person would.
Chairman Levin. Thank you. Earlier this month, the Chicago
Tribune reported on a taped conversation that you apparently
had with President Nixon when you were serving as counselor to
the President in 1971. On the tape, there are a number of
statements which I would appreciate your commenting on. I think
it is important that you do comment on them.
First, there were some offensive racist comments by the
President. I would like you to explain your recollection of
that conversation and your response to his comments.
Second, the Chicago Tribune reports that in the
conversation you make the statement that the Republicans got us
out of Democratic wars four times in this century, referring to
the first World War, the second World War, the Korean War, and
the Vietnam War. I am wondering whether you believed it at the
time that those wars were Democratic wars? If not, why would
you have made that statement? What are your thoughts about
that?
Mr. Rumsfeld. Well, I was--the Bush transition office was
contacted by the reporter who had been listening to the tape.
He provided the office with some notes. I would not call them a
transcript. Because in many cases they did not even purport to
be a transcript of the tape. There was lots of places where it
was dot, dot, dot. They then somehow--the transition office got
ahold of the tape. I was able to listen to a few seconds of it.
I do not know how long, but not much. I could not understand
much of it. It is very difficult to understand.
The truth is I did not remember the meeting or the
conversation at all when it was raised. It was 30 years ago, 29
years ago.
Apparently, from what can be reconstructed, I was in an
office somewhere in the White House complex with President
Nixon as a--I guess I was an aide or a counselor or an
assistant to him at the time. Apparently--and again, I am not
certain of all of this--it appears that he was characterizing
some remarks that were made by Vice President Agnew. He was
characterizing--he was quoting them in a critical manner saying
that Agnew should not have said that. He should not have been
drinking with people who he did not know or whatever it was.
Then later he quoted some other people and how they talked
and he adopted a dialect according to this tape. The tape seems
to indicate that I may have agreed with one or more things on
that tape. To the extent I did agree with anything, I am
certain I agreed only with the fact that some people talk like
that and that Vice President Agnew should not have used or
thought such derogatory and offensive and unfair and
insensitive things about minorities.
I did not then and I do not now agree with the offensive
and wrong characterizations. I think it is unfortunate that it
comes up because it is not fair and it can cause pain to people
to read that type of thing.
It is ironic that that newspaper, the Chicago Tribune,
opposed the civil rights legislation during the 1960s when I
was supporting it. That was the most powerful paper in my
congressional district and I supported every single piece of
civil rights legislation. I was Chairman of Tuskeegee
Institute's 100th anniversary fundraising when Chappy James
died and have an honorary degree from Tuskeegee Institute.
On the Democratic war quote, I would say this. That was a
time when the Vietnam War was raging. President Nixon was
embattled and he was trying to end it. There were buses around
the White House if you think back to that period. It is not--
when you think of the Hoover Depression or the Clinton economy
today, there are shorthand ways of talking in private. It is
a--a war is our country's war. It is not a Democratic war. It
is not a Republican war. It is not a president's war. It is our
Nation's war. I understand that. To the extent shorthand was
used, it should not have been.
Chairman Levin. Senator Warner.
Senator Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is an
important inquiry that the Chairman has brought up and I feel I
should add some personal recollections. I was Secretary of the
Navy at that very time under Nixon. I recall being in a similar
position from time-to-time in his presence when--although I
regard him as a great President on national security and
foreign affairs, he did have his shortcomings. I have looked
into that transcript very carefully with our nominee here this
morning and I am personally satisfied that he conducted himself
in a manner that reflects no discredit on him today.
Second, I must say, Mr. Chairman, the morning after that
article appeared, Senator Moynihan called me. Senator Moynihan
also was a member of our team in those days and very much
involved. He said that if this is a matter that requires
explanation, he would be happy to appear before this committee
as a witness and testify to the unqualified credentials of this
distinguished nominee, particularly in the area of civil
rights. So I thank you for your forthright responses on that
issue.
Let us turn to the critical question of defense spending. I
am going to ask you three or four questions on it. We are not
here today to establish a number, even a benchmark.
I think the important thing is to receive from you your
unqualified support to increase defense spending. The
procedures by which you will in the first 90 days undertake to
ascertain first the efficiencies that can be generated within
the existing budgets and second the procedures by which the
President, yourself, and other advisors will determine how to
increase it and by what amount.
Second, reiterate what the President has already said, to
me and others, that, yes, other budget considerations, very
important, will take into consideration, but threat, the
threats facing the United States and the need for this
modernization will be the controlling factor in reaching the
determinations on increased funding. Can you elaborate on that,
sir?
Mr. Rumsfeld. Yes, sir. I was asked by the President to
consider becoming his nominee for this post I guess 8 or 10
days ago. I have spent most of my time visiting with members of
this committee and preparing for this hearing. I have not taken
the series of briefings at the Pentagon. Nor have I had an
opportunity to wrap my head around the budget numbers. I have
read a great deal about it. I mean, the CBO was using one
number. I think it was something like $40 or $50 billion add
on. I read an article by Jim Schlesinger and Harold Brown who
came up with a number that was somewhat higher than that, $60
or $75 billion as I recall. I read a report from the CSIS,
Georgetown Center, that was something in the neighborhood of
$100 billion or $100 billion plus.
Senator Warner. I heard you include the very conscientious
evaluations of the Joint Chiefs.
Mr. Rumsfeld. Yes, yes. What the number is, I don't know.
Is it clear that there needs to be an increase in the budget?
There is no doubt in my mind. But I am not well enough along in
my thinking on it. Nor have I had an opportunity to even begin
to be briefed by Bill Cohen. Although he has told me they are--
he feels the same way. I have not had a chance to talk to the
transition people who are thinking through the budget numbers
and how whatever it is----
Senator Warner. But your commitment today is to work toward
a significant increase.
Mr. Rumsfeld. Yes, sir.
Senator Warner. That is what I wanted to know.
Mr. Rumsfeld. Absolutely.
Senator Warner. That threat will be a consideration.
Mr. Rumsfeld. Absolutely.
Senator Warner. Second, that in your capacity as Secretary
of Defense, the Chiefs can continue under your administration
to come before Congress and give us their views.
Mr. Rumsfeld. Yes, indeed.
Senator Warner. That is fine.
Mr. Rumsfeld. I would prefer they give them to me first.
Senator Warner. Well, that is all right. We will get them.
Let us turn to another threat. It is interesting. I have done a
lot of study on this. We know about the military threat, but
there is another threat. That is the industrial base that
America has been put to a tremendous task of trying to survive
in the face of 12 to--a dozen years of decline in defense
spending. They find very tempting avenues to go out into the
private sector and do business and forget about all the
regulations in the Department of Defense and the uncertainty of
defense spending and take that on and simply worry about their
bottom line.
But fortunately, we have a lot of courageous people who are
willing to continue to provide our industrial base. So you
bring that business experience which is very valuable, not
unlike Dave Packard with whom I served with. He really
understood the need to strengthen the industrial base.
Together with the competition from firms in Europe
primarily where those firms have government support in some
instances. So give us your thoughts on that. Then I address a
quote by the President-elect here. They will want to get some
clarifications.
``We will modernize some existing weapons and equipment
necessary for current tasks. But our relative peace today
allows us to do this selectively. The real goal is to move
beyond marginal improvements, to replace existing programs with
new technologies and strategies to use this window of
opportunity to skip a generation of technology.''
That is a bold challenge. I bring back your recollection--I
left the Department in roughly 1974. You came in shortly
thereafter. You remember the bones of TFX were all over the
Department, billions of dollars lost in trying to manufacture
an airplane to hang every trinket known to mankind on it until
it sunk of its own weight. We then experienced the A-12 which I
can show you that. Billions of dollars lost.
Well, today we are working on, I think, some essential
programs. I will not mention them here. One indeed needs to be
scrutinized and that is the VSTOL and you know that craft, the
Marines. It is important to the Marine mission. We have to give
very serious consideration to that program.
But I am not getting into programs. I want you to explain
to me against that background your definition of skipping a
generation of technology and the impact that could have on this
industrial base.
Mr. Rumsfeld. Yes, sir. First, with respect to the study on
the defense industrial base, let me say that I agree with you.
I had the privilege of being briefed by General Tom Morman who
served, I believe it was on the Defense Science Board that did
the study. It is a very serious problem. I mean, the return on
investment in the defense industry today is not sufficient to
attract investment. The government does not make things. We
purchase things. We acquire things. That industry has to be
there. To be there, it has to be viable from an economic
standpoint or people are not going to invest in it. It is a
very serious problem.
Second, with respect to the President-elect's remarks about
skipping generations and that, clearly the review is going to
have to address this. But it seems to me there is at least two
ways that one can achieve advances in technology.
I do not want to bring up ancient history, but as fate
would have it, I was in the Secretary of Defense's office when
the subject of the M1 tank came along. The argument was that it
should continue to be another upgrade of a new diesel. Let us
do another diesel and a couple more diesels. I decided no. I
said let us go to a turbine engine.
Now, that takes a major weapon system and moved it into an
entirely new generation of technologies at that time.
Senator Warner. I think that is helpful. Let me get in one
last question here. You will have an opportunity to amplify
that for the record. That is the doctrine of the use of force.
General Powell, the Secretary of State designee, once stated
that we should always execute the decisive results and be
prepared to commit ``the force needed to achieve the political
objective''.
I was quite interested the other night in looking at the
Lehrer news hour. Our Secretary of State, Mrs. Albright, I urge
you to go back and look at that transcript. I will just pick
out one of her quotes. I do that respectfully, but it says as
follows. In answering that question about where she was with
regard to the Powell doctrine, ``It does not have to be all or
nothing. If you think about the fact that you have to employ
every piece of force that you have and you have months to plan
it and the earth is flat, you are never going to do anything.''
In other words, you need the full--I have time limit. Give us
your parameters of thinking of how you are going to advise the
President of the United States as to when to send into harm's
way the men and women of the Armed Forces, and, frankly, when
not to send them.
Mr. Rumsfeld. Well, that is an enormous question and an
exceedingly important one and I would be happy to talk about it
for a few seconds here. Could I go back to the tank first? I
would not want to leave you with the idea that the only way to
transform is to go from one generation of technology and
leapfrog into a new one. There is another way. I am not as
familiar with it. But with respect to the same tank, it is my
understanding that it has gone from I think the M1 to the M1--
what is the second?
Senator Warner. M1A2.
Mr. Rumsfeld. A2, right.
Senator Warner. This is the tank expert right here.
Mr. Rumsfeld. But it has gone from analog to digital. Now,
there you have taken a platform that exists and you have not
done a leapfrog with the whole platform, but you have taken
some electronics and leapfrogged. There are plenty of
opportunities to do things where we can significantly improve
capabilities, both with respect to the system itself, but also
with respect to the pieces of the system or elements of the
platform if you will.
Now, with respect to your question. This is a subject that
is important. It is sensitive. It is in my view a presidential
issue and not a Secretary of Defense issue alone. It is a
national security council term issue. We have not met. We have
not deposited ourselves and worried this through.
All of us in that team have opinions and all of us have
opined on this subject, publicly and privately, from time-to-
time, including the President-elect.
The elements that come back from time-to-time are is what
you think you want to do actually achievable? It may be
meritorious. It may need to be done. But if you can't really do
it, oughten you maybe not to try? That's a tough one to
evaluate. In no case is it a cookie mold you can press down and
say there is the answer. Each of these are subjective and
difficult.
The second that comes to mind is resources. Do you have the
resources? You might be able to do it. But if you are spread
all over the world, you simply do not have the capabilities at
that given moment, then you have to face up to the truth. That
is that you cannot do everything.
A second thing that comes back from time-to-time is to what
degree is this particular activity or recommendation truly a
part of our national interest? That is something that is a
consideration. It is one of the dimensions of the debate and
discussion.
Another I would say is are there artificial constraints as
to how you can do this? I personally believe it is terribly
important that we have a very clear understanding of what the
command structure is and who is deciding what. That to the
extent humanly possible you avoid a committee that has not pre-
decided these things and ends up interminably debating as to
what should be done with various aspects of an engagement.
I think last, and there may be others I have forgotten, but
I thought about this last night. How would you characterize
what success is? When you have done something, how do you know
when you have done it that you have done what you went in to
do? What is success? What is your exit strategy? When does it
end? Is there some point where it is over? Or is it
interminable?
Now, I do not know where that positions me across that
spectrum because I tried to avoid characterizing where I happen
to think in any given case because I do not know. It really is
something I wanted to talk to the President-elect about and
Secretary designate Powell and Condy Rice and the folks that
are interested in this. It is an enormously important subject.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Mr. Rumsfeld. Senator Kennedy.
Senator Kennedy. Thank you, very much, and congratulations.
Mr. Rumsfeld, during the campaign President-elect Bush made
some interesting arms control proposals, including the
reduction of nuclear weapons well below the START II levels and
removing them from hair trigger status. I have long been an
advocate of arms control and was pleased to see the President-
elect's interest in this area.
I understand that when you were with President Ford as
Secretary of Defense, you did not support the SALT II Treaty
and are now opposed to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Will
you support the President-elect's arms control agenda?
Mr. Rumsfeld. You can be sure I will support the President-
elect's agenda. He is the President. I will, however, offer my
views. I hope persuasively and thoughtfully in deliberation of
the National Security Council as I did during that time. I
mean, people, honorable people, can come to different views. I
did with respect to SALT II.
Senator Kennedy. You just had an exchange with Senator
Levin on missile defense. As you know, the failure of the two
most recent NMD flight tests has cast significant doubts on the
viability of the current system. When the President-elect
announced you as the nominee, you spoke of a need for the
United States to develop a missile defense system that will
work. I am interested in what your definition is of a system
that will work.
You have spoken recently about the successes you've had in
your discussions with our allies. When will we know that it
will work? Will you establish as a baseline which requires that
it has to pass a field test?
Mr. Rumsfeld. Senator, I would really like to avoid setting
up hurdles on this subject. I was reading the book ``Eye In The
Sky'' about the Corona Program and the first overhead satellite
and recalling that it failed something like 11, 12, or 13 times
during the Eisenhower administration or the Kennedy
administration. They stuck with it and it worked and it ended
up saving billions of dollars because of the better knowledge
we achieved.
In this case, if I could just elaborate for a moment, the
principle of deterrence, it seems to me, goes to what is in the
minds of people who might do you harm. How can you effect their
behavior?
The problem with ballistic missiles with weapons of mass
destruction, even though there may be a low probability, as the
chart that Senator Levin I believe mentioned suggests, the
reality is they work without being fired. They alter behavior.
If you think back to the Gulf War, if Saddam Hussein, a
week before he invaded Kuwait, had demonstrated that he had a
ballistic missile and a nuclear weapon, the task of trying to
put together that coalition would have been impossible. There
is no way you could have persuaded the European countries that
they should put themselves at-risk to a nuclear weapon.
People's behavior changes if they see those capabilities
out there. I think we need missile defense because I think it
devalues having that capability. It enables us to do a much
better job with respect to our allies.
Now, finally, I do not think many weapons systems arrive
full blown. Senator Levin or somebody mentioned phased and
layered. Those are phrases that I think people not improperly
use to suggest that things do not start and then suddenly they
are perfect. What they do is they get them out there and they
evolve over time and they improve.
So success, this is not the old Star Wars idea of a shield
that will keep everything off of everyone in the world. It is
something that in the beginning stages is designed to deal with
handfuls of these things and persuade people that they are not
going to be able to blackmail and intimidate the United States
and its friends and allies.
Senator Kennedy. Well, I think you've made a good response
to that question. I hope this means that we have assurances
that there will be a very careful review.
Mr. Rumsfeld. Absolutely.
Senator Kennedy. In terms of the effectiveness of this
missile defense system; it is going to have to meet a criteria.
I understand that you are not prepared to establish that
criteria today, but I assume that it is going to be meaningful
criteria in terms of actually being able to function and be
able to work in the different phases.
Mr. Rumsfeld. Yes, sir.
Senator Kennedy. Let me move to the question of Colombia.
What is your sense of the capacity of the military in these
countries to address the challenge? How are we going to respond
to reports about the conflict spilling over in the area and in
the region? How are we really going to be able to determine the
difference between the counter insurgency and the counter
narcotics? Can you tell us what you are thinking?
This is complicated. It is specialized. It is enormously
important. We are going to have to address this, and I would be
interested in knowing your thinking at this time. We will have
more time later on to discuss this, but can you tell us now
what your thoughts are?
Mr. Rumsfeld. Senator, it is not something that I have been
able to get briefed into. It is my understanding that the
Department of State has the lead on this. I understand that
there is a cap that has been put on by Congress on the numbers
of people, military people, that are engaged.
It is complicated. I am one who believes that the drug
problem is probably overwhelmingly a demand problem and that it
is going to find--if the demand persists, it is going to find
ways to get what it wants. If it is not from Colombia, it will
be from somebody else. If I were the neighboring countries, I
would be concerned about spillover as well.
I think it is a very important problem and it is not
something I have had a chance to screw my head into or talk to
the National Security Council team about.
Senator Kennedy. For the next 8 days, I am the Chairman of
the Seapower Subcommittee of this committee. Under Senator
Snowe, we had extensive hearings about the decline of the
shipbuilding budget and about what actions are going to be
necessary in order to meet responsibility in terms of the
Navy's budget. Have you had a chance to review that and can you
give us any ideas of how you think that that issue is going to
be addressed in the future?
Mr. Rumsfeld. Well, I have not been briefed on it at all. I
am by background and interest very interested in the Navy. I
recognize the importance--Senator Snowe indicated to me that we
are currently building ships at a level that if it continues
will permit the U.S. Navy to decline down into very low
numbers. That the only thing that can be done if we are to
maintain the kind of capabilities in the world where we can
project power and presence through the United States Navy, we
are going to have to increase the shipbuilding budget. I will
stop there.
Senator Kennedy. Senator Roberts, who is Chairman of the
Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee, has been a real
leader in the whole area of bio-terrorism and cyber-terrorism.
Chairman Levin also referenced these issues in his opening
comments. Could you give us some assessment of what your
concerns would be in those areas?
Senator Frist and I successfully completed legislation,
last session, in the area of bio-terrorism. I would be
interested in your own views regarding the nature of these
threats as we look down the road.
Mr. Rumsfeld. Well, I have been made aware of Senator
Frist's and your interest and Senator Roberts'. I would rank
bio-terrorism quite high in terms of threats. I think that it
has the advantage that it does not take a genius to create
agents that are enormously powerful. They can be done in mobile
facilities, in small facilities. I think it is something that
merits very serious attention, not just by the Department of
Defense, but by the country. I have an interest in it and
certainly would intend to be attentive to it.
Senator Kennedy. Thank you, very much. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Kennedy follows:]
Prepared Statement by Senator Edward M. Kennedy
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I join in welcoming Mr. Rumsfeld to the
committee, and I congratulate him on his nomination to be Secretary of
Defense.
Mr. Rumsfeld has a very impressive record of service to the
country, from his years as a Naval Aviator, as Congressman from
Illinois, as Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity, as
Ambassador to NATO and, of course, as Secretary of Defense under
President Ford. The list is long and has continued to grow.
He recently served as Chairman of the Ballistic Missile Threats
Commission. He is currently chairman of the Commission to Assess
National Security Space Management, and also chairman of the
Congressional Leadership's National Security Advisor Group. This
extraordinary background will be extremely valuable in dealing with the
many issues that the Armed Forces of the United States currently face
and that we will certainly face in the future.
Many challenges are waiting for our answer, starting with national
missile defense and nuclear arms control. They also include force
protection, which is especially urgent after the recent tragic attack
on the U.S.S. Cole.
We're concerned about the heavy demands on our forces that strain
both morale and readiness. We're concerned about training issues, such
as how to maintain training areas and ensure adequate training budgets.
We face challenges of recruitment and retention, when private sector
competition remains strong. We must do more to ensure that military
personnel and their families have good pay and good housing. They need
modern equipment, modern weapon systems, and modern information
technology. We have to be concerned about cyber-security and about
chemical and biological terrorism.
Significant changes have occurred in the military since Mr.
Rumsfeld was Secretary of Defense in the 1970s. Women now hold many
military roles traditionally reserved for males, including service as
combat pilots and on combat ships. There are more women generals and
admirals than ever before, and the potential for further gains is
large.
The military still faces many problems in this area, including the
need to prevent harassment and discrimination in all forms. I continue
to believe that the current ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy has been a
failure. As a world leader, our Armed Forces need to set the example on
human rights issues and treat all men and women, regardless of their
diversity, with the respect and equality that they deserve.
Mr. Rumsfeld's many leadership experiences, in both public service
and private life, will serve him well in dealing with all these
challenges and I look forward to working with him in the years ahead.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Senator Thurmond.
Senator Thurmond. Thank you, Chairman Levin. Mr. Chairman,
I congratulate you on your leadership during this period of
transition and appreciate your bipartisan approach in holding
this hearing. Your chairmanship continues the committee's long
tradition that the defense of our Nation is above politics.
Before I address the issue at hand, I want to express my
appreciation for our outgoing Secretary of Defense, Bill Cohen.
His tenure as Secretary of Defense will be marked by great
advances in the quality of life for our military personnel and
their families, the refocusing of the Department of Defense to
the new threats of weapons of mass destruction and cyber-
terrorism, and, more importantly, assuring this Nation's
position as the world's only super power. I wish him and his
lovely wife, Janet, the best in their future endeavors.
Secretary Rumsfeld, congratulations on your nomination and
welcome to this your second confirmation hearing as Secretary
of Defense. I hope that the praise of Bill Cohen does not lead
you to the conclusion that you will not have any challenges as
you move into the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
Our Nation is fortunate to have an individual such as you
follow Bill Cohen. You have a distinguished career both in the
public and private sector and have shown your willingness to
take on the tough issues facing the Department of Defense.
Those of us who served on the Armed Services Committee in the
mid-70s can recall the problems you encountered then with the
state of our Armed Forces--they were undermanned, morale was
sagging, drugs were rampant, and most important they were
underfunded. Fortunately, drugs in the Armed Forces are no
longer a major issue. However, overworked and undermanned units
and underfunded programs are problems that will again test your
mettle.
Mr. Secretary, you have been a proponent for a strong
defense. I can assure you that this committee will provide you
the support that will be critical as you work to strengthen our
Armed Forces to meet the challenges of the future. Our Nation's
history is replete with examples of failing to anticipate the
future challenges and degrading our military capability.
Coincidentally, it was 50 years ago, at the beginning of
the Korean War, when the United States sent the ill-equipped
and under-trained troops of Task Force Smith into battle with
tragic results because we failed to anticipate the threat. As
we commemorate that War, we should make the pledge of never
again will this Nation send another Task Force Smith to battle.
Mr. Secretary, I wish you success and look forward to
working with you in the coming years.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rumsfeld. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Thurmond for those
comments and we very personally appreciate it and the
leadership that you have shown on this committee and in so many
other places in this Senate over the years.
Senator Lieberman, we all give you a special welcome back,
some of us with greater enthusiasm perhaps than others. But
welcome back.
Senator Lieberman. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rumsfeld, I
was privileged to have a courtesy call yesterday from Don
Evans, the Secretary of Commerce designate, and I open by
thanking him for all he did to bring me back to the United
States Senate. So it is good to be here with my colleagues,
particularly on this committee.
Mr. Rumsfeld, I welcome you and join my colleagues in
expressing not only my admiration for your extraordinary record
of public and private service, but for your willingness to take
on this job at this time.
I have not read ``Rumsfeld's Rules'' yet, but I will
certainly--I remember there was a little red book in another
country a distance from here. I do not know what color the
``Rumsfeld's Rules'' are going to be.
But as your opening statement suggests, at this critical
time, unusual time in our national security history, there is a
surprising amount that we have to do. We are--when I think of
the comparison that you made of the Cold War situation you
found on the last occasion when you came in as Secretary of
Defense and the remarkably difference circumstance you find
today.
We are not in ideological and strategic conflict with
another major super power, the Soviet Union. We are it. But we
are nonetheless challenged. Technology is expanding the threats
as you have documented. We have tremendous demands on us to
maintain our force, to keep our troops with the quality of life
and training that we want them to have.
This is going to require some very tough leadership from
you and priorities, the setting of priorities, and a
willingness to try to implement those.
We have been, in the time I have been privileged to be on
this committee and therefore have been involved more directly
in national security questions, watching Congress and the
military and the Executive Branch, we have generally reached
beyond in authorization what we have ultimately--and
conceptualization--of what we would ultimately be willing to
pay for.
I think we are at such a point now where legitimate claims
can be made for resources. We have not yet put them together. I
mean, in the mad cap experience to which Senator Levin refers
that I went through last year, a glorious experience actually
and one that I thoroughly enjoyed, the Bush-Cheney campaign had
a document out suggesting a willingness to spend $45 billion
more over the next 10 years for national security.
Vice President Gore and I doubled that to $100 billion, big
spenders that we are. But what is interesting, and, of course,
focuses the tough choices you will have, is that the Chiefs,
the Joint Chiefs, who I believe Senator Warner referred to,
have essentially told us that what we really need is at least
$50 billion more a year.
So let me first put in an appeal which you and I have
spoken about which is that all of us who care about national
security have to really reach out and try to build more of a
public understanding for the need to spend more to keep our
national security strong in this age.
When you look at what people think we ought to spend more
money on as we are deciding how to spend the surplus, national
security comes out way down on the list. That is not good. As
long as that exists, it is going to be hard for us here to make
the decisions we should make.
The second point is how do you begin to approach the excess
of needs and the deficiency of resources and make the kind of
priority decisions that we need you to make?
Mr. Rumsfeld. I want you to know that I understand the task
facing the Department of Defense is enormously complex. It is
not a time to preside and tweak and calibrate what is going on.
It is a time to take what has been done to start this
transformation and see that it is continued in a way that
hopefully has many, many more right decisions than wrong
decisions.
There is no one person who has a monopoly on how to do this
or genius. It is going to take a collaborative relationship
within the Executive Branch and with Congress. I just hope and
pray that we are wise enough to do it well.
But the one thing we know of certain knowledge is that it
is not a peaceful world. It is a different world. It is more
peaceful in the sense that the Soviet Union is gone. But it is
nonetheless a more dangerous and untidy world. We also know
that the power of weapons today is vastly greater than it was
in earlier eras. We know that with the relaxation of tension at
the end of the Cold War, the proliferation of these
capabilities is pervasive. It is happening. We have to
acknowledge that.
If I know anything, I know that history shows that weakness
is provocative. Weakness invites people into doing things they
would not otherwise think of. What we have to do is better
understand what will deter and what will defend against this
new range of threats. I do not look at them in isolation. I do
not think of long-range ballistic missiles and short-range
ballistic missiles and cruise missiles and terrorism as
something that is disconnected.
I think of it as a continuum. With the Gulf War, the world
was taught to not try to take on western armies, navies, and
air forces because you lose. Therefore, you should try
something else. That means you are going to look at things like
information system attacks and cyber war. You are going to look
at bio-terrorism. You are going to look at other kinds of
terrorism. The vulnerability of space assets has to be
worrisome to people. As well as shorter range ballistic
missiles and cruise missiles in addition to long-range
ballistic missiles.
Senator Lieberman. Let me ask this question. I agree with
you that we have to prepare to face this new range of threats
to our security because no sensible antagonist will take us on
as we were taken on in the Gulf War because we were too
dominant. Does that not inevitably mean that we will have to
cut some of the programs that we are now spending money on that
may be more continuations of that earlier threat scenario than
the new one?
Mr. Rumsfeld. It is entirely possible that that kind of a
recommendation could come out of this review. Whether it will
or not, I do not know until I dig into it. I mentioned the need
for collaboration with Congress. That is true. We also need to
make darn sure that we are dealing with our allies in a way
that they are brought along. We are not alone in this world. We
have some enormously important allies in Asia and in Europe and
friends in other parts of the world. I think that those
relationships as well are terribly important.
Senator Lieberman. Let me ask about the review that you
have spoken of. Congress has authorized by law a quadrennial
defense review. That was a way to try to encourage and mandate
an incoming administration to look forward and to require that
those in the military present some big thoughts over the
horizon.
You have also referred to, and the President-elect referred
during the campaign and more recently, to a strategic review.
Help me, if you would, to relate those two reviews to one
another. Is the strategic review the incoming administration
has in mind the quadrennial defense review authorized by law?
Or, since that does not give you a final product until
December, though it gives you some before, are you thinking
about a separate review to help you make some of the budget
priority decisions I have just referred to?
Mr. Rumsfeld. The latter. My impression is that what the
President-elect has in mind is that we will take a look at how
we view the world and our circumstance in it and fashion some
thoughts with respect to broader strategy and then get down
into more of the details as to the defense establishment's
capability or appropriateness of our current arrangements to
deal with those kinds of threats and opportunities.
The quadrennial review, I do not know--you say it is
finished in December?
Senator Lieberman. Well, you get earlier versions of it
this spring. Then the final product will be in December.
Mr. Rumsfeld. My impression was that when Bill Cohen came
in, it came at him very fast. The timing seemed to me, looking
from outside, to be unfortunate. Because I did not get the
impression that Secretary Cohen had much of an opportunity to
effect it or to calibrate it. I am a little apprehensive that
that is going to be the case in my situation.
The realistic thing is too--my whole life, I have
benefitted from attracting enormously talented people to help
me. I think when I took my first job in the Executive Branch, I
hired Frank Carlucci and Dick Cheney and Ron James and people
all across the spectrum from--Bill Bradley worked there and
Christy Todd Whitman worked there. Micky Kantor I noticed had
some remarks to make the other day and he was there as a legal
service lawyer.
We had a wonderful group of people. Unless you are a Mozart
or an Einstein who goes off in a closet who does something
brilliant, the rest of us people, just people, we get other
people to help us figure things out.
They are something like 500,000 security clearances behind
in the Pentagon today. Now, the process of getting confirmed is
just unbelievable. I just hope each of you will have that
opportunity someday. [Laughter.]
It is an amazing process. I am going to recommend to the
President that he think about getting some sort of an outside
commission to look at this. Because the questions from the
committee are one set. From the Ethics Office, there is
another. The Pentagon has some others. You are supposed to fill
them all out in 5 minutes. There is no way to do it.
I am worried about getting people picked, recommended,
which I cannot do, as we know, until I am the man. I am not. I
have to have help. I am being practical as a manager. I know
that we are going to have to figure out a way to flesh out this
system a little bit.
Senator Lieberman. Thanks very much. I would say from your
performance here this morning that it is clear that you are the
man. [Laughter.]
Mr. Rumsfeld. Thank you. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Senator Lieberman follows:]
Prepared Statement by Senator Joseph I. Lieberman
Thank you Mr. Rumsfeld for appearing before this committee today.
You have a distinguished record of service to our Nation and you bring
impressive credentials to the job for which you are being considered.
You will need all the expertise you have acquired over your long
career, for the job ahead of you is one of the most consequential
positions that one can hold in our government. You will assume
stewardship of our military at a time when it is at a crossroads
between taking the path defined by the ideas and methods of the 20th
century or the path defined by the needs and potential of the 21st
century. The Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) and the NDP conducted in
1997 pretty well define these two roads for you, and define the choices
you face. These panels produced two fundamentally and constructively
different evaluations. The 1997 QDR's conclusion was that although
future military challenges will likely be different, the ``two war''
construct, with some modifications, is and will continue to be the
proper standard against which to gauge our capability and preparedness.
By this standard, the QDR concluded, the current forces and weapons are
satisfactory, and will continue to sustain our military dominance if
modernized in kind. Much of the Pentagon effort since then has been
toward increasing the budget to maintain and modernize this force. The
members of the NDP disagreed. They asserted that ``we are at the cusp
of a revolution in warfare'' and ``unless we are willing to pursue a
new course,'' one different than that proposed by the QDR, ``we are
likely to have forces that are ill-suited to protect our security
twenty years from now.'' Indeed, the NDP questioned the advisability of
continuing to use the ``two war'' standard and of continuing to procure
some of our current core weapons. They concluded that transformation is
the path we should follow, and therefore that spending better was more
important than spending more.
The good news is that the first steps along the path toward
transformation are being taken. The defense establishment has come to
accept transformation as a fundamental policy goal, which is evident
from a growing number of important official speeches and documents.
Secretary of Defense Cohen has said that our defense policy is
transformation, and that the strategy to implement it is ``shape,
respond, and prepare now.'' The QDR states ``we must meet our
requirements to shape and respond in the near term, while at the same
time we must transform U.S. combat capabilities and support structures
to be able to shape and respond effectively in the face of future
challenges.'' And transformation as a goal is at the core of Joint
Vision 2020--the Joint Chiefs of Staff vision that guides the
continuing transformation of America's Armed Forces for the 21st
century.
The bad news is that while the services are, to their credit,
beginning to ``talk the talk'' and even to take steps to transform
themselves, our actions and resourcing are not really keeping pace with
the pronouncements. While most see the need for future forces
fundamentally different than those of today, they urge that change be
cautious and deliberate. So we continue to place the highest priority
on current readiness, keeping our organizations and weapons prepared to
deal with the threats they were designed to deal with, while trusting
that incremental and evolutionary improvements will allow them to adapt
to deal with new and more dangerous threats as they emerge.
Consequently, our resource allocation is still too much like it was
during the Cold War.
As a consequence, you are faced with funding a force that costs
billions more than has been budgeted for it, and that requires more by
far than President-elect Bush has said he is willing to spend. His
stated intent to add significantly more money to missile defense
programs will only add to that shortfall. We have heard that you intend
to narrow the funding gap by cutting or terminating existing programs.
You may have to make many of these decisions now before you are able to
complete a strategic review. If you must do that, those decisions will
impact the strategic review you will design and conduct as Secretary.
The commitment of resources to execute the conclusions of that review
will be substantial, and changing course will be exceedingly difficult
and time consuming, and we will not likely have the money we would need
to change course quickly. So if we choose the wrong road now we will
not have the trained, ready military we will need to dominate on the
battlefields of the future.
I look forward to hearing what your approach will be to resolving
these difficult conflicts, what philosophy you intend to follow to
provide guidance to those who must decide about initial priorities
among sea, land, air, and missile programs, and what guidance you
intend to give the Pentagon to direct their design and execution of the
upcoming strategic review. I look forward to working with you to build
a dominant military for the 21st century.
Chairman Levin. Senator McCain.
Senator McCain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to
congratulate the President-elect for his outstanding selection
of Don Rumsfeld to be the next Secretary of Defense. His
reputation for intelligence, candor, and competency is well-
deserved and we look forward to a rapid confirmation of his
nomination so that he can get right to work.
I guess there are very few benefits of old age, but every
new administration we hear the same complaint that you just
mentioned. It is a very legitimate complaint. Perhaps maybe we
ought to do something about this process.
I am not worried about the willingness of people like you
to serve in all candor because you are a patriot first and
last. But I am worried about at lower levels of government, the
Under Secretary, the Assistant Secretary. Those positions when
highly qualified men and women look at it and then see what
they have to go through, they decide not to do that. I think
that is the compelling reason.
I do not have a lot of sympathy for you, Mr. Secretary, but
I certainly do for others that you need to attract on your team
as you so well pointed out.
I was interested in your comments to Senator Warner's
questions about the use of force and when and when not the
United States troops should be committed. Those of us who
assailed the administration and NATO's conduct of gradual
escalation during the Balkans campaign took heart in your
comments at that time, particularly your reflections on CNN on
April 4, 1999, with respect to comparisons of Kosovo to Vietnam
which went as follows, and I quote: ``There's always a risk in
gradualism. It pacifies the hesitant and the tentative. What it
didn't do is shock and awe and alter the calculation of the
people you're dealing with.''
During an interview with Chris Matthews, you noted that it
was a mistake to say that we would not use ground forces
because it simplifies the problem for Milosevic.
It seems to me we ought to stop saying things to appease
and placate our domestic political audiences. We ought to start
behaving in a way that suggests to Milosevic that it is in his
interest to end this and stop ethnic cleansing and come to the
negotiating table. I appreciate those words very much.
But my question is do you think we should have gotten
involved in Kosovo to start with?
Mr. Rumsfeld. There are pieces of that on both sides
obviously. I think that NATO had historically been a defensive
alliance and been thought of as that. Its image has altered as
a result of that.
My comments--and they sound pretty good to me too. I am
kind of pleased I said those things--were obviously after the
fact. It was we're there. By golly, I'm no fan of graduated
response. If we're going to do something, let's do it.
But I do not know that--the problem is that in our society
people seem to watch how people manage a crisis or a conflict
rather than what preceded it. Of course, the real kudos ought
to go to people who manage things in a way that the conflict
does not happen.
Senator McCain. Or not manage them so that the conflict
does happen.
Mr. Rumsfeld. Yes, sir. When I think back to the Balkans, I
mean, goodness. Again, I do not want to bring up ancient
history. But all of us for years did scenarios and war planning
and war games with respect to Yugoslavia coming apart and
problems in that part of the world. If we know anything, it is
that the Europeans I think--by waiting for the Europeans to do
something, things evolved in a way that are unfortunate. I
think it requires a lot more effort up front.
Senator McCain. I think that is certainly true of Bosnia.
Mr. Rumsfeld. It is.
Senator McCain. Kosovo is a little closer call.
Mr. Rumsfeld. Yes, it is.
Senator McCain. So you do not have an answer?
Mr. Rumsfeld. I do not. That is correct.
Senator McCain. I would like to mention a couple more
issues to you. I will again propose the question that you
previously addressed in the advanced questions to the
committee. Do you believe we still have excess military
infrastructure that can and should be reduced?
Mr. Rumsfeld. Instinctively I do, but knowledgeably I do
not. Because I have not gone back in and reviewed it. But I
would say this----
Senator McCain. Have you heard the comments of Colin
Powell, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense
that you are succeeding, virtually every military expert in
America?
Mr. Rumsfeld. I have. I am kind of old-fashioned. I like to
figure things out for myself. But I am a firm believer that
base structure has to fit force structure.
Senator McCain. But it does now?
Mr. Rumsfeld. As I say, my impression is it does not. I
have not been in there and--the next question after that would
be, well, in what way? Of course, I do not know what way
because I have not been over there getting briefed. But my
brain tells me, my instincts tell me from the past that in fact
not only should base structure fit force structure, it does
not. That something should be done about it. Because we cannot
afford to waste resources with the important tasks we have
ahead of us. But I am not in a position to say this is how it
ought to be done.
Senator McCain. Recently, the United States made a very
significant investment in problems in Colombia. Largely, but
not totally, but largely unnoticed by Americans and their
representatives. I take it from your answer that you have less
than well-informed personal views which you prefer to discuss
with the appropriate officials before taking a public position
and that you have not paid as much attention to it as maybe
other issues as well.
Mr. Rumsfeld. That could be true. I have not. I have not
been to the country in years. I know only basically what I know
from the press.
Senator McCain. Do you know that we just invested about
$1.3 billion in the last appropriation cycle?
Mr. Rumsfeld. That is my understanding.
Senator McCain. We are upgrading a base in Ecuador which I
found out--perhaps I should not admit this--by looking at a
newspaper.
Mr. Rumsfeld. I did not know that.
Senator McCain. There are a lot of things going on in
Colombia, Mr. Secretary. I hate to harken back to other
conflicts, but I hope you will get very well aware of this
situation, what we are doing, what the involvement of U.S.
military personnel is in the area and what kind of investment
and more importantly what goals we seek here. Because very
frankly, I do not know the answer to those questions yet. I
think that at least those of us who sit on this committee
should be much better informed. I hope that the committee will
start looking at the situation from an Armed Forces standpoint
very quickly.
Mr. Rumsfeld. I will certainly invest the time needed to do
that.
Chairman Levin. Senator McCain, if I could just interject.
Senator Warner and I were just chatting. He raised that very
same subject. I think both of us would agree with your comment
that we should, indeed, as a committee, get more deeply
involved and we will.
Senator McCain. I thank you. I will take responsibility for
not knowing about the upgrade in Ecuador, but very frankly I am
not sure many Americans know about it either. Maybe that is
perfectly fine. But I think we had better have a close and
careful examination of exactly what we are committed to. I am
not sure that the members of this committee or Americans, would
agree with a proposed decision on the part of Colombia to give
more areas of sanctuary to the so-called narco traffickers
there. But anyway, finally, Mr. Secretary, I am sure that you
are aware of my concerns about excess spending and the increase
of pork barrel spending. It has risen--my time has expired.
Senator Warner. We cut into your time. Go ahead and take
that question.
Senator McCain. Well, I will take about 5 or 10 more
minutes, Mr. Rumsfeld. [Laughter.] It has gone up. It continues
to go up. When you were Secretary of Defense, it was about $200
to $300 million a year of unrequested add-ons in the Defense
appropriations process.
It is now up around $6 or $7 billion at minimum--at
minimum. New gimmicks have been invented since you were there.
One of them is the so-called wish list that comes over from the
Pentagon, that although not requested in the budget, would be
really great to have. So they pick and choose from that very
long list.
I want to say this to you, Mr. Secretary, and I do not
think you need any advice. But unless you get a handle on this
spending, a billion and a half dollars for an aircraft
helicopter carrier that the Navy and the Marine Corps said they
neither want or need, continued acquisitions of C-130s which 10
years ago the United States Air Force said they did not need,
we are going to have a C-130 in every schoolyard in America
before this is over.
You are going to have to get a handle on this and you may
have to face down some very powerful interests, both on the
Hill and off the Hill. So I see it lurch out of control.
Why do I care? I was just down at Marine Corps Air Station
Yuma. They are still living in World War II barracks. We are
purchasing equipment that the military neither wants nor needs.
We hope we have addressed the food stamp problem. Although, I
am not sure we have satisfactorily.
But while all this excess and unnecessary spending is going
on, the men and women in the military have suffered. It is not
an accident that Army captains are getting out at a greater
rate than in the history of this country's armed services. I do
not mind losing a few admirals and generals. I do mind losing
the high quality captains that are the future leaders of this
country.
So I strongly urge you to look at this issue because the
urgency of the Cold War situation has therefore allowed us a
degree of license in unnecessary spending out of the defense
budget, much of which has nothing to do with defense. You are
never going to be able to meet our requirements of a new and
modernized military, much less the men and women in the
military being taken care of unless you address this issue. I
thank the Chairman for the additional time.
[The prepared statement of Senator McCain follows:]
Prepared Statement by Senator John McCain
Mr. Chairman, the President-elect should be commended for his
outstanding selection of Don Rumsfeld to be the next Secretary of
Defense. Secretary Rumsfeld's reputation for intelligence, candor, and
competency is well deserved, and I look forward to today's hearing with
great interest.
The decline in spending on national defense that we witnessed for
15 years coincided with dramatic global changes that, rightly or
wrongly, resulted in a level of deployments that exceeded any previous
period in memory. That protracted decline in defense spending did not
come without a price.
We can rightly point to the United States Armed Forces as the most
capable in the world, but they are not omnipotent, and they do have
their breaking point. Shallow analyses that point to the size of the
U.S. defense budget relative to those of potential enemies combined and
an overemphasis on the two-war strategy as a planning guide have
impeded our ability to accurately gauge requirements. The myriad
readiness problems that have been well documented occur not because of
the two-war strategy, but despite it. The resources and attention
needed to correct those problems are required irrespective of that
strategy. The readiness problems we are witnessing today occur as a
result of the operational tempo demanded of our military combined with
a force structure ill-suited to the projected international environment
of tomorrow. They occur because of the failure of the Clinton
administration and of Congress to adequately provide for a strong
defense.
Not to be ignored is the considerable damage done to our national
defense through the growing problem of pork-barrel spending and its
related infrastructure issue, the closing of unneeded military bases.
Defense spending bills have become a national disgrace, with increasing
percentages of the budget wasted by earmarking many billions of dollars
for solely parochial reasons. The problem, in fact, has gotten so bad
that, increasingly, pork-barrel spending is not occurring on top of
requested spending levels, but in place of it. In short, we are adding
pork at the expense of vital programs. Should anybody doubt this
statement, just wait for the uniformed services to request supplemental
spending bills for the current fiscal year reflecting spending that
should have already been appropriated.
For the past several years, together with Senator Levin, I have
cosponsored legislation authorizing additional base closing rounds.
That legislation has been regularly and summarily rejected by the
Senate. Yes, the Clinton administration politicized the 1995 round and,
yes, it costs money to close bases. But the real reason for the
rejection of these amendments has been to protect jobs, not promote
national defense. The Clinton administration will be gone in a matter
of days, and no rational person can possibly argue that a closed
military base costs money once inevitable and programmed cleanup costs
are completed. Additional base closings, together with contracting out
of certain activities and the elimination of protectionist statutes,
can account for as much as $20 billion per year in savings--clearly
enough to make a sizable dent in the modernization shortfall we are
facing.
I am also interested in hearing Secretary Rumsfeld's approach to
the use of force. Many of the most contentious debates that occur in
this committee and on the floor of the Senate involve unforeseen and
ongoing military contingencies. The question of when and how to use
military force is central to our responsibilities as a government, the
question of war powers central to our responsibilities as an
institution. Secretary Rumsfeld's thoughts on these matters will be of
immeasurable importance as we continue to wrestle with ongoing
deployments in the Balkans and Southwest Asia and the unknown but
certain deployments of the future.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to address this
session of the committee and look forward to Secretary Rumsfeld's
opening statement.
Chairman Levin. Thank you. Do you have a quick comment on
that before I call on Senator Cleland?
Mr. Rumsfeld. I certainly agree that the question that has
to be posed is whether or not something is going to contribute
to our national security and whether or not it meets the
priorities that are important for this country. That has to be
our focus.
Chairman Levin. Thank you. Senator Cleland.
Senator Cleland. Mr. Secretary, since the C-130s are built
in Georgia, I would like to say that I am for schoolyards being
able to move anywhere in the world at a moment's notice.
[Laughter.]
Let me just say that I am fascinated by the ``Rumsfeld's
Rules''. I appreciate your appreciation for quotes and
anecdotes.
In listening to your incredible resume and your wonderful
experience that you bring to this task--and you certainly have
my support for this job. I think you are going to be an
outstanding Secretary of Defense--I thought about the line by
Jack Kennedy that the thing he appreciated most in the White
House was a sense of history. The thing he feared most was
human miscalculation.
I think you bring something very special to this post and
to this committee and to this country with your great sense of
history, not only in service to this country yourself, but in
the defense post. I think you can help us avoid a lot of human
miscalculations. So congratulations to you.
Mr. Rumsfeld. Thank you, sir.
Senator Cleland. In terms of deployment of American forces,
I would just like to followup on my fellow combat veteran John
McCain's comments and some of the comments that have been made
here. I was privileged to visit General Powell when he was
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Again, a fellow Vietnam
veteran, someone like many of us that learned a lot of bitter
lessons about deployment of forces in the Vietnam War.
I once heard General Powell say something very powerful. He
said, ``my job is to recommend to the President the best advice
to the President on how to use the American military to stay
out of war. But if we get in war, to win and win quickly.''
When he said that, it occurred to me that that was the best
mission statement that I had ever really heard about the
purpose of the American military.
So he is going to be one of your great colleagues in the
cabinet and I think that kind of thinking I heard from you
today. I was appreciative of your comments about using force,
using American military, using our posture to the extent to
which we did not have to commit it. But obviously, if we commit
it, then there are certain things we have to do to make it
successful.
In terms of success, I am glad to hear you say that we must
ask the question how do we know when we are successful? I asked
this question of several administration people in terms of the
Balkan War. I said early on, make sure you define victory.
Because one of these days you are going to have to declare it.
It leads me to a Clausewitz line that I like very much that
the leader must know the last step he is going to take before
he takes the first step. So that steps in motion a whole set of
thought processes.
Senator Roberts and I took the floor all last year to argue
out the question in a bipartisan way basically about when to
commit American forces, about what is in the strategic national
vital interest of the United States and what is not. That if
you commit, then you have a definable objective. Then you do
have an exit strategy. It has been a pleasure to work with my
colleague across the aisle.
I just wanted to share those thoughts with you that might
be of help in fulfilling your task.
Onto the question of our men and women in uniform. I
appreciate your interest in your statement about working hard
to make sure that we recruit the best and the brightest, that
we do not just lower our standards, that we do not dummy up the
military just to get numbers. That is fool's gold. That is
false economy. Any way you cut it. I would rather have less
numbers and keep quality people.
So we do want to go after the best and the brightest, not
only to join but to stay. Senator McCain pointed out senior
captains, senior NCOs. I have tried to fight through this, work
through this, over the last 4 years I have been on the
Personnel Subcommittee. We have looked at various ways, various
incentives, not only for recruitment, but for retention. It
does seem to me that retention is a real special challenge. I
have learned that you recruit a soldier, but you retain a
family. You have a family military now. Those families are
interested in the same things families outside the post are
interested in.
One of them is education. For the last 2 years, this body
has put forward a notion that with my initiative that we ought
to look at the GI bill and maybe see if we can use that to
apply to family members to entice members to stay into the
military for a full career. I would just like for you to take a
look at that as we go along as just one of our tools that we
use to retain quality personnel.
I appreciate in your statement a focus on intelligence. I
cannot help but feel that intelligence prevents many battles
and wins many battles when you get in them. That the
coordination of our intelligence capabilities is itself a
challenge.
I mentioned the deployments. Senator Roberts and I came to
basically a point of view of realistic restraint. We just saw
with the U.S.S. Cole. Now, if you project force or project
power, you also make yourself in this terrorist world, in this
terrorist environment, a target, so that power projection
requires power protection.
Therefore, I think we have to be very realistic about our
power projection. I think one of the reviews that I would be
grateful for you to do as you review the American military is
to see where it is deployed around the world. We literally are
out there everywhere in the world and I think it's a time for
review.
In terms of weapons systems, I noticed that a couple of
years ago, you joined with seven other Secretaries of Defense
to endorse full funding for the F22. That is something that I
think that is important to our national security interest.
Let me just say that one of the Rumsfeld's Rules is do not
necessarily avoid sharp edges. Occasionally, they are necessary
to leadership.
So onto a sharp edge. National missile defense. I have been
a big supporter of theater missile defense, but especially the
Arrow system that we worked very closely with, with our Israeli
friends. I am a big booster of research and further testing of
an anti-missile system.
I guess I feel right now that we are not ready for
deployment of a system. I am not sure that the concept has been
proven. But I am willing to work on it to prove it out, test
it, and then make judgments on deployment later.
But one of the wonderful briefings I have received in the
last year or so is from your commission on missile systems. Of
course, we were all concerned about the North Korean launch of
the missile in the Pacific.
I went to South Korea right up to the DMZ this past August.
It was fascinating to get the briefing on North Korea and see
where they were. We got a fascinating briefing. We had given to
us by the Department of the Army a photo taken at night of
lights on the Korean peninsula which also showed lights just
into Southern China.
It is interesting. You see lights in South Korea. You see
lights in China. North Korea literally is a big, dark, black
hole. It is amazing to me that 50 years after the Korean War,
they still cannot turn the lights on.
I just wonder--we do not want to overreact here. I think
any missile defense system that is deployed should be well
thought out and not just on the basis of one launch by a
country that cannot even turn the lights on.
So I point that out to you because I am willing to walk
down this path with you to continue to prove the concept. But I
think first things first. Let us prove the concept and then
think about deployment.
I would say too that in my analysis of threats, it is this
terroristic threat that is maybe our biggest challenge.
Particularly, in terms of missile systems one that Senator Sam
Nunn and that great expert on nuclear warfare, Ted Turner, have
recently articulated and that is that we might want to look at
the whole question of the Soviets, former Soviets, or the
Russians now and their de-alerting of their existing systems
and any loose nukes that might be out there. That might be one
of our biggest challenges in terms of missile threats.
Now, I would like for you just to respond to maybe the last
point that I raised.
Mr. Rumsfeld. Well, I think the danger that has been
suggested with respect to the disarray in the former Soviet
Union and the large number of nuclear weapons is a very real
concern. There is just no question but that it has to be looked
at in two dimensions. First is the actual materials which there
are a number of countries that have appetites for it. If your
circumstance is that anything is for sale, there is a risk.
The second dimension to it is the fact that you have a
large number of very bright, talented, experienced weapons
people in the Soviet Union that are not getting paid and not
getting their pensions. Again, if everything is for sale, their
brains and their knowledge is for sale. It results in a risk
for accelerated proliferation that is serious and real and I am
very much concerned about it. I recognize the fact that the
United States needs to address it and play a role in trying to
avoid that proliferation.
I would like to add one word on missile defense if I might.
We talk frequently about the risks of deploying missile
defense. We are properly concerned about our allies in that
regard. We are properly concerned about attitudes by Russia and
China and other countries.
I think it is useful from time-to-time to also ask
ourselves what are the risks of not deploying missile defense.
I would mention several. One is it seems to me if some
countries that have significant technological capabilities,
decide that they are vulnerable to ballistic missiles from
their neighbors and that we lack the ability to assist them in
defending against that capability. That we may contribute to
proliferation by encouraging them to go forward and develop
their own nuclear weapons and their own ballistic missiles. I
think that is just a fact.
Second, the other thing that worries me if we do not deploy
ballistic missile capability is I have been in the White House
as Chief of Staff and as Secretary of Defense on the National
Security Council. I have seen the process that a President has
to go through when there is a risk or a threat.
If we know of certain knowledge that another country has a
nuclear warhead that can effect us and we do not feel we have a
good grip on their motivations, their behavior patterns, what
could dissuade them, and we know that they are capable of using
it, we are forced into one of two course of action.
Either we acquiesce and change our behavior and change our
interest and alter what we would otherwise have done or we have
to preempt. I think putting a President of the United States
and a country in the position where their choices, their
options, are so minimal that they are forced into a position
of--as Israel was--with respect to the radon and nuclear
capability in Iraq so many years ago--where a President is
forced to go in and take action of a preemptive nature because
he lacks the defensive capability to persuade those people that
it is not in their interest to do that.
So that is a dimension to this missile defense thing that I
do not think gets into the debate to the extent it ought to. I
think we need to look at deterrence across the spectrum.
I was in a meeting up in New York. Some person raised their
hand and they said that my father was a good friend of Colonel
House. I thought back, my goodness gracious, Colonel House.
That was Woodrow Wilson's day. I was talking about missiles and
missile defense and so forth. He said, one day my father asked
Colonel House why he was so courteous. Why he was just the most
gracious, courteous, person he had ever met. The answer was by
Colonel House, well, young man, I grew up when gentleman
carried revolvers. If you know everyone has a revolver, you
tend to be courteous.
Well, North Korea is selling, has been and is today to my
knowledge, to my not today knowledge, but very recent
knowledge, selling those capabilities and technologies and
trading them around the world. They are an active world class
proliferator. It is my understanding when the United States
representatives met with them, their response was when we asked
if they would change their behavior with respect to ballistic
missiles, one of their responses was something to the effect
that you are America. You have bombed in the Sudan. You have
bombed in Afghanistan. You are bombing in Kosovo. You are
bombing in Iraq. You are giving food aid to North Korea. Now,
why? Why is the behavior so different? Well, they believe it is
because they have those weapons. They believe that those
capabilities they believe they have are sufficient to alter
behavior of their neighbors. I do not think we as a country
want to think that the old mutual assured destruction where the
United States and the Soviet Union could kill each other
several times over is necessarily a deterrent that is well-
fashioned for the period we are moving into.
Senator Cleland. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. Thank
you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you. Senator Inhofe.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I can remember
when I heard on TV--I did not have any indication that you
would be nominated nor that you would accept if nominated to
this position. I told my wife there is not a person in America
today as qualified as Don Rumsfeld for this position.
I also had two personal reasons that I am rejoicing in your
nomination. One is that as Senator Durbin said when you are
inducted into the National Wrestling Hall of Fame--of course,
that is located in Stillwater, Oklahoma. So you are even more
of a hero there than you are in some other areas. I remember
also when I came from the House to the Senate in 1994, I went
through some of these confirmation hearings on the different
Chiefs. I can remember identifying with them because we had
served at the same time. You know, myself and Elvis Presley and
some of these guys. So now as of about 5 years ago, Mr.
Chairman, there is not one person in the service who was
serving when I was serving. So you and I are contemporaries. We
served precisely the same years and now I have someone I can
communicate with.
I want to also complement you and your family and I look at
your beautiful granddaughter over there. I think there is not
one of my eight grandkids who would listen to me for 2 hours
and be as patient as she is.
I think when we assess this thing, I know there is this
euphoric attitude after the Cold War is over that somehow the
threat is not there. I really believe the threat is greater
today. I think we are in the most threatened position that we
have been in as a nation in our Nation's history. Incidentally,
George Tenet, the Director of Central Intelligence, agrees with
that.
I think when you look at it, Senator Warner is right. We
cannot try to pin you down as to what kind of a cost this is
going to be. But I would say that when you have the Joint
Chiefs all agreeing that the range is similar between $48 and
$58 billion additional. Do you have any reason to believe that
is unreasonable?
Mr. Rumsfeld. I have no reason to believe any of those
numbers are unreasonable. It takes--I really do like to get my
brain engaged before my mouth. I need to get in there and pour
over it and I need to get some people to help me.
Senator Inhofe. Well, there is one thing that has not been
brought up that I think you--I am going to ask that you look
into immediately. That is what we are going to have to do in a
supplemental before the current budget year. We have been
talking about it in future years. But right now we have a list
that has been provided us with $4.5 billion of near term
readiness requirements. We are talking about spare parts and
equipment maintenance and another $2.5 billion for emergency
personnel or modernization programs.
Now, we have been told that if we are unable to get that,
we may have to cease training in the fourth quarter of this
year. I am going to ask you to really pay attention to the
current needs, those things that are having a deteriorating
effect on our retention and those things that have to be done.
Our RPM accounts, for example. I mean, you can go down to
Fort Bragg in a rainstorm as I have been there and our kids are
covering up their equipment with their bodies to keep them from
rusting. So those are the things that have to be done
immediately. I hope that you would look at those.
Mr. Rumsfeld. I will indeed. Thank you, sir.
Senator Inhofe. Just so there is clarification as to the
responses that you made, when the Chairman first asked about
the missile defense law that we passed, the Missile Defense Act
of 1999, and he read the two parts of that bill that I think we
have heard many, many times before, do you see that there is
anything incompatible about those two statements?
Mr. Rumsfeld. The first is deploying an effective system.
Senator Inhofe. As soon as technologically possible.
Mr. Rumsfeld. The second was negotiation.
Senator Inhofe. Yes.
Mr. Rumsfeld. Not that I can see.
Senator Inhofe. Well, I do not either. But I just wanted
to--because I think that the act is very specific. Let us keep
in mind that was not just passed by a huge margin in the House.
It was passed by a 97 to 3 margin in the Senate. Not one person
who has been in here today voted against it. So I would only
ask that you would recommend to the administration that you
immediately start complying with Public Law 106-38 and start
getting and deploying.
By the way, I want to say that if there is one--one of the
great recent services that you have provided for this country
is the Rumsfeld Commission. I think if I were to single out one
or two sentences in there when those who were opposed to our
meeting what I think our requirements are on a national missile
defense system. They often say, well, these countries, Iran,
Iraq, and other countries are not going to be able to have this
capability for another five to ten years. You pointed out that
an indigenous system does not exist today. That these countries
are trading technologies and trading systems. So I appreciate
very much your making that statement and making it very clear
to this committee.
Third, there is one thing that we have not really talked
about and I would ask that you address. It does not have a lot
of sex appeal. Not many people talk about it. But it is our
near-term readiness and modernization.
Just as one example, and I could use many other examples,
but this is a personal one. I chair the Readiness and
Management Support Subcommittee and have had a great deal of
concern as to how these efforts over in Kosovo and Bosnia are
draining our ability to defend America. Just one being the 21st
TACOM. The 21st TACOM is responsible for ground logistics in
that area of the Balkans, but also in the Middle East. They're
at about 100 percent capacity right now.
Some of the equipment they had over there in the M915
trucks that we are using, many of them with over a million
miles on them. We determined that if we could just use the
amount of money that we are going to have to use to maintain
those for a 3-year period, we could replace them with new
vehicles.
Now, the problem there is an accounting problem that you
are well aware of. I am not sure whether it was back in 1975 or
not. But we cannot get anything done and prepare for the future
when fiscally in a normal prudent business decision, you would
say, no. We are not going to keep fixing those. We are going to
have new ones.
Do you have any thoughts about how you might address that?
Mr. Rumsfeld. Well, there is no difference that the
government operates quite differently from business. There is
also no question that at a certain point people do not maintain
fleets of things that are antiquated because of the upkeep and
maintenance cost of continuing them.
Senator Inhofe. Yes, but, of course, we have been doing it.
Mr. Rumsfeld. Yes, sir.
Senator Inhofe. Because a question on base closure was
asked, I would only make a request that the force structure
that we have today is about one-half of what it was during 1991
during the Persian Gulf War. That can be quantified, half the
Army divisions, half the tactical air wings, half the ships
going out from 300 ships--600 ships to 300 ships.
After the U.S.S. Cole, tragedy took place, I went over
there. I talked to virtually every rear admiral and everyone
who was around there. They said that if we had had--when we cut
down the number of ships, we cut our refuellers or our oilers
down from 32 to 21. If we had not done that, every one of them
to the last one said we would not have gone into Yemen or the
other ports. We would have refueled at sea.
Now, when you go from the Mediterranean through the Suez
Canal and the Red Sea and turn left and go up the Mediterranean
Sea to the Persian Gulf. It is about 5,000 miles. You have to
have some refueling capability. Virtually everything in there
is in kind of a threatened area.
I went back to the bone yards and found that we had two
vehicles out there that were in very good shape and cost very
little more money to put them back into service. Those were the
Higgins and the Humphreys. I would hope that you would consider
doing that and talk to your Navy people--and, of course, you
draw on your own experience there--as to why it would not be
prudent to pull some of those back into service and to get that
refueling capability in that area. I just make that request
that you would consider that.
Mr. Rumsfeld. I will be happy to look at it. Thank you,
sir.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, very much.
Mr. Rumsfeld. Could I clean up two things that are a little
embarrassing to me? The Senator mentioned I was in the
Wrestling Hall of Fame. It is true. But I did not go in the
front door with the great wrestlers. I came in the back door
with the so-called distinguished Americans who had wrestled. It
was Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Dennis Hastert, and
Rumsfeld and a few others. [Laughter.]
Second, I was described as the captain----
Senator Warner. We would add John Chafee is my
recollection, our distinguished colleague.
Mr. Rumsfeld. That is right, exactly. I was described as
captain of the college football team and it is true. But I was
a little guy. It was the 150-pound football, not the big guys.
I would not want to let the record stay inaccurate.
Chairman Levin. Well, we will keep the record open for a
number of additional comments. [Laughter.]
Senator Inhofe. One last thing just for the record. I would
ask also in this setting and this environment today at this
time, you cannot get into your F-22, joint strike fighters,
crusader, global hawk, for example. I know you were a real
supporter of unmanned vehicles sometime ago.
But I hope for the record maybe later on you can have some
time to think about this and address these platforms. We would
like to believe, and many of the American people believe, that
we have the very best of everything. But I was very proud of
Gen. John Jumper not too long ago when he said in terms of air-
to-air vehicles, we are not superior. In fact, the Russians
have some things on the market right now, the SU-35, that are
better than any air-to-air combat vehicle we have, including
the F-15s. So I am hoping that you will be able to assess our
modernization and get it as specific as you can as early in
your term as possible.
Mr. Rumsfeld. Thank you.
Chairman Levin. Thank you. Senator Reed.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Mr. Rumsfeld, not only for your
willingness to serve, but for your lifetime of public service.
Mr. Rumsfeld. Thank you.
Senator Reed. We had a chance this morning to chat briefly.
I thank you for that also. I was listening to your response to
Senator Warner about the conditions for committing American
forces today. Frankly, and I think you would agree, that it is
in a sense a work in progress that you are trying to understand
the forces and the structure that we have and the threats we
face.
I might suggest that we are pretty good at the initial
phases of these operations because they are essentially
military operations, the forceful entry into contested
territory. We are not very good at the back end which is the
policing operation which is humanitarian operations. One of the
reason we are not is that we do not have those resources. We
have not been able to coordinate with our allies and with
national organizations to have such resources. I wondered if
you might comment upon this whole issue, not just in terms of
America's role, but being able to parade an organization or
mutual organizations that can do missions that you might feel
needed to be done. We have the forces militarily to make the
entry, but we are uncertain about whether or not we can extract
ourselves in reasonable time. Would you comment on that?
Mr. Rumsfeld. Well, I can comment briefly. We all know it
is a lot easier to get into something than it is to get out of
it. We all know that everyone is not capable of doing
everything. In fact, the tasks as you properly point out are
distinctly different. I have had an impression over the years
that we have a significant role in helping to deter aggression
in the world. The way you do that is to be arranged to defend
in the event you need to which you know well as a West Point
graduate.
Having been at NATO and looking at different countries and
what the different countries bring to that alliance, it is
pretty obvious that the United States has some things that we
bring to it that are notably different from some of the other
countries. It is also true that the other countries can bring
significant things.
I do not think that it is necessarily true that the United
States has to become a great peacekeeper if you will. I think
we need to have capabilities, as you are suggesting, that are
distinct from war fighting capabilities. But I also think other
countries can participate in these activities that are needed
in the world from time-to-time and bring--they can bring the
same capabilities we can to that type of thing. Whereas, they
cannot bring the same capabilities that we can, for example,
with respect to air lift or sea lift or intelligence gathering
or a variety of other things.
There is one other aspect to being on the ground in an
area. Someone mentioned with respect to the U.S.S. Cole. If you
are a space asset or the Marines that were in Beirut Airport
back when I was President Reagan's Middle East envoy, if you
provide an attractive target, a lucrative target, somebody may
want to try to test whether or not they can damage that target.
That is a lot less true--the United States of America is an
attractive target. So when we are on the ground, we tend to
become a bit more attractive, a bit more ``lucrative'' as a
target. It seems to me that it may very well be that other
countries can do some of those things in a way that is less
likely to create the kind of targeting that the United States
tends to draw.
Senator Reed. Thank you. You made reference to and
anticipated my next question which as the former Ambassador to
NATO, you have a great experience you are bringing to the task
because there are issues, one of which is to what extent NATO
will operate or European forces will operate independently of
NATO.
We have a current controversy about the depleted uranium
being used in Kosovo. We have an ongoing debate and discussion
about national missile defense. Most--many European governments
are frankly opposed to it.
Then we also have the issue not only of whether or not we
are willing to essentially allow our allies to do some things,
frankly because they might get the impression that they can do
everything alone and they do not need us any longer. I wonder
from your perspective and as you go in how do you propose to
deal with some of these issues relative to NATO?
Mr. Rumsfeld. I would begin with several principles. I
think NATO is just an enormously important alliance. It has a
record of amazing success. I believe in consultation with our
NATO allies. I think that they have difficult political
situations and close margins in their parliaments. They need
time. They need discussion with us. They need leadership. They
need an opportunity so that the solution can be fashioned in a
way that makes sense.
With respect to the European defense force, let me just put
it this way. I think anything that damages the NATO cohesion
would be unwise for Europe and for the United States and for
our ability to contribute to peace and stability in that part
of the world.
Senator Reed. During the campaign, Mr. Rumsfeld, the Bush
campaign made a great point about suggesting that China was a
competitor. Frankly, in that type of dynamic, there is always
the fear that competition will lead to conflict. How do you
think you can use your resources at the Department of Defense
to preempt conflict with China?
Mr. Rumsfeld. Well, I think how China evolves in the 21st
century into the world in Asia and elsewhere in the world is
enormously important. I think our behavior and the behavior of
other countries in the region and the world is going to make a
difference as to how they evolve. I would characterize our
relationship with the People's Republic of China as complicated
and multi-dimensional.
It is true, as the President-elect said, that we are
competitors. They are seeking influence in the region and we
are in the region. We have been in the region. I think it is
important we have been in the region because we have
contributed to peace and stability in that part of the world.
We are trading partners simultaneously. So on the one hand,
we are somewhat of a competitor. On the other hand, we are a
trading partner.
We watch what they say and they write. I am no more an
expert than others, but I do read what some of their military
colleges, writings are saying. We see their defense budget
increasing by double digits every year. We see an awful lot of
their military doctrine talking about leapfrogging generations
of capabilities and moving toward asymmetrical threats to the
United States, cyber warfare and these types of things.
I do not think the history between the United States and
the PRC is written. I think we are going to write it. I think
we have to be wise and we have to be engaged and we have to be
thoughtful. But we cannot engage in self-delusion. They are not
strategic partners in my view. They are--it is a multi-faceted
relationship.
Senator Reed. Let me touch upon this. Many of my colleagues
have national missile defense. But from the context of the
overall theory of deterrence, you described from your vantage
point in the White House the sort of two choices. If someone
had a ballistic missile that could reach our shores, the choice
is being acquiescence or preemption.
Yet, for decades, Russia had exactly that capability, the
Soviet Union. I would suggest we did not acquiesce and we did
not conduct preemptive strikes.
It seems to me that what is going on here in this
deterrence theory is that it is as much about the psychology or
one's perception of the psychology of the opponent as well as
throw weight and defense mechanisms.
Mr. Rumsfeld. Absolutely.
Senator Reed. Inherent, it seems that what you are saying,
is that you really distinguish some of these so-called rogue
states as being irrational as different from the Soviet Union,
unable to appreciate the fact that any type of unilateral
attack on the United States, even if frankly--one would assume,
even if it was successfully defeated by a missile defense,
would result in almost inevitable retaliation. Is that at the
core of your thinking, that we are dealing now with some
irrational actors?
Mr. Rumsfeld. No, sir. I must not have explained myself
well. Two things. My comments about the behavior of the states
that we are talking about--I am not terribly enamored of the
phrase rogue state. It leaves the impression that the
leadership there is kind of like a rogue elephant careening off
a wall blindly and that is not the case. I mean, I have met
with Saddam Hussein and I met with the elder Assad as Middle
East envoy. These people are intelligent. They are survivors.
They are tough. They do not think like we do. Goodness knows,
they do not behave like we do with respect to their neighbors
or their own people. But they are not erratic.
You are correct. We absolutely must--that is why this
intelligence gathering task we have as a country is so much
more important today, not just because of proliferation but
because the weapons are so powerful.
It is not a matter of counting beans in Russia, how many
missiles, how many ships, how many tanks? It is a matter of
knowing a lot more about attitudes and behaviors and
motivations and how you can alter their behavior to create a
more peaceful world.
The thing that I would want to clarify is that when I said
what I said, I was distinguishing between the relationship of
the United States and the Soviet Union. There the so-called
mutual shared destruction indeed worked. The potential to be
able to have massive retaliation I think created a more stable
situation.
To pretend that the fact that we had through massive
retaliation a stable situation with Russia and that that
necessarily would deter not only Russia, but others from making
mischief is obviously historically wrong. We had a war in
Korea. We had a war in Vietnam. Saddam Hussein went into
Kuwait. Not withstanding the fact that the United States and
the Soviet Union had a perfect ability to destroy each other
several times over.
So what you need is deterrence across the spectrum that
addressed the evolving threats that are notably different as
you well know. I just must not have made myself very clear.
Senator Reed. Well, again, this is a topic that cannot be
exhausted in 5 or 6 or 7 minutes.
Mr. Rumsfeld. No, it is an interesting topic.
Senator Reed. I appreciate your thoughtfulness and your
comments. Thank you very much, Mr. Rumsfeld.
Mr. Rumsfeld. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Levin. Thank you very much, Senator Reed. We are
going to call on two more Senators before lunch. We are going
to try to squeeze in both Senator Roberts and then Senator
Bingaman. Then we will break for lunch. If we break right at
1:00, we will come back at 2:00. If we go 5 minutes after 1:00,
we will come back at five after 2:00.
Senator Roberts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me say I
think you are the right man for the right job.
Mr. Rumsfeld. Thank you, sir.
Senator Roberts. This is a little different experience in
regards to the usual nomination process at least for me and I
think other members of the committee. We have all of our
prepared questions that are prepared by staff in large type so
that we can read them and go on from there.
But I think in your case, you shine the light of experience
and expertise into the nomination fog and I think it has been
very helpful. I think it has been educational. I think you
caused us to think a little bit and I think that is very
appropriate. I feel compelled to use part of my time--I should
not, but I am going to--to inform my colleagues and Mr.
Rumsfeld that in terms of our vital national security
interests, I think that Latin America, Central America, our
involvement in Colombia in the Southern Command where there are
31 nations involved is just as important as the Balkans. I
noted that there was some concern in regards to maybe Congress
going in with a blindfold or not really fully aware of all the
details.
Let me point out that the subcommittee of which I am
privileged to chair and Senator Bingaman was the ranking
member, we had lengthy hearings and the full committee had
hearings. We had General Wilhelm. We had the Assistant
Secretary of Defense. We had the Assistant Secretary of State.
We had two of those. We had two ambassadors. We went over in
considerable detail what the pros and cons were in regards to
our involvement.
More especially since we left Panama and went to Miami and
found thousands of miles in the Southern Command that we are at
risk. We do have bases. We have them in El Salvador. We have
them in Aruba. Then I think we have them in Ecuador as well to
do a tough job.
We took a lot of infrastructure away to go over to the
Balkans. Well, why am I saying this? That is because there are
360 million people down there. The average age is 14 with a lot
of problems.
In regards to immigration, in regards to drugs, in regards
to trade, in regards to possible revolution, and in regards to
our energy supply, where we have about 22 percent of our energy
coming from Venezuela and Mexico and in regards to what a
fellow down there named Chavez is doing, I think we better pay
attention to it.
Now, I cannot say whether our policies in Colombia are
going to work or not. But I do say that we have taken a
considerable interest in this, had a subcommittee debate and in
the full committee and in the Appropriations Committee where
General Wilhelm had to stand tall and parade rest before the
appropriators and in the Senate and in the House, this was not
done without due consideration. I would urge your attention to
that because I think it is very important.
I want to talk about--I want to ask you if--in fact I am
going to recommend a criteria in regard to the use of troops.
This is in concert with what my dear friend Senator Cleland and
I determine in our realistic restraint foreign policy dialogue
that at least us two listened to. We had to listen to each
other over on the Senate.
We came up with the criterion before we would put the
troops in. One was the stakes are vital to the United States.
Second, public support is assured. Third, overwhelming force is
used in regards to a clear definition of goals and purpose.
Last, everybody agrees on an exit strategy. I think that is a
pretty good list.
The reason I mention that is on behalf of the warfighter. I
was in Kosovo on exactly the same day that we mounted up and
the 27th Marines went in. I took the advantage to get briefed.
They probably did not want to brief me. That was the last thing
they wanted to do was see a U.S. Senator there as they were
getting ready to mount up.
But I asked a lance corporal, I said, what are your goals
here? Do you think you can do the job in regard to Kosovo? He
said, sir, I'm a United States Marine. I can do the job.
I said, but what is your personal goal? He said my personal
goal is to take care of myself so that I can come home after 6
months to my wife and kids because I know just as soon as I
leave, these guys are going to start shooting each other all
over again.
I think too many times it is not that we should not pay
attention to the geo-political concerns and the strategic
concerns. My concern is the warfighter, that person in uniform.
I believe that as we go down this we remember that it is
one thing to have a cause to fight for. It is another thing to
have a cause to fight and die for.
So I am in agreement with the Powell Doctrine. I pretty
much said what I think we ought to do on down the road. I offer
that up as a suggestion.
The Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee of which
I am privileged to chair and we have drugs and we have
terrorism and we have weapons of mass destruction and we have
the counter threat reduction programs. We have a whole bunch of
things. Every staff member back here has to deal with me
because of this subcommittee and the foresight of the
distinguished Chairman.
We asked witnesses in terms of things that really bother
you, whether it is a cyber attack or a biological attack or
whatever it is, what keeps you up at night? What is the one big
thing that keeps you up at night? Now, other than you filling
out all the paperwork you have to in regard to the ethics
business, what keeps you up at night?
What would you tell the Emerging Threats and Capabilities
Subcommittee right now that you think is an immediate concern
in terms of our national security? What keeps you up at night?
Now, I know you said that you cannot really single one out,
that this is a continuum and a many faceted kind of thing here
with missile development, terrorism, so on and so forth.
Mr. Rumsfeld. Well, two things I would say. I would repeat
what I said about the importance of considerably improving our
intelligence capabilities so that we know more about what
people think and how they behave and how their behavior can be
altered and what the capabilities are in this world.
I think the goal ought not to be to win a war. The goal
ought to be to be so strong and so powerful that you can
dissuade people from doing things they otherwise would do. You
do not have to even fight the war. That takes me to the second
point.
The second point is I do not know that I really understand
what deters people today because I do not think one thing
deters everybody. I think that we need to understand that there
are different parts of the world. There are different types of
leaders with different motivations. We have to do a lot better
job of thinking through deterrence and assuring that we have
done the best job possible.
I mean, everyone is going to make mistakes. But today when
mistakes are made with the power of weapons, they are not
little mistakes, they are big mistakes.
We need to do everything we can to fashion a set of
deterrents, a nest, a fabric that does the best possible job
for this country.
Let me go to your first point just very briefly and add a
thought for consideration. You mentioned overwhelming public
support as a criteria. I am uncomfortable with that. I think
that leaders have to lead and build support. I look back at
history. I think there have been times when we have had to do
things when the public was not there yet.
I think that what needs to be done is to have leaders in
office, presidents, who think these things through, who make
the right decisions, who are sufficiently persuaded that
overwhelming support, public support, follows.
You cannot sustain anything without it. I quite agree. But
I think that thinking that you are going to have it at the
outset is optimistic.
Second, on overwhelming force. I have watched presidents
look at their situation in a pre-crisis period, a build-up
period. They have very few tools to deal with. The military
tends to come in and the choices are not--you do not have a lot
of arrows in your quiver. It is a proper thing to say we do not
want to do something unless we are going to put the force into
it we need. But the concept of overwhelming force in isolation
I would think needs to have another dimension. It is this.
In the pre-crisis period, in the early period, you can do
things to alter people's behavior that does not require 500,000
troops and 6 months to build up. If we are wise and think these
things through, there are things that can be done in a build-up
period that will persuade people they ought not to be doing
what they are thinking about doing, that will persuade the
people they need to support them in doing what they are
thinking about doing, that those people ought not to support
them.
That does not require overwhelming force. That requires a
lot better intelligence and a lot more tools to affect and
alter thinking in those periods. I think we need to broaden
that concept somewhat.
Senator Roberts. I appreciate that. My time has expired.
Thank you.
Chairman Levin. Thank you. Senator Bingaman is next. We
will then recess and Senator Allard will be first when we
return.
Senator Bingaman. Mr. Rumsfeld, thank you and
congratulations on your stamina in considering all of these
questions.
Mr. Rumsfeld. Thank you.
Senator Bingaman. As well as congratulations on your
nomination. I certainly intend to support you.
Mr. Rumsfeld. Thank you, sir.
Senator Bingaman. One of the issues that we always hear a
lot of talk about, but at least in my view has not been given
adequate priority in defense budgeting, is science and
technology.
It seems like, at least for the last several years, every
time we see a defense budget proposed by the administration,
the percentage of the defense budget that is committed to
science and technology is reduced. It always loses out compared
to procurement, compared to readiness, compared to all these
other things.
I know that President-elect Bush gave a speech at the
Citadel a year and a half ago where he talked about the
importance of science and technology investment. He said he was
committing an additional $20 billion--or he would if elected
President--commit an additional $20 billion to defense research
and development between now and 2006. I think that was the
commitment he made in that speech or the statement he made.
Let me add one other aspect of this. The reductions in
growth in defense research and development in recent years has
been justified at some of our hearings on the basis that the
industrial companies will pick up the difference here, that
U.S. industry is sufficiently strong that we do not need to do
what we once did in science and technology.
That to my mind is very much at odds with what I understand
is happening to our defense industrial base. They do not have
the luxury of putting substantial new resources into this area.
So I would be interested in any comments you have about how we
can increase research and development, defense related research
and development and support for science and technology.
Mr. Rumsfeld. Senator, I agree completely with everything
you have said. When President-elect Bush announced that I was
his choice for this post, I said that I had visited with him. I
had read his pronouncements and plans for defense and that I
supported them enthusiastically. Certainly with respect to
science and technology, he is on the mark and you are on the
mark and I agree.
I came out of the pharmaceutical business where we invest
in research and development that is not guaranteed to produce
anything in the next 5 minutes. You have to be patient. You
have to live with a lot of failures. I have been involved in
the electronics business, quite the same.
If you are not investing for the future, you are going to
die. You simply run out of gas at a certain point. This
wonderful country of ours has such fine leadership in science
and technology. But the reality is an awful lot of the foreign
students who used to come over here and stay and study are now
going back to their countries.
They are leaving with an enormous amount of knowledge and
the country, this committee, this department, simply must be
willing to make those investments.
Senator Bingaman. Well, thank you for that answer. Let me
ask about one other area that I also think tends to get short
changed in the defense budgets that I have seen, and that
relates to test and evaluation. Again, there does not seem to
me at least to be a strong constituency for funding the
necessary infrastructure to accomplish and maintain our ability
in the test and evaluation area. I have a parochial interest in
this. Because White Sands Missile Range is in my state. It's
our largest, and I believe our most capable test and evaluation
facility.
But this is an area that I hope you will give some
attention to. It seems to me to be one of those areas that
falls between the stools when people start putting together
defense budgets. It does not have the natural advocates behind
it the way we are currently structured that would allow it to
be given sufficient attention.
I am glad to hear your comment. Or I will go onto another
question.
Mr. Rumsfeld. I am not knowledgeable about the state of
that and will be happy to look into it.
Senator Bingaman. One other area I wanted to ask about, and
this has been asked about by some of the other Senators. There
was a New York Times editorial that I am sure you saw
expressing concern about what they anticipate would be a
missile defense organization. The MDO recommendation to the new
president that he needs to order construction of a radar system
in Alaska to begin this March in order to meet the deadlines
that you identified in the commission report that you came up
with for actual deployment by 2005 I believe. I believe I have
those dates right.
I wondered if you have any insight into whether or not such
a recommendation will be made, whether or not you would support
such a recommendation to begin construction of a radar site in
March or whether you believe that is premature.
Mr. Rumsfeld. It would be premature for me to comment on
it. There is no question we simply have to get some folks pass
through this committee engaging that subject. I have to get
myself up to speed. It clearly would be an issue that would end
up with the President and the National Security Council.
Senator Bingaman. Let me ask about one other thing, one
other area, and that is export controls. My impression is that
there are major problems in the system we have in place now to
control defense related exports, that it has worked to the
disadvantage of many of our companies that have defense related
work, but also do a lot of commercial work. This is an issue
that involves several departments, not just the Department of
Defense, but the Department of Commerce, Department of State. I
think we have probably added to the problem here in Congress by
shifting responsibilities to the Department of State and not
adequately funding them in this area.
I do not know if this is an area that you are informed
about. If so, I would be anxious to hear your views. If not, I
would be anxious to just urge you to look at this and see if
you could bring some constructive recommendations to this
system.
Mr. Rumsfeld. Well, I agree that it is something that has
to be looked at. It is an enormously complicated set of
problems of which I am only marginally informed. I have bumped
into it through the Ballistic Missile Threat Commission and
watching that set of issues. I have bumped into it through
business on a number of occasions. There has to be a balance
between national security interest and our obvious desire to be
able to encourage investment in this country to create advanced
technologies.
To the extent you inhibit that, you do not stop it. You
simply drive it offshore. A businessman can sit down in a room
in Chicago and decide if he wants to do research and
development in France or in Asia, in Japan or in Skokie,
Illinois. Just with a decision it gets changed one place or
another.
To the extent we are unwise and allow a system that needs
to be very dynamic because there is so much happening to be
static and prevent things that need not be prevented or delay
things to the point where people are unwilling to accept the
costs which delay imposes, then we damage ourselves, not just
economically. We also damage ourselves from a national security
standpoint because we force people to go offshore to develop
these technologies.
So we need to give that system a good look.
Senator Bingaman. Thank you, very much. My time has
expired.
Chairman Levin. We are going to recess now for 1 hour. We
will start with Senator Allard. The order of recognition for
all my colleagues is on a sheet of paper here, so you can see
where in that list you will come. We will stand recessed until
2:05.
[Whereupon, at 1:05 p.m. the hearing was recessed.]
AFTERNOON SESSION
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:07 p.m. in room
SD-106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Carl Levin
(chairman) presiding.
Committee members present: Senators Levin, Byrd, Cleland,
Landrieu, Warner, Inhofe, Allard, and Sessions.
Other Senators present: Senators Akaka, Bill Nelson, Ben
Nelson, Carnahan, Dayton, Collins, and Bunning.
Committee staff member present: David S. Lyles, staff
director.
Majority staff members present: Richard D. DeBobes,
counsel; Richard W. Fieldhouse, professional staff member;
Creighton Greene, professional staff member; Gerald J. Leeling,
counsel; Peter K. Levine, counsel; and Michael J. McCord,
professional staff member.
Minority staff members present: Romie L. Brownlee, staff
director; Judith A. Ansley, deputy staff director; Charles S.
Abell, professional staff member; Charles W. Alsup,
professional staff member; John R. Barnes, professional staff
member; Edward H. Edens IV, professional staff member; William
C. Greenwalt, professional staff member; Mary Alice A. Hayward,
professional staff member; Lawrence J. Lanzillotta,
professional staff member; George W. Lauffer, professional
staff member; Thomas L. MacKenzie, professional staff member;
Ann M. Mittermeyer, assistant counsel; Joseph T. Sixeas,
professional staff member; Cord A. Sterling, professional staff
member; Scott W. Stucky, general counsel; and Eric H. Thoemmes,
professional staff member.
Staff assistants present: Beth Ann Barozie, Thomas C.
Moore, and Michele A. Traficante.
Committee members' assistants present: Menda S. Fife,
assistant to Senator Kennedy; Christina Evans, Terrence E.
Sauvain, Barry Gene (B.G.) Wright, and Erik Raven, assistants
to Senator Byrd; Frederick M. Downey, assistant to Senator
Lieberman; Andrew Vanlandingham, assistant to Senator Cleland;
Jason Matthews and David Klain, assistants to Senator Landrieu;
Gregory C. McCarthy, assistant to Senator Inhofe; George M.
Bernier III, assistant to Senator Santorum; Thomas A.
Vecchiolla, assistant to Senator Snowe; Robert Alan McCurry,
assistant to Senator Roberts; Charles Cogar, assistant to
Senator Allard; and Scott Douglass, assistant to Senator
Sessions.
Other Senate staff present: Richard Kessler, assistant to
Senator Akaka; Pete Contostavlos, assistant to Senator Bill
Nelson; Sheila Murphy, assistant to Senator Ben Nelson; Larry
Smar, assistant to Senator Carnahan; Christopher Ford and Sam
Patten, assistants to Senator Collins; and Jeff Freeman,
assistant to Senator Cochran.
Chairman Levin. The committee will come to order.
Senator Allard.
Senator Allard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would echo the
comments that have been made by my colleagues on this
committee, Mr. Rumsfeld, about your qualifications. I do not
think anybody can legitimately question your qualifications,
and I am absolutely delighted with the President's appointment
in appointing you specifically as Secretary of Defense. I do
not see how you are going to apply the Rumsfeld's Rules over
there as Secretary of Defense when you testify before this
committee, and I respect your administrative capabilities, and
I think everybody here also recognizes those.
When you visited my office we shared our experiences. I
shared my experience on the NRO Commission. You shared your
experience as Chairman of the Space Commission. Both reports
are coming out with a recommendation. I guess the Space
Commission's report is coming out today, and ours, the NRO
Commission is already out that there needs to be, in fact it is
critical that there is a dialogue between the Secretary of
Defense and the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. I
just would hope that you would just for a moment at least
express to me how you feel about this and what you plan to do
to improve communications.
Mr. Rumsfeld. Well, I thank you, and I know of your service
on the NRO Commission and, of course, have discussed it with
you. The international community is really not a community. It
is a set of organizations, the CIA and the NSA and the NRO and
the DIA and the Air Force, Army, and Navy Intelligence, the
State Department, the FBI, there are all kinds of pieces to it,
and I think to use the word community is an overstatement, and
because of the way the legislation, the way the funding works,
it is something that I think takes a lot of senior level
interaction so that things do not get bottlenecked.
There are some very complicated issues in rearranging our
intelligence-gathering to fit the new century, to fit the new
circumstance with proliferation, and I think that bureaucracies
do not like to change. They are terribly resistant to change,
and the only way they are going to change is if the very senior
people who meet regularly understand where each is going, and
recognizes the fact that each has responsibilities that cannot
be performed unless the two of them work together.
I suppose you could have perfect organizations and people
who are not too good and you are not going to have very good
organization or operation, and vice versa. You could have
organizations that are not perfect, but if you have people who
really care about it and are willing to force those issues
through the bureaucracies it could work pretty darned well, and
I just think that that is a start.
Senator Allard. With this election, there was a lot of
discussion about voting by members of the military, and I do
not know whether you have given this any thought or not, but I
was disturbed, I think as many members of this committee were
disturbed about credible attempts to disqualify certain
military votes, and most of these were due to hypertechnical
kinds of reasons, but in the legal community they are real
reasons, and I am wondering if you are going to give any
thought about how it is that we can make sure that that problem
does not get repeated again on military votes.
Mr. Rumsfeld. Senator, I have discussed this with the
President-elect, and thought a bit about it. As you suggest, it
is complicated because of the role the States play, and not one
State but 50 States. I do think it is an enormously
discouraging thing for people serving overseas in the United
States Armed Forces to read in the paper that because there may
not be a postmark or some other issue, that their vote might
not be counted.
It is just not fair, it is not right, and we have to figure
out ways to do it, and I quite agree with you that if confirmed
that the Secretary of Defense should address the issue and put
in place some people to think that through and figure out what
kinds of recommendations might be made so that there is a high
confidence that the men and women in the Armed Services in fact
vote and have their votes counted.
Senator Allard. I just do not know that anybody has ever
really thought through just how those ballots may be handled,
getting from the base or where there will not be a post office
or maybe even a postmark getting them to their State where the
individual is registered to vote, so I appreciate your answer
on that.
On emerging threats, I think your 1998 ballistic missile
report threat, you indicate there is an emerging threat and it
is maturing more rapidly, and do you still believe the threat
is emerging and maturing more rapidly, and also what do you
perceive as our greatest threats?
Mr. Rumsfeld. Maturing more rapidly of course is relative.
More rapidly than the international community at that time had
anticipated, or had described. Our report, as you may recall,
followed the 1995 NIE, the National Intelligence Estimate which
Congress decided they wanted a second look at, so they
empaneled the Ballistic Missile Threat Commission. We did take
a look at it, and we came to a number of distinct disagreements
with that National Intelligence Estimate.
I do not think I would say it is currently evolving more
rapidly than the intelligence community believes, because since
our report we then followed it with an intelligence side letter
to the international community, and Director Tenet empaneled
the entire international community and we presented it, and
they have been addressing the kinds of things that we
suggested.
My impression is that more recent NIEs have begun to take
account of some of the suggestions made, and that I would
think, if you dropped a plumb line through the international
community today and asked where they are on this issue, I would
think that they are probably a lot closer to where we were than
they used to be.
Senator Allard. I have not had a chance to completely
review your Space Commission report, but from my briefings I am
going to be, I think, pleased with its findings. One of the
areas you talked about is vulnerability of our space assets,
and I am wondering if you can comment about the vulnerability
of our space assets and how you would manage that.
Mr. Rumsfeld. Well, I have not had a chance to see the
final report, either. I was asked to become the nominee and I
had to resign from the commission, and the following days they
have completed it and printed it and they are now in the
process of briefing Members of the House and Senate and the
executive branch on that report.
Senator Warner. If I can interrupt, we are going to release
it at 2:30, and I am going to absent myself to go over for a
few minutes.
Mr. Rumsfeld. Adm. Dave Jeremiah, Steve Cambone, the staff
director, other members of the commission are going to be doing
that, but one of the things that became fairly clear is that we
have seen a significant growth in the use of space assets for
all kinds of things, clearly from a military standpoint but
also from a civil governmental standpoint as well as a civilian
private sector standpoint, and as you end up with this greater
degree of dependence on these assets you obviously become more
vulnerable to interruptions of those capabilities.
I forget what the number is, but something like 70 or 80 or
90 percent of the pagers in the country were out for a period
because of an interruption on a Galaxy satellite. We know that
Russia or former Russian republics are selling, in effect,
hand-held jammers that can jam satellite signals. We know that.
There is an organization in England that makes and puts in
space microsatellites that have a variety of capabilities for
lots of countries. They do it for--China has a relationship
with them, and many other countries do as well, and if you are
as dependent as our country is on space, you are, by
definition, vulnerable, more vulnerable than others, and it
seemed to the commission, unanimously, I might say, that that
calls for attention on the part of our country to see that we
have the ability to preserve those assets and defend the assets
in a way that we could have reasonable assurance that we are
going to not be dramatically inhibited, for example, in
presidential leadership during a pre-crisis buildup, that we
are going to be able to communicate with our military forces in
a way that is appropriate in a conflict, to say nothing of the
fact that our economy is so dependent today that significant
economic disruptions could occur, and I am not just referring
to space assets and space systems. I mean, ground stations as
well as these systems.
Senator Allard. Mr. Chairman, my time has expired. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Senator Allard follows:]
Prepared Statement by Senator Wayne Allard
Thank, you Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Rumsfeld, good morning and welcome to the committee. I
enjoyed our meeting last week and during the course of today's hearing,
I will broach a few of the issues we discussed.
I again look forward to hearing your views on the many important
subjects facing America and the military, but I hope the presence of
the media means that all of America will be introduced to you and your
achievements for the country. Further, I always look forward to any
opportunity when we have a chance to publicly discuss the many crucial
issues facing America's national security and military service members.
Mr. Secretary, as we all know, for the last several years you have
been involved with numerous commissions and studies, most notably your
work on the ``Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the
United States'', and most recently the Space Commission. I carefully
studied the missile threat report, found it detailed, thoughtful, well
researched, and credible. I have been operating with it in my mind
whenever this committee deals with the missile defense issue. A new
administration is seen by many as our only chance for fixing a critical
flaw in our defense--a lack of NMD. Many of us are breathing a sigh of
relief that we might finally be entering a phase of concrete actions.
Better yet--actions with concrete.
Your other recent project, the Space Commission, is also of great
interest to myself and many others in Colorado. Colorado has a close
connection to military and civilian satellite launch and control. We
are aware of the competing needs of civilian, military and
intelligence. I don't want to get into the report too much for it is to
be released today. While I do not have all the details of the report
but from the briefing I received earlier, I am encouraged by the
findings and the forward thinking recommendations. I hope we can
continue to work together on these issues.
Finally, I note that at the press conference announcing your
nomination, President Elect Bush mentioned that one of his defense
goals was to ``strengthen the bond of trust between the American
president and those who wear our Nation's uniform.'' There has been a
real degradation in that area. I hope to see this rapidly addressed. I
will bring up this issue later in my questions.
Mr. Secretary, I look forward to your second tenure in the
Pentagon. I hope we have a productive hearing today and have already
concluded you run a tight ship. I am looking forward to hearing what
your ``Rumsfeld's Rules'' might be.
Chairman Levin. Thank you very much. Senator Landrieu is
next.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Congratulations
on your nomination. I look forward to working with you through
these hearings, and I just want to say that Senator Durbin's
and Senator Fitzgerald's comments go a long way with me. They
are a ringing endorsement, and my own personal knowledge of
your good work.
I just have a few questions. The first two have to deal
with the nuclear policies of our Nation. In your opening
statement, you made an excellent point about our need to invest
more money and more resources in our defense. I could not agree
with you more, and have a voting record to support that.
We need to make sure our money is spent wisely and well,
but the need to make new investments, to shore up our defenses
and to modernize them I think are crucial, and so I want to
commend you for that, and one of the ways that we will be able
to do that, there are really only two ways to identify new
moneys, or to redirect some of the moneys we are spending now
in new ways to make that goal that you have stated actually
come to pass, and of course one of the big cost drivers is our
nuclear strategic defenses.
Given that, and you are aware, because you served in this
position before, that we are prohibited by law from falling
below our START II levels, but we are coming upon several
crucial and costly, and our underlying costly decision points,
particularly regarding our Peacekeeper missile system, which
the Defense Department has recommended that we move past, if
you will.
I believe that it would make sense for our Nation to
establish a cost-effective and appropriate deterrent,
independent of anything Russia may do, because they have
already provisionally ratified the levels indicated by START
II, but it does not comport with our law, and so my question
is, do you believe that we need to hold to some artificially
mandated level of nuclear weapons, or in light of our great
need to find resources within our budget as well as add to
them, that there is some potential here for not only strategic
thinking but some good cost savings could be applied in other
ways, and would you be willing to explore or to comment today
about some of your thoughts regarding that?
Mr. Rumsfeld. Well, I certainly agree with you, we are
going to have to do both. We are going to have to find new
dollars in nontrivial amounts, and we also have to see that the
defense establishment functions in as cost-effective a way as
is humanly possible, and that we find savings, and third, we
are going to have to undoubtedly not do some things we have
been doing, because the nature of our world has changed, and we
are going to do some other things, and it certainly is at least
logical, although I cannot tell you what that is, it is logical
that we ought to be able to not keep on doing some of the
things we have been doing.
With respect to the numbers of weapons, it is not a subject
that I have engaged since the announcement a week or so ago.
The President-elect has commented on the subject of numbers of
weapons. We know that the Russian systems are very likely to be
declining in some numbers, apart from negotiations, apart from
agreements, simply because of their economic circumstance.
We also know that Russia is not the only nation in the
world that one needs to be attentive to. The Chinese are
increasing their--they have a very modest nuclear capability at
the present time, but they are increasing their budget in
double digits. They do have at least a publicly pronounced
desire to be a factor in strategic nuclear weaponry.
I do not know whether we can reduce or not. I suspect that
that will be part of the review, and in what numbers. I am
afraid that the likelihood is that any reduction--there is a
minimum below which you can go and maintain the kind of target
list that rational people think is appropriate. My guess is
that there are very likely not a lot of savings in that, but I
do not know that.
Senator Landrieu. Well, I look forward to working with you
on that, I think to be open to evaluate these questions from
the bottom up, because it brings me actually to my next point,
which is our targeting plan, which is our single integrated
operational plan, our SIOP plan which actually lays out the
nuclear targets and is one of the, for obvious reasons one of
the most carefully guarded secrets of our Nation.
I raise this issue to you today because one of our most
distinguished departing Members, Senator Bob Kerrey, who served
for many years on the Intelligence Committee, has been very
frustrated publicly and privately. Many times publicly on the
floor of the Senate and other places he has expressed his great
concern, and I wanted to express it for him as if he were here
today. This particular plan of targeting our nuclear weapons
has been unavailable to be reviewed by the leadership of our
committee, either Republican or Democrat, or even to the
highest level of congressional Intelligence Committee members.
While it is claimed under our law or rules that he has to
have reason to know, he, as the highest ranking member, was not
given the information in order to make rational decisions,
exactly what you said about not only what can we afford, but
what is an effective deterrent, what do we need to do to
maintain the safety of our citizens.
So my question would be, if you wanted to make a comment
about it today, but at least could you assure this committee
that you would be willing to work with the appropriate Members
of Congress, and not all Members would be on an equal footing
here, but the leadership of our committee and the Intelligence
Committee members particularly, to jointly review that, because
it has a direct bearing on the strategic posture that we either
take or not take, and is driven by the target.
So could you make a comment, please, for the record?
Mr. Rumsfeld. Yes. For the record, those are decisions that
I think are the President's, and it is not for me to opine as
to what extent, if at all, the current procedures ought to be
changed.
I do know that the U.S. plans are reviewed, admittedly by a
very small number of people in the executive branch, the
National command authorities. They are reviewed regularly. They
are changed as circumstances change in the world. As you
suggested, they are highly classified, and that is about all I
can say.
Senator Landrieu. My third question is, again commenting on
your opening statement, on your phrase that you would like to
try to help us develop weapons systems, I think--I do not know
the exact term you used, but taken off the shelf as opposed to
the more traditional ways we have developed, to try to get
weapons systems more quickly and more cost-effectively. I would
like to commend our current Under Secretary, Rudy de Leon, for
suggesting that we apply that same principle to the Reserve
units in trying to combat terrorism in cyber space, to actually
be able to access the brain power of the American people by
developing more strategic smart Reserve units instead of
developing that intelligence within the Defense Department to
actually, if you would, Mr. Secretary, be able to pull it off
the shelf.
So have you given any thought to perhaps strengthening our
Reserves in this way, that we could get the best and the
brightest minds in the United States to apply their great
ability and intellect to help us to fight this new front in a
smart, cost-effective way for the American people, and one that
I think would tend to be more successful, perhaps, than the old
ways that we are used to doing? Have you been briefed much
about this, or know much about what I am suggesting?
Mr. Rumsfeld. I have not been briefed on it, and it is not
a subject I have engaged personally. There is no question but
that cyber attacks and information warfare are an exceedingly
important subject for the country. They are important for the
private sector. They are important for the Government. They are
certainly important for the military. I had not addressed the
subject as to what role the Reserves and the Guard might play
in that, but it certainly is worth exploring.
Senator Landrieu. My time has expired. I would just urge
you to think about the strategy to solicit service from a core
of very talented, well-skilled individuals to bring to bear the
new abilities or talents we are going to need to fight the
threats of the future.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Landrieu.
Senator Sessions.
Senator Sessions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I ask a
question, I wonder where we are on the possibility of moving
this nomination? I think it would be well if we have as much
support as it appears we have today for this extraordinary
nominee I think the world would well receive the fact that we
could promptly confirm him. Do you have any thoughts about how
we could move this nomination, if there are no objections, as
there appear to be? I think it would help the President-elect
and his team to get started as early as possible.
Chairman Levin. Technically, I think the nomination has to
be submitted by the new President. I think the first thing he
usually does after being sworn in is to sign a number of
nomination sheets and nominate his Cabinet officers. The
nomination then has to be received technically by the Senate.
Then, I believe it will be Chairman Warner's plan at that time,
probably the same day, but I do not want to speak for him, that
we try to meet even on Inauguration Day, if possible, to act on
and confirm, if we are ready at that point to act on and
confirm.
There is significant paperwork which we must go through.
The nominee is working very hard on it with all of us. It has
to be finished, too. I hope we can complete the hearing today,
but there is no guarantee of that. It depends upon how many
questions need to be asked that we have not had a chance to
ask. That is our goal. I agree with your point, in any event
even though it is not technically possible to even receive a
nomination until Inauguration Day, or act on it. We will act
promptly after we are legally able to act on this nomination,
because it does have, indeed, broad bipartisan support.
Senator Sessions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really believe
we should move on that, and there might be some uncertainty in
the world among those who--we had a prolonged election process,
and I think it might be good for stability if we could move as
promptly as possible.
I remember, when I was back in college, at Huntington
College where I attended, they introduced the old president as
a president proven and the new one as a president challenged,
and you are both a proven Secretary of Defense and a challenged
Secretary of Defense, so we are delighted to have you here. I
think your testimony has been superb. It is wise and thoughtful
and strong, and I know you know there are some real challenges
out there that have to be met.
One thing I would say is that Senator Lieberman's comments
really went to the heart of where we are, in my opinion. I
think this Nation has a serious problem with our defense
funding and structure, that in the past decade we have failed
to maintain adequate funding streams. We are paying salaries
and the like and that kind of thing, but really, recapitalizing
the military has not occurred as it should, and I asked
Secretary Cohen, your predecessor--who by the way was
extraordinarily cooperative with this Senate.
I was a new member of this committee and he just did a
great job of being forthcoming and helpful, and I would ask you
to do the same, and want to compliment him on the work that he
did, but he said this in answer to a question of mine. He said,
as I indicated before, Senator Sessions, ever since the height
of the Cold War we have seen a tremendous decline in defense
spending.
This was last year, and many on this committee and
throughout this body were urging a peace dividend, and we have
been enjoying the fruits of that peace dividend, but it has
come at the cost of relying on what President Reagan did in the
1980s as far as the buildup. We have been living off that, and
now we are at the point where we have to replace it.
Do you understand what he is saying, and would you tend to
agree with that?
Mr. Rumsfeld. I do, indeed. It is a surprise to me, when
you think about it, but when I was Secretary of Defense I went
to the roll-out for the F-16 and made the decision on the M-1
tank and the B-1 bomber, and that was a long time ago.
Senator Sessions. What we have is the question of how much
needs to be spent. It is my understanding that the number of
$45 billion that President Bush was reported to have estimated
that he would have to spend in addition was based on several
programs he intended to initiate, did not represent his full
commitment to spending more for defense, but I think Senator
Lieberman rightly suggests it is going to take a lot more than
that and a lot more than the $100 billion over 10 years that
was--and I think, Mr. Rumsfeld, that it--and I will ask you to
respond to it, it is going to be your duty, and I think you
have the credibility and the competence to evaluate this
Defense Department to analyze the threats we are facing in the
world, to comprehend what can be done technologically and how
much money can be saved wherever it can be saved, and then I
think it will be your duty to come back to this committee and
use all the credibility that you have to sell this committee
and this Nation on the amount of funding we are going to need
to maintain the strength of the United States in the 21st
century.
How would you respond to that?
Mr. Rumsfeld. First, your understanding of President-elect
Bush's comments about budget are exactly mine, that he
identified some particular things he wanted to see funded. He
priced them, and he mentioned the price tag. I do not believe
that he suggested that that was the totality of what he had in
mind, because he was asked for a defense review and promised
that as well, and that is something that of course has not been
done, and until that has been done, it is clearly not possible
to come up with the numbers.
I think second, with respect to the numbers, I do not know
what the number is, but I have an impression that goes not to
the total number over the 5-year period, but the impression is
that we need some money up-front, and we may very well have to
come back with a supplemental or something that would indicate
the needs that exist now so that--because there have been
things that have been pushed off, as has been mentioned here,
for example, the shipbuilding budget and some other things,
science and technology and others that have been mentioned.
Senator Sessions. There has been a lot put off and, in
fact, we had testimony from one official, one General on
research and development. He used the phrase, we are eating our
seed corn. I am now looking at a National Association for the
Advancement of Science survey, historical table on the amount
of money spent for research and development. Since 1989 in real
dollars, not inflated dollars, in actual dollars, the amount of
DOD research has dropped 20 percent, while other research in
nondefense departments and agencies are up 50 percent. Senator
Bingaman raised that point.
I really do believe that we got squeezed to pay for lights,
to pay for salaries. We were cutting, eating our seed corn. We
were cutting back on things that are going to come back to
haunt us and are going to cost us more money today than it
would have if we had started on a 6 or 8-year program of
research and development.
One more thing and I will give up this questioning. One
expert has said that the post-Cold War, the references to the
post-Cold War foreign policy are really a statement, an
admission that we have not developed a post-Cold War foreign
policy. Is it your opinion, briefly, that we do need to develop
a more comprehensive foreign policy in this post-Cold War
environment that the American people and this Congress can
rally behind?
Mr. Rumsfeld. I certainly agree, but by agreeing I do not
want to suggest that it is easy. There are some who look at our
current period and characterize it as a transition out of the
Cold War into something that is still ahead. There are others
who suggest that possibly history might indicate that this is
it, that we are not transitioning to something else, but what
we are in now is what we will be in for a period, and that if
that is true, and I am certainly not one who can suggest that I
know the answer, but if it is true, it puts a much greater
urgency on fashioning policies and standards and some flags we
can plant down ahead so that we as a country can point
directionally and know how to arrange ourselves to function and
live with a maximum degree of safety and stability during that
period.
Senator Sessions. Thank you.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Sessions.
Senator Byrd.
Senator Byrd. Mr. Secretary, you have been around this
track before, and I appreciate your presence here today, and I
compliment the President-elect on nominating you. Certainly it
is my present intention to support you.
My time is brief, and so I will get right into a question.
The Department of Defense continues to confront pervasive and
complex management problems due to its inadequate financial
management systems. This can greatly diminish the efficiency of
the military services operations.
Since 1995, the DOD's financial management has been on the
General Accounting Office's list of high-risk areas vulnerable
to waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement. While the Department
has made progress in a number of areas of its financial
management operations, no major part of DOD's operations has
yet been able to pass the test of an independent financial
audit.
The Chief Financial Officers' Act of 1990, as amended by
the Federal Financial Management Act of 1994 requires the
Department of Defense to prepare annual audited financial
statements. Nevertheless, 10 years after the enactment of the
CFO Act of 1990, the Department of Defense has yet to receive a
clean audit opinion on its financial statements.
A recent article in the Los Angeles Times, written by a
retired vice admiral and a civilian employee in the Office of
the Secretary of Defense, accused the Secretary of Defense of
being unable to account for the funds that Congress
appropriates to it. The authors wrote, and I quote in part,
quote, the Pentagon's books are in such utter disarray that no
one knows what America's military actually owns or spends. That
is the close of my extract.
The thrust of this Los Angeles Times article is backed up
by the DOD's own Inspector General's financial audit for fiscal
year 1999. I have a copy of that here in my hand. I assume you
have seen it.
Mr. Rumsfeld. I have not. I cannot even say I look forward
to seeing it. [Laughter.]
Senator Byrd. Well, I will look forward to hearing what you
have to say about it after you have seen it. [Laughter.]
That audit report found that out of $7.6 trillion in
Department-level accounting interest, $2.3 trillion in entries
either did not contain adequate documentation or were
improperly reconciled, or were made to force buyer and seller
data to agree.
This DOD IG report is very disturbing. Last year, according
to the General Accounting Office, the Pentagon reported that it
did not expect to have the necessary assistance in place to be
able to prepare financial statements for 3 more years. That was
last year. We are now advised that the Pentagon is currently
telling the Office of Management and Budget that it will take
them until the year 2005 or 2006.
Now, I also note in the Washington Post of January 9, 2001,
this sentence, which I extract from an article titled, ``Bush
Talks Defense with Key Members of Congress.'' Here is the
sentence: The chiefs of the Armed Services have said that they
need a budget increase of more than $50 billion a year to
modernize their forces. That figure dwarfs the $4.5 billion in
added defense spending proposed by Bush during the campaign.
Now, if the Pentagon cannot account for what it is doing
this year, how can it hope to improve its operations next year?
As Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, thank God, now for
17 days----[Laughter.]
I seriously question an increase in the Pentagon budget,
and in the face of the Department's recent Inspector General's
report how can we seriously consider a $50 billion increase in
the defense budget when DOD's own auditors say the Department
cannot account for $2.3 trillion in transactions in 1 year
alone?
Now, $2.3 trillion I would readily assume is a large amount
of money. According to my old style math, there have been 1
billion minutes, give or take a little, it will not make much
difference, since Jesus Christ was born, 1 billion minutes, and
according to that same old math, $2.3 trillion, which the
Department cannot account for in 1 year alone, would amount to
$2,300 per minute for every minute since Jesus Christ was born.
Now perhaps we can begin to understand the magnitude of $2.3
trillion.
So why is this happening? Of course, I would not expect you
to be able to answer that question. The state of affairs did
not occur on your watch, but you are inheriting it. Now, my
question to you is, Mr. Secretary, what do you plan to do about
this?
Mr. Rumsfeld. Decline the nomination. [Laughter.]
Chairman Levin. We will stand adjourned in that case.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Rumsfeld. Senator, I have heard some of that and read
some of that, that the Department is not capable of auditing
its books. It is--I was going to say, terrifying. It is such a
monumental task. I have met with two former officials of the
Pentagon who served in the budget and control areas, and I have
mused over the fact that I have read some of these things and
asked what they thought.
One insight that I got was that to a certain extent the
financial systems have been fashioned and designed to report on
requirements that they receive from various organizations and
they have not been fashioned and designed for financial
management the way you would in a corporation. I do not know
whether that is a useful insight or not, but it is something
that is rattling around in my head, and certainly something
that I think--I doubt, to be honest, that people inside the
Department are going to be capable of sorting this out.
I have a feeling it is going to take some folks from
outside to come in and look at this and put in place a process
that over a period--and I regret to say, but I have seen how
long things take. I think it is going to take a period of years
to sort it out, and it will probably take the cooperation of
Congress to try to get the system so that you can actually
manage the financial aspects of that institution, rather than
simply report on things that have happened imperfectly.
That is not a satisfactory answer, but I hear you. I
recognize the problem and, if it is not solved, I hope at least
that when I leave, if I am confirmed, that it will be better
than it was when I came in.
Senator Byrd. My time is up, but Mr. Secretary, I have
every confidence in you. I think I have the duty to request and
to urge, and I am sure that my colleagues on both sides here
join me, and I am sure as well that you do, because you have
indicated the enormity of the task, and I think this may have
come, perhaps, not as a surprise to you, but you have not seen
it. Will you pledge to make balancing the Pentagon's books a
topmost priority? The simple answer is yes, but I would like to
hear your answer.
Mr. Rumsfeld. Well, I do not know that I can assure you it
will be the topmost priority, but it will certainly be among
the top priorities. It simply must be done for the National
security interests of the country, as well as from the
standpoint of the taxpayers of the country.
Senator Byrd. Absolutely, and let me close by saying that,
as an appropriator, I cannot have much confidence in the budget
request when we have such a track record as we see here, and
the Joint Chiefs come up here and ask for $50 billion, even
$4.5 billion more, whatever it is. I, as an appropriator, and I
would think every member of the Appropriations Committee, would
have to look with a jaundiced eye, perhaps not on some specific
items, with which they are perhaps more acquainted, but with
the overall--it is a terrible record, and it is preposterous
that the Defense Department does not know what has happened to
this money.
But I thank you for your testimony, and I hope you will do
everything you can to set this thing in order and put the
Pentagon's house in order in this regard.
Mr. Rumsfeld. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Byrd. Senator Collins.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rumsfeld, I
want to start by echoing the praise of my colleagues in
congratulating you on your appointment, which I hope very much
that you will not decline, and to also commend the President-
elect for making such an outstanding choice.
I want to start with a comment before going to a couple of
other issues, and I want to follow up with the exchange you had
with Senator Kennedy, in that I share both yours and Senator
Kennedy's concerns about the current shipbuilding rates. They
do not support the goal of a 300-ship naval fleet, as
identified by the last QDR and the Clinton administration's
defense budgets have been gradually taking the Navy not toward
a 300-ship Navy but ultimately toward a considerably smaller
fleet.
To make the challenge confronting the new administration
and the new Congress even more stark, even a 300-ship Navy has
been increasingly recognized as inadequate to meet the
increased operational and deployment requirements that we face.
In addition, recent press reports indicate that the DD-21, the
Navy's revolutionary new destroyer program, may be among the
Pentagon programs most at risk of procurement budget cuts.
Now, I know from our brief conversation that you have not
yet had an opportunity to review specific procurement programs,
but I do want to express my concern about the direction that
shipbuilding is heading, or has been heading in, and seek your
commitment to reverse that direction, and to look to increasing
our shipbuilding budget. I believe you gave that kind of
commitment to Senator Kennedy in your earlier exchange, is that
correct?
Mr. Rumsfeld. Indeed, I share your interest and concern,
and if we are each year building fewer ships than are necessary
to maintain the kind of Navy that this country needs, then we
are damaging ourselves, and we are damaging our national
security.
Senator Collins. Thank you. I look forward to working with
you closely in that area.
Last month, Mr. Rumsfeld, I accompanied Secretary of
Defense Bill Cohen on a holiday trip to visit our servicemen
and women in Kosovo and Bosnia. We brought with us entertainers
such as the Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders, which I will readily
concede the servicemen were far more interested in talking to
than they were in talking to United States Senators and Members
of Congress.
Nevertheless, I did have the opportunity to speak with
members of our active duty components, as well as reservists
and members of the National Guard who were stationed in Bosnia
and Kosovo, and while morale generally appeared to be high, I
nevertheless heard many accounts of the effects of the
increased operational tempo on the lives of those who are
serving, their families and, in the case of reservists and
guardsmen, their employers.
I was concerned about what I heard, because of the
implications for retaining and recruiting men and women to
serve in the military. For example, I spoke to one young
Reservist from my home State who had returned to his family
after an assignment in the Middle East, only to be called on
again to be sent to the Balkans.
In addition, a young naval officer from my home State
recently resigned after 12 years in the Navy because continuous
9-month periods of sea duty proved too great a burden on his
growing family.
I am told that the Army is currently considering reducing
its overseas assignments to periods of 120-days, and that other
services, including the Guard and the Reserves, may adopt
similar models. I realize that this issue really ties to the
underlying issue of peacekeeping forces and these daunting and
protracted missions we have undertaken, but I wonder if you
support looking at ways that we can ease the burden on our
young men and women who are serving so far from home for such
protracted periods.
Mr. Rumsfeld. Yes, indeed. In any organization that does
not use conscription or force to have people work there you
have to fashion the sort of incentives that will enable you to
attract and retain the people you need to run that activity in
an efficient and cost-effective way. I do not know what the
number is, but I think it was Senator McCain who mentioned the
attrition rates with respect to our young captains. I think it
is something like 12, 13, 14 percent.
My goodness. That has to tell anybody that we are doing
something wrong. We simply cannot have that kind of churning
when you train and develop and have this fine talent and then
lose it. It costs so much to bring people through the intake,
bring them along, get them experience, train them, and then you
lose them, and so we have to arrange ourselves so that we have
a high confidence that we can attract and retain the people we
need, and that is a mixture of things.
It is a mixture of how they feel about their Government,
and how they feel about the defense establishment. It is partly
how their families are functioning and whether or not they feel
that they are able to do what they need to do for their
families. As you suggested, the operations tempo can be a
difficult thing, time away from families. It is pay, it is
health, it is education, it is a whole host of things,
opportunity, and it is also feeling that the country cares and
appreciates what they have done and what they are doing.
Senator Collins. You are absolutely right about that, and I
did in my discussions with the young men and women whom I met--
I was so impressed with their pride and their professionalism,
their dedication to their jobs, and many of them want to stay
in the service, or they want to continue in the Guard, and we
need to figure out ways to deal with the very real family
concerns they have, and I appreciate the fact that you
obviously acknowledge that and are committed to looking at
that.
I want to raise quickly just one final issue. The Defense
Department has for years tried to take steps to reduce the
physical and electronic security, or the vulnerability of its
communications satellites, but in recent conflicts such as
Kosovo, and even in peacetime, it is my understanding that the
military has come to depend more and more heavily upon
commercial communications satellites.
It seems to me the Defense Department needs a stronger
effort to work with the private sector and other appropriate
parties to improve the safety, not just of our military
satellite communication links, but of civilian ones as well,
and I would be interested in knowing whether this is a priority
area for you and whether you have any plans in this regard.
Mr. Rumsfeld. It is an area of interest to me. I am
certainly not an expert. We do know that commercial
capabilities in this area have for the most part no hardening
or no ability to survive mischief and attacks. We also know
that properly, in my view, the United States Government,
including the military, are using more and more and should use
more and more civilian capabilities for communications, for
imagery, for a variety of things. It is efficient. They are
good at it.
On the other hand, we have to be certain that we have
secure systems so that we are not blinded at critical times. It
is an area that I do intend to interest myself in, and I thank
you for bringing it up.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Rumsfeld. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Senator Collins, thank you.
Senator Akaka.
Senator Byrd. Mr. Chairman, before the Senator responds,
may I ask consent that the audit report to which I referred in
my questions be included in the record, report number D-2000-
179, dated August 18, 2000?
Chairman Levin. It will be made a part of the record.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Levin. Senator Akaka.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I ask my opening statement be placed in the
record.
Chairman Levin. It will be.
[The prepared statement of Senator Akaka follows:]
Prepared Statement by Senator Daniel K. Akaka
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am honored to join the committee for today's hearing. I want to
thank you, Mr. Chairman, for providing me with the opportunity to
participate today.
I look forward to working with you and Senator Warner and the other
distinguished members on this committee to address issues involving our
National Security and our Armed Forces, beginning with the confirmation
hearing for the Secretary of Defense.
The Department of Defense has a substantial impact on my home State
of Hawaii. We proudly have military installations from every Armed
Service branch in the State of Hawaii.
We have traditionally had a very good relationship with the United
States military, and I look forward to continuing to work with the
Department of Defense in fostering these relationships.
I am familiar with Mr. Rumsfeld's experience, accomplishments and
impressive record, including his service as the chair of the U.S.
Ballistic Missile Threat Commission.
I look forward to hearing more from Mr. Rumsfeld on his vision for
our Nation's security and military preparedness, and again, I thank my
colleagues on the committee for welcoming me to participate today.
Senator Akaka. Mr. Chairman, we are sitting in this hearing
with a man who has had tremendous experience, and has had lots
of confidence given by others, and is now being considered for
Defense Secretary. After reading your bio, I think that this is
the kind of person we would expect much from because of your
experience. I think, talking about deals, I think we have a
good deal in hand with you.
In the Pacific and in other areas, we have had some issues,
and besides issues of appropriate funding, issues of the
criteria for the deployment of U.S. troops, and necessary
situations. There have been issues in the community regarding
encroachment, including the importance of dealing with
communities surrounding military installations and training
ranges, and the environmental constraints on training ranges.
I must tell you that in Hawaii we have had over the years,
as long as I can remember, very, very good relationships with
the military. We work well together. We live well together. We
respect the leadership of the military, and they have helped us
out in many ways.
Now, they have really tried to deal with our communities as
well, so encroachment is an issue. I understand you intend to
deal with these issues in a more comprehensive and systematic
fashion, and that you are open to work with all parties
involved, so my question to you is, how do you intend to
implement a more comprehensive approach to these issues?
Mr. Rumsfeld. Well, I wish I had an answer that represented
a solution to the problems. As you properly point out, not just
in the United States, including Puerto Rico, and Japan, and in
other parts of the world where the United States Armed Forces
has a presence there are pressures and difficulties that run to
this issue that is characterized as encroachment.
I do not know the way the encroachment goes, whether the
base is encroaching or the community is encroaching on the
base, which happens to be historically the case in most
instances, but it is a problem that is real, it is serious. The
United States needs bases, it needs ranges, it needs test
ranges, and it cannot provide the training and the testing that
people need before they go into battle unless those kinds of
facilities are available, and each year that goes by there are
greater and greater pressures on them.
Admittedly, I suspect, and I do not know enough to say, but
I suspect that, as with many things, there are ways that
technology can assist us in these areas that will enable the
military to do things that they need to do that they used to do
physically that they will be able to do with computers and
various other types of technologies. Certainly that is true
with all kinds of simulations and what-have-you, but you cannot
do everything, and you do need to do live fire for people
before they go into battle to have some sense of what that is
like.
I am afraid it is not so much a problem as a fact of our
times that, not to be solved, but to be coped with over a
period of time. I think it is going to be a constant pressure
on the defense establishment, and all we can do is our best.
Senator Akaka. I was glad to hear your commitment to
research and development, and how you feel about not standing
still, or static, but in order to move ahead we must move into
areas like that.
You also mentioned in your response to Senator Kennedy the
book on the Corona satellite program. I feel that space and the
military, of course, can work so much together. What role, if
any, do you see for the new commercial satellite imaging
industry to supplement our classified systems?
Mr. Rumsfeld. My impression is that the United States
Government, including the military, will and should be
increasingly using commercially available capabilities,
satellite capabilities. Whether it is communications or
imagery, there are a great many instances when you could take
available off-the-shelf products and services of the type and
use them to great effect.
Senator Akaka. I know you are well-versed in missile
defense. In your response to the committee's advance policy
questions you state, before deploying a national defense,
missile defense, a factor to be considered is, and I quote,
``the urgency of the ballistic missile threat to the United
States.'' How do you assess the urgency of that threat now, and
has it changed since the Rumsfeld Commission report?
Mr. Rumsfeld. The Ballistic Missile Threat Commission I
think have the subject right, and I think that has been agreed
to by both Secretary Cohen and by others. What has happened in
the intervening 2 years is that time has passed. Proliferation
has continued. People have advanced in their development
programs of missiles and weapons of mass destruction.
I do not believe it possible to stop the proliferation of
things we do not want proliferated. I think we ought to try,
and we ought to work hard at it, but the reality is today that
in this relaxed environment, and so much available on the
Internet, and so many people willing to sell almost anything
for a price, that we have to learn to live in that world, and
we are capable of living in that world. There is no question
but that we can do it, and so I think that time passes, and
capabilities grow.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much. My time is up. I just
want you to know that you have my support.
Mr. Rumsfeld. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Akaka.
Senator Bunning.
Senator Bunning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I first want to
say that I am honored to serve with all of the other people on
this committee, this esteemed Senate Armed Services Committee.
It has been a promise I made to my constituents, and a desire
of mine since coming to the Senate 2 years ago, to serve on
this great committee, and I am very happy to be here.
Second, Secretary Rumsfeld, welcome. It is good to see you.
Assuming you are confirmed as the next Secretary of Defense, I
am looking forward to working with you and your Department of
Defense.
Of course, the United States has the strongest military in
the world. There is no arguing that fact. However, our biggest
challenge may be to keep it strong, and to redefine it in this
new century.
It has been said that our military is stressed,
overdeployed, and underfunded. Many talk of the last 10 years
as the decade of decline for our military. I hope you find it
not to be true.
I look forward to this committee and Congress working with
you to take on the tough issues regarding missile defense, the
readiness of our military, particularly recruitment and
retention, and the overall wellbeing and safety of our
citizens, soldiers, and Nation.
Over the past 8 years, I have watched generals and officers
come before this committee and testify about the readiness and
overall strength of the military. Time and facts have proven
that they were either ill-informed or not giving Congress the
full picture as to what really was happening, for whatever
reasons, with our military.
I simply ask you that you urge those under your watch to
tell us the truth, the good, the bad, and sometimes the ugly,
for only with the truth can we help to shape a military through
policy and funding that is strong and ready to protect this
Nation with peace through strength throughout the world.
Now, I am looking forward to working with you. As I stated,
over the last 8 years many generals have testified before this
committee regarding the overall readiness, strength, and
quality of our military. Time and facts have proven the
generals were either ill-informed or not fully up-front with
the committee, and things turned out worse than they had
testified. Therefore, we in Congress made decisions about
funding and policy based on the words of those generals. What
will you do to make sure that this does not happen again under
your watch?
Mr. Rumsfeld. Well, I suppose for one thing, if I find that
people are telling Congress something that is not so, you will
not find them back up here telling Congress anything.
Senator Bunning. We can count on that?
Mr. Rumsfeld. Yes, sir.
Senator Bunning. Senator Allard talked about this, but I
think it needs to be reiterated, about the military ballots,
particularly voting by our soldiers on bases. We know that
there was a proposal to not allow our military to vote on
bases, and Congress stopped that and allowed it to happen for
one more year.
I would like to ask you the question if you think that is
the right or wrong thing to do, that we continue to extend the
privilege to our military to vote on base?
Mr. Rumsfeld. I do not know enough about it to answer. I am
not an attorney. I do not know the extent to which State law
governs, and I am simply not current, and I should be, and I
will get current.
Senator Bunning. Can you give me a general idea about your
thinking about military people voting on bases, if it is legal?
Mr. Rumsfeld. If it is legal, sure. I just do not know
enough about the legalities, but I think that in our country we
like to have people participate in the elections of our
country, and certainly people who are serving in the Armed
Services ought to be treated at least equally in terms of
having an opportunity to vote.
To the extent the defense establishment can find ways to
facilitate the ease of that voting, I think we ought to try to
do that, and to the extent we cannot because of legalities, I
think it is perfectly proper to recommend to other entities,
whether it is the White House or State and local governments,
that this is our view and we would hope that they would take
steps to provide so that men and women of the Armed Forces can,
in fact, vote.
Senator Bunning. This is a more localized question. This is
about Fort Knox, which is a training and doctrine post, and the
U.S. Army Recruiting Command is located there as well. When
initial entry trainees come to Recruiting Command at Fort Knox
they see 50-year-old barracks that are run down and literally
patched together. Fort Knox has the oldest entry training
barracks in the Army, with no barracks being built since before
the Korean War.
Despite that fact, Knox has been absent on TRADOC's list of
recommended posts to receive new training barracks or a
Starbase complex which integrates barracks, classrooms, and
dining facilities and other soldier components. How will you go
about assessing the condition of trainee barracks in
recommending new construction of training barracks complexes
for the Army?
Mr. Rumsfeld. Well, I suppose the first thing to do would
be to try and see if we can find the best possible people to
serve in the posts of leadership in the Army that share the
concern you have expressed about the circumstances of these
barracks. That is a part of the broader question we were
talking about earlier.
This establishment will not function if we do not have
talented people, and talented people are simply not going to
accept an environment for themselves and their families and a
circumstance that drives them away from the military. We need
people who we can attract and retain, and who are proud to be
there and available to be there.
Senator Bunning. My last question, I read in your answers
to the committee policy questions that you cannot fully give
your opinion on whether you do or do not support another round
of base closures because you are awaiting the DOD's next
defense review. I have been seeking answers as to whether or
not the last round of BRAC has saved money, or whether or not
we have reduced our strength and readiness. I have never
received any real answers with numbers either way.
We all know the policies of BRAC, but I hope in your tenure
as Secretary of Defense you can illustrate to us the realities
and simple facts as to how past base closures and possible
future ones have and will affect the taxpayers and the
military, because no one has ever shown me actual numbers on
the actual savings of the last BRAC, so before I ever look at
anything new I want to see the old.
Mr. Rumsfeld. Well, I am sure that there must be data. My
general impression on the subject is that there is no question
but that savings result from adjusting base structures to fit
force structures. There is also no question but that they tend
not to occur in the first or second year. They tend to come out
over a period of time, so there is a cost factor. There is also
a factor of military efficiency, and both benefit, the former
being somewhat more easy to quantify than the latter.
Senator Bunning. Thank you very much.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Bunning.
Senator Nelson.
Senator Ben Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I welcome this
opportunity to appear at today's confirmation hearing, even
though my membership on the committee is not fully official,
and should I serve on the committee I would be honored to be a
part, and I look forward to it.
I have been tremendously impressed, Mr. Rumsfeld, with your
knowledge of the whole subject of national defense, your
concern about readiness, your concern about budget realities,
the external and internal security risks, and those
unpredictable circumstances which are always there, and at this
point in time virtually every question that could be asked
seems as though it has been asked, and I do not want to be
redundant, but there are a couple of questions that I would
like to ask you.
First of all, I think it was Senator Cleland who mentioned
that defense does not poll very high among the public. Maybe
that is because the public seems to be falsely secure when we
are not. There are different kinds of threats today, as you
have indicated, and there are limited resources to deal with
those threats, so my first question is, do you have some plans
that would engage and raise the public awareness and interest
in the importance of the kind of defense we need to provide for
today's world to get more resources and more money to be
supported for national defense?
It is always a challenge when there are limited resources
and seem to be unlimited demands in all kinds of areas, and I
wonder if you do have some specific plans to make the public
far more aware of the need for these increased resources.
The second question is, it has been often said that someone
who takes on a new challenge can bring to it one big idea, and
while you have been very generous with your thoughts about all
of the realities that we are dealing with and what you propose
to do, to the extent that you know at the present time, I would
like to ask, do you have one big idea, and if you do, what is
it? You can choose which order you prefer to respond.
Mr. Rumsfeld. Well, let me just make a comment on the first
point you have posed while I think about the second. With
respect to the first, I do not think there is any one person
who is going to help our country and, indeed, our allies as
well fully understand what needs to be done and why. It is a
task that takes a lot of people, multiple centers of leadership
in Europe and Asia and in this Congress, in the executive
branch.
I give President-elect Bush high marks on the
pronouncements he has made with respect to national defense,
and I think that that is a good start. That bully pulpit of the
White House is an important place, and we need leadership there
that is sensitive to these issues and concerned about them.
We all know that history is filled with instances where
people were surprised. There were plenty of signals, plenty of
warnings, plenty of cautions, but they were not taken aboard.
They did not register. They were not sufficient to cause a
person to act on those concerns. It was not that the
information was not there. It just did not register.
It happens to people in businesses. They go along, and
pretty soon they do not see all those warning signs out there
and they do not act on it. We see it in families when a
youngster goes wrong, and when do you step in and do something,
or try to do something?
We know that the thing that tends to register on people is
fear, and we know that that tends to happen after there is a
Pearl Harbor. It tends to happen after there is a crisis, and
that is too late for us. We have to be smarter than that. We
have to be wiser than that. We have to be more forward-looking.
So I would throw that back and say, it is going to take
you, and it is going to take every member of this committee,
and it is going to take Presidents, and it is going to take our
friends in other countries to make sure that we understand that
it is a world full of hope and opportunity, but it is also a
world filled with dangers, and there are different kinds, and
we need to be attentive to them, and I think we can be wise
enough to do that.
There is a wonderful book on Pearl Harbor by Roberta
Wohlstetter, and a forward by Dr. Schelling, that talks about
this problem of seeing things happen and not integrating them
in your mind and saying, yes, we need to be doing something
about that now, that I reread periodically because it is so
important.
As to a single big idea, I do not know, but it may be this.
It may be that one of the biggest things we have to do is what
I mentioned earlier, and that is, recognize that the deterrence
of the Cold War worked. Those deterrents very likely will not
work as well or as broadly as we will need during the period of
this era of globalization, or post-Cold War period, or whatever
we are going to end up calling it, that the problems are
different, and the demands will be different, and that we as a
people have an obligation to be smart enough to think about
those things and to see that we get arranged as a defense
establishment with our allies so that in fact we dissuade
people from doing things.
We do not want to win wars, we want to prevent them. We
want to be so powerful and so forward-looking that it is clear
to others that they ought not to be damaging their neighbors
when it affects our interests, and they ought not to be doing
things that are imposing threats and dangers to us, and I think
we can do that, but I think it is going to take some fresh
thinking.
Senator Ben Nelson. Thank you.
Chairman Levin. Thank you very much, Senator Nelson.
Next, under our early bird rule, is Senator Dayton.
Senator Dayton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to
thank you very much for your support in my obtaining a spot on
this esteemed committee. I understand Senator Warner's dismay
about the expansion of the membership after seeing how long it
takes to move once around the cycle here.
Senator Warner. I did not express dismay, I expressed
appreciation to so many Senators wanting to come on. In years
past we used to be like the old Navy. We went out and pressed
them out of the bars and dragged them in. [Laughter.]
Chairman Levin. He was not referring to Senators in bars,
by the way.
Senator Dayton. As you can see, if you were to cut it any
finer, I would be the one who would be cut off, but feeling my
lofty 100th position in seniority I can see I am going to be
sitting at the end of a lot of tables for the next couple of
years.
But Mr. Rumsfeld, I join with the others in congratulating
you for your willingness to take on this huge responsibility.
Your career in both the public sector and the private sector is
certainly admirable, and as a citizen and a public servant I
think to combine those careers with the longevity of years is
extraordinary, and I wish you well, and I do not presume to
have the expertise that my colleagues here or you have, so my
questions are inquisitory, not meant to be presumptive.
I know that you said in your opening statement, you talked
about the timetable, the cycle time for the development of new
major projects, now 8, 9 years, and how that pace has slowed
while technology has accelerated. To what do you attribute that
lengthening delay, and what would you think might be some of
the approaches to improving it?
Mr. Rumsfeld. It is interesting to me that this is the
case. We have seen in the sixties things could go from concept
to deployment in a very short period of time. They had much
more flexibility with respect to acquisition.
There was much greater secrecy, and there was much greater
urgency, quote-unquote, perceived urgency which allowed much
more flexibility in acquisition rules and much greater secrecy,
so at a time when those numbers have gone from a year or 2 to 8
or 9, and in a period when technologies--in those days took 5,
10, 8 years to change.
Today they are changing in a year, so you have those two
things conspiring to produce equipment that when it is there is
not the most advanced possible. There has to be a way to
shorten that process.
Business is finding ways to do it. Silicon Valley has
dozens of ways to do it. I do not know, beyond what I have
said, that in some cases I think you leapfrog systems, but in
other cases I think you probably keep platforms and leapfrog
elements of that and provide flexibility as advanced
technologies come along.
We are going to have to do it. We cannot simply be spending
money to produce things that are going to be behind the curve.
We have to find ways to do it.
It sure will not be Don Rumsfeld that will figure it out,
but if I am lucky we will find people who are smart enough and
a lot smarter than I am to put down and screw their head into
it and then come up to Congress and talk about how we can
adjust these systems so that they will work in the environment
we are in, which is much more rapidly paced.
Senator Dayton. It has certainly done a lot for Minnesota
business. The difficulty and the length of time and the
cumbersome procurement requirements, bidding contracts,
procedures, anything that can be done it seems to me to reduce
by two-thirds or more the amount of paperwork requirements and
therefore the timetables involved will benefit the private
sector as well as the Government.
Perhaps related to that, you talked also about the need to
try to have the technological systems of the various services
better coordinated. You talked about, I think your phrase was,
borne jointly, where they would start again, given the
disparity of the services and the contracting procedures, like,
how realistically are you going to effectuate it. I cannot get
my Washington office computers and my Minnesota office
computers joint at this point yet, so when you talk about the
complexity of what you are doing, isn't that problem going to
get worse?
Mr. Rumsfeld. I am having the same problem with my
computers, but it could. I mean, we have to see that the
services can talk to each other. They simply must be able to do
that, and the effort that occurred really well after my watch
on, quote, jointness, has I think made strides in that
direction.
But I mean, your point about the private sector, the
Government of the United States has not been a good customer.
We have not been a good interactor with the defense industry.
It is not an accident. The last time I looked the three top
defense contractors in size, Boeing and Raytheon and Lockheed,
had a market cap that was less than Wal-Mart. Now, why is that?
Because doing business with the Government is not a great deal.
Senator Dayton. I might prefer that you stick with the
analogy of Target, but I would not quarrel with you.
[Laughter.]
In your response to the questions you were asked about the
international criminal court, and particularly the Rome Accord.
You said you opposed it. Is it that you oppose that concept in
the entirety, or oppose the particular framework of the Rome
Accord? What is your position, sir?
Mr. Rumsfeld. I do not have the letter I signed along with
George Shultz and a host of Republicans and Democrats
expressing our concern about that, but if I am not mistaken
President Clinton has recently signed that and announced he was
not going to send it to the Senate, is that correct? I think
that is right.
Again, I am not an international lawyer, but my view of it
was that it posed a risk to the men and women in the Armed
Services that they could be doing the bidding of the United
States Government and the United States Senate and be hauled
before an international court for war crimes, and it concerned
me, and it concerned a whole series of former Secretaries of
State and Secretaries of Defense, which is the reason we signed
the letter.
The current status of the situation as I understand it is
that the President has signed it and said that he had concerns
about it and was not going to send it to the Senate for
ratification. I am further advised that a signed agreement like
that, even though not ratified, has standing, standing in the
sense that if you sign it and it is not ratified, you take unto
yourself the obligation not to undermine it and to support it
and to behave reasonably in accordance with it. That concerns
me, so I am uncomfortable with the position that President
Clinton has taken.
I am not the nominee for Secretary of State, nor am I the
President-elect. It is up to them to take--in the National
Security Council context to consider this, and my understanding
is that President-elect Bush has indicated that is what will
happen, that he will not send it up either, but whether or not
he wants to leave it stand I think is an issue that the
National Security Council would engage at some point in the
future, and I would need to know a lot more than I currently
know.
Senator Dayton. My time has expired. Just quickly, we are
sending you up there with all of the responsibilities, all this
good advice. We talked just before this afternoon about your
going there essentially by yourself. What can this committee do
to help you get underway most productively over the next couple
of months?
Mr. Rumsfeld. If I get through this process and it looks
like I am going to be confirmed, then the next order of
business is twofold. One is to get briefed up by the fine
people who have been serving there and understand what the
circumstance is, and the second is to come to some judgments as
to who I think ought to be recommended to President-elect Bush
for nominees, and there are an enormous number of critical jobs
that need to be filled.
With a backlog in clearances and a backlog in FBI
approvals, and the amount of time it takes to get through the
Office of Government Ethics, and the amount of time it takes to
process a human being through this thing, the odds are, if I
get there, I will be there alone, without another soul that has
been brought in to help, and you have to be very careful about
bringing people in on a temporary basis to help you, because of
the assumptions and presumptions, and because they have not
been confirmed by the Senate they are really not in a position
to make decisions.
So we have a strange complication here, where we are kind
of tangled up on ourselves. On the 20th we are going to have a
President of the United States in office, and who knows how
many of his Cabinet will be there. He cannot even nominate
until he is sworn in, as the chairman said. I do not know what
the answer is.
As I said earlier, I know that I am just one human being,
and there is no way I can do that job down there. The only way
I can ever do anything in my life is to find the best talent
around.
Chairman Levin. Senator Nelson.
Senator Bill Nelson. Mr. Chairman, this is a pleasure for
me to be a member of your committee, one in which you and the
next chairman operate in such a bipartisan manner, and I am
privileged and honored to be a part of the committee.
Mr. Secretary--I will call you that ahead of time--welcome.
Clearly, the issue of terrorism is going to be one that is
going to be facing us quite a bit in the future.
As we look back in the breakup of the Soviet Union, it is
questionable whether the United States moved quickly enough to
do what it could, as in the resulting chaos, where people
utilizing money perhaps spirited away nuclear weapons, tactical
nuclear weapons, the command and control system, all of the
temptations that came into the system at that time, I would
like to have your comments on that, and what you think we
should be thinking about in this committee, assisting you as we
try to confront this issue of containing this proliferation.
Mr. Rumsfeld. The problem of terrorism is an exceedingly
serious one. It is a problem for us in our homeland. It is a
problem for deployed forces. It is a problem for our friends
and allies, and I think it was Lenin who said that the purpose
of terrorism is to terrorize, and that is what it does. It
changes people's behavior, and the wonderful advantage is, a
terrorist can attack at any time in any place using any
technique, and it is physically impossible to defend at every
time and every place against every technique.
In Beirut, I watched a process where they first used trucks
with explosives to drive into a barracks and kill 241 American
Marines. The next thing, people started putting barricades up
like we have around the White House, and what do they do then?
Well, you change your method.
What you do is, you start using rocket-propelled grenades
and lobbing them over, so the next thing, you look at the
embassy, the British Embassy in Beirut, and they have wire nets
hanging off the building to reject rocket-propelled grenades.
Fine. It did not happen again.
The next thing, they go after targets. They go after
people, families, going to and from their place of work. So it
is not something that ends. It is something you need to be
attentive to. It is something we need to have vastly better
intelligence than we do today, and it is something that needs
to not simply be a Defense Department problem, or a homeland
defense problem, but it is also a diplomatic problem.
We have to find ways to function in this world where we
work with people and try to create an environment that is less
hospitable to terrorists and to terrorism. I do not know the
number, but I have something rattling in my head that we are
spending today something like $11 billion on this problem, and
I do not have any idea if that is the right number or the wrong
number, but it is a lot, and it is a lot more, for example,
than is being proposed to spend on some other defense
techniques, but it is a problem.
Senator Bill Nelson. Well, we are looking forward to
working with you on this. Down in Florida we had an interesting
election this year.
Mr. Rumsfeld. I noticed that.
Senator Bill Nelson. Part of the problem was military
overseas ballots, and I want to work with the committee
particularly in devising a way that--in Florida, for example,
42 percent of the ballots were not counted, of the military
overseas ballots were not counted because they did not qualify
under Florida law, even though the Attorney General issued a
ruling in the midst of all the controversy actually changing
the effect of the law so that it did not have to be just a
postmark, that it could be a signature, a date, and a witness,
and what we need is some uniform procedures, and I am going to
propose to the committee that we have voting by military
overseas personnel by the Internet.
It is interesting that just today a consortium of
companies, both software and hardware companies, are proposing
to do software for Internet voting for the entire country.
Well, that is on down the road, but I think we ought to look at
the Internet for our military overseas personnel. We can
discuss that later.
Finally, I have some knowledge of launch vehicles and the
competition of American launch vehicles with foreign launch
vehicles, and we are getting into a situation, as you have
responded to other questions on space-based assets, of, we have
to have the assurance that we can get those assets to space and
now it is not necessarily the DOD payloads that we have to have
on expendable booster rockets, which are Government vehicles,
but we have a great reliance now of getting our commercial
satellites on orbit, many of whom perform a function that is
absolutely essential to the functioning of the free world, and
we are relying on foreign competitors getting over half of
those payloads to orbit.
So I am going to look forward to working with you and your
staff on this, and this committee as well on that. I would love
to have any comments you have.
Mr. Rumsfeld. Well, you are of course exactly correct.
There is no question but that the launch capability of the
United States has been diminishing relative to the rest of the
world, and there have been three or four studies that have
analyzed in some depth the nature of the problem with respect
to U.S. launch capabilities, and I think it is important you
have raised it, and certainly I am aware of those studies.
Our Commission on Space Management and Organization did not
go into detail on it because it had been addressed by so many
previous organizations, and I think the problems are
fundamentally rather well-known. They are not being attended
to, but they are rather well-known.
Senator Bill Nelson. Did your report get into the transfer
of technology by putting American spacecraft on the top of
foreign vehicles, particularly the Chinese?
Mr. Rumsfeld. It did not. There have been others who have
looked at that, and there is no question but that if you are
going to marry a payload with a launch vehicle, that it
requires inevitably a certain amount of technology transfer.
Senator Bill Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you.
Senator Carnahan.
Senator Carnahan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rumsfeld, you have certainly shown this committee
impeccable credentials, and you have shown a great deal of
candor and forthrightness in answering all of the questions
that have been presented to you today, and I thank you for that
and for your patience.
Because of the length of the day and the brevity of my
seniority I will confine myself to just one question. Fort
Leonard Wood in Missouri is a major part of the Army training
system, with a chemical school, an engineering school, and an
MP school and I have been told that, from Congressman Ike
Skelton, that the readiness level at this TRADOC post is not
all that it should be, as it is not in other posts as well. I
was wondering what your thoughts might be on how we would
address the readiness level at TRADOC posts.
Mr. Rumsfeld. Well, I am certainly not knowledgeable about
that particular situation, but people are aware of their
circumstance, and to the extent readiness levels in an
institution like that, an organization like that are not what
they ought to be, the people there know they are not what they
ought to be, and it affects their attitude, it affects their
morale, it affects their feeling about their jobs, and whether
or not they want to stay in the service, so it seems to me it
is part of a much broader problem that we must address, and
certainly if it is true there, as I understand that it is, then
it is very likely true in other locations.
I would say one other thing about readiness. It is one
thing to say, here are our readiness categories and here are
the levels of readiness that we need to meet, and that is well
and good, but the first thing to do is say, ready for what? We
need to make sure what we are getting ready for, and that they
are not simply categories that existed in the prior period that
are not well-adapted to the future, because people understand
that, too, the people who have the responsibility for that.
It is not good for morale if you know you are breaking your
neck trying to get your readiness level up for something that
in fact made a lot of sense yesterday but may not make as much
sense tomorrow.
Senator Carnahan. Thank you.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Carnahan.
Mr. Rumsfeld, let me go back to national missile defense. I
want to press that issue with you. I want to follow up on a
number of questions which I, Senator Cleland, Senator Reed, and
others have asked here.
First, you said this morning that your experience led you
to the view that in a crisis, that a President should not be
presented with just two options, either capitulation or a
preemptive strike. I could not agree with you more. But there
is a third option that is missing from your response, which is
to pursue the policy of the United States and not be deflected
by any threat with a real level of confidence that it would be
a totally irrational act for anybody to carry out that threat.
You this morning said those dictators you enumerated are
rational folks. We do not like them. We do not like what they
do, but that they act rationally.
Mr. Rumsfeld. Maybe not rational in our context, but by
their standards.
Chairman Levin. We have been told over and over again by
our intelligence sources and otherwise that the first goal of
these regimes is survival and self-perpetuation. This third
option, which you did not address this morning, which is to
pursue the course we are on and not be deflected by that
threat, seems to me to be a very important and most likely
option. We should not signal in any way to any of these folks
that one possibility of their having such a weapon of mass
destruction would be that we might acquiesce.
I think Senator Reed made reference to that point. It seems
to me it is absolutely critical, number 1.
Number 2, you indicated that we should consider certain
adverse effects if we fail to deploy a national missile
defense, and I agree with that. I think the pros and cons of
deployment at a time when we have a technologically feasible
missile defense, when that time comes, if it comes, that the
pros and cons should all be on the table.
Mr. Rumsfeld. I agree.
Chairman Levin. What is essential is to consider the
effects you made reference to. It seems to me those are
important effects, that we also have to consider the negative
effects of a deployment if it is unilateral--if it requires us
to pull out of the ABM Treaty that we have with Russia--and if
it results in a larger number of weapons on Russian soil and
Chinese soil.
We had a report yesterday referred to in this morning's
paper by the writers, Howard Baker and Lloyd Cutler. I referred
to it this morning, but I just want to read one thing to you,
that the most urgent unmet national security threat to the
United States today is that weapons of mass destruction, or
weapons-usable material located in Russia, could be stolen or
sold to terrorists or hostile nation-States and used against
American troops abroad, or citizens at home. Now, whether that
is the most urgent unmet national security threat or not, and I
happen to think it certainly ranks near or at the top, I think
you would agree that it is a serious concern. I qualify this. I
say, if the effect of our deployment of a national missile
defense would be to increase the proliferation threat of a
weapon of mass destruction, or material that is involved in a
weapon of mass destruction by Russia responding to our
unilateral withdrawal from this treaty by no longer reducing
the number of weapons she has, or increasing the number of
weapons she has, that is a factor which I hope you would
consider. Would you agree it is a legitimate factor to
consider, however you come out in the end?
Mr. Rumsfeld. I agree completely that in this process the
advantages and disadvantages of deployment should be considered
and the advantages and disadvantages of not deploying should be
considered.
Chairman Levin. I welcome that. It seems to me that is
important. But there are some other disadvantages I just want
to throw in there, and I happen to agree with you that we
should look at all the advantages and disadvantages. But I want
to mention a couple of others.
Our allies have urged us not to unilaterally deploy this
system, not to leave them out of any system. They have not
urged us, as far as I know of, in any case to unilaterally
deploy. I use the word unilateral to mean that we would pull
out of the treaty with Russia and proceed on our own, without
being able to modify it.
Now, you have said in your answers to the questions to the
committee that you would seek modification of that treaty with
Russia. I believe that was in your answers. It seems to me that
is the course which should be followed. If it was not in your
answers, then it was the President-elect that made reference to
an effort to modify the treaty.
Mr. Rumsfeld. It may have been the President-elect.
Chairman Levin. Now, there is one other factor which I
think should be placed on the table.
Mr. Rumsfeld. Am I going to get a chance to comment?
Chairman Levin. Absolutely, and if you cannot remember all
of these points, then I will remind you of them. But there is
another consideration here which seems to me that should be put
on the table. Even if we are willing to take those adverse
effects because we think that the positives outweigh the
negatives, we are still left with the fact that there are other
means of delivery besides missiles, trucks, and ships, which
are cheaper, more reliable, have no return address.
In the case of a truck, we could be threatened by one of
these dictators with the kind of ultimatum like, I just invaded
Kuwait. If you try to throw me out of Kuwait, there is a truck
going around the interstate of the United States that has a
biological or chemical weapon on it. You are going to lose part
of your major cities, or you are going to see your air
poisoned, for example.
We are going to face potential threats even if we
successfully create a national defense technologically, and
even if we decide to take the risk of proliferation, which
might result, if Russia's response is what she said that it
will be, which is, forget the reductions, forget START II,
forget START III. Rather than building down she is going to
build up, creating the threat which Baker and Cutler talked
about in their report.
I would urge you to read the President's signing statement
when he signed the Missile Defense Act, by the way. I think it
is really important that you read that statement.
I made reference this morning to the Missile Defense Act.
Those factors which I have tried to enumerate in the last
couple of minutes are all on the table before a deployment
decision would be made by the current administration. Of
course, it later on decided to delay it because of the failure
of the tests. But I would urge you to read that statement
before he signed the act, relative to the meaning of those two
clauses, before you reach any final conclusion on the meaning
of those two clauses yourself.
I will stop there. I will help you to remember all of these
factors if you were not able to write them all down, but I
surely want to give you a chance to respond.
Mr. Rumsfeld. Thank you. I think I have them all down. My
question is, can I read my handwriting, I was writing so
rapidly here.
I think we have to begin with the fact that the President-
elect has indicated that he intends to deploy a missile defense
capability. I do not want to get ahead of myself and argue in
any way that suggests that I know what the outcome of the
review will be or what he means by that, or what the National
Security Council will end up recommending, and I understand
that Congress has a role in this. The authorization and
appropriation process is there.
First, with respect to the concept of unilateral, I may
overstate for emphasis a little bit, but I have the impression
that for at least a period of 4, 5, or 6 years the argument has
been made by the United States Government that missile defense
would be destabilizing, that missile defense would be a bad
thing, and that it could be, and the feedback we got was yes,
that is right. The Russians say, we do not like it, and the
allies say, we do not want the Russians to be unhappy and we do
not want the agreements between the United States and Russia to
be ruptured by the United States doing something unilaterally.
There is no way I can prove what I am going to say, but I
have a feeling that once the Russians understand that the
United States is serious about this and intends to deploy, as
opposed to the reverse of that, that they will in fact find a
way in the negotiations--I do not know quite how, or when, or
in what way--in the discussions that take place to accept that
reality, recognize that there are threats from States with
capabilities that not only threaten us and our allies and our
friends, but over time will threaten the Russians as well. They
are worried about terrorism. They are worried about military
capabilities.
Second, the implication has been set forth that we would do
something precipitous or unilateral with respect to our allies.
That is just not going to happen. We understand how important
that alliance is. We understand that our allies need to be
consulted. We also understand that to some extent the allies'
concern is twofold. One is that--and I am meandering off into
the Secretary of State-designate's area of responsibility and
not mine, but--and I will tighten this up a little bit, but the
allies are concerned, and I have talked with a number of them,
about being disconnected.
Our program, as it is currently on path, could conceivably
have the effect of providing States with protection, but
leaving our allies with less protection, and that kind of
decoupling would be unwise by us. It would be unhelpful to the
alliance, and I do not think you will see things happen--I
think you will see a much closer consultation take place.
Next, you mentioned the Baker-Cutler thing and connected it
to this in some way. I do not see the connection. My impression
is that--and I did not read the article. I was so busy getting
ready for today that I did not read it carefully, but I was
under the impression, at least, that they were talking about
the loose-nuke problem, the risk that in fact nuclear materials
and nuclear weapons and nuclear competence in terms of people,
could and are and may to a greater degree lead to
proliferation. I agree with that completely.
The Russians have been telling us they have not been doing
it, and they have been doing it. They have been helping Iran.
They have been helping other countries. Certainly they have
been helping India, and we know it and they know it, and they
know we know it.
Is it because they are actively trying to make mischief? Is
it because they're making money, or is it because they do not
have the kinds of controls over what is taking place in that
country and there is a demand for that kind of assistance, or
is it some combination of those? I do not know for sure, but I
know that they in fact are active proliferators.
The Baker issue is, I think, a somewhat different one, is
my impression. You are right, there are other means of
delivery, we know that. We know anything other than fighting
armies, navies, and air forces is attractive because they are
all cheaper. They are all more readily available, and they all
offer the prospect that even without doing it you can affect
people's behavior because you can threaten the use of a terror
weapon and terrorize others and alter their behavior.
My view of that is simply because you cannot do everything
does not mean you should not do anything. I mean, I agree to
the extent it is unattractive to work one end of that spectrum
or some place along the spectrum. It inevitably will lead
people to look for the weak link, to look for another part of
that asymmetrical spectrum to assert their influence. I agree
with that. That is a fact, and yet that does not say to me that
it makes sense for us to remain vulnerable to ballistic missile
attack if we do not have to.
Chairman Levin. Thank you. I am sure my time is up.
Senator Warner.
Senator Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think everyone
realizes our second round is 6 minutes.
Chairman Levin. Yes. I should have announced that.
Senator Warner. Mr. Chairman, I certainly want to
compliment you and others. This has been an excellent hearing,
and I have moved about a little bit in the course of this
hearing and wanted to go over and welcome your Space Council
and they are carrying on, as you might expect, quite well, and
others, and throughout the whole way this compliment is being
paid to this committee as a whole for undertaking a very
thorough and in-depth hearing.
I shall proceed quickly, under my 6 minutes. Did you want a
seventh-inning stretch here?
Mr. Rumsfeld. No, I am fine.
Senator Warner. As you can clearly see, there is a
diversity of views on this very important subject. For the 23
years my good friend and I have been here in this Senate
together, we have from time to time been on opposite sides on
this question of missile defense, but listening to this very
important colloquy between the two of you, let us also include
the following category, and that is accidental.
Military men and women training all over the world on all
types of systems, accidents happen. No treaty is going to stop
that. No form of deterrence is going to stop that, and I have
often said that every President better have a draft statement
on his desk to explain to a half-million American people who
lost their lives and their families and survivors why we were
not prepared to stop an accident, so that is a factor we had
better figure in.
Now, I want to cover some very important subjects that we
touched on, and our very valued ally, Israel. As we have had a
strategic relationship with them for many, many years.
Unfortunately that area of the world is embroiled in conflict,
one which you, as a former negotiator and troubleshooter, have
a clear understanding of the origins. Regrettably, many of
those origins are still there.
I would like to have your views on that, and in the gulf
region we have done our best. We have formed a magnificent
coalition under President Bush. Some 13 nations came together
to stop the aggression of Saddam Hussein, and send his forces
back in-country, and we are in there alone today, except for
some help from Great Britain in the air campaign and from some
other nations in the sea campaign, to contain him. I would like
to have your views on how we approach that.
As I stated this morning, President-elect Bush has put
together an extraordinary and superbly well-qualified national
security team. These questions are going to be on their desk on
the day of arrival.
I would like to also explore with you the relationship
between the People's Republic of China and Taiwan. Again, we
have had a longstanding relationship with the people of Taiwan.
We have in place certain agreements, and lastly I think we
should cover the policy that you would hope to recommend to the
President with regard to the withdrawal of our peacekeepers and
our timetable, maybe not specifically, but the general
discussion of the withdrawal from Bosnia and Kosovo. This is a
subject I have been active in.
Last year, I and other colleagues--Senator Byrd joined with
me and I joined with him on separate pieces of legislation to
try and bring to the attention of our allies the commitments
they made, the fact that we were trying to fulfill our
commitment, and somehow if they did not continue to live up to
those commitments we would have to address a withdrawal policy.
Well, guess what happened. Very quickly the allies came in
and fulfilled their commitments in terms of money in Kosovo and
troops and likewise, and that situation righted itself.
I think it is important that the United States keep some
presence in both the Kosovo and Bosnian military forces so long
as our allies are there, perhaps not to the level that we have
today, but we do not want to give the perception that we are
not a reliable partner in all of these, so if you would sort of
kick off, and we will take the first one.
Mr. Rumsfeld. OK. Most of what you have posed, well, falls
over in the area of the Department of State and the National
Security Council as much or more than it does the defense
establishment.
Senator Warner. But you are a team, and you are at that
table.
Mr. Rumsfeld. I understand, and I am going to reach out and
comment, but I want to preface it by saying that we are not in
office. We have not had meetings. We have not talked about
these things.
Senator Warner. I understand that.
Mr. Rumsfeld. It would be wrong for me to try to think I
could sketch out policy, so whatever I am saying is coming from
Rumsfeld.
Senator Warner. That is clear, but we have an obligation
under advise and consent to get your views, because you are one
of the most experienced, if not the most experienced person on
that team.
Mr. Rumsfeld. Well, with respect to Israel, the situation
is very difficult. The hostilities are obvious. People die in
that region regularly. Israel is a very small country. They
cannot make many mistakes about what they give up. There is a
feeling I have had, watching that process, that to the extent
someone leans forward, someone leans back, to the extent
someone leans back, someone leans forward, and it goes that
way.
I do not think it is possible for the United States of
America to go in and grab people by the scruff of the neck and
think they could put them together and have something stick. It
has to make sense on the ground.
I have questions about Mr. Arafat's ability to manage his
affairs, his circumstances, and I think to be dealing with him
as though he were a State in control of his circumstance may
not--may be somewhat unrealistic. I am hopeful. I think that it
is an important issue that I am sure Secretary of State-
designate Colin Powell and Condy Rice and the President will
engage, and certainly I will be happy to be a participant.
The gulf coalition is in fact unraveling and there is no
question but that Saddam Hussein's appetite for weapons of mass
destruction has not disappeared. Under the agreement, he was
allowed to continue working on ballistic missiles below a
certain range and, of course, the weight of the warhead affects
range, so he has his team together, and he is working
aggressively to make better relationships with Syria under the
new Assad, and I suspect that we will not have heard the last
of him by a darned sight.
The control over assets and funding I think is rather
important and fundamental, and ought not to be let go. There is
a lot of pressure from various coalition partners to ease up,
but I think that central principle is one we ought to think
about.
Senator Warner. We have over 20,000 U.S. troops in that
region containing these policies.
Mr. Rumsfeld. They are risking their lives in the north and
south with flights. It is a dangerous situation.
The PRC and Taiwan, so much has been said I think there is
not much I can add. Clearly, we have laws, we have obligations,
we have hopes, and that situation also seems to ebb and flow in
terms of the volume of the words coming out of the PRC on that
subject, and at the moment they seem to have ebbed rather than
flowed.
Senator Warner. But the one thing certain is a steady
buildup in the PRC military capabilities.
Mr. Rumsfeld. Not just generally, but in that area.
Senator Warner. That is correct.
Mr. Rumsfeld. Third, peacekeepers in Bosnia. The first
thing I would say is that we have forces on the ground. We have
troops there, and we ought to be supporting them, and I worry
about forums like this where we talk about altering what we
have, the Government, the President, Congress.
We have to decide what we want to do on these things, but
discussions that lead to uncertainty harm the people on the
ground who are trying to do things, and I went into Bosnia
sometime back and visited with people from various factions,
and they are either leaning forward or they are leaning back,
and you can be sure the more there is talk about departure, the
more they wait you out. It is true across the globe.
I have never been a fan of deadlines. I mean, the original
deadline that we would be out by Christmas was not wise, not
good policy in my judgment. We ought not to do that. It tells
everybody, wait for a year, go on.
I think what we ought to do--and I know the President has
said he will review it. He will. When he has a view--you can be
certain he will not do anything precipitous. He understands the
importance of the relationships with our allies. What he will
decide, I have no idea. He will certainly consult with Congress
as well as allies, and we will all know when that process has
completed.
Senator Warner. I think that term, consult with Congress,
is a very reassuring one, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee, and I thank the distinguished witness for those
replies.
Chairman Levin. Senator Lieberman.
Senator Lieberman. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I had to leave for
a while. I apologize for that. I must say, coming back, I
thought I would find you weary, mentally worn, but I am
discouraged to find that you are as sharp as you were when I
left this morning. [Laughter.]
I want to thank you particularly for some of the straight
talk. As another member of the committee was fond of saying
earlier last year, you have been on the straight talk express
here for part of today, and I appreciate it.
Chris Williams, sitting behind you, worked with Senator
Lott, and Senator Lott and I have sponsored some legislation on
our concern about proliferation to Iran, and you were dead
right that the Russians have just continued to do that.
Sometimes we do not like to deal with that reality, but it is
real, and I appreciate the straight talk that you gave, and I
hope that we will continue to work on that, because it
threatens our security and the security of our allies.
The same is true of your answer just now on the question of
our forces in the Balkans, and I thank you for it. We made a
serious mistake here some years ago, under political pressure,
where we did set a deadline, and it created a real credibility
gap that we are still fighting to overcome.
Believe it or not, I want to come back to national missile
defense in a slightly different way and make this statement and
ask you for your reaction. I accept the reality of the threat.
I think it is a serious one. I was an original or early
cosponsor of the National Missile Defense Act. I was pleased
when it went through Congress and pleased when the President
signed it, and I was up in my office for meetings, listening to
your earlier testimony, and if I understood correctly, in
response to a question from Senator Akaka you indicated logic
would tell us that in the time since your commission's report
the threat has just naturally become more serious because
proliferation goes on.
My concern is about the timeliness of a response, and just
to say that I am concerned, as the new administration comes in
and thinks about the layered approach to national missile
defense, that if you think about the 2005 date, or whatever
date, even earlier by some estimates, which some of these folks
who have hostile intent toward us could get capacity to do our
homeland damage, I think that one of the reasons--not all, but
one of the reasons the Clinton administration chose the land-
based alternative for national missile defense because it was
possible, assuming technological abilities, to get, if you
will, online earlier. Sea-based is essentially a concept now,
and estimates I have seen say that it will not come online any
earlier than 2010, space-based probably later than that.
So my concern is, as you think about the alternatives you
have as you come into office, that you take a look at the fact
that while the land-based system missile defense may not be the
best, it may be the one that we can get operating earliest.
Mr. Rumsfeld. I do not disagree with that. I do not know
enough to know, of certain knowledge, that that is right, but I
have a set of impressions, and they are these, that the current
program may very well have been something that could be done
sooner than some of the other alternatives such as sea-based or
space-based capabilities.
On the other hand, my further impression is that the
current system was designed to fit within the treaty. I have
never believed--I mean, that treaty is ancient history. It is
almost--it dates even back farther than when I was last in the
Pentagon. That is a long time.
Think what has happened to technology in the intervening
period. I mean, to try to fashion something that fits within
the constraints of that, and expect you are going to get the
most effective program, the earliest to deploy, and the most
cost-effective, it is just--it boggles the mind. That is not
how people do advance technologies, is to sit down with those
kinds of constraints and try to fit it in that straitjacket.
I do not disagree that at this stage it may be something
that could be done earlier than other alternatives, but I would
say it may very well be that pieces of it might very well fit
in what one might ultimately want to do.
Now, this is all sheer speculation on my part. I mean, the
press has kind of played me up as an expert in missile defense,
and I am not. I know a lot about the threat, and I spent a lot
of time on it, but I have spent much less time on the ways of
dealing with it, and that is something I have simply got to
wrap my head around.
Senator Lieberman. I have one more question. Incidentally,
enjoy whenever the press plays you up as an expert on anything,
because it will not last long. [Laughter.]
I want to come to the fifth of your priorities in the
opening statement you made, reform of DOD structures,
processes, and organization. One of the things that struck me
in my years on the committee is the extent to which the goals
of the Goldwater-Nichols Act have not yet been realized.
That is one of them, which is one of the central ones,
which is based on the conclusion, I think correctly, that
warfighting would be joint, that therefore more of the
operation of our military should be joint, and there has been a
natural institutional resistance to that, and look, the four
services have extraordinary histories of capability and unique
functions to play, but I was thinking, in terms of your
background, in this case in the private sector, that too often
probably I found myself saying, I do not think any CEO of a big
company--and there is no company as big as the Pentagon. You
are about to become the CEO of the largest company in the
world, but would tolerate that kind of overlap.
We have made some progress lately, particularly through the
establishment of the Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, and I
really commend it to you and hope you can get to know it well,
but ideally we should be having more joint experimentation,
joint acquisition, joint training, so that when we come to
warfighting we will not only have avoided redundancy and saved
some money along the way to do some of the many things that we
have all said today we want you to do, but we will be better
able to fight jointly.
Mr. Rumsfeld. I do not disagree at all. I think warfighting
is inevitably going to involve all of the services, and to the
extent they have not trained and exercised and equipped for
interoperability in that kind of an environment they are not
going to do what they could do had they done that.
Senator Lieberman. My time is more than up. Thank you very
much.
Chairman Levin. Senator Sessions.
Senator Sessions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know that the
chairman has been a skillful questioner, let us say on national
missile defense.
Now, we went through a long battle on it. Senator Lieberman
and Senator Cochran formed an opinion, as did a number of us,
that we needed to move forward. We accepted your bipartisan
unanimous report that by the year 2005 we did have a threat
that we needed to be prepared to defend against, and in the
Senate I think Senator Roberts had over 90 votes, maybe 3
dissents, to deploy and follow through on this.
The President did, in fact, drag his feet. We did not do
the Alaska radar work that we hoped to have done this summer,
so we have already missed the 2005 year that your commission,
your report suggested we should try to meet, and so we are now
at 2006, and I believe this summer we will have another date
that we will need to make a decision soon to get started with
the Alaska base or we will be at 2007.
I just wanted to say, to follow up on Senator Roberts, I
believe this Congress is for this. I believe we voted
overwhelmingly for this, and with determined leadership, the
technological problems will be overcome, and I think we need to
move forward.
Most Americans have no idea we have no defense to incoming
missiles, absolutely none. They saw in Israel, in the Gulf War,
some Patriot and Scuds, and think maybe we have that here. We
really have none of that here, and I believe we need to move
forward on that. I salute you for coming to it with the
background you do, and I salute you for the report that you
issued, and your fellow members, which we acted on, and the
President did sign.
I would like to pursue a little bit--and by the way, on
national missile defense, we are talking about a $3 billion a
year expenditure, maybe $4. That is hardly 1 percent of the
total defense budget. It is not going to drain our defense
resources to deploy national missile defense.
Colombia has 38 million people. It is a significant trading
partner of the United States, but 40 to 50 percent of that
country is now being held by Marxist guerrillas who are working
with the narcotraffickers. Venezuela is showing some strange
activity.
At best, I do believe we need to give more attention to our
hemisphere, and when you compare that to Kosovo, there are 2
million people we have no trading relationships with, and it is
clearly in the backyard of the Europeans.
Would you share with us your view about the importance of
our involvement in this hemisphere in general?
Mr. Rumsfeld. Well, in general is about what I can do.
Again, I am reluctant to be continuously infringing on my
friend Colin Powell's areas of prospective responsibility. We
live here. It is important to us, there is no question that
this hemisphere is, and I think that successive administrations
in both parties have recognized that and addressed that over my
adult lifetime.
That is a very complicated problem down there, and I need
to get steeped in it. We have talked a bit about what is going
on. I understand there are a limited number of U.S. military
forces, that the State Department has the lead, that a lot of
what is being done there is being done by contract personnel,
that there is fear around the periphery that whatever is done
in Colombia is not going to end the problem but move the
problem geographically.
I have read the same speculation you have about the
Venezuelan involvement. I do not know much about it beyond
that. It is going to take a lot of very careful thought, and a
combination probably of the kinds of things that are being done
as well as diplomacy, to see if we cannot have that situation
begin to get better rather than worse, thus far.
I have seen the maps that show the minimal control that the
Government is currently exerting in the country, and it tends
to be urban areas, as I understand it.
Senator Sessions. It is a disturbing situation, and I do
not know the answer to it. I do not believe it requires troops,
but I do believe we need to say, which Ambassador Pickering
would not say in one of these hearings when I asked him, that
we endorse--perhaps they have sense, but we need to endorse
unequivocally the oldest democracy in the hemisphere, except
ours, Colombia, in their struggles with the Marxist guerrillas,
in my view, and we need to encourage them to be aggressive, and
if they are not going to defend their country, I do not see how
we can defend it for them.
But I believe they are going to be reaching a point soon
where they are going to decide they have to fight to preserve
their democracy, and if they do not fight they are going to
lose it. At that point I think we are going to have to help
them. I wish we did not, I wish it was not a problem, but I am
afraid it is.
Finally, I would say I agree with you totally that this
treaty with Russia and the missile defense question is ancient
history. It was with a dead empire that no longer exists.
Surely we will deploy the best system and work and just deal
with the Russians in a fair and objective way, tell them we
love them, we want to be partners and friends with them, but we
are going to do what is in our interests to protect our
American citizens, and I think they will accept that if we will
quit waffling and be clear, and I hope that you will do that.
Mr. Rumsfeld. Thank you.
Chairman Levin. Senator Cleland.
Senator Cleland. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just for the
committee's information, I do understand that under the voting
of military ballots and the counting of military ballots
overseas, with your help, Mr. Chairman, and myself and Senator
Hutchison and Senator Warner, we have asked for the GAO to do
an independent investigation on this whole issue of military
ballots being counted, and how military votes overseas, and
that that report will be to us in a matter of months.
Mr. Secretary, let me just say, thank you very much for
waiting us out and for being so patient. A couple of years ago
you signed a letter along with Dick Cheney supporting full
funding for the F-22, which is advanced technology for our
tactical aircraft. I would like to, Mr. Chairman, submit that
letter for the record, if there is no objection.
Chairman Levin. It will be made a part of the record.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Cleland. Mr. Secretary, thank you for your support
of the F-22 in the past. I hope we can count on your continued
support for the F-22. Any remarks you would like to make on
that?
Mr. Rumsfeld. No, sir, other than that I said what I said,
I believed it when I said it, I am now in a circumstance where
I have to take a review and look at that and other things and
try to come to some rational conclusions, and I shall do so.
Senator Cleland. Thank you very much. In terms of airlift
capability, it is interesting that the fiscal year 2000 defense
authorization bill did direct the Secretary of Defense to
submit a report to this Congress no later than February. The
airlift requirement report is in. The current requirement for
airlift in the Pentagon is almost 50 million ton-miles, and a
mobility requirement study estimates the requirement may rise
to around 54 or 55 million ton-miles.
With the move away from more forward-deployed forces, an
airlift and air mobility more and more important, the C-130J is
integral to our rapid deployment operations. The last
administration proposed some 24 new C-130Js over the next 4 or
5 years. I have a special interest in this program, Mr.
Secretary, and would hope that you would continue to look hard
at the C-130J program, particularly in terms of its critical
role in moving our forces abroad.
Finally, Warner-Robbins is one of three remaining Air Force
depots. There used to be five. Now there are three. Part of the
challenge here, it seems to me, is to determine if the Pentagon
is going to continue to keep core capability in its maintenance
and depot facilities, and in determining that core capability I
just hope you would work with all of us so that our military
commanders will have the ability in a crisis to ramp up and
work 7 days a week, 24 hours a day, to meet the needs of our
servicemen and women overseas.
So I will just have those thoughts, and any response from
you would be welcome.
Mr. Rumsfeld. I have not engaged this subject of depots. I
understand that among all the caucuses in Congress these days
the depot caucus may take the cake as being the largest one. It
is a subject that--let me phrase it this way. There is no
question but that the United States military needs to have what
they need to have, and the question is, in what way can they
assure that they have that so that their capabilities, and our
capabilities as a country to contribute to peace and stability
are assured?
I have not looked at it. I understand it is there and will
certainly address it.
Senator Cleland. Thank you very much. We talked about one
big idea, and when I heard that I thought about maybe a
question on deterrence in this new globalized era, and defining
what could maybe deter the terrorist or the biochemical attack
and so forth, and I appreciate your views on that and look
forward to that continued discussion.
But one of the big ideas I would just like for you to think
about in the challenge of dealing with an all-volunteer force,
and now a married all-volunteer force in terms of a big idea,
in the last few years, in looking at the GI bill and its power
to attract young men and women to the military, maybe one of
the big ideas we ought to explore together is in the American
military being the greatest university in the world.
In other words, we are going to have to train constantly,
and there probably already is the greatest university,
certainly the biggest university in the world, but education
begets education. If the American military can become known not
just as a good place to get a couple or 3 or 4 years of
education and then get out, but some place to educate yourself
and your family over the long haul, then maybe we can work in a
wonderful way on our retention problem as well.
Because people who get out that contact me, get out
basically with tears in their eyes. They love the military,
they love the service, but they get out because they have
pressures on their families. One of the pressures on their
families is their kids' education.
So I would just like to throw that out as an interesting
big idea that we can explore as we walk down this road
together, because it does seem to me that the power of the GI
bill, or the power of education and the military can be a
powerful tool to keep people--I mean, to attract people and to
keep people in that otherwise would get out, but we have to
broaden it so that it includes their families as well.
I might say one of your colleagues in the Cabinet will be
Tony Principi, who was the author a couple of years ago of the
Principi Commission report, which actually recommended the
concept that a serviceman or woman can take their unused GI
bill assets and transfer them to their spouse or to their kids,
thereby creating a college fund for them. Tony Principi was the
author of that idea, and he will be in the Cabinet with you as
head of the Veterans Administration, so I wanted to throw that
out as a big idea that you might consider.
Mr. Rumsfeld. Thank you very much.
Senator Cleland. Thank you very much for your patience, Mr.
Chairman. No further questions.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Cleland. Let me also add
our thanks for your continuing leadership on the broadening of
the GI bill. It is a very important initiative. You have had a
little success. You deserve a lot more success, and hopefully
will achieve a lot more success in that area.
Senator Nelson.
Senator Ben Nelson. Mr. Secretary, in Nebraska we have the
Joint Command and Strategic Command. The military for the last
several years and the civilian leadership have worked toward
finding ways to marry the military establishment in a way that
certainly will work better for cooperation and collaboration,
and obviously under a Joint Command you tend to get that. It
surprises people in Nebraska to see the Strategic Command under
the control of an admiral from the Navy, because Nebraska may
be nearly landlocked, except for the Missouri River.
I have a question that really relates to how you develop an
exit strategy without showing your hand. We have a civilian
military. We have a citizen Government, and yet we know that
the right of the public to know is there, and this body
provides oversight so that when you come with an idea that you
would like to provide some knowledge about, the first question
is, what is your exit strategy? Once you have tipped your hand,
there is no going back. The genie does not go back in the
bottle, whether you say we are not going to use any land
forces, we are going to be out by December--are we somewhat
relegated to going back to 1968? When nominee President Nixon
was running and said, ``I have a plan to end the war,'' he
would not tip his hand.
I think when you have this challenge it is very easy for
people to put you in the box, where they want to know that you
have a plan, they want to know what it is, but once you have
told them, it is like the coach giving his playbook to the
other team, the other coach.
Mr. Rumsfeld. You have put your finger on an enormously
difficult problem. I was chief of staff in the White House when
Vietnam ended, and you had all of these fine people who had
supported that effort, and at some point you pulled the plug,
and when you do, people are killed, people are hurt, people are
damaged, and the reputation of our country for following
through and for consistency and for being a reliable partner is
damaged for a period.
I was the one who had to go tell President Jamail of
Lebanon that the United States and the President and Security
Council had decided to withdraw support, and walked into his
office, and it was a heartbreaker, just an absolute
heartbreaker. There were a whole host of people who had stepped
forward and relied on us to help him try to get the Syrians out
of his country, and at a certain moment it is gone.
You are right, if you talk and if you telegraph something
more people get killed, more people are damaged, and the
hardship is much greater.
What is the answer? Well, I do not know what the answer is.
I think part of the answer is, let us try not to get into
things we cannot get out of. Let us try not to get into things
we cannot finish well.
We are still going to have this happen. We are not always
going to be right. We are going to end up trying to do things
because we are concerned and we care, and it will not work
because we miscalculated. We thought there was a greater
possibility that there could be an institutional capability to
sustain itself and create a nation that could build and go
forward, but that is hard.
We are not geniuses at nation-building, institutional
capabilities. There has to be something where people say, my
gosh, the Marshall Plan, goodness gracious, those countries
there, they were capable, they were competent, we gave them
money. They did what they did, and the analogy of the Marshall
Plan to some of the kinds of continents that we have been
dealing with and problems that we have been dealing with I
think is a mismatch.
You are right, I think that about all you can do is if you
have been wrong, do it fast, confess, and get out. That is all
you can do, and try not to get yourself in a situation where
you cause other people to support you and then you leave them
in the lurch, which is just a heartbreaker.
Senator Ben Nelson. Thank you.
Chairman Levin. Thank you. Senator Dayton.
Senator Dayton. Mr. Chairman, I believe that a member of
President Kennedy's Cabinet said that as Secretary you have one
boss and 535 advisors, and I think you have received enough
advice for one day. I wish you well, and I would cede the rest
of my time unless there is anything you would like to say, sir.
Mr. Rumsfeld. I would like to say something, Senator, and I
thank you for that opportunity.
Chairman Levin. By the way, there will be another round of
questions.
Mr. Rumsfeld. Maybe I will save it, then. [Laughter.]
Well, I will say it right now. I must say, if I know
anything I know that you do not tackle Defense Department
problems and issues and challenges by political party. You do
it on a bipartisan basis, and I respect the way you and Senator
Warner have handled your back-and-forth chairmanships, and I
admire it, and I assure you that I approach these issues in a
nonpartisan way, and I intend to work with the committee in
that way and look forward to it.
Chairman Levin. We are going to have a third round for
those who might be interested in asking additional questions.
First, on the space policy question. There was a report in
Defense Daily recently--it quoted--I do not know who was saying
these words, but here are the words: ``Rumsfeld understands the
need for militarization of space.'' My question is, do you see
the need for the ``militarization of space''?
Mr. Rumsfeld. I did not say it, and I do not know who wrote
it, and I do not know quite what it means. Let me see if I can
put some words around my thoughts on the subject. We know what
has been done on land by way of military conflict, we know what
has been done on the sea, and we know what has been done in the
air. I think it would be a stretch to suggest that space will
not at some point in the future find itself receiving similar
attention.
Why do I say that? Well, if, for example, we have an
interest on the sea to maintain the sea lanes open and to
create an environment that is hospitable to sea traffic for
international intercourse, and we have a lot of assets in
space, one would think we would feel or share a similar view
about having the assets in space free to provide these services
and the capabilities that they do, and to the extent we do, as
we do, both civilian and military space assets, and to the
extent they conceivably, as with ships and tanks and planes,
become a target at some point, there is no question in my mind
but that it is in our interest to create the kinds of
deterrence and capability so that it is not attractive to
disable the United States and our enormous dependence on space
assets.
I do not know quite what that means in answer to that
article, but those are my views, and I should say these were my
views as a member of the commission. They are not the views of
the administration, since I have not had a chance to even
discuss these things with President-elect Bush or the National
Security Council.
Chairman Levin. Thank you. You made, I think, brief
reference to this today. That the United States and North Korea
signed an agreement in 1994 which provides that North Korea
will end and disband its plutonium production capacity. By the
way, I actually went up to see with my own eyes that that was
being done. It also called for the United States to lead a
coalition with South Korea and Japan to provide North Korea
with proliferation-resistant light water reactors if it
complies with every step of the agreement, and it also provides
for some fuel, I believe, to substitute for the loss of that
capacity. Assuming that both sides comply with this agreement,
in your judgment does this agreed framework serve our national
security interest?
Mr. Rumsfeld. I will offer some personal views, but I have
to again begin with the beginning, and that is, this is quite a
distance off my turf, and certainly the National Security
Council and President and Secretary-designate Colin Powell will
be addressing it.
My view on North Korea is that they have been as active a
proliferator of technologies across the globe as any country
that I know of. It is hard to believe that a country that
cannot feed its people, that has a dictatorship that is as
repressive and damaging to its country as anything on the face
of the earth, could be developing and marketing and benefiting
financially from the proliferation of these technologies, but
it is a fact.
I was very impressed with the Senator's photograph of the
Korean peninsula earlier today, where it showed lights in the
south, and lights in China, and black, and it is a wonderful
metaphor for the problem.
I think talking is fine. I am glad they are talking. I
think there has not been, to my knowledge, changes in their
military posture with respect to South Korea or with respect to
their activities of proliferation. It is good to be hopeful. It
is good to talk. I am not an expert on the agreed framework. I
have not been there, as you have. I am not sure I would be
welcome.
Chairman Levin. As far as you know, have they dismantled
their plutonium production capacity?
Mr. Rumsfeld. I know that--I know what I know and I know
what I do not know, and I do not know what I do not know.
Specifically, they are world-class tunnelers. They have gone
underground across that country in a way that few other nations
have done. They have underground emplacements that have
enormous numbers of weapons.
For me to sit here, having never been there, and not being
a sufficient expert to know anyway, and say that I have high
confidence that they are doing what the agreed framework
suggested would be foolhardy. They do not have a record of
behaving well, and we know they are a secretive, closed
society, and it is perfectly possible for Americans to go
milling around there, think they see something, and it is over
there. It is a shell game with those folks.
Chairman Levin. Let me try a different question. Is it in
our interests to try to find a way to eliminate North Korea's
plutonium production capacity so they cannot build nuclear
weapons? Is it in our interest to do that?
Mr. Rumsfeld. I would broaden it. I think it is in our
interest, and our Asian allies' interests, and our
antiproliferation interest across the globe that North Korea
stop proliferating, stop threatening South Korea, and begin to
behave rationally to its people and stop having them die of
starvation.
So I guess the answer is, sure it is in our interest, but
there are a lot of things that are in our interest with respect
to North Korea, and I do not know that I would stick one ahead
of the other.
Chairman Levin. I would agree with you there are a lot of
things that are in our interest, but it is in our interest to
end the plutonium production?
Mr. Rumsfeld. You bet.
Chairman Levin. There are a lot of other things in our
interest as well, but at least you would agree that it is in
our interest?
Mr. Rumsfeld. Yes.
Chairman Levin. Senator Warner.
Senator Warner. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Just to put on our old Navy hats for a moment, and that is
the shipbuilding program in the Navy. Any reasonable analysis
of the curves in the outyears, the current projection? We are
going to be moving down precipitously close to the 300 level,
and I just think at the moment the most you can say is, again
climbing back into our purple suits so we are fair to all, we
have to address the level of naval ship construction, and we
have to do it early on. Do you not agree with me?
Mr. Rumsfeld. I agree. I think that the pressures we face
around the world with respect to bases suggest that we do need
to be able to have capabilities that are afloat.
Senator Warner. My follow-on for that, of course, is that--
and these are true stories--Presidents, when they are awakened
at night by that phone, either you on the other end or someone
else, the Secretary of State advising them of a crisis
somewhere in the world, as Senator John Stennis, the very
valued and wonderful chairman of this committee used to say,
the Presidents would always say to me, well, the first thing
that comes to mind, where is the nearest U.S. aircraft carrier?
Do you recall that?
Mr. Rumsfeld. I do indeed. Mr. Stennis was chairman when I
was last Secretary.
Senator Warner. I testified before him, as did you, many
times. We have to keep that carrier level up. We have 12 now,
one in training capacity, several in upkeep, some in transit,
four to five at max on station throughout the world, and I
would hope that you would indicate to me now that your
preliminary thinking is, we have to maintain that minimal
level, in my judgment, of that key asset of our arsenal of
deterrence.
Mr. Rumsfeld. Senator, as an ex-Navy pilot I am not unaware
of the value of aircraft carriers, but the last thing I am
going to do is start speculating about one weapons system. I
have an enormous task to gather some folks and look at the
whole picture and see that they come into a coherent whole, and
I am reluctant to start piecing things out.
Senator Warner. That is all right, my good friend. You
maintain your reluctance, and I will not have any reluctance to
continue to bring that subject up with you repeatedly from time
to time. [Laughter.]
South Korea. It is so interesting, my modest experience in
the U.S. military, and I have said this before, it did a lot
more for me than I was able to return to them on Active Duty,
but anyway, with South Korea, in the Marines in 1951. We are
still there, 50-plus years, and we have a very significant
number of our troops there.
Now, you have covered the North. Let us talk a little bit
about the South and its importance as our strong ally, and its
importance for the forward-deployment of our troops to be in
that region. I think this record should reflect some of your
views on that.
Mr. Rumsfeld. Well, I think the U.S. presence in Asia
since, essentially since the Korean War and World War II, has
been a superb investment in the sense that we have, without
question, contributed to a more stable region.
Their presence there is still useful in that regard, and I
think that--I am trying to think where I heard it or read it,
but there have been comments to the effect that in
conversations between the North and the South, both have
indicated that the U.S. presence is a useful thing, and I find
that very interesting. The rhetoric sometimes from the North is
a little different, but my impression is that realistically we
are wanted and it is a good thing for us to be there.
I also think it has been helpful from the standpoint of
Japan.
Senator Warner. I do, too, and indeed they are very
valuable allies for the security of that region out there, and
we should really touch a little bit on our valuable allies,
Australia and New Zealand, and you will undoubtedly be visiting
that region of the world, where we have had to dispense some of
our troops not long ago for a contingency situation, but they
are valued allies.
Mr. Rumsfeld. As you look at what is happening in that part
of the globe, and the periodic difficulties that the People's
Republic of China has had with its neighbors, whether it is the
Spratly Islands, or difficulties with India, difficulties with
Russia, difficulties with Vietnam, there is no question but
that Australia is a truly important nation, and it is important
to that region, it is important to us, and it seems to me that
it merits a priority from the standpoint of the United States
of America.
Senator Warner. Mr. Chairman, again, an excellent hearing.
I would yield back the balance of my time. I think our witness
has more than fulfilled our expectations, and the endurance
test he has withstood indicates he can handle that department
pretty well.
Chairman Levin. Just a few more questions. Senator
Sessions, would you like to go first?
Senator Sessions. You go ahead.
Chairman Levin. The Army has been in the process of
transforming itself into a lighter and more agile force that
can deal with the challenges posed by threats in the uncertain
future. In response to the pre-hearing questions, you stated
you would not be in a position to evaluate the Army's plans
until you have conducted a complete review of all the services'
investment programs. That review is expected to take several
months, and therefore I have the following questions.
Does your answer mean that we should not expect any changes
to the Army's transformation plans in this budget cycle?
Mr. Rumsfeld. I just do not know.
Chairman Levin. Are you open to the possibility of
reallocation of resources among the military departments, if
your review points in that direction?
Mr. Rumsfeld. It would be foolish for me to say that I was
not open to anything at this stage, because I really am coming
out of civilian life into an institution that is not easily
understood.
Senator Warner. Or managed. [Laughter.]
Chairman Levin. You have been asked a number of questions
about the U.S. and China, and I have one additional one in that
area. What approach would you take with respect to military-to-
military contacts between the United States and China? Do you
have any feelings?
Mr. Rumsfeld. We have had some, and I have been there
myself.
Chairman Levin. Do you have any feelings about continuing
or expanding those contacts?
Mr. Rumsfeld. I have not thought about it. Off the top of
my head, I have no reason to believe that they are undesirable.
Chairman Levin. Just a couple of questions to follow up
Senator Sessions' questions on the missile defense issue. I
want to read just a portion of the statement of the President
when he signed the Missile Defense Act. I think it is
important.
Mr. Rumsfeld. I would like a copy of it, if you have it.
Chairman Levin. We will provide that to you.
Before I do that, though, I want to ask you a question
again. I think you answered it clearly this morning, but given
something which was said just a little while ago, did your
report on the North Korean or on the missile threat in general
suggest anything relative to the deployment of missile
defenses?
Mr. Rumsfeld. Not that I can recall.
Chairman Levin. Now, this is just a part of the President's
statement. I am going to give you the whole thing to read after
the hearing. I am going to be putting the whole thing in the
record.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
We have been talking about two sections. One is the
``policy of the United States to deploy as soon as
technologically possible an effective national missile defense
system with funding subject to the annual authorization of
appropriations and the annual appropriation of funds for NMD.
By specifying that any NMD deployment must be subject to the
authorization and appropriations process, the legislation makes
no clear decision on the deployment has been made.'' We call
that the first point.
Mr. Rumsfeld. This is reading from his statement?
Chairman Levin. I am. This is part of what the President
said relative to the second policy that was in that National
Missile Defense Act.
Section 3 puts Congress on record as continuing to support
negotiated reductions in strategic nuclear arms, and he also
said our missile defense policy must take into account our arms
control and nuclear nonproliferation objectives. At the end he
said: ``Any NMD system we deploy must be operationally
effective, cost-effective, and enhance our security. In making
our determination, we will also review progress in achieving
our arms control objectives, including negotiating any
amendments to the ABM treaty that may be required to
accommodate a possible NMD deployment.''
I offer you an opportunity to react as to whether you
disagree with any of that. It is kind of hard, because maybe I
read too many excerpts for you to follow. In any event, do you
wish to comment now or not as to whether you have any
disagreement with that. I really would urge that you read the
President's statement after this hearing so that you are
familiar with the thinking of both the administration in
signing that act, but also the thinking of many of us--I will
not say a majority, necessarily--but many of us in supporting
that act after section 3 was added in the Senate.
It is a very important part of the history of that National
Missile Defense Act. Now, let me give you an opportunity to
comment if you want.
Mr. Rumsfeld. Well, Mr. Chairman, I will read it. As you
went through it I was trying to parse it in my mind, and
clearly, while President Clinton is President that is his view.
We have a President-elect coming in who has expressed some
views that are somewhat different from that.
Chairman Levin. I am talking about the view of the
President about the act he was signing. I do not know if the
President-elect has any different view about this act. He has
not spoken, as far as I know, on that issue. Maybe he has. But
I am talking about just what the President who signed the act
said when he signed it.
Senator Sessions, do you have anything more?
Senator Sessions. I do not.
Chairman Levin. Let me just make a very quick final
statement. First, we will include any statements in the record
by committee Members who either were not able to be here today
or who were here today but would want to expand on any
statements they made. There were a number of Members who had
other commitments. This hearing came up quickly and a number of
our Members were unable to make it, although they are occupied
in a number of instances on business that relate to this
committee's work.
Second, several Senators have indicated that they have some
questions that they would like to submit to you for the record.
We will ask for those questions, if possible, by the end of
this week. You have many things to do. I do not expect there
will be a lot, but there could be some, and I want to keep that
record open. I know Senator Thurmond asked me to keep the
record open for questions he wanted to ask. There may be others
that want to ask questions. The record will be kept open for
that purpose.
We will keep the record open at least through tomorrow. We
urge everybody to get their questions in by tomorrow, and then
urge you to respond by the end of the day next Wednesday. If
any questions come in after that, we will just give you
additional time. We do not expect there will be a lot.
We look forward to getting all of that paperwork you made
reference to.
Mr. Rumsfeld. We have it over at the other places. Before
they want to release it they want to try and massage it.
Chairman Levin. As always, there is an FBI report which we
will receive and we will review. We again want to recognize
your family for your attendance and your patience. You may not
have noticed, but the audience has significantly dwindled. What
has not dwindled is the love, affection, and support of your
family, and we thank them for that. We will now stand in recess
subject to the call of the chair. We do not expect we are going
to need another hearing, but I do not want to preclude that
possibility because we do not know what events may transpire.
We will, therefore, stand in recess subject to the call of the
chair.
We want to thank you for your testimony today. Again I
think you feel that there is broad support to move this
nomination quickly out of this committee as soon as that can
legally happen, after receipt of all the materials and after
the President-elect formally sends in your nomination after he
is inaugurated.
Senator Warner, I do not think you were here at that
moment, but I am sure that you, as our chairman-to-be, will
move expeditiously, within moments after receipt of that
official nomination on the 20th, to convene this committee.
That is going to be his call because it will be his gavel.
Senator Warner. Let us elaborate, because a lot of people
are quite interested in that. What we did last time was,
President Clinton came off the dais after the inaugural
ceremonies and went up and signed a series of documents. Among
them were the nominations of several Cabinet members.
The committees voted, and then the Senate voice-voted that
day, and in discussion with our distinguished Majority and,
indeed, Minority Leaders, I think that is their intention to do
just that, so I think we will follow the protocols that we have
had through the years, and the Good Lord willing, and your
endurance and that of your family, things should be in place
Monday afternoon.
It is important we do that, that the security team,
particularly of the President of the United States,
irrespective of the President, be in place.
I remember our old boss one time, President Nixon, I
happened to be with him one day and he said that the order of
the succession of the presidency should never be in doubt for a
minute. I remember that very well, and the same way with the
team in the National security.
So I congratulate you, I join my colleagues in
congratulating you for a very, very good hearing. Both of us
have been through hearings now for 23 years, and we put this
one at the very top. Again, you and your family have stood the
test side by side.
Chairman Levin. If this ideal process works as outlined,
the Inaugural Ball you will be going to a week from next
Saturday night will be at the Pentagon. [Laughter.]
Mr. Rumsfeld. Mr. Chairman, Senator Warner, thank you.
Chairman Levin. We stand in recess.
[The prepared statements of Senators Smith, Santorum, and
Hutchinson follow:]
Prepared Statement by Senator Bob Smith
Secretary Rumsfeld, I thank you and your family for coming before
the Senate Armed Services Committee today. I am very pleased with your
nomination. President-elect Bush has made an excellent choice to bring
you onto his national security team. I can think of no one more
qualified. You bring to the office your great experience, having held
the position of Secretary of Defense previously in the Ford
Administration. As a former White House Chief of Staff, you bring to
the office your knowledge of the challenges faced by our President. As
a former Congressman, you bring to the office a knowledge of the Hill.
You also bring to the office your experience as a highly successful
businessman. When confirmed, you will be running an organization larger
than any business in the world, an organization chartered to defend the
United States of America. Most of all, you bring to the office a great
appreciation for the two major threats this Nation will face in this
new century which I have long fought to address on this Committee and
in the Senate, namely the threat to our Nation's growing reliance on
space and the threat from missile attack.
Coincidentally, today also marks the release of the report from the
Commission to Assess United States National Security and Space
Management and Organization, more commonly known today as the Space
Commission, which I worked to create in the Fiscal Year 2000 Defense
Authorization Act. You chaired that bipartisan group composed of the
Nation's leading military space experts. The Space Commission's
findings confirmed my long-held view of the growing importance of space
to the nation and my belief that space management and organization
reforms are urgently needed as America's commercial, civil, and
military reliance on space assets expands. The Commission's
recommendations lay the foundations for what I have said may be
necessary--the eventual creation of a separate Space Force. These near-
term management and organization reforms will begin to put in place the
leadership and advocacy for space programs that have long been lacking.
The United States has shown the world the value of space in
providing information superiority on the modern battlefield. As we move
into the new century, we need to defend our space-based information
superiority, be able to deny our adversaries that same capability, and
leverage the uniqueness of space to be able to rapidly project military
force around the world. We need a strong advocate for space to fight
for and justify new space programs needed for the 21st century in
competition with many other pressing military investment requirements.
I salute your leadership on the Space Commission, and I am grateful for
the knowledge and appreciation of the issue you will bring to your new
office.
Another of your many recent activities serving the nation was your
chairing the 1998 Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to
the United States. The unanimous finding by that Commission served as a
wake-up call to the nation and set us on a course that I hope will lead
to a robust multilayered national missile defense capability in the
near term.
I thank you for your service to the nation and your willingness to
take on the daunting task of Secretary of Defense again. I look forward
to your testimony.
______
Prepared Statement by Senator Rick Santorum
Senator Levin and Senator Warner, thank you for scheduling this
hearing today. I believe it is important that this committee do all
that it can to assist the new administration on helping to address
pressing issues facing our military forces. This confirmation hearing
will help begin that process.
Members of this committee are familiar with Secretary Rumsfeld from
his service in the Legislative Branch, the Executive Branch and as a
private citizen. Based on Secretary Rumsfeld's past record of service
to this country, President-elect Bush has made a wise choice in
nominating him to be our next Secretary of Defense.
There are significant issues that the next secretary will be forced
to confront. For example, there is the issue of military readiness.
Five times, under the leadership of both Senator Thurmond and Senator
Warner, this committee has examined the status of U.S. military
readiness. To fully examine reports concerning the decline of military
readiness, the committee received the testimony of the Service Chiefs
and asked for their views on these reports.
As you are probably aware, the Department of Defense's most recent
Quarterly Readiness Report indicates that risk factors for executing
ongoing operations and responding to a Major Theater War (MTW) are
moderate, while risk for a second MTW is high. The committee also
learned that of the Army's 20 schools for critical military skills such
as field artillery, land combat and helicopter aviation, 12 have
received C-4 ratings. The most recent readiness hearing confirmed what
members of this committee suspected--that non-forward deployed forces
are being ``raided'' for resources needed to maintain the readiness
levels of our forward deployed forces.
One of the biggest challenges facing the next secretary concerns
the need to adequately fund not only our readiness accounts but also
our modernization accounts. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Airland,
I pay close attention to the modernization needs of the Services. I am
troubled by a recent CBO report which notes, at a minimum, a $50.0
billion disparity between the funds appropriated for fiscal year 2000
and the level of funding needed to sustain our defense forces in a
steady state. The largest gap identified by CBO concerns the funds
needed to modernize our military. Under a worst case scenario, CBO
identifies a gap as large as $62 billion between current funding and
the funding needed to modernize at a ``steady state.''
It will also be necessary to review and scrutinize those programs
and weapons systems currently under development. This will be
particularly important with respect to the development and procurement
costs associated with three tactical aviation programs being pursued by
the military Services. The total costs associated with developing and
procuring the F-22 Raptor, F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, and Joint Strike
Fighter will total upwards of $350 billion. It will be important to
view the affordability of these programs against the full range of
requirements facing the Department of Defense.
In addition to the financial burden associated with our TACAIR
programs, the Army has recently unveiled a new transformation
initiative. In late 1999, General Eric Shinseki announced that the Army
intended to embark on an effort to transform the Army to better respond
to today's conflicts. The transformation process includes three
elements: modernization of the current legacy force, establishment of
rapidly deployable Interim Brigade Combat Teams (IBCTs), and research
and development investments in the Objective Force.
The Fiscal Year 2001 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)
authorized $637 million for the fielding of the first IBCT, $300
million to begin fielding the second IBCT and another $200 million for
related equipment. The fiscal year 2001 NDAA also required an
acceptable form of side-by-side test against the current inventory of
armor vehicles as well as additional field trials to examine the IAV's
conventional warfare capabilities against a conventional force.
One of the concerns expressed by this committee has been a
perceived reluctance on the part of the Office of the Secretary of
Defense to support the Army's transformation effort with sufficient
resources. In order to fund the effort for fiscal year 2001, the Army
was required to terminate or restructure a number of important
programs. Congress subsequently restored many of these cuts. It is
unclear to this committee whether there are sufficient funds to support
modernization of the legacy force, fielding IBCTs and R&D efforts on
the Objective Force. It is essential that you review all aspects of the
Army's plan--fielding schedule, resourcing, testing plan, threat
assessment, acquisition plan and lift requirements--if you are
confirmed by the Senate.
An area of keen interest to this committee has been the need to
protect our critical infrastructure from being attacked or compromised
by enemies, terrorist organization or individuals.
The committee has also been interested in seeing improved
coordination between the public sector and private sector with respect
to identifying threats to our critical infrastructure and in efforts to
safeguard these important networks.
As part of the fiscal year 2001 NDAA, the committee authorized
funding for two important programs which will help address our current
weakness in addressing ``cyber threats.'' First, the committee
authorized $10.0 million for the creation of an Institute for Defense
Computer Security and Information Protection to conduct research and
technology development in the area of information assurance and to
facilitate the exchange of information regarding cyber threats,
technology, tools, and other relevant issues.
Second, the committee authorized $15.0 million to support the
establishment of a Information Security Scholarship Program. The
program would authorize the Secretary of Defense to award grants to
institutions of higher learning to establish or improve programs in
information security and to provide financial assistance to persons
pursuing a baccalaureate or advanced degree in information assurance.
The Department's support for both these efforts is vital to address
this critical problem.
The Clinton administration elected to approach this problem with a
government-sponsored entity, the Institute for Infrastructure
Information Protection. Such an approach fails to capitalize on the
abilities of our Nation's federally Funded Research and Development
Centers (FFRDCs) to disseminate information on cyber threats, promote
best practices to industry, and provide a safe meeting place for
discussions about cyber threats. I hope that you will do all you can to
tap the resources of these FFRDCs in helping to counter cyber threats.
Again, Senators Levin and Warner, thank you for convening this
hearing and I look forward to the testimony of Secretary Rumsfeld.
______
Prepared Statement by Senator Tim Hutchinson
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, Mr. Secretary, I regret
that I could not attend today's hearing. President-elect Bush's
decision to designate an individual as experienced and as capable as
Don Rumsfeld to serve as our Nation's 21st Secretary of Defense sends
an unmistakable signal that this Administration is committed to
tackling the tremendous challenge of transforming our military from the
force that defended our Nation during the Cold War to a force capable
of deterring and winning the wars of the 21st century.
While I look forward to working with the Secretary on all of the
national security-related challenges facing this great nation of ours,
I am particularly anxious to begin addressing a number of critical
personnel issues. Implementation of the Warner/Hutchinson ``TRICARE-
for-Life'' plan must proceed carefully and expeditiously. Equitable
compensation for senior enlisted members of our Armed Forces must be
restored. New programs must be developed so that the men and women who
choose to make a career of the military are able to provide college
educations to their dependents.
I am equally committed to working with the Secretary on a number of
Arkansas-specific matters. Enhancing the continuing missions of Little
Rock Air Force Base and the Pine Bluff Arsenal are two of the main
reasons that my constituents sent me to Washington, DC, and I intend to
continue to work every day to exceed their expectations.
Mr. Secretary, I have every confidence that you will be able to
satisfactorily answer all of the questions put to you by my colleagues,
and I look forward to casting my vote in favor of your nomination. Good
luck, and thank you for your continued dedication to public service.
[Whereupon, at 5:05 p.m., the committee adjourned.]
[Prepared questions submitted to Donald H. Rumsfeld by
Chairman Levin prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
January 9, 2001
The Hon. Carl Levin,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC
Dear Mr. Chairman: Enclosed herewith are the answers to the policy
questions the Senate Armed Services Committee asked me to complete.
Sincerely,
Donald H. Rumsfeld.
cc: Hon. John Warner
______
Questions and Responses
defense reforms
Question. More than 10 years have passed since the enactment of the
Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and
the Special Operations reforms. From your close association with
defense issues, you have had an opportunity to observe the
implementation and impact of those reforms.
Do you support full implementation of these defense reforms?
Answer. The establishment of the unified and specified combatant
commands, the delineation of responsibilities, and most importantly the
focus on ``jointness'' outlined in the Defense Reorganization Act of
1986 has enhanced the readiness and warfighting capabilities of the
U.S. Armed Forces.
Question. What is your view of the extent to which these defense
reforms have been implemented?
Answer. I have had no personal experience with these reforms, but
it is my understanding that these reforms have changed the way the
Department of Defense works by strengthening the role of the Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the combatant commanders, and
significantly improving the ability of the Department to protect
America's security and further its vital interests. It apparently has
helped improve the interaction among the services in conducting
military operations by making joint operations the norm.
Question. What do you consider to be the most important aspects of
these defense reforms?
Answer. The goals of Congress in enacting these reforms, as
reflected in section 3 of the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense
Reorganization Act, can be summarized as strengthening civilian
control; improving military advice; placing a clear responsibility on
the combatant commanders for the accomplishment of their missions;
ensuring the authority of the combatant commanders is commensurate with
their responsibility; increasing attention to the formulation of
strategy and to contingency planning; providing for more efficient use
of defense resources; enhancing the effectiveness of military
operations; and improving the management and administration of the
Department of Defense.
Question. Do you agree with these goals?
Answer. Yes, I support the goals of Congress in enacting the
reforms of the Goldwater-Nichols legislation. But it must be said that
they represent a tall order.
Question. Do you anticipate submitting legislative proposals to
amend Goldwater-Nichols?
Answer. If confirmed as Secretary of Defense, I will review the
extent to which the reforms have been implemented to assess the extent
to which they have achieved the stated goals. I would consult with
Congress on any changes that might be appropriate.
Question. If so, what areas do you plan to address in these
proposals?
Answer. It would be premature to offer any thoughts at this time.
duties
Question. Section 113 of Title 10, United States Code, provides
that the Secretary of Defense is the principal assistant to the
President in all matters relating to the Department of Defense. Subject
to the direction of the President, and the law, he has authority,
direction and control over the Department of Defense.
Do you believe there are actions you need to take to enhance your
ability to perform the duties of the Secretary of Defense?
Answer. I suspect there are, but I am not in a position to comment
today. If I determine that additional authorities are needed in this
regard, I will propose such changes.
Question. Do you believe that you can provide advice to the
President, or the NSC, in disagreement with or in addition to the
advice of the Chairman without jeopardizing your relationship with
General Shelton?
Answer. Yes without question. The relationship between the
Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is
important. I have had highly constructive relationships in the past
and, if confirmed, I believe we both will be able to effectively
fulfill our responsibilities in support of the President.
chain of command
Question. Section 162(b) of Title 10, United States Code, provides
that the chain of command runs from the President to the Secretary of
Defense and from the Secretary of Defense to the combatant commands.
Section 163(a) of Title 10 further provides that the President may
direct communications to combatant commanders be transmitted through
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and may assign duties to the
Chairman to assist the President and Secretary in performing their
command function.
Do you believe that these provisions facilitate a clear and
effective chain of command?
Answer. I do not know. I assume it does. I will be interested to
see how it works in practice.
Question. Do these provisions enhance or degrade civilian control
of the military?
Answer. I would have to work with them to know.
priorities
Question. What broad priorities will you establish in terms of
issues which must be addressed by the Department of Defense?
Answer. Our responsibility will be to take the lead in fulfilling
President-elect Bush's commitments as set forth in my opening statement
to the committee. I will insist that the Department cooperate with
Congress and with the defense oversight committees. To the American
people, I pledge every effort to foster special concern for those who
have volunteered to serve in uniform--including the guard and reserve
as well as the active forces--and to achieve careful management of
their tax dollars. For America's Armed Forces, I will do all in my
power to give our military men and women every advantage in fulfilling
their difficult missions.
Regarding more specific priorities or objectives, I will work to:
1. Fashion and sustain deterrence appropriate to the new
national security environment;
2. Ensure the readiness and sustainability of deployed forces;
3. Transform U.S. military forces from a Cold War-oriented
force to a 21st century force capable of deterring and
defeating new threats;
4. Modernize the intelligence and command-control-
communications-infrastructure and secure our space assets given
the growing dependence on those assets and their
vulnerabilities; and
5. Reform DOD structures, processes, and organizations.
u.s. defense strategy
Question. The essence of present U.S. defense strategy, as
articulated in the Secretary of Defense's Annual Report to the
President and Congress, is defined as consisting of three elements--
shaping, responding, and preparing.
Do you agree with that defense strategy?
Answer. See response below.
Question. If not, what defense strategy would you substitute for
it?
Answer. Determining what an appropriate defense strategy should be
is one of the most important issues that will need to be addressed by
the Department. From defense strategy flows policies, programs, and
resource requirements. The U.S. must have a national security strategy
that seeks to advance U.S. national interests and to have a positive
impact on world events without the need to resort to armed force. It is
important that we shape and prepare the Armed Forces to respond to
whatever national security challenges may confront us--this is the
essence of deterrence. External events sometimes are outside our
control. Therefore, we must ensure that the military has the tools it
needs to fight and win, should that be necessary.
If confirmed, the defense strategy would recognize that peace is
best preserved when the U.S. remains strong. By providing for a
military that is second-to-none and equipped to meet the newer
challenges of the 21st century, I believe we can best ensure a peaceful
strategic environment that advances U.S. national security interests
and those of our friends and allies.
quadrennial defense review
Question. The Quadrennial Defense Review is required to be
submitted to Congress by September 30, 2001.
Will that deadline provide sufficient time for the new
administration to develop required changes to national security
strategy on which the Quadrennial Defense Review will be based?
Answer. No I do not believe it will. We intend to undertake a
comprehensive review of strategy, forces, and capabilities as
prescribed by law and will consult with Congress should the deadline
prove to be overly burdensome.
Question. How will you keep the committees of jurisdiction informed
during the conduct of the QDR?
Answer. I do not know precisely but I will consult with
congressional leadership and request staff to keep the committees
appropriately informed as the review progresses.
Question. During the past decade, the military departments have
been reduced significantly, both in terms of force structure and
resources, in response to the perceived post-Cold War security
environment. During the same period, the various Defense Agencies have
grown considerably--a prudent investment in some eyes, but a
questionable investment to others.
How will you include the Defense Agencies in the overall QDR
process?
Answer. If confirmed, the Department will undertake a comprehensive
review of our strategy, forces, and capabilities that addresses all
elements of the Department.
Question. Do you envision a separate process to review the Defense
Agencies, apart from the review of the military departments?
Answer. I have not considered the shape of the review process.
hart-rudman commission. the 21st century national security study group
Question. The Hart-Rudman Commission, the 21st Century National
Security Study Group Phase 3 report is scheduled to be completed by
February 2001 to recommend alternatives to the current national
security apparatus and suggest ways to implement the proposed national
security strategy.
What process and organization do you intend to use to review the
report and do you intend to use the results to influence the
Quadrennial Defense Review?
Answer. The U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century,
commonly known as the Hart-Rudman Commission, is composed of a group of
prominent Americans drawn from all sectors of society, well suited to
examine American national security in the 21st century. I fully expect
the commission's phase 3 report to stimulate significant thought and
discussion inside and outside of government and contribute to the
ongoing national security debate and the new administration's defense
review.
two major theater wars requirement
Question. The present requirement to have the capability to fight
and win two major theater wars in overlapping time frames is extremely
demanding. Some argue that as long as that requirement exists, our
Armed Forces will have to be sized in such a way as to address the
least likely contingency with short shrift given to any preparation for
other lesser contingencies and for emerging threats.
Do you believe the two major theater wars requirement should be
maintained?
Answer. Modern history suggests that the U.S. has often faced more
than one security contingency at a time. With that history in mind,
preparations are appropriate. The manner in which the U.S. responds to
two near-simultaneous contingencies is an issue of military strategy
and operations and the adequacy of available resources at the time.
This issue should be examined in the upcoming strategy review.
Question. If so, how do you respond to the above argument?
Answer. The consequences of not being prepared to fulfill the
military's primary mission of deterring war and winning war if
deterrence fails would be devastating. The U.S. military must also be
able to deal with emerging threats. If confirmed, I will work to
restructure our military to meet 21st century threats.
strategic pause
Question. Some have argued for taking a strategic pause now in
modernization programs, accepting some modest risk in the near-term
when we have no peer competitor, while making more fundamental shifts
for dealing with challenges we will face in the future. During the
campaign, President-elect Bush endorsed skipping procurement of a
generation of weapons systems.
What is your view on this issue and, if confirmed, how would you
proceed in implementing your view?
Answer. We cannot allow the effectiveness of our military forces to
degrade while we are modernizing and transforming. The U.S. military
needs to get on a new path that will permit the rapid introduction of
advanced technology that can materially increase military effectiveness
and decrease the cost of operating and maintaining those forces. The
cost of maintaining Cold War era equipment and its associated
infrastructure and the steep reduction in modernization funding since
the end of the Cold War has produced long-term modernization problems
that must be addressed. If confirmed, I will conduct a comprehensive
review of our military structure, strategy and procurement priorities,
as promised by President-elect Bush. This review should help to
determine how best to modernize the U.S. military to deal with future
challenges.
when to use military force
Question. The question as to whether and when U.S. forces should
participate in potentially dangerous situations, including peace
enforcement operations, is one of the most important and difficult
decisions that the national command authorities have to make. Prior
Secretaries of Defense and Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have
proposed criteria to guide decision making for such situations.
What is your criteria for such situations?
Answer. The use of military force is one of the most important
decisions a President can take. If confirmed, I would work closely with
the President and his senior advisors to develop appropriate policies
to guide the use of our military forces in peacetime, crisis, and war.
Question. If you have not developed such criteria, what are the
factors that you believe are most important with regard to such
decisions?
Answer. My general views are these: A decision to use military
force, whether unilaterally or in coalition with other nations, should
reflect important U.S. national security interests. The U.S. structure
of alliances and its diplomatic ability to build informal, but
effective regional coalitions provides the President with a variety of
options to bring military power to bear in a specific situation where
U.S. interests are involved. U.S. military forces can best be used when
the military mission is clear and achievable and when there is a
reasonable exit strategy. I look forward to working the President and
his national security team on the details of this important question in
the weeks ahead.
participation in peacekeeping
Question. Some have taken the position that the United States
should not generally participate in peacekeeping in view of the
negative impact that such activities have on certain warfighting
skills, and the fact that the U.S. Armed Forces' primary mission is
fighting and winning our Nation's wars. Others have taken the position
that participation in peacekeeping operations is in our Nation's
interest and strengthens U.S. leadership and that such actually
improves certain warfighting skills, such as leadership skills.
What is your view on the participation of U.S. forces in
peacekeeping operations?
Answer. Clear criteria for the use of U.S. military forces should
be established prior to U.S. participation in specific peacekeeping
operations. There should be clear objectives, a coherent strategy to
achieve them, a reasonable chance of success, acceptable command and
control arrangements, and an exit strategy. When the main burden of the
U.S. presence shifts to infrastructure and nation-building, however, we
are into missions that are not appropriate for the U.S. military.
jointness
Question. It became apparent during this year's debate on defense
needs that our military deployments have increased dramatically in the
past decade at the same time our force structure and resources have
declined, increasing the tempo on our military personnel and equipment.
To the consternation of many, including members of this committee, we
seem to encounter the same significant problems with meaningful joint
operations and interoperability of our Armed Forces during each
significant military operation. Most notably, the armed services
continue to be hampered by communications systems, information
management systems, and other capabilities that are often not
interoperable and sometimes redundant. This committee has expended
considerable time on these issues, but continues to observe problems in
the development and fielding of interoperable systems and concepts.
How do you propose to remedy these recurring shortcomings?
Answer. Interoperability among our forces is an issue which I
believe demands immediate attention. Interoperability should be
addressed as new systems are conceived, not simply after they are
fielded. I believe we should devote significant efforts to solving the
warfighter's problems in the field as identified by the CINCs,
including from experiences in Kosovo, Bosnia, and Desert Storm.
Question. In your opinion, do our experimentation, requirements
generation, and acquisition processes need significant reform? If so,
how would you propose to reform these processes?
Answer. If confirmed, I will undertake a review of these processes,
with a special emphasis on innovation and streamlining, and will report
the results of that review to Congress. My current impression is that
the process is mired in unrealistic requirements that unnecessarily
delay the time from concept to deployment at a time when technology is
leaping ahead. Because of the lengthy acquisition process and the rapid
advances in technology, we may have driven ourselves into a position
that is guaranteed to produce technologically obsolete equipment the
day it is deployed.
national security
Question. Most agree the most significant near-term threat to our
national security is not from a military peer competitor, but from
transnational, ideological groups that may attempt to employ some type
of weapon of mass destruction within the United States.
How would you assess our preparedness to respond to such a
situation?
Answer. I am advised that the U.S. government is spending more than
$11 billion to deal with terrorist threats that might be posed by
transnational or ideological terrorists, including the use of weapons
of mass destruction. While some impressive results have been achieved
from this considerable effort, my preliminary impression is that more
remains to be done, particularly with respect to the role of the
Department in providing for homeland defense as well as for defense of
U.S. facilities overseas.
Question. What adjustments would you recommend, if confirmed, to
our national security mechanisms to ensure the collective, accountable
cooperation of all appropriate agencies?
Answer. I am not prepared at this time to recommend adjustments.
While the response to the transnational terrorist threat to the U.S.
has been well supported the distribution of resources, programs, and
leadership over numerous Federal agencies has posed significant
coordination problems. Greater coordination and interagency leadership
is needed to assure an effective U.S. government response to this
threat.
Two areas of particular interest to me are space and intelligence.
Each would benefit from more senior level leadership and closer
coordination between the Secretary of Defense and the DCI.
transformation
Question. The December 1997 Report of the National Defense Panel,
titled ``Transforming Defense: National Security in the 21st Century,''
contained the following statements: ``The Defense Department should
accord the highest priority to executing a transformation strategy.
Taking the wrong transformation course (or failing to transform) opens
the nation to both strategic and technological surprise. Transformation
will take dedication and commitment--and a willingness to put talented
people, money, resources, and structure behind a process designed to
foster change. Greater emphasis should be placed on experimenting with
a variety of military systems, operational concepts, and force
structures. The goal is to identify the means to meet the emerging
challenges, exploit the opportunities, and terminate those approaches
that do not succeed.'' And: ``At the core of the effort should be a
much greater emphasis on jointness, building upon the legacy of
Goldwater-Nichols.''
Do you agree that there is a need to transform the U.S. Armed
Forces into a very different kind of military from that which exists
today?
Answer. Yes. Our current force structure will be sorely challenged
by asymmetric threats and the growing ability of both state and non-
state actors to deny access to critical forward bases and lines of
communication. We have the opportunity now to critically evaluate both
our force structure as well as how we organize and employ our forces.
Lessons learned from previous operations suggest the need for
improvement in the areas of intelligence, rapid deployment and
employment, decisive operations across the spectrum of conflict,
streamlining of logistics, and improvements in the C\4\ISR capabilities
and architectures.
Question. Do you agree that experimentation, particularly joint
experimentation, is essential to successfully achieving such a
transformation?
Answer. Yes. Joint experimentation is essential in ensuring that
operations, doctrine-related activities, and acquisition are more fully
explored from inception to delivery/implementation. Our concept should
be to field systems and develop capabilities that are ``born joint.''
An essential step in helping to ensure that new capabilities are ``born
joint'' and work is through experimentation. We must avoid radios
usable by only one service, service-specific software, and procedures
that are peculiar to one community or service. Transformation involves
more than merely new weapons systems. Rather, it is a process of
reorganization and reform that can best be validated through joint
experimentation.
Question. Over the last year, we have seen the Army begin a process
to transform the service into a force that will be able to deal with a
wide range of anticipated 21st century national security challenges.
The Navy and Air Force have also begun to explore opportunities to
initiate transformation processes to keep current with evolving defense
challenges. These efforts demonstrate a recognition that fundamental
change is necessary if they are to remain viable over the next 20-30
years.
Are you at all concerned that these initiatives appear to be ``self
defined'' by the services without direct participation of the Secretary
of Defense or the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff?
Answer. I am told that a structure is in place in which JFCOM was
designated the lead for joint force integration and for joint force
training. While I am not familiar with it, I intend to assess the
effectiveness of the current arrangement.
Question. Should the Department of Defense play a role in steering
or guiding individual service efforts? If so, how?
Answer. Yes. Service initiative is invaluable. However, if forces
are to fight jointly in the field, transformation must be conducted as
a joint endeavor. Only then can the Services' specific cultures and
capabilities likely to be forged into a joint cooperative endeavor.
army transformation
Question. The Army has begun a process for transforming itself into
a lighter, more agile force that will be able to deal with the
challenges posed by threats in an uncertain future.
Do you believe that the Department should support the Army's
current transformation plan even if it means diverting resources from
other Services' investment programs to pay for it?
Answer. I cannot answer this without an analysis of all the
Services' investment programs. But I can say this: I believe that the
Secretary of Defense should seek an allocation of resources that is
best for the overall defense posture--that gives priority to funding
the most pressing requirements. The transformation of our Armed Forces
will be a high priority. But before recommending major changes in the
allocation of investment funding--which Congress has recently
approved--I intend to assess what new capabilities are being sought and
the soundness of programs advancing those capabilities and their impact
on deterrence and warfighting capabilities.
Question. What is your view of the appropriate role that
experimentation, including joint experimentation, should play in
directing the Army's efforts in modernizing the legacy force, fielding
an interim force, and developing the objective force?
Answer. Army Transformation must be coherent with evolving joint
operational doctrine, and that doctrine will only emerge through joint
experimentation. I see experimentation playing an important role. But
let me be clear: experimentation will yield changes in course, exhibit
failures of expectations, or even reveal past mistakes. We must be
careful to learn from experimentation, and acknowledge the risks it
reveals.
Question. Do you believe that the current Air Force and Navy
strategic mobility programs will support the Army's transformation
goals for strategic agility? If not, what changes do you believe should
be made in those programs?
Answer. My preliminary impression is that we need to make
improvements in our strategic mobility capability. As we transform the
forces, we will need an appropriate strategic sea/airlift fleet.
budget priorities
Question. During the 106th Congress, both Congress and the
administration placed the highest priority on increasing pay and
compensation for military personnel and health care benefits for
retirees, and on improving housing for military families.
If you are confirmed, what will be your highest priorities for
increased funding over and above financing the unfunded cost of these
previously enacted benefit increases?
Answer. First, preserving the high quality of our military
personnel and restoring their morale. We need to spend what is needed
to compensate military people fairly and ensure a competitive quality
of life for them and their families. In this tight U.S. labor market
for highly-skilled professionals, we must spend enough to attract and
retain people with the skills required for the technically
sophisticated Armed Forces. Also important is good military health
care, housing, and other quality of life contributors. I would review
the progress made in recent years and decide if further improvements
are needed. President-elect Bush has signaled that taking care of our
military people is a top priority with his pledge to increase pay for
the Armed Forces. Second, readiness. I would look for areas where
increased funding is needed for training, maintenance, and other
readiness essentials--there are also important quality of life
considerations. I also would consider actions to prevent indirect
threats to readiness--that is, to prevent funding shortfalls that could
result in funds being diverted from readiness accounts. Third, future
capabilities--focused on ballistic missile defense and modernization of
air, sea, land, intelligence, and space capabilities. These areas are
complex, and I will likely not complete an assessment of where best to
put added funding until the defense review is completed. I hope to have
identified some immediate funding needs in time to include in the
fiscal year 2002 budget submission, and possibly in a fiscal year 2001
supplemental.
Question. As Secretary you would be called on to make tough
decisions in many areas, one of which would be funding priorities. What
areas in the defense budget represent your highest priorities for
additional resources?
Answer. Again, the highest priorities would be people, readiness,
and future capabilities. It is important to ensure that we are taking
good care of our people, both now and for the future; and to seek the
proper balance between current readiness and investment in the high-
tech capabilities to ensure our future superiority in all security
realms--with special attention to the threats of this post-Cold War
period. Over the past few years I have been focused on the issues of
ballistic missile defense, America's security posture in space, and
intelligence. If confirmed, these would certainly be high priorities.
Question. There are an increasing number of studies from outside
the administration, in addition to the Joint Chiefs, which indicate
that current and projected levels of defense spending will be
inadequate to meet U.S. national security requirements as they are
currently stated.
What is your view of these and other studies, and will you seek
additional funding for defense?
Answer. I agree with the conclusion that projected defense spending
levels are inadequate to meet U.S. national security requirements as
they are currently stated. President-elect Bush has expressed the same
conclusion. If confirmed I would direct a study to specify exactly
where inadequacies lie, where savings could be achieved to help address
those inadequacies, and what additional funding may be required.
readiness for most likely military operations
Question. The Army has been exploring changes to the way readiness
is measured due in part to confusion in some recent deployments where
units were assessing themselves and reporting against one set of
requirements while they were undertaking a different mission at the
time.
Do you believe the readiness reporting system should be made more
comprehensive so that it measures our units not only against the most
demanding requirements contained in the national military strategy but
also assesses the performance of those units in the real world missions
directed by the national command authorities?
Answer. The question ``ready to do what?'' is a good one. The
current system centers on our readiness for high intensity combat
operations, such as a major theater war, and provides broad indicators
of readiness status ranging from personnel to equipment. I understand
that planning is underway for a number of improvements to the existing
reporting system, in both the near and longer term.
Question. Over the last few years many have agreed that we have
seen increasing evidence that the readiness of the U.S. Armed Forces
has begun to deteriorate as a result of the over-commitment of an
under-resourced Department of Defense.
What do you view as the major readiness challenges that will have
to be addressed by the Bush administration, and, if confirmed, how will
you approach these issues?
Answer. There are a number of readiness challenges that must be
addressed. These include the classic ``unit readiness'' concerns of
robust manning, functioning equipment, and realistic training.
Warfighting commanders have to have the assets to synchronize and use
their units in effective joint and coalition forces. National Guard and
Reserves have a number of unique challenges in meeting their mission
requirements upon deployment that require immediate address.
Some of the more pressing concerns lie in the condition of
equipment, or more broadly, the materiel readiness of the forces.
Problems include higher-than-planned use, inadequate spare parts
inventories, and recruiting and retaining highly skilled personnel.
Joint readiness requires effective command, control,
communications, and computer (C\4\) systems; robust intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) systems; sufficient lift to
mobilize forces and equipment; and healthy logistics practices and
sustainment stocks. The U.S. needs to be better prepared for the
growing threats posed by terrorism, weapons of mass destruction (WMD),
threats to critical information and other infrastructure systems, and
vulnerable space assets. As we review our National Military Strategy in
the Quadrennial Defense Review, these concerns must be addressed.
encroachment
Question. Some of the most significant issues that will impact the
readiness of the Armed Forces as we enter the 21st century could be
categorized as outside encroachment upon military resources. This
encroachment includes environmental constraints on military training
ranges, local community efforts to obtain military property, airspace
restrictions to accommodate civilian airlines, transfer of radio
frequency spectrum from the Department of Defense to the wireless
communications industry, and many others. Unless these issues are
effectively addressed our military forces will find it increasingly
difficult to train and operate at home and abroad.
In your opinion, how serious are these problems?
Answer. This is an important issue. The myriad forms of
encroachment ranges face threaten to complicate and in some cases
severely restrict the ability to conduct critical training. The number
of external pressures is increasing and the readiness impacts are
growing. We need to address these issues in a more comprehensive and
systematic fashion. It will be important to work with regulators,
special interests, other federal agencies, and communities to more
clearly define the issues from all viewpoints. We must anticipate
pressures and reach acceptable, timely solutions, whenever possible. We
will also need to address the issues raised by the transfer of radio
frequency spectrum from DOD to the wireless communications industry.
Question. If confirmed, what efforts will you take to ensure that
military access to these specific, and other required resources, will
be preserved?
Answer. The Department's approach should be comprehensive and
balanced, supporting test and training and operational requirements,
while seeking to protect the natural environment and operating within a
balanced regulatory framework. Modernizing instrumentation is central
to efforts to make DOD ranges sustainable. Live training is expensive.
Improved range instrumentation can increase the return on investment
by: expanding the battle space and creating a more realistic warfare
environment; providing improved learning by better feedback; and
reducing the impact on the environment by substituting simulated
engagements. All Services are experiencing deterioration of training
range infrastructure, which will require recapitalization. I am advised
that the Senior Readiness Oversight Council recently directed a broad-
based effort to counter encroachment and protect the future capability
of ranges to support required training and testing. The goal is to
maintain fully sustainable ranges. A comprehensive approach is needed
to satisfy both readiness needs and the legal and moral
responsibilities as stewards of public lands.
outsourcing of commercial activities
Question. Over the past several years the Department of Defense has
increased its reliance upon the private sector to perform certain
activities including equipment maintenance and facility operations.
Some have supported this effort while others have expressed concern
that core activities are being jeopardized by reducing our reliance
upon military personnel and civilian employees of the Federal
Government.
What approach would you recommend to balance maintaining military
necessary capabilities and outsourcing?
Answer. The size and composition of DOD's facilities to perform
equipment maintenance is an important aspect of the overall readiness
of the Armed Forces. The appropriate balance between government and
private sector facilities must be struck in a manner that assures the
equipment employed by the Armed Forces will be ready for use when
needed. This balance in turn will be affected over time by the nature
of the technology used in military equipment. A balance will be
reviewed to assure that capabilities essential to national defense that
cannot reliably be provided by the private sector will be provided by
the government sector. Moreover, critical capabilities will be
maintained in the government sector.
counter-narcotics
Question. The U.S. Government has initiated a massive assistance
program to the Government of Colombia to regain control of its
territory in an effort to stem the production of cocaine and other
narcotics that are sent to the United States. The Department of Defense
is playing a particularly significant role in this program by training
and providing resources to the Colombian Armed Forces. This program,
Plan Colombia, has come under criticism as expensive and misdirected
and, some allege, will contribute to the abuse of human rights and lead
the U.S. military into ``another Vietnam.''
What is your view with regard to Plan Colombia--its potential for
success and the appropriate role of the U.S. Armed Forces?
Answer. I have less than well-informed personal views which I
prefer to discuss with the appropriate officials before taking a public
position.
combating terrorism
Question. The Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2001 (sec. 901) requires the Secretary of Defense to
designate an Assistant Secretary as the individual responsible for
providing ``overall direction and supervision for policy, program
planning and execution, and allocation and use of resources for the
activities of the Department of Defense for combating terrorism.''
If confirmed, what are your plans for implementing this legislation
and any other plans you have for streamlining and providing more focus
on the Department's combating terrorism programs?
Answer. I am aware of the Section 901 language requiring the
designation of an Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Department's
combating terrorism activities. I share the committee's concerns with
providing an appropriate focus for combating terrorism. If confirmed, I
would hope to review the current organizational structure. I would of
course inform Congress as implementing decisions are made.
Question. In recent years, there have been numerous congressional
proposals to establish a National Coordinator for Combating Domestic
Terrorism. The proposals have ranged from establishing a position
similar to the current ``Drug Czar'' to creating a Deputy Attorney
General for Combating Domestic Terrorism.
Would you have concerns with such an individual having budgetary
and policy responsibilities over certain Department of Defense
combating terrorism programs?
Answer. The many activities associated with combating terrorism,
domestically and internationally, need to be coordinated. Combating
terrorism is a complex issue involving the expertise and statutory
authorities of many departments and agencies. I would be concerned with
proposals that could limit the Department's ability to fulfill its
responsibilities. I would need to know more than I do now to have
conclusions about such proposals and provide the committee with my
appraisal.
Question. Do you have any suggestions as to what type of a
position, and its responsibilities, should be established to better
coordinate our Nation's combating domestic terrorism efforts?
Answer. I would need some time to be prepared to make a
recommendation.
tactical fighter programs
Question. Perhaps the largest modernization effort that we will
face over the next several years is the set of programs to modernize
our tactical aviation forces, including the F-22, the F/A-18E/F, and
the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). The Congressional Budget Office has
estimated that these three programs will consume over $300 billion of
our investment resources over the next 20 years. Some have said that we
need to cancel or truncate one or more of these programs in order to
afford other high priority modernization efforts, such as Army
transformation, or recapitalizing the Navy's fleet.
What are your views on the requirements for and timing of these
three programs?
Answer. The modernization of U.S. tactical fighter programs is of
immense importance to the maintenance of U.S. military superiority. It
is costly, and deserves a careful review. The requirements and timing
of the tactical fighter programs will be a subject in the defense
review.
b-2 bombers
Question. Do you favor restarting production of B-2 bombers?
Answer. Long-range bombers are a crucial national military
capability providing timely worldwide reach to American military power.
As is the case with tactical fighters, the bomber modernization
requirement needs to be reviewed in the forthcoming defense review.
Before such a decision could be made, one would have to look at the
overall cost and the impact on other programs, and how that cost would
compare to fielding other weapon delivery systems, including stand-off
missiles that could perform or contribute to the same or similar
missions. One would also likely look at whether more B-2s would be more
effective than additional upgrades and improvements to the current
bomber force structure of B-2, B-1, and B-52 aircraft.
v-22 program
Question. Do you believe that the V-22 program should move to full
rate production now, should substantial additional operational testing
be conducted, or is the Department pursuing a flawed program for which
another alternative should be adopted?
Answer. The two recent crashes of the V-22 which have resulted in
loss of life are disturbing. I have read that the Department is
reviewing the program in light of these incidents. I have no
conclusions at this time.
strateic lift
Question. One of the shortfalls most consistently identified by
Commanders-in-Chief in written and oral testimony has been in the area
of the required strategic lift to support the National Military
Strategy. Study after study has confirmed this shortfall, yet the
shortfall remains.
What steps would you propose to address this deficiency?
Answer. Strategic lift is a key element of U.S. military power
because of our dependence on the ability to conduct expeditionary
campaigns to defend U.S. interests and those of our friends and allies.
Depending on the airlift requirement established, there are several
options to be considered. The question of strategic lift will need to
be addressed in the defense review.
nato expansion
Question. The United States will face a decision on the addition of
new members to the NATO Alliance by the 2002 NATO summit meeting.
What are your views on continued NATO expansion?
Answer. As former Ambassador to NATO, I have great respect for the
value of the NATO Alliance. It has been the key instrument in keeping
the peace in Europe for over 50 years. The key factor in considering
future NATO expansion is whether or not expansion will enhance U.S. and
NATO security. I believe it is important that the broadening of NATO
membership preserve the alliance's capacity for effective collective
action. This suggests that new members should share the democratic
values of the alliance and be prepared to make the necessary
investments in the creation and maintenance of effective and
interoperable military forces.
It is my understanding that Allied leaders agreed to ``review'' the
issue of enlargement at their next summit, to be held no later than
2002. This is an issue that will need to be addressed by the President
and his national security team.
review of overseas military deployments
Question. In an address to the Citadel in September 1999, then-
Governor Bush said that he would order an immediate review of U.S.
overseas military deployments worldwide. According to the Governor,
``the problem comes with open-ended deployments and unclear military
missions.''
In conducting this review, what factors will you use to determine
continued U.S. military participation in on going overseas deployments?
Answer. A decision to employ U.S. military forces in support of our
national interests is one that should never be taken lightly. Likewise
the decision to sustain, reduce, or end the commitment of U.S. forces
to on-going operations must be informed by careful assessment and
deliberation. If confirmed, I will assist the President and his senior
advisors in reviewing these matters, preferably in a way that does not
create unnecessary uncertainties and difficulties for those responsible
for managing such operations.
european security and defense policy
Question. The European Union (EU) is working to implement its
European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP) to enable the EU to take
decisions and, where NATO as a whole is not engaged, to launch and
conduct EU-led military operations in response to international crises.
Secretary Cohen recently warned our European allies that NATO could
become ``a relic of the past'' if ESDP is not implemented in a way that
will strengthen the NATO Alliance. Members of Congress have expressed
similar concerns.
What are your views on the EU's ESDP?
Answer. I share these concerns. A free and democratic Europe is a
vital security interest for the United States. The transatlantic
alliance has proven to be the most effective instrument of collective
military action in history. Coming at a time of historically low levels
of investment and public interest in defense matters in Europe, the
ESDP could pose a resource-diversion risk to NATO, and in doing so,
undermine the ability of NATO to undertake effective collective
defense. The U.S. and our NATO allies need to assure that any ESDP
would not diminish the effectiveness of the NATO alliance.
Question. What actions do you believe the EU should take in
implementing ESDP to address the concerns expressed by Secretary Cohen
and others?
Answer. The task is to preserve the integrity of NATO as the
primary instrument of transatlantic security. It will take active U.S.
leadership at both the bilateral and multilateral levels to ensure that
any ESDP does not diminish the effectiveness of the NATO alliance.
Question. Do you believe that ESDP is, or could be, a threat to the
NATO Alliance?
Answer. It could, potentially. But we need to work with our allies
to make sure that it does not.
international criminal court
Question. The United States signed the Rome Treaty on the
International Criminal Court on December 31, 2000, the deadline
established in the Treaty. The decision to sign, despite concerns about
significant flaws in the Treaty, was to put the United States in a
position to influence the evolution of the Court.
What are your views on the Rome Treaty?
Answer. I oppose the Treaty. The Rome Statute has deficiencies that
expose U.S. personnel to certain risks. We must be concerned about the
exposure of U.S. personnel to politically motivated prosecution. I
favor rejecting the assertion of the ICC's purported jurisdiction over
non-party states.
Question. The Pentagon has been very concerned that the court could
claim jurisdiction over American service members and officials, even if
the U.S. has not ratified the treaty.
Do you share those concerns with regards to the ICC?
Answer. Yes. See my comments above.
national missile defense
Question. President-elect Bush has stated his support for deploying
a robust National Missile Defense (NMD) system ``at the earliest
possible date'' to protect the United States and its allies.
Will you only consider deploying the NMD system currently under
development, or will you consider alternative systems and architectures
for deployment?
Answer. I believe it would be good to examine alternative and
complementary architectures to the NMD system currently under
development. In doing so, a number of factors would need to be
considered, including the urgency of the ballistic missile threat to
the United States, U.S. forces deployed overseas, and our friends and
allies, as well as the technical feasibility, cost, and deployment
schedule for potential alternatives.
Question. If you consider alternatives, they are likely to take
longer to develop, test, and deploy than the system currently under
development, perhaps considerably longer.
Are you willing to wait until after 2010 to deploy a system if its
development takes that long, or will you only consider systems that can
be deployed during this decade?
Answer. President-elect Bush is committed to deployment of an
effective NMD at the earliest possible date. This commitment is based
on the need to protect the American people against long-range missile
threats that can evolve rapidly and with little or no warning. I agree.
However, this does not mean we will foreclose alternatives that could
be deployed after 2010, particularly if they can provide increased
effectiveness or would address uncertainties in the evolution of the
long range missile threat
Question. The Bush administration and the Clinton administration
both pursued development of a limited NMD system to defend against
limited attacks. Then-Governor Bush wrote in May 2000, of the need for
missile defense against ``missile attacks by rogue nations or
accidental launches.''
Will you pursue an NMD system designed to defend against such
limited attacks, or will you pursue an NMD system designed to defend
against all Russian and Chinese ballistic missile systems?
Answer. If confirmed, I would plan to review the various
alternatives to defend us and our allies against ballistic missile
attacks by rogue nations as well as accidental or unauthorized
launches.
Question. The Clinton administration adopted four criteria for
determining whether to deploy an NMD system: (1) the existence of a
threat that warrants deployment; (2) an NMD system that is
operationally effective; (3) an NMD system that is affordable and cost-
effective; and (4) an assessment of the impact of deployment on our
relations with other nations and on nuclear arms control and non-
proliferation efforts. The overall focus of these criteria was to
determine whether deployment would make the United States more or less
secure.
What will be your criteria for determining whether deploying an NMD
system will make us more or less secure?
Answer. The incoming administration has not issued a specific set
of criteria. However, the President-elect has stated his support of the
deployment of an NMD system as soon as possible. This is founded in a
belief that an effective NMD systems will make us more secure.
Question. Since you chaired the Commission to Assess the Ballistic
Missile Threat to the United States in 1998, have your judgments
changed regarding the nature and scope of the ballistic missile threat?
Answer. No. The threat to the U.S. posed by emerging ballistic
missile capabilities is broader, more mature, and evolving more rapidly
than had been previously estimated.
Question. The current NMD program being developed by DOD is focused
on the deployment of a single ground-based site in Alaska in the 2005-
2007 timeframe. Some have advocated either substituting a sea-based NMD
system for the ground-based program or adding sea-based systems as
adjuncts to the ground-based system.
What role do you believe sea-based systems might have in a future
NMD architecture?
Answer. I am aware that sea-based systems could play an important
role in defending against ballistic missile threats. I further
understand that the Department has prepared a classified study of the
possible contributions of sea-based systems to National Missile
Defense. If confirmed I will review that study and make recommendations
to the President, as appropriate.
theater missile defense
Question. Theater ballistic missile threats exist today and are
growing. There are currently five U.S. theater missile defense (TMD)
systems under development for deployment against these existing and
growing threats.
What priority will you give to theater missile defense and how will
it compare to National Missile Defense?
Answer. In light of the widespread deployment of ballistic missiles
today, I believe it is imperative that the Department develop, test,
procure, and deploy TMD systems. Given the simultaneous emergence of
the long-range ballistic missile threat to the United States, it is
essential that the Department give equal priority to developing and
procuring an effective NMD as well.
Question. Will you continue the ``family of systems'' approach of
layered and complementary TMD systems currently being developed, or
will you change the approach to TMD? If you would change the approach,
what manner of change would you propose?
Answer. It is my understanding that the concept of layered defense
has been adopted because a single TMD system cannot defeat the range of
theater ballistic missiles U.S. forces could face. It also provides
greater confidence in the overall effectiveness of the system. I
currently know of no reason to move away from the ``family-of-systems''
approach currently under development.
Question. Several of DOD's theater missile defense programs are
currently funding-constrained, resulting in either inefficient
production rates or development delays.
What sort of priority would you attach to ensuring that we develop
and field TMD systems in a timely and efficient manner?
Answer. Given the widespread deployment of theater-range ballistic
missiles and the threat those missiles pose to deployed U.S. forces as
well as our friends and allies, I would attach a high priority to the
development and deployment of effective TMD systems in a timely and
efficient manner.
missile defense technology
Question. Congress has repeatedly expressed concerns over the
declining level of funding available for ballistic missile defense
science and technology and follow-on technology development.
Do you believe that it should be a priority to reinvigorate the
Ballistic Missile Defense Organization's support technology efforts?
Answer. Yes. Effective ballistic missile defense relies on the
application of some of the most advanced technologies available. In
assessing the scope of science and technology work in this area, it is
also important to look beyond the specific dedicated investments in
BMDO programs.
anti-ballistic missile (abm) treaty
Question. Then-Governor Bush stated in September 1999, that his
administration would ``offer Russia the necessary amendments to the
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty'' to make possible the deployment of a
U.S. NMD system. ``If Russia refuses the changes we propose, we will
give prompt notice, under the provisions of the Treaty, that we can no
longer be a party to it.''
What amendments to the ABM Treaty would you propose to the
Russians?
Answer. The issue of how to handle the ABM Treaty will be part of
the overall review of NMD to be directed by the President.
Question. The ABM Treaty gives each party the right to withdraw
from the treaty if it decides that ``extraordinary events related to
the subject matter of this treaty have jeopardized its supreme
interests.''
If the U.S. makes a unilateral decision to withdraw from the ABM
Treaty in order to deploy an NMD system, what possible negative
consequences do you foresee from the reaction of our allies, from
Russia, or from China?
Answer. I am aware that concerns have been expressed by some of our
allies about NMD and the prospect of U.S. withdrawal from the ABM
Treaty. I believe these concerns can be addressed through close
consultations. In the longer run, I believe that deployment of an
effective NMD system can strengthen U.S. and allied security. For
example, the failure to deploy appropriate defensive systems could also
have adverse effects, including:
Paralyzing our ability to act in a crisis or deterring
other countries from assisting us;
Providing incentives to U.S. friends and allies to
develop nuclear capabilities;
Putting the U.S. in a position where its only option
may be preemption; and
Moving the U.S. to a more isolationist position
because of an inability to defend against ballistic missiles.
To date, the Russians have rejected amendments to the treaty to
permit deployment of any U.S. NMD system, and have raised the
possibility of withdrawing from existing arms control regimes and on-
going efforts to reduce strategic offensive arms. The task is to
persuade the world of the truth that deployment of a NMD system will
strengthen global security and stability. As President-elect Bush has
stated, ``America's development of missile defenses is a search for
security, not a search for advantage.''
Question. Could these consequences, possibly including Russia
ending its nuclear weapon reductions, have the effect of reducing our
security or increasing the risk of nuclear proliferation?
Answer. I don't believe that is the case. These are issues the
President-elect and his senior officials will need to address.
nuclear force levels and posture
Question. Then-Governor Bush wrote in May 2000 of the need for a
new approach to nuclear security, saying that ``the premises of Cold
War targeting should no longer dictate the size of our arsenal.''
Concerning the number of nuclear weapons in the U.S. stockpile,
Governor Bush wrote that he would ``pursue the lowest possible number
consistent with our national security.'' He also stated that, ``It
should be possible to reduce the number of American nuclear warheads
significantly beyond what has already been agreed to under START II,
without compromising our security in any way.''
Under what circumstances do you believe it would be possible to
achieve such reductions?
Answer. President-elect Bush has stated that he will direct his
Secretary of Defense to conduct an assessment of the nuclear force
posture and determine how best to meet U.S. security needs. At the same
time, he has stated he will pursue the lowest possible number of
weapons consistent with our national security. I prefer to wait until
that review is completed before speculating on the circumstances under
which reductions might be advisable.
Question. Do you believe we should pursue such reductions through
negotiated agreement with Russia (and possibly other nations)?
Answer. The President's advisers plan to undertake a review of how
best to pursue President-elect Bush's goal of further reductions.
Logically, this could involve traditional arms control tools,
innovative unilateral initiatives, or some combination. In any case, an
approach to any nuclear reductions would need to be developed in the
context of a number of interrelated factors. These include decisions on
the ABM Treaty and National Missile Defense, as well as measures
relating to tactical nuclear weapons, the evolution in Russia's
unilateral strategic force posture, and the outcome of the planned
Nuclear Posture Review.
Question. Governor Bush also wrote that ``the United States should
remove as many weapons as possible from high-alert, hair-trigger
status,'' because ``keeping so many weapons on high alert may create
unacceptable risks of accidental or unauthorized launch.''
Do you intend to carry out an assessment of ``what we can safely do
to lower the alert status of our forces?''
Answer. This is one of the questions that would be considered as
part of the nuclear posture review.
u.s.-north korean nuclear agreed framework
Question. The United States and North Korea signed an agreement in
1994 that calls for North Korea to end and dismantle its plutonium
production capacity, and for the United States to lead a coalition with
South Korea and Japan to provide North Korea with proliferation-
resistant light water reactors if it complies with each step of the
agreement. To date, both sides have complied with the Agreed Framework,
which has prevented North Korea from producing enough plutonium for
dozens of nuclear weapons.
Assuming both sides continue to comply with its terms, do you
believe this Agreed Framework serves our national security interests?
Answer. It is in U.S. interest to ensure that the North Korean
nuclear weapons program is terminated. I assume that the new
administration will pursue that objective through means it deems most
effective. Those precise means would likely be determined following a
review of U.S. policy towards North Korea and U.S. nonproliferation
policies.
comprehensive test ban treaty (ctbt) and nuclear testing
Question. You have expressed opposition to a permanent, zero-yield
CTBT.
If U.S. ratification were conditioned on a robust Stockpile
Stewardship Program; a firm commitment to preserve the option to test a
nuclear weapon (by withdrawing from the treaty) if necessary to fix a
critical problem with the stockpile; and there were a review of the
treaty after 10 years, would that address some of your concerns about
the treaty?
Answer. I am not convinced that that approach would adequately
protect U.S. national security. The President-elect has opposed CTBT,
but has stated that he would continue the current testing moratorium.
That being said, I believe the new administration is likely to
undertake a review of this matter.
Question. Do you agree that we should maintain our current
moratorium on nuclear testing?
Answer. The President-elect has stated that he will continue the
current moratorium on nuclear testing. The President will review
annually the size, composition, and status of the U.S. nuclear weapons
stockpile. This will include a detailed assessment of the safety,
reliability, and effectiveness of the weapons in the stockpile.
Developments in this area need to be monitored closely.
Question. Do you believe that a CTBT would make it more difficult
for such nations to develop and stockpile advanced thermonuclear
nuclear weapons?
Answer. Not necessarily. History teaches that nations that are
determined to cheat do so and I do not see how the CTBT can be
effectively verified.
Question. As Secretary of Defense, what measures do you believe
must be taken to ensure that the U.S. stockpile is reliable and safe?
Answer. I am not an expert, but one point is important. The U.S.
cannot afford to lose too many of its key design and manufacturing
personnel who have had senior-level experience in the nuclear weapons
program when testing was undertaken. The DOD will work closely with the
new Secretary of Energy and the Director of the National Nuclear
Security Administration to ensure a safe, effective, and reliable U.S.
nuclear stockpile and complex.
cooperative threat reduction (ctr) program
Question. The U.S. Defense Department has a Cooperative Threat
Reduction (CTR) program initiated by Senators Nunn and Lugar that is
designed to reduce the threat of insecure nuclear stockpiles and excess
weapons of mass destruction in the former Soviet Union.
Do you agree that this Cooperative Threat Reduction program serves
U.S. national security interests by reducing the threat from former
Soviet weapons of mass destruction?
Answer. Certainly, the elimination of former Soviet strategic
nuclear weapons and their delivery vehicles that the CTR program has
funded has benefited U.S. national security. But, we need to be aware
of the fact that Russia, in particular, claims to lack the financial
resources to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, but continues to
invest scarce resources in the development of newer, more sophisticated
ICBMs and other weapons. We would not want the U.S. investment in the
CTR program to become the means by which Russia frees up resources to
finance its military modernization programs. A review of ongoing CTR
projects and their respective national security benefits would be
appropriate.
Question. Are you concerned about continuing this $1 billion
program at the same time that Russia is increasing its military
spending and arms exports?
Answer. Yes. See answer above.
space policy
Question. You have recently served as chairman of a commission to
examine U.S. space policy.
Do you believe that protecting our space assets requires the United
States to develop and deploy offensive means of disabling or destroying
other nations' space assets, either from the ground or from space?
Answer. The United States is increasingly dependent on its civil,
commercial, and defense and intelligence space assets. With that
dependence comes vulnerability to hostile acts. The Nation needs a
capability to deter attack on space assets, and systems to defend
satellites in orbit, the ground stations that control them, and the
electronic links between them.
Question. If the United States were to develop and deploy offensive
means of disabling or destroying foreign satellites, do you believe it
could lead other nations to acquire such means to threaten U.S. space
systems? If so, do you believe that would be contrary to our security
interests?
Answer. The U.S. and other nations that make use of space face real
threats to the operation of their satellites. We know that other
nations have jammed telecommunications from on-orbit satellites, that
Russian entities market devices that can jam GPS signals, and that
foreign satellite manufacturers market so-called ``micro satellites''
to other foreign countries that can be used for offensive actions
against satellites. In light of U.S. dependence on space assets, the
vulnerability of the assets to attack or disruption and the fact that
others have the means of doing harm to U.S. interests in space, it
would be contrary to U.S. security interests not to develop, test, and
deploy the means of deterring attack on and defending space systems.
Question. In light of this experience, what types of management and
organizational changes do you believe are needed in DOD to improve
space management?
Answer. If confirmed, I will give careful attention to the
recommendations of the several recent studies and commissions on space
systems and other matters. There are three areas of particular
interest. First is the relationship between the Secretary of Defense
and the DCI, who together have the greatest responsibility for the
operation of national security space systems. Second, is to assess
whether the existing organizational structure is adequate for
developing space policy, working with the military commanders in chief
(CINCs), and overseeing the development and acquisition of capabilities
by the Services. Third, is to assess whether changes are necessary
within the Air Force so as to facilitate more efficient acquisition and
operation of space systems and to create a dedicated cadre of space
professionals.
Question. The Department of Defense is currently reevaluating the
military requirement for a space-based infrared system to support
ballistic missile defense.
Do you believe that the SBIRS-Low Program is a necessary element in
an overall space and missile defense architecture?
Answer. I am informed that a number of DOD reviews have concluded
that a SBIRS Low capability is a necessary element of an effective
missile defense architecture.
space programs
Question. The Department of Defense has sought to establish a
space-based radar program for surveillance and moving target tracking.
How do you rank such a program in terms of the various new
technologies being developed by the DOD?
Answer. We use space extensively today to support military
operations. A radar in space to provide tracking of moving targets is
an attractive concept. Demonstrating the feasibility of that concept is
important. I understand there are concerns about the cost associated
with space demonstration projects. However, without such demonstrations
it is not possible to know if those systems will help to transform our
military and provide the means for deterring adversaries and defending
the United States, our forces, and our friends and allies.
the balkans
Question. U.S. troops are deployed to Bosnia and Kosovo as part of
NATO-led peacekeeping forces.
Do you support the continued participation of U.S. forces in the
NATO-led peacekeeping efforts in Bosnia and Kosovo?
Answer. President-elect Bush has indicated that a review will be
conducted of U.S. peacekeeping deployments. His national security team
will participate in this review. In the meantime, the deployed forces
have an important job to do and should not be distracted by the fact of
a new administration.
Question. If so, under what circumstances and for what timeframe?
Answer. See previous response.
Question. Do you believe that our European allies should eventually
assume full responsibility for these missions?
Answer. See previous response.
iraq
Question. Since the end of the Persian Gulf War in 1991, the United
States has been working to ensure Iraqi compliance with the obligations
Iraq accepted at the end of the war--particularly those obligations
related to disarmament. Unfortunately, since 1991 we have witnessed the
fragmentation of the coalition that liberated Kuwait; the end of UN
weapons inspections in Iraq; disagreement in the UN Security Council on
how to proceed; and the re-establishment of diplomatic ties with Iraq
by many nations in the Gulf region. At the same time, the United States
continues to deploy thousands of troops to the Gulf region and spends
approximately $1 billion per year for military operations to contain
Iraq.
What are your views on the current U.S. policy toward Iraq?
Answer. See response below.
Question. Are you concerned about the weakening in support for
United Nations economic sanctions?
Answer. See response below.
Question. Do you believe that the benefits relating to enforcement
of the no-fly zones justify the risk to U.S. and British airmen?
Answer. See response below.
Question. What additional or different steps, if any, do you
believe the United States and its allies should take to ensure that
Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and the means of their
delivery are permanently ended?
Answer. Saddam Hussein it still in power. The UN weapons inspection
program established to ensure Iraqi fulfillment of its commitment to
destroy all of its WMD programs has been suspended for more than 2
years. Baghdad continues to pose a military threat to its neighbors as
well as its own people, and Iraqi planes continue to challenge U.S.
pilots enforcing the northern and southern no-fly zones. In addition,
political support for Iraq's position seems to be solidifying among
some Arab states, the economic embargo seems to be collapsing, and the
coalition that successfully prosecuted the war with Iraq seems to be
coming undone. The United States continues to maintain a presence in
the region to deter Iraqi aggression, and daily no-fly zone patrols
expose U.S. pilots to continuous risk. If confirmed, I will work
closely with the national security team to help craft a policy that is
effective and merits the support of Congress and the American people.
iraqi opposition
Question. There is a continuing debate about the implementation of
the Iraq Liberation Act, which provides authority to provide up to $97
million worth of defense articles and services to support the Iraqi
opposition.
What is your view as to how the Iraq Liberation Act should be
implemented?
Answer. In the past I have favored it. However, this is an issue
that the President-elect and his new administration's national security
team will need to address. The Iraq Liberation Act established a policy
of regime-change for Iraq and provides the authority for the Department
of Defense to draw down $97 million worth of goods and services to
support the efforts of the Iraqi opposition to bring about a change in
the regime. I understand that the Department of Defense to date has
utilized this authority only sparingly, primarily with the provision of
training and other forms of non-lethal assistance aimed at improving
the opposition's effectiveness as a political force.
Helping the Iraqi opposition become a more credible alternative
voice for the Iraqi people is useful, but may not, in itself, bring
about a regime change in Baghdad. It could, however, make a useful
contribution toward achieving that aim.
north korea
Question. Please outline your views with regard to the situation on
the Korean peninsula, in particular the talks between North and South
Korea and ongoing missile proliferation talks between the U.S. and
North Korea.
Answer. This is a matter the new administration will need to
address. My personal impression, which is not well-informed, is that
the on-going political discussions between North and South Korea are
encouraging. The summit meeting between the Presidents of North and
South Korea was a dramatic development. Obviously, tensions on the
Peninsula cannot be reduced unless the two principal parties involved
are committed to that effort.
For over 2 years, the Clinton administration has sought to convince
the North Koreans to limit their missile and missile export programs.
In September 1999 the DPRK stated that it would refrain from testing
long-range ballistic missiles (No Dong or greater) while talks to
improve U.S.-DPRK relations were underway. That decision could be
reversed at any time. At the same time, I believe that North Korean
missile exports have continued apace.
Question. In light of developments on the peninsula, what are your
views on U.S. troop levels in South Korea?
Answer. Neither the North Korean military threat nor its forces and
posture along the DMZ have changed. Thus, although the in-coming
administration will undertake a review of our overall military
deployments, I have seen nothing thus far that persuades me that a
change in U.S. troop levels in South Korea should be considered.
russia and iran
Question. In early December Secretary Cohen met with Russian
defense minister Igor Sergeyev to discuss U.S. concern over Moscow's
continued arms sales and proliferation activities with Iran. While this
meeting and subsequent State Department meetings later in December were
considered upbeat, the United States did not receive concrete
assurances from Russia that these activities would cease.
As Secretary of Defense, what policy options would you propose to
President-elect Bush to address and minimize the continued
proliferation activities of Russia with Iran?
Answer. This is a matter for the President-elect and his national
security team. However I would recommend to the President that senior
officials of the new administration who meet with Russian counterparts
bring up the serious U.S. concern on proliferation activities that
strengthen Iran militarily. We must remind Russian policy makers that
they are dealing with a new administration and they have the
opportunity to start the relationship in a productive direction if they
take concrete steps to address our concerns in this area.
vieques
Question. Last fall, Congress enacted legislation that essentially
followed the agreement reached between President Clinton and the
outgoing Governor of Puerto Rico, in particular by calling for a
referendum to decide on whether training will continue there. That
referendum is currently scheduled for November 2001, but recent
comments by the incoming Governor of Puerto Rico suggest that she may
attempt to reopen this deal.
Do you believe there is a requirement to continue live fire
training at Vieques?
Answer. While simulation and non-live fire training certainly have
value and are integral to the Navy and Marine Corps basic training
programs, they do not provide an adequate substitute for live-fire
training. Live-fire training contains an element of realism that is
absent from simulators and non-live fire training. If U.S. forces
cannot train under this realism, Sailors and Marines, when placed in a
combat situation, will not only face the certain chaos that comes with
combat but also the uncertainty which comes from handling and expending
live ordnance for the first time in a highly complex, time synchronized
combat operation. Failing to provide for adequate live-fire training
prior to combat will place our Nation in the position of risking
needless casualties through unpreparedness.
Question. Do you agree with the Chief of Naval Operations and the
Commandant of the Marine Corps that Vieques is essential to the
readiness of East Coast naval forces?
Answer. I am advised that Vieques is a superior site for rehearsing
amphibious operations, the only site currently used for aerial mine
warfare training, and is the only location currently available on the
east coast where aircraft, naval surface ships, and ground forces can
employ combined arms training with live ammunition under realistic
conditions. It is the only range currently available on the east coast
that allows sailors and marines to conduct naval gunfire training. So
it is a very important site.
Question. Do you intend to look for alternative sites?
Answer. I understand that to date no alternative sites, providing
the ability to conduct combined arms training with live ammunition
under realistic conditions, have been located.
Question. Do you believe the existing agreement should be adhered
to, or is there some alternative solution you believe would be more
agreeable to all the parties involved that you intend to propose?
Answer. I have not had an opportunity to study it.
base closure
Question. Secretary Cohen requested two additional rounds of base
closures in each of his budget proposals to Congress, but so far
Congress has not agreed to authorize any additional base closures.
Do you believe we still have excess military infrastructure that
can and should be reduced?
Answer. See response below.
Question. Do you believe it is in the best interest of the Defense
Department to authorize additional military base closures and
realignments and that such closures and realignments could better align
our military base structure to meet the requirements of the new century
and free up resources for higher priority military needs, while still
protecting key training areas for which we have enduring requirements?
Answer. See response below.
Question. Should any future base closures follow the same basic
procedures as the past four rounds?
Answer. I will withhold an assessment of this issue until after the
completion of the defense review.
crisis in the military
Question. Recent articles and op-eds by James Schlesinger and
Harold Brown forecast that one of the first ``nightmares'' the new
president will inherit is the threat of a ``defense train wreck''
looming in the next 5 to 10 years as the result of a decade of massive
under-funding of the true costs of maintaining the current size and
structure of the U.S. military.
What are your views regarding these assessments of the future of
our Armed Forces?
Answer. Given President-elect Bush's commitment to rebuilding and
reforming the U.S. military, and the commitment of many members of
Congress, I believe we can ensure a strong future for U.S. Armed
Forces. We do face major funding and technological challenges.
Overcoming these challenges is necessarily a multi-year undertaking.
The American people clearly support keeping our Nation secure, and our
economy certainly makes that affordable. I believe my predecessors, Jim
Schlesinger and Harold Brown, are correct in noting that many years of
carefully targeted investment will be needed to guarantee the future
superiority of those forces.
recruiting and retention
Question. The Armed Forces are experiencing significant problems in
retaining company- and field-grade officers (O-3, O-4) who would, if
retained, be contenders for intermediate service schools and command.
The Armed Forces are experiencing similar problems in retaining mid-
grade noncommissioned officers (E-5, E-6). These personnel are the
backbone of the enlisted force, both as workers and as trainers and
role models for younger enlisted personnel.
In your view what are the primary factors associated with this
attrition?
Answer. See response below.
Question. What would you propose to mitigate this attrition?
Answer. It is my understanding that a number of factors have
contributed to recruiting and retention challenges. A robust domestic
economy has made it more difficult for recruiters to compete with the
private sector job market; a heavy operations tempo has placed
significant burdens on family life; and perceptions about a changing
mission for the military have all contributed to stresses on military
recruiting and retention efforts.
President-elect Bush has spoken often about this issue during the
campaign. As he stated, ``the military should be a magnet for the best
and brightest in America.'' I share this view. We will examine a range
of measures to try to make this goal a reality, including an increase
in military pay, improved military housing, and a review of overseas
deployments.
force structure
Question. Force structure has been reduced about 35 percent since
1989. Evidence, both anecdotal and analytical, increasingly indicates
that the force structure of the Armed Forces may not be adequate to
carry out the national security strategy of the United States including
the current range of contingency operations. If this is so, the
alternatives would seem to be a less ambitious strategy, a bolstering
of force structure, or some combination of those alternatives.
In your opinion, is the existing force structure of the Armed
Forces adequate?
Answer. See response below.
Question. If not, what measures would you recommend, if confirmed,
to deal with the problem?
Answer. U.S. forces are stretched thin. This committee has heard
testimony from the service chiefs to that effect. In accordance with
law, the incoming administration will work to develop a national
security strategy within 150 days after inauguration. That is a very
short period. Also in accordance with law, the Department of Defense
will review the overall defense strategy and produce a report to
Congress in the fall. If confirmed, I expect to be fully engaged in
those efforts. Once we have a new national security strategy, and we
have had the opportunity to review our defense strategy, we can make
decisions about the appropriate size and nature of the force.
homosexual conduct policy
Question. The current Department of Defense Homosexual Conduct
Policy went into effect in February 1994 after months of congressional
hearings and debate resulting in the enactment of a Federal statute.
Although there have been some changes in how this policy has been
implemented, the basic policy has not been changed.
Do you believe that the current policy is effective? If confirmed,
do you plan to make any changes to the basic policy or its
implementation? If so, what changes will you propose?
Answer. I am not yet knowledgeable as to how the current policy is
working. Consistent with what President-elect Bush said during the
campaign, and if confirmed, I have no plans to recommend changes either
to current law or policy.
gender integrated training
Question. Basic training for new recruits is structured and defined
differently by each Service. Men training for direct ground combat
positions in the Army and Marine Corps train in all-male units. Men and
women training to serve in positions that are open to women in the
Army, Navy, and Air Force train in gender-integrated units. Men and
women in the Marine Corps are segregated at boot camp, then integrated
during subsequent training.
Do you believe the current DOD policy of allowing each of the
Services to establish its own policy for gender integration in Basic
Training is effective? If confirmed, will you propose changes to the
DOD or Service policies? If so, what changes will you propose?
Answer. Basic training should have one purpose: to transform the
recruit from civilian into a disciplined, physically fit soldier,
sailor, airmen/women, and marine. If and when that goal is not being
met, then changes should be made. Each service has the responsibility
to design and implement the system of basic training that best
accomplishes the goal for that service, and it should do just that. At
present the services have varying policies with regard to gender
integration in basic training. I do not have sufficient information as
yet to comment further.
army corps of engineers
Question. The Army Inspector General recently released a report
criticizing the Army Corps of Engineers for ``institutional bias'' and
``an atmosphere where objectivity in its analyses [has been] placed in
jeopardy.''
Do you agree that the Army Corps of Engineers should institute a
system of independent peer review of studies supporting major projects
by experts from outside the agency before such projects are approved?
Why or why not?
Answer. I am not aware of this matter. I am advised that the
Secretary of the Army and the new Chief of the Army Corps of Engineers
recently developed working arrangements aimed at ensuring open lines of
communication, necessary oversight, and, at the same time, the
application of independent technical judgment by the Corps.
Additionally, the Chief of the Corps has been directed to respond to
the Army Inspector General's findings regarding the objectivity of its
analyses and bring forward improvements aimed at ensuring sound,
unbiased decision making. Those responses will have to be reviewed
before making any recommendations.
u.s.s. cole investigations
Question. When Secretary Cohen took office, one of his first
actions was to review the multiple Defense Department and Air Force
inquiries into the terrorist attack on the Khobar Towers in Saudi
Arabia. These investigations were initiated under his predecessor,
then-Secretary William Perry. The attack on Khobar Towers on June 25,
1996, killed 19 military personnel and left hundreds injured. Following
his review, Secretary Cohen directed actions that were opposed by many
in the Air Force and that resulted in the voluntary retirement of the
then-Air Force Chief of Staff. You will begin your term as Defense
Secretary under strikingly similar circumstances. Several
investigations into the October 12, 2000, bombing of the U.S.S. Cole
are being concluded.
Will you make one of your first priorities in office to review the
findings of the multiple Defense Department and Navy investigations
into the terrorist attack on the U.S.S. Cole?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Will you transmit to the President and to Congress your
assessment of the findings and recommendations of the U.S.S. Cole-
related investigations as soon as possible?
Answer. I will transit any findings and recommendations that may
result from the investigations.
Question. If you find that the investigation initiated by your
predecessor or the Navy were deficient in any areas, will you direct
additional inquiries?
Answer. It is important that the findings of the current
investigations be reviewed without prejudgment.
modernization
Question. For the last several years, the Department of Defense
modernization budget has fallen short of critical requirements
identified by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and each of the
military services while the operational tempo of our forces is
extremely high. As a result, near term readiness requirements have
often been met at the expense of the long-term readiness, or
modernization arena. We recognize that President-elect Bush has called
for an overall review of military modernization programs and that this
will be an area of great interest to you as the Secretary of Defense.
How will you establish this modernization review process, what will
be considered, and how will you incorporate the conclusions of this
process into Department of Defense modernization budget requests?
Answer. If confirmed, I will undertake congressionally-mandated
review of the U.S. national security strategy and examine the
modernization plans to carry it out in the conduct of the Quadrennial
Defense Review (QDR). Considering which weapons to modernize and which
to replace with new technology should be a major part of the QDR
process.
exports of sensitive technologies
Question. In his October 1999 speech on high tech issues, then-
Governor Bush stated that, as President, he would safeguard sensitive
high technology exports, while letting Americans sell what is already
widely available elsewhere. He stated that wherever there is no
security interest at stake, exports would be permitted. Wherever
security is truly at stake, exports would be barred, with serious
penalties for violations. Governor Bush stated further that his
administration would work to renew the cooperation of U.S. allies in
this effort.
As Secretary of Defense, what policies and procedures would you
consider changing to reflect these criteria as the basis for
determining the exports of sensitive high technology?
Answer. Exports of sensitive high technology affect U.S. national
security interests in many ways. First, we must protect our military
personnel and our security interests by ensuring that sensitive
technologies are not exported to potential adversaries or to foreign
entities that represent a significant diversion risk. Second, we must
have sensible and effective policies and procedures to ensure that
appropriate transfers of military and commercial systems and
technologies that support our coalition warfighting objectives through
greater interoperability with our allies and friends are permitted.
Finally, we must be mindful that the U.S. is not the only country with
advanced military and commercial technology. Thus, we need to work
aggressively with our allies and friends to ensure that our policies
and approaches toward the export of such technologies meet our mutual
security interests. The Department of Defense has an essential role to
play in implementing these principles, and I will ensure that
appropriate resources and senior level attention are devoted to this
area.
information security
Question. Information superiority is widely recognized as an
enabler of U.S. military superiority, and information security is a key
to achieving information superiority.
How do you plan on ensuring the security and integrity of the
defense information infrastructure in the face of ever-expanding cyber
threats?
Answer. Information security poses important challenges and
opportunities for Defense. We must prevent unauthorized access to
information and information systems. We must work with other government
organizations--the FBI, Department of Justice, and the Intelligence
Community--in a collaborative environment to anticipate and counter
such threats. I will ensure that the department devotes considerable
time and attention to information security and information superiority.
intelligence
Question. What would be your top intelligence priority if you are
confirmed as Secretary of Defense?
Answer. We are in a new national security environment.
Characteristics of this new environment include:
- A relaxed attitude with the end of the Cold War.
- The proliferation of powerful weapons and technologies
throughout the world.
- As a result of the Gulf War, a set of threats less likely to
be deterred by the threat of U.S. nuclear retaliation.
- Considerably more complex intelligence challenges given the
larger number of targets, and the proliferation of deception
and denial capabilities.
- Increasing dependence on space assets and therefore increased
vulnerability.
The intelligence community, just as the Department of Defense,
needs to be rearranged to deal with the new security environment. The
national command authorities need information more than simply numbers
of things--ships, missiles, tanks, and planes--they need better
information on intentions and motives as well.
Certainly the proliferation of nuclear, biological, and chemical
weapons and the means to deliver them pose a threat to the security of
the United States, its allies, and friends. We must ensure that we are
devoting the appropriate resources to identify these newer threats,
including cyber attack.
Question. What organizational and management changes do you believe
are necessary in the Department of Defense to ensure that the best
possible intelligence support is provided to the warfighter?
Answer. This is an area that I intend to review if confirmed. Most
important is senior level leadership, and a close working relationship
between the SECDEF and the DCI is critical to the challenges ahead.
Question. What specific actions would you pursue to ensure that the
Secretary of Defense and the Director of Central Intelligence are able
to cooperate and coordinate on national and military intelligence
matters?
Answer. One of the highest priorities should be to establish a real
partnership with the DCI to ensure cooperation and coordination on
intelligence matters. Reform of the Intelligence Community will require
close collaboration.
science and technology
Question. The Department of Defense Science and Technology program
is at a 20-year low. The Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization
Bill for Fiscal Year 1999 established the goal of increasing the budget
for the defense science and technology program by at least 2 percent
over inflation for each of the fiscal years 2000 to 2008. This goal has
not been met in the fiscal year 2000 nor the fiscal year 2001 budget
request.
Do you believe that a substantial increase in science and
technology funding is needed?
Answer. Determining a sufficient level of science and technology
(S&T) investment is not a precise science. A downsized military needs a
technological edge more now than ever. President-elect Bush has
committed to increasing defense R&D by at least $20 billion between
fiscal year 2002-2006. The S&T accounts should receive a substantial
share of this increase.
major challenges
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges confronting
the next Secretary of Defense?
Answer. The new administration will need to consider all of these
aspects in evaluating the National Security Strategy and National
Military Strategy. The goal is to assure that our country has the new
capabilities necessary to deter and defend in our new national security
environment so we are able to contribute to the peace and stability.
This will entail transforming U.S. military forces to a 21st century
force, modernizing the intelligence and command, control and
communications infrastructure, and reforming DOD structures, processes,
and organizations. Further, the new capabilities and readiness must be
sustainable.
Balancing limited resources--even in an atmosphere of projected
budget surpluses--is always a challenge. Properly outfitting our forces
today, while at the same time ensuring we sustain robust modernization
for the future, will be a key challenge for the new administration.
Specific issues--such as morale, recruiting and retention, health
care and benefits--will also be important.
Question. If confirmed, what plans do you have for addressing these
challenges?
Answer. These issues and others should be components of the
upcoming defense review and Quadrennial Defense Review. Through those
reviews, the new administration can examine priorities and weigh the
fiscal implications associated with those priorities.
most serious problems
Question. What do you consider to be the most serious problems in
the performance of the functions of Secretary of Defense?
Answer. Institutional resistance to change across the board--
executive branch, legislative branch, the private sector, as well as
our allies. Change is difficult for institutions, but change we must.
Question. What management actions and time lines would you
establish to address these problems?
Answer. It is too soon to establish time lines. If confirmed I
would need to know a lot more than I do now to respond. It will require
close consultation with Congress and this committee.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Yes. I consider that to be one of the most important parts
of the job.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as the Secretary of Defense?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings, and
other communications of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Edward M. Kennedy
1. Senator Kennedy. Secretary Rumsfeld, while the F-18E/F has
significantly modernized our carrier aircraft fleet, many Navy and
Marine Corps aircraft still need to be modernized. The AV-8B Harrier
and EA-6B Prowler are some of the oldest aircraft in our inventory.
Do you see the Joint Strike Fighter as a possible solution to these
aircraft modernization needs?
Secretary Rumsfeld. The Joint Strike Fighter, along with other
tactical aircraft programs, will be assessed as part of the planned
review of defense policy and programs.
2a. Senator Kennedy. The risk in being ready to fight the first war
is ``moderate'' and that of the second is ``high.'' As the Department
of Defense prepares to conduct the next Quadrennial Defense Review,
will you consider alternative strategies to the two war scenario as you
prepare to conduct the next review?
Secretary Rumsfeld. I anticipate that a wide range of strategy
options will be considered as part of the upcoming QDR.
2b. Senator Kennedy. If the two war scenario continues to be our
strategy, how can we reduce the risk of each? President-elect Bush has
said that he wants to increase defense spending by $20 billion.
How much of this amount will be dedicated to non-national missile
defense related research and development programs?
Secretary Rumsfeld. No decision has been made on the appropriate
level of resources for defense or how any additional funds would be
distributed.
3a. Senator Kennedy. The Defense Science Board released ``The
Technology Capabilities of Non-DOD Providers'' report in June 2000. In
this report the Board recommends substantially increasing the defense
science and technology base and, in particular, a 30 percent increase
in defense basic research over 3 years. The concern over the eroding
defense science and technology program was addressed by Congress in the
Fiscal Year 1999 National Defense Authorization Act, which stated it
should be an objective of the Secretary of Defense to increase the
budget for the science and technology program by at least 2 percent a
year over inflation each year through 2008.
How do you propose to address this urgent national priority?
Secretary Rumsfeld. I agree that the defense science and technology
program needs to be strengthened. However, until I have had an
opportunity to review the program in detail, I am not in a position to
comment on the appropriate funding level for the program.
3b. Senator Kennedy. Many believe that stability will never be
restored in the Balkans as long as indicted war criminals remain at
large. Do you believe that the military should be involved in the
arrest of war criminals?
Secretary Rumsfeld. I would like to review the recent history and
discuss this with my associates in the new administration before
commenting.
4a. Senator Kennedy. For years now, Iraq has refused to accept an
independent monitoring team to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not
rebuilding his arsenal of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons of
mass destruction. In addition, the economic and diplomat sanctions
placed on his regime have been weakened by our allies in the region and
in Europe. Some nations are even setting up offices in Iraq, in hopes
of contracting Iraqi oil fields in the future in anticipation of these
weakened sanctions collapsing.
Regarding Iraq and Hussein, the President-elect's choice to be
Secretary of State, Colin Powell, has said, ``I think it is possible to
re-energize those sanctions and to continue to contain him and then
confront him, should that become necessary again.''
Under what circumstances could you envision such a confrontation?
Secretary Rumsfeld. U.S. policy towards Iraq will no doubt be the
subject of review by the new national security team. If confirmed, I
will look forward to participating in that review. That being said, it
is important to keep in mind that Saddam Hussein has miscalculated
before and therefore any confrontation that takes place might be as a
result of his actions.
4b. Senator Kennedy. What do you think sanctions on Iraq should
accomplish? Are they accomplishing this goal? Are we targeting the
right behavior? Are the objectives of halting chemical, biological, and
nuclear weapons production attainable in your view?
Secretary Rumsfeld. Because of the erosion of the sanctions regime,
it is reasonable to assume that weapons of mass destruction and missile
programs are continuing in Iraq. How best to deal with the threat posed
by Saddam will be the subject of review by the new administration.
5. Senator Kennedy. In September 1999, President Clinton issued an
executive order severing all U.S. military ties with Indonesia
following the violence perpetrated against the East Timorese people in
the aftermath of their vote for independence.
Will you support a continuation of the current military cut-off?
What signs or indications within the Indonesian military and government
will you be watching for before you consider re-establishing full
military relations?
Secretary Rumsfeld. Although I am aware of the general state of
U.S.-Indonesian military-to-military relations, I have not had an
opportunity to review this matter in detail. If confirmed, I will
undertake to review those relations.
6. Senator Kennedy. There have been substantial changes in the role
of women in our Nation's Armed Forces in the years since you were
Secretary of Defense. Women now serve in a wide range of military
occupations and there are more women generals and admirals than ever
before. Women serve on combat ships and fly combat aircraft; women and
men train together in all services at advanced levels--and in three of
the services at the basic training level.
What is your view of the role of women in today's military?
Specifically, do you have any objection to the ways in which women and
men train together today, or to opening any particular military
occupational specialties to women?
Secretary Rumsfeld. As I stated in answer to one of the committee's
questions, basic training should have one purpose: to transform the
recruit from civilian into a disciplined, physically fit soldier,
sailor, airman/woman, or marine. If and when that goal is not being
met, then changes should be made. Each service has the responsibility
to design and implement the system of basic and other training that
best accomplishes the goal for that service. At present the services
have varying policies with regard to gender integration in basic
training. I do not have sufficient information as yet to comment
further.
7. Senator Kennedy. The Pentagon Inspector General conducted a
survey of 75,000 service members last year and found that 80 percent
reported hearing, witnessing, or experiencing anti-gay harassment.
Based on those findings, Secretary of Defense Cohen asked a Department
working group to review the current rules and training to prevent such
harassment. The working group produced a 13-point action plan for a new
regulations by the Department on this issue.
Will you ensure that these new regulations are fully implemented
and enforced?
Secretary Rumsfeld. I have not had an opportunity to review the
current rules or the working group's findings and recommendations.
8. Senator Kennedy. The lack of good housing for our service
members and their families is an area where I think we really need
improvement. At Hanscom AFB, there is currently a 6-month wait for on-
base housing. The number of families on this list today stands at 106.
I venture that the wait is similar at bases across the country.
What can be done to limit or eliminate this wait? How can we ease
the burden on a service member and his or her family when they've been
assigned to a new base, but have to find short-term living arrangements
while waiting for affordable base housing?
Secretary Rumsfeld. I agree that military housing can and should be
improved. Substandard housing and long delays undermine morale and
ultimately affect job performance. If the Department can effectively
tap into the prodigious resources and methodologies of the private
sector to improve this situation, then we should do so. If confirmed,
improving the quality and availability of military housing will be a
priority.
9. Senator Kennedy. You noted in your answers to the advance policy
questions that, ``(t)he Department's approach should be comprehensive
and balanced, supporting test and training and operational
requirements, while seeking to protect the natural environment and
operating within a balanced regulatory framework'' and that ``(t)he
goal is to maintain fully sustainable ranges.''
Last week, three of my colleagues on this committee and I wrote to
Secretary Cohen urging that he consider establishing a Defense
Environmental Restoration Account to begin to deal with the large
amount of unexploded ordnance left at many of our military facilities.
Would you please take a look at this idea? The more quickly the
Department can get a handle on this issue, the more sustainable
training will be at many military bases.
Secretary Rumsfeld. If confirmed, I will task a review of this
suggestion and report back on the results.
10. Senator Kennedy. Several years ago, President Clinton, the
Joint Chiefs, and Congress agreed that the United States would search
aggressively for alternatives to land mines, and that if suitable
alternatives are fielded the United States will join the Ottawa
Convention. The Pentagon has made progress, but more needs to be done.
Later this year we will also have the benefit of recommendations on
mine alternatives by the Los Alamos/Livermore Laboratories and the
National Academy of Sciences. There is bipartisan support in Congress
for the United States to join our NATO allies and others, and set an
example to rid the world of land mines. We also want to ensure the
safety of our Armed Forces, which includes improving their counter-mine
capabilities.
Will you, as Secretary of Defense, strongly support the effort to
field alternatives to land mines, so we can join the Ottawa Convention?
Secretary Rumsfeld. I am not familiar with the obligations imposed
under the Ottawa Convention and have not yet been briefed on the
efforts to develop alternatives to land mines. If confirmed, I will
review this issue, keeping foremost in mind the need to protect
American servicemen and women.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd
11. Senator Byrd. I am very concerned about the threat of homeland
terrorism. I believe that Senator Levin mentioned in his opening
remarks how easy it would be for a terrorist to poison our public water
systems. As best I can tell, all it would take is a single vial of some
type of chemical or biological agent and you could wipe out the water
supply for an entire city. Frankly, I believe that this threat is a
more likely scenario under current world circumstances than that of the
conventional ballistic missile threat posed by rogue nations.
Do you believe that the threat of chemical and biological
terrorism, as well as the threat posed by simple suitcase or truck
bombs, deserve the same emphasis as a national missile defense system?
Secretary Rumsfeld. Defending the American people against all types
of unconventional or terrorist attacks must be a top priority of the
new administration. If confirmed, I will devote time and attention to
strategies and programs that can address this growing threat. In
addition, because of the sometimes overlapping or conflicting
obligations of the various federal and state governmental departments
and agencies, inter-agency coordination is important. If confirmed, I
will do my best to ensure proper coordination is achieved.
12. Senator Byrd. Turning to terrorism overseas--a Pentagon
Commission reviewing the terrorist attack on the U.S.S. Cole released
its report earlier this week. The Commission determined that the
military lacks coordination with other government agencies to fight
terrorist threats. It recommended that training against terrorism be
made as high a priority as training for combat.
Do you agree with that conclusion?
Secretary Rumsfeld. If confirmed, I will review the Crouch-Gehman
report carefully, along with the other reports commissioned on aspects
of the U.S.S. Cole terrorist incident. That being said, I agree that
realistic training against a wide range of terrorist and other threats,
including operating in a nuclear, chemical, biological, or radiological
environment, is imperative.
13. Senator Byrd. I understand that there was a good deal of
discussion about Colombia at the morning session of this hearing. I
commend Chairman Levin and Senator Warner for recommending that this
committee get more involved in future decisions surrounding our
involvement in Colombia. This is a dangerous mission, and I am deeply
concerned that the United States should not be drawn into Colombia's
civil war.
As you and I discussed earlier, it was my proposal that capped the
number of military and civilian personnel who could be involved in Plan
Colombia in country. The reason that I proposed these caps was to
ensure that mission creep would not inflate the number of American
citizens in Colombia on what is a potentially deadly mission.
Mr. Secretary, you've seen the results of American troops being
drawn into civil conflicts overseas with no exit strategy. I understand
that you want to wait until you can have a full briefing on the
situation in Colombia before recommending a specific course of future
action. However, this is not the first time that the U.S. has run up
against the possibility of being drawn into another nation's civil war.
How do we guard against that happening with this mission? Will you re-
evaluate our presence in Colombia?
Secretary Rumsfeld. As I stated during the hearing, I am not
sufficiently informed about the situation in Colombia. I understand the
nature of your concern, however, and if confirmed will review the U.S.
military involvement carefully.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Max Cleland
14a. Senator Cleland. As you may know, language was included in the
Fiscal Year 2000 Defense Authorization bill directing the Secretary of
Defense to submit a report no later than February 2000 describing the
airlift requirements necessary to carry out the various missions of our
Armed Forces. It is my understanding that this report is finally
complete and is awaiting release by the Secretary of Defense.
Preliminary information contained in this report outlines our
current mobility challenges. Our current requirement is 49.7 million
ton miles. The Mobility Requirements Study estimates that the
requirement may rise to around 54.4 million ton miles. This indicates
we are woefully short on meeting the future requirements.
With the move away from more forward-deployed forces, airlift and
air mobility will continue to be the key ingredient in our responding
to future military missions and crises. However, there is uncertainty
on how best to address this challenge. Certainly, the C-130J is
integral in our rapid deployment within the theater of operations.
However, the Air Force has been reluctant to put C-130s in their budget
or in placing the aircraft on their unfunded requirements list--instead
relying on congressional add-ons during the budget process. How would
you rectify the inconsistencies of the C-130J program over the past
several years?
Secretary Rumsfeld. I am aware of and appreciate the keen interest
in the C-130J program shown by you and several of your colleagues.
However, I have not had an opportunity to review the program in detail,
nor have I seen the results of the Mobility Requirements Study you
mention. If confirmed, I will review the study and the program.
14b. Senator Cleland. Given your plans to review and revise our
military strategy in the context of President-elect Bush's desire to
review all military operations and the Quadrennial Defense Review
(QDR), would you consider submitting a new mobility requirements
report?
Secretary Rumsfeld. Until I have had the opportunity to review the
above-mentioned study, it would be premature to suggest that an
additional study is needed.
15. Senator Cleland. Military health care is a matter of great
importance to our service members and to this committee. Last year, in
response to concerns raised by the Secretary of Defense and the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, we enacted legislation that eliminates
deductibles and copayments under TRICARE Prime for families of Active
Duty service members; provides lifetime health care for military
retirees and their families through the TRICARE program; and provides a
comprehensive pharmacy benefit for military retirees. We still hear
concerns from our constituents about lack of timely access to health
care, portability of benefits as our service members move around, and
poor claims processing.
What are your priorities for maintaining a working, accessible,
properly funded health care system?
Secretary Rumsfeld. I agree that the provision of effective,
affordable health care to our servicemen and women and their families
is a high-priority objective I have not had an opportunity to review
the Defense Health Program, however, and therefore I am unable to
comment on how best to ensure such coverage and treatment. If
confirmed, I will devote time to this important program.
16. Senator Cleland. Almost all new service members enroll in and
contribute to the Montgomery GI Bill. Only about half of these use
their benefits, and many who use the benefit do not use all of their
entitlement. Many of these soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines say
they would like to stay in the service, but feel they have to leave so
that they can provide for the education of their spouses and children.
I believe that many of these service members would stay in the
service if they could transfer all or a part of their unused
entitlement to GI Bill benefits to family members in return for a
service commitment. Service Secretaries could use this retention tool
selectively, just as they use reenlistment bonuses.
Will you give serious consideration to how the Department of
Defense could use the transfer of GI Bill benefits to family members as
a retention tool and give me your thoughts on how we best do this?
Secretary Rumsfeld. I was interested in this suggestion when you
mentioned it during the confirmation hearing. If confirmed, I will give
consideration to this suggestion.
17. Senator Cleland. From what we have heard in today's session and
from what has occurred on Capitol Hill in the past few years, it seems
obvious that one of the most contentious national security issues--
which too often has broken down along party lines--is the subject of
National Missile Defense. I would add, however, that I believe this
important question cannot be viewed in isolation from our overall
national strategic policy. For example, how will NMD be related by the
new administration to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which
unfortunately also broke down along partisan lines in the last
Congress. I believe we must try to achieve a bipartisan consensus on
this whole collection of issues and do so in a fashion which is
comprehensive and coordinated. Therefore, I have proposed that we
consider creating a bipartisan Commission on National Security Policy
composed of respected leaders from both parties which seeks to develop
such a consensus and encompasses both NMD and CTBT as well as related
issues. I fear, Mr. Secretary, that absent a comprehensive, consensus
approach that we may face more partisan wrangling and more internal
division, which will serve our military, our country, and indeed the
entire world.
Would you care to react to any of these points?
Secretary Rumsfeld. I agree that it is vital to consider issues
such as NMD and CTBT in a broader context, and certainly bipartisan
consensus is desirable. That being said, I am not persuaded that
establishment of a commission, as you describe, is needed. The
President-elect has stated that he does not favor ratification of the
CTBT. He has indicated that he plans to continue the moratorium on
underground nuclear testing so long as the safety, reliability, and
effectiveness of the nuclear stockpile can be certified. If confirmed,
I will do what I can to contribute to the achievement of bipartisan
support on topics such as these.
18. Senator Cleland. This committee has expressed its full support
for upgrading and modernizing the C-5 fleet, both A and B models.
Airlift is absolutely vital to America's ability to project military
force. This will continue to be true for the foreseeable future. In
last year's report accompanying S. 2549 (The Fiscal Year 2001 Defense
Authorization Act), this committee expressed concern that the Air Force
appears to have budgeted for just modernizing the B-models first and
yet has not provided any form of explanation for deviating from the
committee's belief that the A and B models both need to be re-engined
as soon as possible. In addition, the Air Force has not explained how
it could arrive at this plan without doing the initial EMD testing on
at least one A and one B model to factually determine the potential for
improving the performance and reliability of the each model. The
committee requested that the Air Force address these concerns by
February 15, 2001.
In the meantime, despite the support of this committee and the
House defense committees, the contracting for the C-5 RERP has been
inexplicably delayed. The contract was supposed to be let in November
and yet still is not complete. For a program as vital to national
security as the improvement of outsized/oversized airlift capability,
this sort of unnecessary and unexplained delay is unacceptable.
What commitment can you give this committee that the C-5 RERP will
proceed as directed? What will you do to get the C-5 RERP back on
schedule? Will you ensure that both A and B models are included in the
initial testing so that any future program decisions are based on real
facts?
Secretary Rumsfeld. I have not yet had the opportunity to review
the C-5 program. I expect that the C-5 program will be reviewed in the
context of mobility requirements as part of the overall defense policy
review I plan to undertake, if confirmed.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu
19. Senator Landrieu. Our nuclear posture is essentially frozen by
a law that we not fall below Start I levels. Furthermore, we are coming
upon several crucial and costly decision points with respect to some of
our nuclear systems. I believe that this nation would be well-advised
to establish an appropriate and cost-effective deterrent independent of
anything Russia does.
Do you believe that we need to hold to some artificially mandated
level of nuclear weapons, or is it wise for the Pentagon to evaluate
these questions from the bottom up?
Secretary Rumsfeld. The President has stated that we want to go to
the lowest level of nuclear weapons commensurate with the national
security of the United States and our allies. Upon completion of the
Nuclear Posture Review, we will review this requirement as well as
which criteria to use in determining an appropriate strategic nuclear
force level for the foreseeable future. I do hope that Congress would
provide for the ability to get to the appropriate number of nuclear
weapons, likely to be below today's level.
20. Senator Landrieu. We all understand that the Single Integrated
Operation Plan or SIOP, is, of necessity, one of the most closely
guarded secrets that our Nation possesses. However, one of our esteemed
Senate colleagues, Bob Kerrey, the ranking member of the Senate
Intelligence Committee, shared with us the fact that he had been stone-
walled by his every effort to have some opportunity to review these
plans. While the SIOP is obviously one of our most import secrets, it
is also one of our most fundamental defense policy decisions.
Can you assure this committee that you will at least assist the
committee leadership in gaining access to the SIOP for their review and
consideration?
Secretary Rumsfeld. I understand that there are certain procedures
in place at this time whereby Congress has access to data regarding the
nuclear war plan. I also understand that there are concerns that these
procedures may not be sufficient. I will look into this matter and work
with Congress to reach an acceptable balance between the requirement
for security and the congressional need for information on this highly
sensitive plan.
21. Senator Landrieu. You very cogently argued for the need to
better integrate commercial off-the-shelf technology into our military
force. It is important for us to do, and an important piece of that
work is being done at our Navy Technology Center in New Orleans.
However, I'd like you to consider a slightly different application of
that same principle. I believe that we need to consider the utilization
of commercial off-the-shelf personnel. What I mean by that term is this
nation is creating a vast community of highly intelligent, highly
skilled, and highly sought-after workers in the computer and
communications fields. We also know that with the onset of NET-CENTRIC,
and so-called ``cyber'' warfare, our Nation's military is going to
desperately need more of these minds. Unfortunately, I believe that
there is something of a disconnect between this need for talent, and an
institutional culture that would attract this sort of talent. I have
commended Rudy de Leon for taking the initiative of focusing the
Reserve components on this question.
Would you endorse a new strategy to solicit service from this core
of talented individuals and introduce new standards which may be
outside the box in order to employ them fight this new threat?
Secretary Rumsfeld. I agree that the Department can do a better job
of recruiting and retaining individuals with skills in the computer and
communications fields. If confirmed, I will seek to develop strategies
for securing the availability of such individuals and look forward to
working with Congress to implement appropriate strategies.
22. Senator Landrieu. Do you believe that adding funds to the
defense budget alone will solve the problems we face? Do you have an
estimate of an increase that you would desire?
Secretary Rumsfeld. The challenges facing the Department are many.
Certainly, a shortage of resources is evident, and priorities are
needed. There are numerous other challenges as well, as I laid out in
my testimony before the committee. If confirmed, I look forward to
working with the committee and Congress as a whole to address these
challenges.
23. Senator Landrieu. I would like to know your opinion with the
approach of decreasing some of our existing infrastructure and
transferring those assets to the operational forces in order to provide
some relief to our deployed forces. Do you have any specific approaches
you could provide us with today?
Secretary Rumsfeld. I do not, as of today.
24. Senator Landrieu. One of the most exciting projects that we
have underway in Louisiana is the Navy Information Technology Center in
New Orleans. I would like to invite you to see this operation first-
hand at your earliest opportunity. This center is really a model for
the sort of innovation required by the Clinger-Cohen Act.
Would you please comment on your views of this act, and what steps
we might take to increase the pace of reform?
Secretary Rumsfeld. First, thank you for the kind invitation. I
have not reviewed the Clinger-Cohen Act, although I understand it
allows for certain innovative ``pilot projects'' associated with
acquisition reform. Given the fact that the existing acquisition system
is in need of substantial reform, it may be that additional use of the
authorities to conduct ``pilot projects'' aimed at that reform is
warranted.
25. Senator Landrieu. As you may know, recent studies estimate that
it will take $30 billion and more than 30 years just to fix the current
backlog of military housing deficiencies. On the bright side, the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 included a
series of new authorities that allow the Department of Defense to work
with the private sector to build and renovate military housing by
obtaining private capital to leverage government dollars, and use a
variety of private sector approaches to construct and refurbish
military housing faster and at a lower cost to American taxpayers. This
legislation was recently extended to December 2004.
What is your opinion concerning this approach? Do you support a
broader expansion of this initiative to include permanent authority?
Secretary Rumsfeld. Although I have not been briefed on the law to
which you refer, I support efforts to ensure that our servicemen and
women have access to quality, affordable military housing. Measures to
harness the productive potential of private industry are important to
this end.
______
Questions submitted by Senator Strom Thurmond
26. Senator Thurmond. Due to the leaner Active Duty military and
greater number of operational commitments, the DOD has increasingly
called on the Reserves and National Guard. In 1989, Reservists and
members of the Guard recorded one million days of duty. In each of the
past 3 years, that figure has averaged 13 million days. This increased
workload has had an impact on retention and recruiting. In extreme
cases, the relationship between the reservist and his employer is
adversely affected.
What are your general views on the use of the Reserve components
and, specifically, in peacekeeping operations?
Secretary Rumsfeld. The Guard and Reserve perform admirably in the
defense of our Nation, including deployments in peacekeeping
operations. Although I have not had the opportunity to study this issue
carefully, the quality of training, the status of equipment, and
national support for the missions of the Guard and Reserve are keys to
recruitment and retention of these essential forces. If confirmed, I
will give priority consideration to this situation including the impact
on civilian employment of deployed individuals.
27. Senator Thurmond. Since your last tour in the Department of
Defense, there has been a concerted effort to privatize many of the
services necessary to support our Armed Forces. Among the most recent
are the efforts to privatize military family housing and the
installation utility systems.
What are your views in regard to the privatization of essential
services within the Department of Defense?
Secretary Rumsfeld. The size and composition of DOD's facilities to
perform equipment maintenance is an important aspect of the overall
readiness of the Armed Forces. An appropriate balance between
government and private sector facilities must be struck in a manner
that assures the equipment employed by the Armed Forces will be ready
for use when needed. This balance in turn will be affected over time by
the nature of the technology used in military equipment. A balance will
be reviewed to assure that capabilities essential to national defense
that cannot reliably be provided by the private sector will be provided
by the government sector. Moreover, critical capabilities will be
maintained in the government sector. As noted above, private sector
support for military housing appears to have potential for accelerated
improvement of that housing.
28. Senator Thurmond. With the end of the Cold War, some of the
leading figures from the nuclear weapons programs and strategic policy
advocated that the existing nuclear states dismantle their nuclear
stockpile, which they considered as pointless and morally dubious
arsenals.
What are your views on the role of nuclear weapons in the future
threat environment?
Secretary Rumsfeld. Nuclear weapons remain an important element of
U.S. and allied defense policy. That being said, President-elect Bush
has stated that he will direct the next Secretary of Defense to
undertake a review of the U.S. nuclear posture and associated force
levels. If confirmed, I look forward to conducting that review.
29. Senator Thurmond. The Nation has made the decision not to
produce new nuclear weapons. More importantly, we no longer have the
capability to manufacture plutonium pits on a large scale to modernize
the existing stockpile.
Since you have historically advocated a strong nuclear TRIAD, what
are your concerns regarding this lack of capability to modernize our
nuclear stockpile?
Secretary Rumsfeld. There are real challenges associated with
maintaining a safe, reliable, and effective nuclear weapons stockpile
in the absence of underground nuclear testing. If confirmed, I will
work with the Secretary of Energy and the Administrator of the National
Nuclear Security Administration to ensure U.S. nuclear weapons are
capable of fulfilling the missions to which they have been assigned.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator John McCain
base closures
30a. Senator McCain. Mr. Secretary, in your answers to the advance
questions for today's hearing, I noticed your response with regard to
additional base closure rounds. As you are aware, Secretary Cohen has
requested two additional rounds of base closures in each of his budget
proposals to Congress, but so far Congress has not agreed to authorize
any additional closures--failing to authorize 40-60 and 36-63 in the
last 2 years--an experience not dissimilar to your experience as the
Secretary of Defense to President Ford.
The National Defense Panel, Secretary Cohen, nearly all the Service
Chiefs and other respected defense experts have been consistent in
their plea that the Pentagon be permitted to divest themselves of
excess infrastructure beyond what was eliminated during the prior four
rounds of base closings. Through the end of 1998, the Pentagon had
closed 97 major bases in the United States. Since then, it has closed
none. Moreover, the savings attained would ostensibly be used for force
modernization purposes.
According to our senior military leaders, the facts are the
Department of Defense still has nearly 23 percent more base facilities
than necessary to support our Nation's military forces.
I say this for my colleagues' benefit: the facts are--billions of
dollars are at stake. Department of Defense figures suggest previous
base closures will save, after one-time closing costs, $15 billion
through fiscal year 2001, $25 billion through fiscal year 2003, and
$6.1 billion a year thereafter. Additional needed closures can save $20
billion by 2015, and $3 billion a year thereafter. Sooner or later
these surplus bases will be closed anyway. The sooner the issue is
addressed, the greater will be the savings, that will ultimately go
toward defense modernization and greater pay raises for
servicemembers--two areas where President-elect Bush and I strongly
agree.
Previous base closure rounds have had many success stories. For
example, after England Air Force Base closed in 1992, Alexandria,
Louisiana, benefitted from the creation of over 1,400 jobs--nearly
double the number of jobs lost. Across the U.S. about 60,000 new jobs
have been created at closing military bases. At bases closed more than
2 years, nearly 75 percent of the civilian jobs have been replaced.
In Charleston, South Carolina, where the number of defense job
losses, as a percentage of the work force, was greater than at any
other base closure location, 23 major entities are reusing the former
Navy facilities and providing more than 3,300 jobs and another 13 more
applications are pending--adding soon even more newly created jobs to
that number. Additionally, roughly 75 percent of the 6 million square
feet of leasable space on the base is occupied. This is comparable to
the successes in my home State of Arizona with the closure of Williams
Air Force Base in the Phoenix East Valley.
Mr. Secretary, I will again propose the questions that you
previously addressed in the advance questions to the Senate Armed
Services Committee. Do you believe we still have excess military
infrastructure that can and should be reduced?
Secretary Rumsfeld. Our base structure should fit our force
structure requirements. As the President has noted, it appears that we
have 23 percent in estimated excess infrastructure. We are looking at
the issue, and will make a decision on how best to address as soon as
we can in the review process.
30b. Senator McCain. Do you believe it is in the best interest of
the Defense Department to authorize additional military base closures
and realignments could better align our military base structure to meet
the requirements of the new century and free up resources for higher
priority needs?
Secretary Rumsfeld. As noted previously, our base structure should
fit our force structure requirements. We are reviewing the current
force structure, and will make a decision on how best to address
mismatches as soon as we can in the review process.
30c. Senator McCain. Should any future base closures follow the
same basic procedures as the past four rounds?
Secretary Rumsfeld. It is too early to determine a process, but
when we have had the chance to review the proper force structure-
infrastructure alignment in greater detail, we will engage the
committee and others in Congress as appropriate.
31a. Senator McCain. Mr. Secretary, congressional legislation
authorizing the Pentagon to close bases expired in 1995. Since then,
Defense Secretary Cohen has repeatedly asked for new authority to
conduct two more rounds of base closures. Ostensibly because of a
widespread belief that the 1995 round was politicized by the Clinton
administration, Congress repeatedly rejected efforts to authorize
additional rounds. Last year, for instance, the Senate voted against
legislation mandating base closures by a vote of 36-63.
Mr. Secretary, what actions will you take to ensure that there is
no repetition of the politicization of the base closing process as was
evident in the cases of Kelly and McClellan Air Force Bases,
recommended for closure in the 1995 BRAC?
Secretary Rumsfeld. When we have established the proper
relationship between the force structure needed to execute our national
security strategy and the infrastructure needed to support that force,
we will work closely with Congress to develop a process that is fair
and true to that objective.
31b. Senator McCain. Mr. Secretary, from your previous experience
as Secretary of Defense, will you recommend to the President additional
base closing rounds and what advice can you lend to some of my more
skeptical colleagues in the House and the Senate?
Secretary Rumsfeld. Our base structure should fit our force
structure requirements. We are reviewing the current force structure,
and prefer to wait until the review is further along before we decide
to go forward with a legislative proposal seeking authority to conduct
future base closures.
congressional add-ons
32a. Senator McCain. During the last major drawdown following the
Vietnam War, there were instances of pork-barrel spending--a phenomenon
no doubt as old as the Republic--totaling 0.1 to 0.3 percent of the
President's budget request or roughly about $100 to $300 million, but
it is miniscule compared with the rampant abuse of the process today.
During the post-Cold War drawdown, in contrast to the 1970s, spending
for parochial purposes expanded to 2.2 percent of the President's
defense budget request--which doesn't seem like that much money but
represents about $5.5 to $6.0 billion annually. Now that the budget is
on an upswing, that expansion has grown even more. Last year, for
example, Congress added over $4 billion to the President's budget
request. Similarly, the Defense Appropriations Bill contained over $7
billion in unrequested and non-defense add-ons that is a net loss to
national security of at least $3 billion. Moreover, each year during
markup of the defense bill, this committee receives requests from
Senators for parochial projects produced in their home state, last year
those requests totaled $30 billion, a 25 percent increase over the
prior year.
Mr. Secretary, that is the state of the defense budget that you are
inheriting, could you comment on your intended approach to dealing with
the hundreds of member-adds that will most assuredly come your way?
Secretary Rumsfeld. When presenting my budget plan, I will urge
Congress to give it strong support. President Bush has emphasized that
strategy should drive our resource decisions--I support his position.
32b. Senator McCain. Mr. Secretary, do you see this type of
congressional behavior of congressional add-ons at cross purposes to
President Bush's modernization plan, which I support, that skips a
generation of weapon systems for ``programs that propel America
generations ahead in military technology'' and what will you try to do
to curb these excesses?
Secretary Rumsfeld. Our on-going reviews across a wide array of
matters will yield information that can be developed into operational
concepts and, from these, program decisions. I will work closely with
Congress to seek its support for these decisions.
33. Senator McCain. Mr. Secretary, a process evolved during the
post-Cold War drawdown wherein the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Service
Secretaries were asked to produce so-called Unfunded Priority Lists or
``wish lists'' detailing where they would allocate additional funds if
provided by Congress. These wish lists, over time, grew from several
pages to lengthy binders. This was understandable given the degree to
which the Armed Forces were under-funded by the Clinton administration.
My concern, however, has to do with the degree to which the Department
of Defense has been pressured by Members of Congress to include items
too numerous to list here on the Unfunded Priority Lists.
What will you do to resist such pressure and minimize pork-barrel
spending when pressing modernization, long-term research and
development, and readiness problems remain?
Secretary Rumsfeld. I feel it is important that the Department
speak with a unified voice, across the Services, in seeking to fund our
Defense programs to achieve the President's objectives. That is the
principle that will guide our interactions with Congress, in budgetary
and other matters.
use of force: kosovo and others
34. Senator McCain. Mr. Secretary, one of the fundamental
unresolved questions that must be faced by every President and
Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense is ``when to use military
force.'' Beyond that is the equally important question of ``how to
apply that force once the decision is made to use it.'' You are on the
record, I believe, as having been reluctant to become militarily
engaged in the Balkans, but once President Clinton initiated air
strikes, as having opposed his announced decision not to use ground
forces.
Mr. Secretary, could you articulate for the committee your sense of
the criteria that should guide the use of military force and, once
force is used, how it would be employed?
Secretary Rumsfeld. This is an issue for the President and his
national security team, not the Secretary of Defense alone. Each case
is unique. Some of the questions that should be discussed when
considering the use of force include: Are the goals achievable? Do we
have the resources? What interests are at stake? Are there constraints,
such as the command structure, that will impact how we can carry out
the operation? How would we characterize success? In the end, the
President, following careful consultation with his national security
team, must decide each case.
35a. Senator McCain. Those of us who assailed the administration
and NATO's conduct of gradual escalation during the Balkans campaign
took heart in your comments of that time, particularly your reflections
on CNN on April 4, 1999, with respect to comparisons of Kosovo to
Vietnam, which went as follows: ``There is always a risk in gradualism.
It pacifies the hesitant and the tentative. What it didn't do is shock
and awe, and alter the calculations of the people you're dealing
with.'' Similarly, during an interview with Chris Matthews, you noted
that ``. . . it was a mistake to say that we should not use ground
forces, because it simplifies the problem for Milosevic. . . It seems
to me we ought to stop saying things to appease and placate our
domestic political audiences and we ought to start behaving in a way
that suggests to Milosevic that it's . . . in his interest to end this
and stop ethnic cleansing and come to the negotiating table. . .''
Mr. Secretary, do you anticipate adopting this approach as one of
the key figures in the chain of command?
Secretary Rumsfeld. We must approach each potential use of military
force mindful of the unique circumstances at play. Our decisions must
be made with an understanding of the goals we seek to achieve and our
readiness to honestly evaluate the resources needed to achieve those
goals.
35b. Senator McCain. Mr. Secretary, could you offer some insight on
the philosophical approach you intend to bring to the job of Secretary
of Defense when the question of military deployments arise? How do you
approach the issue of moral imperative when no compelling national
interest is involved?
Secretary Rumsfeld. I fundamentally believe that America has
compelling interests as a global leader and that our interests will
continue to be challenged in ways that will threaten this Nation's
security. Deciding when and where to employ military forces to protect
our interests is a matter for the President in consultation with his
national security team. We must be a reliable ally, but resist hasty
decisions to use force. I also believe that, by remaining strong and
capable, we can dissuade potential adversaries from taking actions that
will ultimately lead to far more costly consequences for both of us.
36. Senator McCain. During the early phase of fighting in Bosnia-
Herzegovina, there existed a decision-making process, chain of command,
and rules of engagement that virtually guaranteed failure. Our pilots
found themselves having to receive the personal okay of the U.N.
Secretary General and his deputy for the Balkans prior to retaliating
against Bosnian Serb forces. In Kosovo, during Operation Allied Force,
we witnessed the spectacle of military commanders vetting their
tactical targeting plans through a 19-nation alliance built on
unanimity that also limited the effectiveness of the military
operation.
Mr. Secretary, what policies would you propose be implemented in
order to avoid a recurrence of such situations?
Secretary Rumsfeld. The key to avoiding such awkward command and
control situations in the future is to carefully review our procedures
and come to agreements with our allies before we ever have to put those
procedures into practice. This would entail several steps. First, we
need to refine and update our regional contingency plans where we are
likely to engage in combined operations within established alliances.
For different wartime scenarios, we must define what our mission would
be, and what would constitute success. We must also define appropriate
target sets that support the mission. Together with our allies, we
should define what military targets would contribute to the success of
operations described under the various scenarios, and define rules of
engagement for each type of target under each scenario. We must
establish operational guidelines within the framework of each alliance.
In addition, it is essential that we wargame each scenario, using
realistic command and control procedures, at the highest staff levels.
Finally, it is important to review agreements within the alliance on a
periodic basis to ensure currency.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Bob Smith
37. Senator Smith. You understandably resigned from the Space
Commission which you chaired to focus on your nomination. However, you
left before signing onto the report and the unanimous conclusions of
the remaining 12 Commissioners. Do you in fact agree with the findings
and recommendations of the Space Commission?
Secretary Rumsfeld. I agree that the United States is increasingly
dependent on its civil, commercial, and defense and intelligence space
assets. With that dependence comes vulnerability to hostile acts. The
Nation needs a capability to deter and defend against attack on space
assets and systems.
38. Senator Smith. The Space Commission report recommends several
actions for the Secretary of Defense. If confirmed, will you implement
those changes?
Secretary Rumsfeld. If confirmed, I will give careful attention to
these recommendations and the recommendations of several other recent
studies and commissions on space systems.
39. Senator Smith. There are several recommendations for the
President and other agencies of the administration. Some are even
suggestions for Congress.
If confirmed, will you encourage the President, other agencies of
the administration, and Congress to implement the changes recommended
by the Space Commission?
Secretary Rumsfeld. See answer above.
40. Senator Smith. The Commission's report stated that we have not
adequately funded a number of space activities. In particular, it noted
that we need space control and satellite negation capability.
Do you believe the U.S. should have an anti-satellite capability?
Secretary Rumsfeld. The U.S. and other nations that make use of
space face threats to the operation of their satellites. We know that
other nations have jammed telecommunications from on-orbit satellites,
that Russian entities market devices that can jam GPS signals, and that
foreign satellite manufacturers market so-called ``micro satellites''
to other foreign countries that can be used for offensive actions
against satellites. In light of U.S. dependence on space assets, the
vulnerability of these assets to attack or disruption and the fact that
others have the means of doing harm to U.S. interests in space, it
would be contrary to U.S. security interests not to develop, test, and
deploy the appropriate means of deterring attack on and defending space
systems.
41a. Senator Smith. The Commission had concerns about the Air Force
not doing a good job of growing space experts from within the space
community for senior leadership positions. Rather, they tend to bring
in rated officers with little or no space experience to fill key space
leadership positions.
If confirmed, will you encourage the Air Force to promote more
career space experts to senior leadership positions rather than drawing
so heavily from the pilot community while space officers stagnate?
Secretary Rumsfeld. Yes.
41b. Senator Smith. Based on what you know of the emerging missile
threat and the current administration's planned National Missile
Defense concept, do you believe the planned concept by itself is
sufficiently robust and capable of providing the defense you and the
President-elect have described to the nation? When do you anticipate
completing your review of the critical missile defense mission and
bringing forward to Congress the robust missile defense architecture to
protect America and our friends and allies?
Secretary Rumsfeld. I believe it would be good to examine alternate
and complementary architectures to the NMD system currently under
development. I cannot now predict when that review will be completed or
the architectures that will be found to be appropriate.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Olympia J. Snowe
42. Senator Snowe. In its review of the fiscal year 2001 budget
request, the Seapower Subcommittee took testimony from Congressional
Research Service that indicated a $10 to $12 billion annual investment,
depending on the actual ship mix, and an average build rate of 8.7
ships per year is required to maintain 308 ships. However, in its
budget request for fiscal year 2001, the administration in its Future
Years Defense Program included only 7.5 ships per year and over the
last 8 years of the Clinton administration requested only 4.75 ships
per year. Congress helped raise that average to 5.5 ships per year.
Given that the CNO has testified that 34 percent of the Navy is
deployed at any given time and that he is hard-pressed to meet that
requirement with the current fleet, are you committed to review the
shipbuilding account for adequacy?
Secretary Rumsfeld. Yes.
43. Senator Snowe. In a New York Times article dated January 8,
2001, the authors questioned the DOD's ability to pursue leap-ahead
technologies while modernizing the military. The article specifically
mentioned three programs that might be candidates for cancellation or
postponement to pay for pursuit of leap-ahead technologies: the F-22,
the MV-22, and the DD-21. Witnesses testified before the Seapower
Subcommittee that the Marines have been at considerable risk in naval
surface fire support since the retirement of the Iowa-class battleship
and will remain so until the DD-21 joins the fleet in strength.
Slippage of the DD-21 would increase risk to the Navy team's capability
for forced entry operations and its ability to conduct Operational
Maneuver From The Sea.
Do you plan to review the resources necessary to meet naval surface
fire support requirements of the United States Marine Corps to perform
the missions we expect of them?
Secretary Rumsfeld. Yes.
44. Senator Snowe. The safety and efficacy of the Department of
Defense Anthrax Vaccine Immunization Program (AVIP) continues to be of
great concern to our men and women in uniform and their families. In
light of the divisive nature of the DOD anthrax policy, do you plan to
review this policy, and what actions might you plan to take to regain
the trust of our service members and their families lost due to AVIP?
Secretary Rumsfeld. I am not familiar with the details of the AVIP
program. However, the trust of our service members and their families
is essential to the effectiveness, morale, and welfare of the U.S.
Armed Forces. If confirmed, I will get briefed on the program. In the
interim, it would not be appropriate for me to comment in detail.
45. Senator Snowe. In your 1998 commission report you highlighted
the missile threat faced by not only our own forces, but America's
allies like Israel as well. U.S.-Israeli cooperation on the Arrow
missile system has been a critical component to Israel's defensive
capabilities as well as a centerpiece for our strategic relationship.
Also, during your service in the Ford administration you were
supportive of Israeli security requirements.
As Secretary, do you foresee this joint initiative continuing? Will
you continue to facilitate Israel's qualitative military edge,
including the provision of advanced U.S. defense technologies?
Secretary Rumsfeld. I support continued cooperative efforts in the
area of ballistic missile defense. I have not been briefed on the ARROW
program in detail, however, and therefore do not believe it appropriate
to comment on possible future directions or funding for that program.
46. Senator Snowe. The Taiwan Relations Act declares America's
intention to provide for the defensive capabilities of Taiwan with no
veto by China. The Taiwan Relations Act also states that ``the
President and Congress'' shall determine Taiwan's defense requirements.
What recommendations to the President will you make based on the
needs of Taiwan in order to defend itself as required by the Taiwan
Relations Act?
Secretary Rumsfeld. Any recommendations regarding arms sales to
Taiwan will be made to the President. However, I understand the
requirements of the Taiwan Relations Act and support a strong
relationship between Taiwan and the United States, in support of
Taiwan's need for effective self-defense capability against the threats
posed to it.
47. Senator Snowe. In addition to U.S. military aid to present
recipients, as Secretary would you recommend to President Bush that
there is a need to expand this aid? If so, do you have any regions or
countries that you foresee need this assistance?
Secretary Rumsfeld. I have not had an opportunity to review U.S.
arms sales policy. If confirmed, I will assess U.S. arms sales policy,
in conjunction with the other members of the President's national
security team.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Wayne Allard
48. Senator Allard. As a member of the NRO Commission, we found
that there is a valuable role to be played by commercial space systems
in order to allow our defense and intelligence assets to be available
for critical tasks.
Do you see a role for commercial systems and will you advocate a
clear national strategy and a commitment of funding for acquisition of
imagery in order to take full advantage of commercial satellite
capabilities?
Secretary Rumsfeld. As I stated in the confirmation hearing, my
impression is that the United States government, including the
military, will and should increase the use of commercially available
satellite capabilities, especially in the area of communications and
imagery. There are a number of instances where the government might
take advantage of commercial off-the-shelf type products and services,
and use those products and services to good effect.
49. Senator Allard. A concern for me is the adequate funding for
our long lead space research and development programs--such as the
space based radar.
What key areas and needs do you see as a focus for technological
development in order to move our systems to the next generation?
Secretary Rumsfeld. I agree that there needs to be considerable
investment in ``leading edge'' technologies. The United States cannot
afford to lose its preeminence in science and technology.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Tim Hutchinson
50. Senator Hutchinson. I am concerned that the military's basic
pay table has become compressed over the last decade--that senior
enlisted members of our Armed Forces are no longer receiving
compensation commensurate with the great responsibilities placed upon
their shoulders.
If confirmed, will you thoroughly examine the area of compensation
for senior enlisted members of our Armed Forces before President Bush
sends an amended fiscal year 2002 budget request to Congress?
Secretary Rumsfeld. Yes.
51. Senator Hutchinson. Nearly every soldier, sailor, airman, or
marine that I have spoken to has told me that the need to provide a
college education for a spouse or child has become a major factor in
most re-enlistment decisions. While I have, in the past, supported
efforts to make Montgomery G.I. Bill benefits portable, I am not
convinced that this would provide the best solution.
If confirmed, will you commit yourself to working with Congress to
explore new methods by which those who make a career of the Armed
Forces will be able to provide college educations for their dependents?
Secretary Rumsfeld. If confirmed, I will be pleased to work with
you and your colleagues in the Senate and the House of Representatives
to identify options for improving the overall morale and welfare of our
servicemen and women, including the dependent's education option you
have suggested.
52. Senator Hutchinson. One of the many programmatic challenges
facing the Department of Defense is the modernization of our Nation's
fleet of C-130 transport aircraft.
If confirmed, what steps will you take to ensure a modern and
viable mission-ready C-130 force for today and for the future?
Secretary Rumsfeld. I am aware of and appreciate the keen interest
in the C-130J program shown by you and several of your colleagues.
However, I have not had an opportunity to review the program, nor have
I seen the results of the mobility requirements study you mention. If
confirmed, I will review the study and the program.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Jeff Sessions
53. Senator Sessions. The U.S. government is faced with the
enormous task of destroying unexploded ordnance at munitions sites that
have been found across the United States, most notably recently at
Massachusetts Military Range on Cape Cod, in Massachusetts and Rocky
Mountain Arsenal in Denver, Colorado. There are hundreds of U.S. sites
with similar problems. These munitions and their toxic explosives can
pose serious environmental problems both in terms of their storage or
if they are destroyed by open burn or open detonation.
What plans would your Department have to destroy munitions found in
current and former U.S. bases? Will you focus on closed disposal
technologies rather than continuation of open burn/open detonations as
a solution to this problem? What priority would you give to the funding
of new methods of destroying these hazardous materials, including
finding private sector solutions to this problem that would not require
the hazardous transport of conventional unexploded ordnance?
Secretary Rumsfeld. I appreciate your concern about unexploded
ordnance. However, I have not been briefed on the Department's plans
and programs in this area, and am unable to comment at this time. If
confirmed, these activities will be reviewed and assessed.
54. Senator Sessions. Areas of the former Soviet Union, Central and
Eastern Europe, and Asia have numerous outdated and hazardous munitions
sites that could pose a proliferation problem if those munitions and
explosives are not properly destroyed. The U.S. government currently
funds this program in the former Soviet Union.
Would you support the continuation of this non-proliferation
program and an increase in budgetary allocations to help stem this
proliferation concern? Would you support the extension of this program
to include Central and Eastern Europe and Asia? Which areas pose a
particular concern? Would your administration support the extension of
non-proliferation programs to China that would help American companies
enter this market, destroying munitions that pose an environmental
hazard? Would you support the use of Foreign Ministry Financing Funds
for the destruction of unexploded ordnance and chemical weapons if
requested by an eligible country?
Secretary Rumsfeld. I am unaware of the program to which you refer.
If confirmed, I will undertake to have this program reviewed in light
of your questions.
______
[The nomination reference of Donald H. Rumsfeld follows:]
Nomination Reference
[On January 20, 2001, the Senate received the Donald H.
Rumsfeld nomination. It was not referred to the Senate Armed
Services Committee, but was signed by the President, placed on
the Senate Executive Calendar, and then confirmed by the full
Senate by voice vote all on the same day. A confirmation
hearing was held by the Senate Armed Services Committee on
January 11, 2001.]
------
[The biographical sketch of Donald H. Rumsfeld follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Donald H. Rumsfeld
Donald Rumsfeld was born in 1932 in Chicago, Illinois,
attended Princeton University on scholarship, served in the
U.S. Navy (1954-1957) as an aviator, and was All Navy Wrestling
Champion. Married in 1954, he and his wife Joyce have three
children and five grandchildren.
Mr. Rumsfeld is in private business and is Chairman of the
Board of Directors of Gilead Sciences, Inc. He serves as a
member of the boards of directors of ABB (Asea Brown Boveri)
Ltd. (Zurich, Switzerland), Amylin Pharmaceuticals, and Tribune
Company. He is also Chairman of the Salomon Smith Barney
International Advisory Board and an advisor to a number of
companies, including Investor AB of Sweden. He is currently
Chairman of the U.S. Commission to Assess National Security
Space Management and Organization.
In 1962, at the age of 30, he was elected to his first of
four terms in the U.S. Congress. In 1969, he resigned from
Congress to join the President's Cabinet. He served as Director
of the Office of Economic Opportunity and Assistant to the
President, and later as Director of the Economic Stabilization
Program and Counselor to the President. In January 1973 he was
posted to Brussels, Belgium, as U.S. Ambassador to North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
In August 1974, Mr. Rumsfeld was called back to Washington,
DC, to serve as Chairman of the transition to the Presidency of
Gerald R. Ford. He served as Chief of Staff of the White House
and as a member of the President's Cabinet, 1974-1975, and as
the 13th U.S. Secretary of Defense, 1975-1977, the youngest in
history.
In 1977, Mr. Rumsfeld left Washington, DC, after some 20
years of public service and lectured at Princeton University's
Woodrow Wilson School of International Affairs and at
Northwestern University's Kellogg Graduate School of Management
prior to entering business.
In June 1977, he became Chief Executive Officer of G.D.
Searle & Co., a worldwide pharmaceutical company, where he
served until 1985. The turnaround there earned him awards as
the Outstanding Chief Executive Officer in the Pharmaceutical
Industry in 1980 and 1981. He was in private business from 1985
to 1990. From 1990 to 1993, Mr. Rumsfeld served as Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer of General Instrument Corporation, a
leader in broadband and digital high-definition television
technology. After taking the company public, Mr. Rumsfeld
returned to private business.
During his years in business, he has continued public
service in a variety of federal posts including service as
President Reagan's Special Envoy for the Middle East, and as a
Member of the President's General Advisory Committee on Arms
Control, and the National Economic Commission. His current
civic activities include service on the Boards of Trustees of
the Chicago Historical Society, Eisenhower Exchange
Fellowships, the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, the
Rand Corporation and the National Park Foundation. He is also a
member of the U.S.-Russia Business Forum, and recently
completed service as Chairman of the U.S. Government Commission
to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States.
Honors include: Distinguished Eagle Scout Award (1975),
George Catlett Marshall Award (1984), Woodrow Wilson Award
(1985), Dwight Eisenhower Medal (1993), and eleven honorary
degrees. In 1977, Mr. Rumsfeld was awarded the nation's highest
civilian award, the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
------
[The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
form that details the biographical, financial, and other
information of the nominee. The form executed by Donald H.
Rumsfeld in connection with his nomination follows:]
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Room SR-228
Washington, DC 20510-6050
(202) 224-3871
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation
of your answer applies.
Part A--Biographical Information
Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.
1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
Donald Henry Rumsfeld.
2. Position to which nominated:
U.S. Secretary of Defense.
3. Date of nomination:
Expected to be on January 20, 2001. Date of announcement by
President-elect December 28, 2000.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
5. Date and place of birth:
July 9, 1932; Chicago, Illinois.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Marion Joyce Pierson; December 27, 1954.
7. Names and ages of children:
Valerie Jeanne Rumsfeld, age 44 (born March 3, 1956)
Marcy Kay Rumsfeld, age 40 (born March 28, 1960)
Donald Nicholas Rumsfeld, age 33 (born June 26, 1967).
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received and date degree granted.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From To Name of School Address Degree
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9/46............................ 6/50.............. New Trier High Winnetka, IL...... H.S. Diploma
School.
9/50............................ 6/54.............. Princeton Princeton, NJ..... B.A.
University.
10/54........................... 1/56.............. U.S. Naval Flight Pensacola, FL..... Naval Aviator
School.
1956............................ 1956.............. Instructors Basic Pensacola, FL..... Naval Flight
Training School Instructor
(IBTU).
1959............................ 1959.............. Georgetown Law Washington, DC.... None
Center.
1959............................ 1960.............. Western Reserve Cleveland, OH..... None
Law School.
1963............................ 1963.............. National War Washington, DC.... N/A
College.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dates Position Company
------------------------------------------------------------------------
08/93-Present................... Private Business.. 400 N. Michigan,
#405, Chicago, IL
60611
10/90-08/93..................... Chairman and Chief General Instrument
Executive Officer. Corp., 181 W.
Madison St.,
Chicago, IL 60602
10/85-10/90..................... Senior Advisor William Blair &
(part time) and Co., 135 S.
private business. LaSalle St.,
Chicago, IL 60603
08/85-09/30/85.................. Chairman of the G.D. Searle & Co.,
Board, President 4711 Golf Road,
& CEO. Skokie, IL 60076
06/77-08/85..................... President, CEO & G.D. Searle & Co.,
Director. 4711 Golf Road,
Skokie, IL 60076
11/3/83-04/84................... Presidential Envoy U.S. Government,
for the Middle Washington, DC
East (part-time,
temporary W.O.C.--
on leave of
absence from G.D.
Searle & Co.).
10/82-02/83..................... Presidential Envoy U.S. Government,
for the Law of Washington, DC
the Sea (part
time--on leave of
absence from G.D.
Searle & Co.).
01/77-06/77..................... Lecturer (part Northwestern
time). Graduate School
of Mgmt. and
Princeton
University,
Woodrow Wilson
School of
International
Affairs
01/77-06/77..................... Consultant........ G.D. Searle Co
11/18/75-01/20/77............... Secretary of U.S. Dept. of
Defense. Defense,
Washington, DC
08/74........................... Chairman of Gerald The White House,
R. Ford's Washington, DC
Transition to the
Presidency.
09/27/74-11/18/75............... White House Chief The White House,
of Staff; Asst. Washington, DC
to the President;
Cabinet Member.
02/02/73-12/05/74............... U.S. Ambassador to U.S. Dept. of
NATO. State,
Washington, DC
1971-1973....................... Member of the The White House,
Cabinet. Washington, DC
12/10/70-02/02/73............... Counsellor to the
President.
10/07/71-02/02/73............... Director, Economic
Stabilization
Program (Cost of
Living Council).
1969-1973....................... Member of the The White House,
Cabinet. Washington, DC
05/26/69-2/2/73................. Asst. to the
President.
05/26/69-12/10/70............... Director, Office
of Economic
Opportunity.
1963-1969....................... Member, U.S. House U.S. Congress,
of Washington, DC
Representatives
(R-IL).
1960-1962....................... Registered A.G. Becker & Co.
Representative. (investment
banking) Chicago,
IL
1959-1960....................... Campaign Manager.. Hon. David
Dennison, Warren,
Ohio
1959............................ Staff Assistant, Congressman Robert
U.S. House of Griffin (R-
Representatives. Michigan)
Washington, DC
1957-1959....................... Administrative Honorable David
Asst., U.S. House Dennison, Warren,
of Ohio.
Representatives.
1954-1957....................... Naval Aviator, U.S. Navy and then
then Flight U.S.N.R.
Instructor, then
Instructor of
Flight
Instructors.
1950-1954....................... Midshipman........ N.R.O.T.C.
(Regular).
1949 (Summer)................... Counselor......... Camp Owakanze, Ft.
Williams, Canada
1949 (Xmas)..................... Mailman (part U.S. Post Office,
time). Winnetka, IL
1948 (Summer)................... Counselor......... Philmont Scout
Ranch.
(Xmas)........................ Mailman (part U.S. Post Office,
time). Winnetka, IL
1947 (Summer)................... Laborer, Skokie Country
construction and Club.
gardening.
(Xmas)........................ Mailman (part U.S. Post Office,
time). Winnetka, IL.
OTHER:
1948............................ Janitor (part Dress shop,
time). Winnetka, IL
1947............................ Rug Cleaner....... Lewis Mothproof,
Northbrook, IL
1946............................ Gardening and snow Winnetka, IL.
shoveling.
1945............................ Newsboy, gardening Coronado, CA.
1944............................ Newsboy, chopped Port Orchard,
wood, delivered Washington;
ice, dug clams. Seaside, Oregon.
1943............................ Newsboy, shop boy Elizabeth City,
(fish market), NC.
raised and sold
watermelons,
cantaloupe and
chickens.
1942............................ Newsboy, magazine Winnetka, IL.
salesman,
delivery boy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative,
honorary or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State,
or local governments, other than those listed above.
This attachment represents my best recollections. It is complete to
the best of my ability, but I suspect there may be some unintentional
omissions.
APPOINTMENT DATES--DONALD RUMSFELD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
President Date Title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nixon.......................... 5/26/69 to 2/2/73 Assistant to the
President
Nixon.......................... 5/26/69 to 12/10/70 Director of the
Office of
Economic
Opportunity
Nixon.......................... 4/20/70 to 2/2/73 Property Review
Board (member 4/
20/70; chairman 9/
11/71)
Nixon.......................... 12/10/70 to 2/2/73 Counselor to the
President
Nixon.......................... 1/20/71 to 2/2/73 Member of Domestic
Council
Nixon.......................... 10/7/71 to 2/2/73 Director of the
Cost of Living
Council
Nixon.......................... 2/2/73 to 12/5/74 U.S. Permanent
Representative on
the Council of
North Atlantic
Treaty
Organization with
the Rank and
Status of
Ambassador
Extraordinary and
Plenipotentiary
Ford........................... 9/27/74 to 11/18/75 Assistant to the
President
Ford........................... 11/18/75 to 1/20/77 Secretary of
Defense
Ford........................... 2/24/76 to 1/20/77 Governor of Board
of Governors,
American National
Red Cross
Reagan......................... 9/23/82 to 10/29/86 Member of the
General Advisory
Committee of the
U.S. Arms Control
& Disarmament
Agency
Reagan......................... 5/17/83 to 9/17/84 Member of the
Presidents
Council on the
Conduct of U.S.-
Japan Relations
Reagan......................... 11/3/83 (no end Personal
date) Representative of
the President of
the U.S.A. in the
Middle East
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. GOVERNMENT RELATED--CURRENT:
Director of Central Intelligence--Washington, DC--Consultant (WOC)
(7/98-)
Congressional Policy Advisory Board, Republican Policy Committee,
U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC--Member, Advisory Board
(1/98- )
Congressional Leadership National Security Advisory Group,
Washington, DC--Chairman (6/22/00- )
Senator Peter Fitzgerald Business Advisory Committee, Chicago, IL--
Member (12/98- )
National Park Foundation, Washington, DC--Member, Board of Trustees
(8/90-8/96) (1/93-7/94) (11/97- ); Selection Committee for Theodore
Roosevelt Medal (3/95- ); Selection Committee for Board (6/95-4/96);
Development Committee (1/98- ); Executive Committee (10/92-4/96)(1/98-
); Finance Committee (10/92-4/96); New Initiatives Task Force (1/93-7/
94); Government Relations Committee (7/94-4/96); Governance Committee
(1/98-9/98)(11/98- ); Chairman, Governance Committee (11/98-7/00).
Lt. Governor Corinne Wood Business Advisory Committee, Chicago,
IL--Member (3/99- )
FORMER ACTIVITIES (PARTIAL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approximate Dates Activity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1967-1969................................. THE JAPANESE-AMERICAN INTER-
PARLIAMENTARY COUNCIL--Co-
Founder, Washington, DC
1968-1968................................. COMMITTEE TO STUDY THE
ORGANIZATION OF CONGRESS
FOR THE HOUSE REPUBLICAN
CONFERENCE, Washington, DC--
Member.
1968-?.................................... THE NAVAL ACADEMY ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, Annapolis,
Maryland--Honorary Member
1968-1969................................. NAVAL RESERVE ASSOCIATION--
Member, Chicago, IL.
1968-1969................................. RESERVE OFFICERS
ASSOCIATION--Member,
Washington, DC
1977-?.................................... U.S. DEPT. OF DEFENSE,
Washington, DC--Advisor
(W.O.C.)
02/81-1981................................ INTERIM FOREIGN POLICY
ADVISORY BOARD FOR
PRESIDENT REAGAN--Member
09/82-11/86............................... PRESIDENT REAGAN'S GENERAL
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON ARMS
CONTROL (GAC), Washington,
DC--Member
10/82-2/83................................ PRESIDENT REAGAN'S SPECIAL
ENVOY FOR THE LAW OF THE
SEA TREATY--(W.O.C.),
Washington, DC
11/82-06/85............................... PRESIDENT REAGAN'S COUNCIL
FOR INTERNATIONAL YOUTH
EXCHANGE, Washington, DC--
Member
12/82-09/85............................... PRESIDENT REAGAN'S COUNCIL
FOR PHYSICAL FITNESS &
SPORTS, Washington, DC--
Special Advisor
12/82-10/90............................... NATIONAL DEFENSE UNIVERSITY
FOUNDATION, Washington, DC--
Honorary Member, Board of
Directors
01/83-1984................................ PRESIDENT REAGAN'S PANEL ON
STRATEGIC SYSTEMS--(MX
Panel)--(W.O.C.),
Washington, DC--Senior
Advisor.
06/83-10/84............................... U.S. PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION
ON THE CONDUCT OF U.S./
JAPAN RELATIONS (U.S.),
Washington, DC--Member; and
THE JOINT ADVISORY
COMMISSION ON U.S./JAPAN
RELATIONS (Bi-National)--
(W.O.C.), Washington, DC--
Member
10/83-1/89(?)............................. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington, DC--Advisor/
Expert (W.O.C.) (Dates are
uncertain.)
11/83-4/84................................ PRESIDENT REAGAN'S SPECIAL
ENVOY TO THE MIDDLE EAST--
(W.O.C.), Washington, DC
03/87-06/88............................... ASSOCIATION OF NAVAL
AVIATION, Washington, DC--
Member.
10/87-08/90............................... NATIONAL (Paul Volker)
COMMISSION ON PUBLIC
SERVICE, Washington, DC--
Member
02/88-03/89............................... NATIONAL ECONOMIC COMMISSION
(Reagan Administration),
Washington, DC--Member
02/88-08/92............................... NATIONAL DEFENSE UNIVERSITY,
Washington, DC--Member,
Board of Advisors
05/89-08/91............................... COMMISSION ON U.S.-JAPAN
RELATIONS (U.S.-Japan
2000)--Member
08/89-2/90................................ NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE,
Washington, DC--Member,
Panel on the Future Design
and Implementation of U.S.
National Security Export
Controls
1992-1994................................. INTERNATIONAL REPUBLICAN
INSTITUTE, Washington, DC--
Member
03/92-10/93............................... U.S. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION--HIGH DEFINITION
TELEVISION ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
12/97-7/98................................ COMMISSION TO ASSESS THE
BALLISTIC MISSILE THREAT TO
THE UNITED STATES,
Washington, DC--Chairman
2/99-6/99................................. PANEL TO ASSESS THE
CAPABILITIES FOR DOMESTIC
RESPONSE TO TERRORIST ACTS
INVOLVING WEAPONS OF MASS
DESTRUCTION (RAND)--
Washington, DC
1/99-11/00................................ U.S. TRADE DEFICIT REVIEW
COMMISSION--Washington, DC--
Commissioner
6/00-12/00................................ U.S. COMMISSION TO ASSESS
NATIONAL SECURITY SPACE
MANAGEMENT AND
ORGANIZATION, Washington,
DC--Chairman
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SELECTED U.S. GOVERNMENT ACTIVITIES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approx. Dates
----------------------------------------------------- Activity
From To
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sep-50.......................... Jun-54............ Midshipman,
N.R.O.T.C.
Jan-54.......................... Jan-57............ Naval Officer,
Ensign/LTJG
Nov-57.......................... Honorable
discharge from
the U.S. Navy
Nov-57.......................... 1989.............. Naval Reserves,
Captain/USNR-
Retired
Dec-57.......................... Jan-59............ Administrative
Assistant to
Congressman David
Dennison (R-OH)
1959............................ 1959.............. Staff Assistant to
Congressman
Robert Griffin (R-
MI)
Jan-63.......................... Apr-69............ Member (R-IL),
U.S.House of
Representatives,
88th Congress
Jan-63.......................... Apr-69............ Member, House
Committee on
Science &
Astronautics
Jan-63.......................... Jan-65............ Member,
Subcommittee on
Advanced Research
& Technology
Jan-63.......................... Jan-65............ Member,
Subcommittee on
Tracking & Data
Acquisition
Jan-65.......................... Apr-69............ Member,
Subcommittee on
Manned Space
Flight
1965............................ 2000.............. Member, 88th
Congressional
Club
Jan-65.......................... Jan-67............ Member, House
Committee on
Foreign
Operations &
Government
Information
Jan-65.......................... Jan-67............ Member, Government
Operations
Subcommittee on
Legal & Monetary
Affairs
Jan-67.......................... Apr-69............ Member, Government
Operations
Subcommittee on
Military
Operations
Jan-67.......................... Apr-69............ Member, Joint
Economic
Committee
Jan-67.......................... Apr-69............ Member, Joint
Economic
Committee
Subcommittee on
Economy in
Government
Jan-67.......................... Apr-69............ Member, Joint
Economic
Committee
Subcommittee on
Economic
Statistics
Jan-67.......................... Apr-69............ Member, Joint
Economic
Committee
Subcommittee on
Fiscal Policy
Jan-67.......................... Apr-69............ Member, Joint
Economic
Committee
Subcommittee on
Inter-American
Economic
Relationships
1967............................ President of
Republican
Members, 88th
Congress, U.S.
House of
Representatives
1968............................ 1969.............. Member,
Presidential
Transition Team
for President-
Elect Richard
Nixon
Apr-69.......................... Jan-73............ Member,
President's
Cabinet (Nixon)
May-69.......................... Feb-73............ Assistant to the
President (Nixon)
May-69.......................... Dec-70............ Director, Office
of Economic
Opportunity
Apr-70.......................... Feb-73............ Member, Property
Review Board.
Chairman (9/11/71-
2/73)
Dec-70.......................... Feb-73............ Counselor to the
President (Nixon)
Jan-71.......................... Feb-73............ Member, Domestic
Council
Oct-71.......................... Feb-73............ Director, Economic
Stabilization
Program (Cost of
Living Council)
Feb-73.......................... Dec-74............ U.S. Ambassador to
NATO, Brussels,
Belgium
1974............................ ................ Chairman of the
Presidential
Transition Team
for Gerald Ford
1974............................ 1975.............. Member,
President's
Cabinet (Ford)
1974............................ 1975.............. White House Chief
of Staff
Sep-74.......................... Nov-75............ Assistant to the
President (Ford)
Nov-75.......................... Jan-77............ U.S. Secretary of
Defense
Feb-76.......................... Jan-77............ Governor, American
National Red
Cross Board of
Governors
1977............................ 1980.............. Consultant, U.S.
Department of
Defense (W.O.C)
1980............................ Member of Ronald
Reagan's Foreign
and Defense
Policy Advisory
Committee
1981............................ Member, Interim
Foreign Policy
Advisory Board
for President
Reagan
1982............................ 1983.............. Senior Advisor to
Commission on
Strategic Systems
(Scowcroft MX
Panel), (W.O.C)
Sep-82.......................... (?)............... Member, U.S.
General Advisory
Committee on Arms
Control (W.O.C.)
Oct-82.......................... Feb-83............ Presidential Envoy
for the Law of
the Sea Treaty
May-83.......................... Sep-84............ Member, U.S.
Presidential
Commission on
U.S.-Japan
Relations
(W.O.C.)
May-83.......................... Sep-84............ Member, U.S. the
Joint Advisory
Commission on
U.S.-Japan
Relations
(W.O.C.)
Nov-83.......................... Jan-89............ Consultant/Expert
Advisor, U.S.
Department of
State (W.O.C.)
(dates uncertain)
Nov-83.......................... Apr-84............ President Reagan's
Personal
Representative to
the Middle East
Feb-88.......................... Mar-89............ Member, National
Economic
Commission,
Washington, DC
Aug-90.......................... Aug-96............ Member, Board of
Trustees,
National Park
Foundation,
Washington, DC
Nov-97.......................... Dec-00............ Member, Board of
Trustees,
National Park
Foundation,
Washington, DC
Oct-92.......................... Apr-96............ Member, Executive
Committee,
National Park
Foundation,
Washington, DC
Oct-92.......................... Apr-96............ Member, Finance
Committee,
National Park
Foundation,
Washington, DC
Mar-95.......................... Jan-01............ Member, Selection
Committee for
Theodore
Roosevelt Medal,
National Park
Foundation,
Washington, DC
Jan-93.......................... Ju1-94............ Member, New
Initiatives Task
Force, National
Park Foundation,
Washington, DC
Ju1-94.......................... Apr-96............ Member, Government
Relations
Committee
National Park
Foundation,
Washington, DC
Jun-95.......................... Apr-96............ Member, Selection
Committee for
Board, National
Park Foundation,
Washington, DC
Jan-98.......................... Sep-98............ Member, Governance
Committee,
National Park
Foundation,
Washington, DC
Jan-98.......................... Jan-01............ Member,
Development
Committee,
National Park
Foundation,
Washington, DC
Jan-98.......................... Jan-01............ Member, Executive
Committee,
National Park
Foundation,
Washington, DC
Ju1-98.......................... Jul-00............ Chairman,
Governance
Committee,
National Park
Foundation,
Washington, DC
Nov-98.......................... Jan-01 ........... Member, Governance
Committee,
National Park
Foundation,
Washington, DC
Jan-98.......................... Jan-01............ Member,
Congressional
Policy Advisory
Board, Republican
Policy Committee,
House of
Representatives,
Washington, DC
Ju1-98.......................... Jan-01............ Consultant to the
Director of
Central
Intelligence,
Washington, DC
Jan-99.......................... Nov-00............ Member, U.S. Trade
Deficit Review
Commission,
Washington, DC
Jun-00.......................... Jan-01............ Chairman,
Congressional
Leadership
National Security
Advisory Group,
Washington, DC
Jun-00.......................... Dec-00............ Chairman, U.S.
Commission to
Assess National
Security Space
Management and
Organization,
Washington, DC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
This attachment represents my best recollections. It is complete to
the best of my ability, but I suspect there may be some unintentional
omissions.
current activities
*Organizational affiliations which I might wish to continue during
the term of my appointment
**Investments in entities which I might wish to continue during the
term of my appointment.
BUSINESS:
BOARDS OF DIRECTORS: PUBLIC COMPANIES
ABB Asea Brown Boveri, Ltd., Zurich, Switzerland--Member, Board of
Directors (6/99- ); Nominating Committee (12/99- )
AMYLIN PHARMACEUTICALS, La Jolla, California--Member, Board of
Directors (11/91-9/96), (9/99- ), Advisor (9/96-10/99)
GILEAD SCIENCES, INC., Foster City, California--Chairman, Board of
Directors (1/97- ); Member, Board of Directors (7/88- ); Audit
Committee (4/89-97); Compensation Committee (4/91-97)
TRIBUNE COMPANY, Chicago, Illinois--Member, Board of Directors (7/
92- ); Executive Committee (5/96- ); Audit Committee (7/92-5/95);
Governance and Compensation Committee (5/95- ); Incentive Compensation
Subcommittee of the Governance and Compensation Committee (5/96-5/99);
Finance Committee (7/92-5/95); Technical Advisory Committee (9/92-2/
00)--Chairman (5/95-2/00); [Leave of Absence from 7/8/96 to 11/6/96].
BOARDS OF DIRECTORS: PRIVATE COMPANIES
OVERX, INC., Chicago, IL--Member, Board of Directors (7/99- );
Compensation Committee (10/99-12/99)
*,**SHOTPUT HOLDINGS, INC. (Owned 100 percent by Donald Rumsfeld to
hold fractional interest in aircraft that are operated and maintained
by a third-party), Chicago, IL--Member, Board of Directors and
President (11/95- ).
ADVISORY RELATIONSHIPS: PUBLIC COMPANIES
INVESTOR AB, Stockholm, Sweden--Advisor (1/94- )
METRICOM, INC., Los Gatos, California--Member, Advisory Board (1/
94- )
NVIDIA, Sunnyvale, California--Business Advisor (2/98- )
SALOMON SMITH BARNEY, New York, New York--Chairman, International
Advisory Board (11/98- ).
ADVISORY BOARDS: PRIVATE COMPANIES
THE HAMILTON GROUP, Washington, DC.--Member, Advisory Board (2/97-
)
TRANSACTION INFORMATION SYSTEMS (TIS), New York. NY--Advisory Board
(4/99- )
THESCIENCE.COM--Menlo Park, CA--Advisory Board (4/00- ).
U.S. GOVERNMENT RELATED
DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE--Washington, DC--Consultant
(WOC)(7/98- ).
CONGRESSIONAL POLICY ADVISORY BOARD, Republican Policy Committee,
U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC--Member, Advisory Board
(1/98- ).
CONGRESSIONAL LEADERSHIP NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISORY GROUP,
Washington, DC--Chairman (6/22/00- )
SENATOR PETER FITZGERALD BUSINESS ADVISORY COMMITTEE, Chicago, IL--
Member (12/98- )
NATIONAL PARK FOUNDATION, Washington, DC--Member, Board of Trustees
(8/90-8/96) (1/93-7/94) (11/97- ); Selection Committee for Theodore
Roosevelt Medal (3/95- ); Selection Committee for Board (6/95-4/96);
Development Committee (1/98- ); Executive Committee (10/92-4/96)(1/98-
); Finance Committee (10/92-4/96); New Initiatives Task Force (1/93-7/
94); Government Relations Committee (7/94-4/96); Governance Committee
(1/98-9/98)(11/98- ); Chairman, Governance Committee (11/98-7/00)
U.S. COMMISSION TO ASSESS NATIONAL SECURITY SPACE MANAGEMENT AND
ORGANIZATION, Washington, DC--Chairman (6/00-12/00).
LT. GOVERNOR CORINNE WOOD BUSINESS ADVISORY COMMITTEE, Chicago,
IL--Member (3/99- ).
BOARDS OF DIRECTORS: NOT FOR PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS
CHICAGO HISTORICAL SOCIETY, Chicago, Illinois--Member, Board of
Trustees (7/97- ); Exhibitions Committee (10/97-11/99); Finance
Committee (10/97-4/00)
*DHR FOUNDATION, Chicago, Illinois--President (12/85- ). (Possibly
without investment control)
EISENHOWER EXCHANGE FELLOWSHIPS, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania--
Chairman Emeritus (5/93- ); Chairman, Board of Trustees (5/86-5/93);
Executive Committee (5/93-5/95)
EMPOWER AMERICA, New York, New York--Member, Board of Directors (1/
93- )
*GERALD R. FORD FOUNDATION, Grand Rapids, Michigan--Member, Board
of Trustees (9/81- ); Awards and Grants Committee (3/82-7/90); Program
Committee (7/90-7/92); Endowment/Development Committee (7/92- )
HOOVER INSTITUTION ON WAR, REVOLUTION AND PEACE, Stanford,
California--Member, Board of Overseers (8/83-2/87, 7/88-6/94 & 7/97- );
Finance Committee (7/97-3/98); Nominating Committee (7/97- ); Executive
Committee (4/98- )
JAPAN CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL EXCHANGE, Japan--Member, Board of
Trustees (1990- ).
RAND CORPORATION, Santa Monica, California--Chairman, Board of
Trustees (4/81-4/86)(4/95-12/96); Member, Board of Trustees (4/77-4/
87)(4/88-4/98)(4/99- ); Executive Committee (4/77-4/87) (4/88-4/98)(4/
99- ); Member, Audit Committee (4/95-4/98)(4/99-4/00); Endowment Fund
Subcommittee (4/95-12/96); Corporate Development Advisory Committee (7/
904/98- ); Chairman, Nominating Committee (4/97-4/98); Member,
Nominating Committee (4/78-4/87 & 4/95-4/98); and Ad Hoc Committee for
the National Defense Research Institute (4/94-11/94); Member, Corporate
Development Advisory Committee (7/90-4/98); President's Council (9/93-
4/98); RAND Graduate School Committee (4/95-4/98); Member, Advisory
Committee of the Center for Asia-Pacific Policy (5/96-4/98); Member,
Long-Term Investment Fund Subcommittee (4/99- ); Member, Ad Hoc Venture
Advisory Committee (7/99- ). RAND Transition 2001, Washington, DC--
Panel Member (1/00-12/00). [Took leave of absence as Chairman/Member of
the Board of Trustees of RAND from 6/96-12/96.]
RAND Russian-American Business Leaders Forum, Santa Monica,
California--Member (11/97- )
SMITH RICHARDSON FOUNDATION, New York, New York--Member, Grant
Advisory Committees--Domestic (6/98-12/99); Foreign Policy (6/98- )
THE NATIONAL SECURITY FUNDERS INSTITUTE, New York, New York--
Advisory Board (3/00- ).
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO, Chicago, Illinois--Member, Department of
Economics Chairman's Council (6/97- )
*AMERICAN ACADEMY OF DIPLOMACY, Washington, DC--Member (10/83- )
BRETTON WOODS COMMITTEE, Washington, DC--Member (7/96- )
CHICAGO COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, Chicago, Illinois--Member (6/
93- ). (Member, Board of Directors, 5/85-6/92)
*COUNCIL OF AMERICAN AMBASSADORS, Washington, DC--Member (8/83- )
FIRST FLIGHT CENTENNIAL FOUNDATION, Raleigh-Durham Airport, NC (6/
99- )
*FORMER MEMBERS OF THE U.S. CONGRESS, Washington, DC.--Member
(1975- )
INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR STRATEGIC STUDIES (IISS), London,
England--Member (6/78- )
THE MARSH INSTITUTE (former Congressman John Marsh; D-VA),
Shenandoah University, Winchester, Virginia--Member, Honorary Committee
(11/98- )
*NATIONAL ACADEMY OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION (NAPA), Washington,
DC.--Member (9/81- )
NATIONAL STRATEGY FORUM, Chicago, Illinois--Member (9/83- ).
ADVISORY:
ALEXIS de TOCQUEVILLE INSTITUTION--NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAM,
Arlington, VA--Member, Senior Advisory Board (9/93- )
CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES--The Global
Organization on Crime, Washington, DC.--Member, Steering Committee (11/
97- )
COMMITTEE FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE, Arlington, Virginia--Senior
Advisory Board member (9/93- )
GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, Washington, DC.--Member, Committee
for Democracy in Russia (4/96- )
INTERNATIONAL RESCUE COMMITTEE, New York, New York--Member,
International Advisory Board (6/88- ); Member Board of Trustees (6/86-
6/88)
THE JAMESTOWN FOUNDATION, Washington, DC.--Member, Advisory Board
(10/85- )
JAPAN CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL EXCHANGE, INC. (JCIE/USA), New York,
New York--Board of Trustees (10/92- )
JOHN E. MOSS (former Congressman John Moss; D-CA) FOUNDATION
CONGRESSIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE, Chicago, IL--Member (1/99- )
THE WASHINGTON INSTITUTE STUDY GROUP ON U.S. MIDDLE EAST POLICY
STEERING COMMITTEE, Washington, DC--Member (2/00- ).
POLITICAL ACTIVITIES:
42ND WARD REPUBLICAN ORGANIZATION, Chicago, Illinois--Member (9/85-
).
OTHER:
*ALFALFA CLUB, Washington, DC--Member (1976- )
*BOHEMIAN CLUB, San Francisco, California--Member (12/86- ); H.B.
Camp (8/87- )
*CAPITOL HILL CLUB, Washington, DC--Member (5/85- )
*CASTLE PARK PLATFORM TENNIS ASSOCIATION, Castle Park, Michigan--
Member (1980- )
*COMMERCIAL CLUB, Chicago, IL--Member (3/79- ). Executive Committee
(5/92-5/93)
*88TH CONGRESSIONAL CLUB, Washington, DC--Member (1965- )
*THE FEBRUARY GROUP (President Nixon Administration Alumni),
Alexandria, Virginia--Member (4/91- )
THE 410 CLUB, Chicago, Illinois--Member (12/93- )
*FOURTH PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, Chicago, Illinois--Member (9/90- )
*FRIENDS OF PRINCETON WATER POLO, Princeton, New Jersey--Member
*FRIENDS OF PRINCETON WRESTLING COMMITTEE, Princeton, New Jersey--
Member (7/96- )
OUTSTANDING AMERICANS SELECTION COMMITTEE, National Wrestling Hall
of Fame, Stillwater, Oklahoma--Member (10/97- )
*PRINCETON CLUB OF CHICAGO, Chicago, Illinois--Member (10/91- ).
Honorary member, Board of Directors. Awards Committee (06/93-06/94)
*PRINCETON CLUB OF NEW YORK, New York, New York--Member (4/79-10/
91, reinstated 4/93- )
*RACQUET CLUB OF CHICAGO, Chicago, Illinois--Member (1/86- )
*REAGAN ALUMNI ASSOCIATION, Alexandria, Virginia--Member (1990- )
*SOS CLUB, Washington, DC.--Member (1964- ).
FIDUCIARY:
*DONALD H. RUMSFELD REVOCABLE TRUST u/a/d October 6, 1978, as
amended (1978- )
*DONALD H. RUMSFELD 1998 GRANTOR RETAINED ANNUITY TRUST (1998- ).
INVESTMENT RELATIONSHIPS:
The entities listed under this heading overwhelmingly represent
investments in which I have no active role. My participation is
predominately that of a passive investor
**BIOTECHNOLOGY VENTURE PARTNERS, L.P., San Francisco, CA--Limited
Partner (1995- )
**BRENTWOOD ASSOCIATES VII, L.P., Los Angeles, CA--Limited Partner
(1995- )
**BRENTWOOD ASSOCIATES VIII, L.P., Los Angeles, CA--Limited Partner
(1997- )
**BRENTWOOD ASSOCIATES IX, L.P., Los Angeles, CA--Limited Partner
(1998- )
**CERBERUS INSTITUTIONAL PARTNERS, L.P., New York, NY--Limited
Partner (1999- )
**CHENGWEI VENTURES FUND I, L.P., Shanghai, China--Limited Partner
(2000- )
**COMPASS I, L.P., Chicago, IL--Limited Partner (1997- ).
**CONVERGENCE CAPITAL GROUP, L.P., San Francisco, CA--Limited
Partner (2000- )
**DEERFIELD PARTNERS, L.P., New York, NY--Limited Partner (1994- ).
**FLAG GROWTH CAPITAL, L.P., Stamford, CT--Limited Partner (2000- )
**FLAG VENTURE PARTNERS IV, L.P., Stamford, CT--Limited Partner
(2000- )
**FLC XXX PARTNERSHIP, New York, NY--General Partner (1998- )
**HAMILTON TECHNOLOGY VENTURES, L.P., San Diego, CA--Limited
Partner (2000- ).
**JORD PARTNERSHIP, Schaumburg, IL--General Partner (1990- )
**KINGSBURY CAPITAL PARTNERS, L.P. III, San Diego, CA--Limited
Partner (1998- )
**LASALLE RECOVERY VENTURE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Chicago, IL--
Limited Partner (1994- )
**LAZY O RANCH LTD. PARTNERSHIP, Schaumburg, IL--Limited Partner
(1988- )
**LCOR, INC., Schaumburg, IL--50 percent shareholder (1996- )
**LLANO HOT SPRINGS PARTNERSHIP, Taos, NM--General Partner (1992- )
**MAVERICK CAPITAL, Dallas, TX--Limited Partner (1997- )
**MUTUALFUNDS.COM, Boston, MA--Limited Liability Company Member
(1999- )
**OCM OPPORTUNITIES FUND III, L.P., Los Angeles, CA--Limited
Partner (1999- )
**OCM OPPORTUNITIES FUND, L.P., Los Angeles, CA--Limited Partner
(1995- )
**OPTION ADVANTAGE PARTNERS, L.P., San Francisco, CA--Limited
Partner (2000 )
**POLARIS VENTURE PARTNERS III, L.P., Waltham, MA--Limited Partner
(2000- )
**R. CHANEY & PARTNERS III L.P., Houston, TX--Limited Partner
(1997- )
**R. CHANEY & PARTNERS IV, L.P., Houston, TX--Limited Partner
(1998- )
**ROBERTSON STEPHENS RESIDENTIAL FUND, L.P., San Francisco, CA--
Limited Partner (1994- )
**SCF PARTNERS III, L.P., Houston, TX--Limited Partner (1995- )
**SCF PARTNERS IV, L.P., Houston, TX--Limited Partner (1998- )
**SILVER LAKE SPECIAL TRUST, New York, NY--Limited Partner (1999- )
**STINSON CAPITAL PARTNERS, L.P., San Francisco, CA--Limited
Partner (1998- )
**SUMMIT VENTURES IV, L.P., Boston, MA--Limited Partner (1995- )
**TECOLOTE LAND LLC, Schaumburg, IL--Limited Liability Company
Member (2000- )
**THOMAS H. LEE FUND V, L.P., Boston, MA--Limited Partner (2000- )
**TIGER MANAGEMENT L.L.C., New York, NY--Limited Partner (1993- )
**TRANSPAC CAPITAL 1996 INVESTMENT TRUST, Tortola, British Virgin
Islands--Limited Partner (1997- )
**TWP CEO FOUNDERS' CIRCLE (QP), L.P., San Francisco, CA--Limited
Partner (1999- ).
**VECTOR LATER STAGE EQUITY FUND II, L.P., Deerfield, IL--Limited
Partner (1997- )
**WASHINGTON CAPITAL PARTNERS, L.L.C., Washington, DC--Limited
Liability Company Member (2000- )
**YBR ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Chicago, IL--General Partner
(1987- )
**YBR ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP II, Chicago, IL--Limited
Partner (1992- )
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
See Question 11.
13. Political affiliations and activities:
(a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or
any public office for which you have been a candidate
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5
years.
See Attachment A-13(a)
(c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $100 or more for the past 5 years.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals, and any other special
recognitions for outstanding service or achievements.
This attachment represents my best recollections. It is complete to
the best of my ability, but I suspect there may be some unintentional
omissions.
AWARDS AND HONORS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Awards/Honors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1947...................................... Eagle Scout Award
1948...................................... Elected Vice President of
Junior Class, New Trier
High School, Winnetka,
Illinois
1949-50................................... Elected Vice President of
the Tri-Ship Club, New
Trier High School,
Winnetka, Illinois
1949-50................................... Awarded the Fathers Club
Award as the Outstanding
Wrestler in 1949 and in
1950, New Trier High
School, Winnetka, Illinois
1949-50................................... Elected Co-Captain of the
New Trier High School
Varsity Wrestling Team
(State Champions),
Winnetka, Illinois
1950...................................... Awarded scholarship to
Princeton University,
Princeton, New Jersey
1950-51................................... Awarded the Hooker Trophy as
the Outstanding Freshman
Wrestler, Princeton
University, Princeton, New
Jersey
1951-54................................... Selected in a national
competition for an NROTC
Regular Scholarship,
Princeton University,
Princeton, New Jersey
1953...................................... Elected Captain, Princeton
University Varsity 150 lb.
Football Team, Princeton,
New Jersey
1953...................................... Elected Captain of the
Princeton University
Varsity Wrestling Team,
Princeton, New Jersey
1953-54................................... Awarded the Triede Award as
the Outstanding Varsity
Wrestler in 1953 and in
1954, Princeton University,
Princeton, New Jersey
1/55...................................... Designated Naval Aviator
1956...................................... Won the All Navy Wrestling
Championship title at 147
lbs
1956...................................... Won the Olympic District
Wrestling Championship at
160 lbs
1956...................................... Selected as a Flight
Instructor in the
Instructor's Basic Training
Group, U.S. Navy,
Pensacola, Florida
1962...................................... Elected to the U.S.
Congress, 13th District of
Illinois
1964...................................... Re-elected to the U.S.
Congress, 13th District of
Illinois
1964-66................................... Awarded the Watchdog of the
Treasury Award, by the
National Association of
Businessmen in 1964, 1966
and 1968
1965...................................... Selected as one of the ten
Outstanding Young Men by
the Chicago Chamber of
Commerce & Industry,
Chicago, Illinois
1966...................................... Re-elected to the U.S.
Congress, 13th District of
Illinois
1967-68................................... Elected President of the
88th Club (Republican
Members of the U.S.
Congress who were elected
in 1962)
1968...................................... Re-elected to the U.S.
Congress, 13th District of
Illinois, by the highest
percentage (76) of all
Congressmen in the U.S
1975...................................... Awarded the Distinguished
Eagle Scout Award
1975...................................... Awarded the Opportunity
Industrial Centers (OIC)
Executive Government Award,
presented by Rev. Leon
Sullivan
5/18/75................................... Awarded an Honorary Doctor
of Laws Degree--Illinois
College, Jacksonville,
Illinois
5/25/75................................... Awarded an Honorary Doctor
of Laws Degree--Park
College, Kansas City,
Missouri
6/7/75.................................... Awarded an Honorary Doctor
of Laws Degree--Lake Forest
College, Lake Forest,
Illinois
10/2/76................................... Awarded the Leadership
Citation for Outstanding
Public Service, presented
by the American Friends of
the Hebrew University of
Jerusalem
1/10/77................................... Awarded the Presidential
Medal of Freedom--with
distinction--the Nation's
highest civilian award,
Washington, D.C
3/17/80................................... Awarded the Gold Medal as
the Outstanding Chief
Executive Officer in the
Pharmaceutical Industry,
presented by Wall Street
Transcript
1981...................................... Received the Northwest
Suburban 1981 ``Good
Scout'' Award, presented by
Northwest Suburban (Ill.)
Boy Scouts
2/23/81................................... Awarded the Bronze Medal as
the #3 Outstanding Chief
Executive Officer in the
Pharmaceutical Industry,
presented by Wall Street
Transcript
3/11/81................................... Presented the Outstanding
Chief Executive Officer
Award in the Pharmaceutical
Industry, by Financial
World
4/81...................................... Elected Chairman of the
Board of Trustees of The
RAND Corporation, Santa
Monica, California
4/12/81................................... Awarded an Honorary Doctor
of Laws Degree--Tuskegee
Institute, Tuskegee,
Alabama
5/16/81................................... Awarded an Honorary Doctor
of Science in Business
Administration Degree--
Bryant College, Smithfield,
Rhode Island
9/81...................................... Elected to the National
Academy of Public
Administration
1/25/82................................... Awarded a Silver Medal as
the #2 Outstanding Chief
Executive Officer in the
Pharmaceutical Industry,
presented by Wall Street
Transcript
1/31/83................................... Awarded the Sliver Medal as
the #2 Chief Executive
Officer in the
Pharmaceutical Industry,
presented by Wall Street
Transcript
4/1/83.................................... Awarded the Executive of the
Year Award, by the
University of Arizona
Business Advisory Council,
Tucson, Arizona
5/6/83.................................... Awarded the Invest-in-
America Eagle Award for
dedication to the country's
enterprise system
5/26/83................................... Presented the City Club of
Chicago 80th Anniversary
Award honoring Outstanding
Chicagoans
7/9/83.................................... Presented the Golden Plate
Award, by American Academy
of Achievement
10/17/84.................................. Awarded the George Catlett
Marshall Medal, by the U.S.
Army Association,
Washington, DC
2/16/85................................... Awarded the Woodrow Wilson
Medal, by Princeton
University, Princeton, New
Jersey
3/5/85.................................... Presented the Marketing Man
of the Year Award, by the
Commercial Development
Association, Inc
9/27/85................................... Awarded an Honorary Doctor
of Laws Degree, by the
National College of
Education, Evanston,
Illinois
11/20/85.................................. Presented the Shelby Cullom
Davis Award, by the Ethics
& Public Policy Center,
Washington, DC
4/28/86................................... Presented the Award of Merit
for Entrepreneurship from
the Wharton School of
Business of the University
of Pennsylvania,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
7/86...................................... Awarded the George
Washington Honor Medal for
Excellence in Public
Address, by the Freedoms
Foundation, Valley Forge,
Pennsylvania
7/86...................................... Presented the Outstanding
Private Sector Leader
Award, by The American
Legislative Exchange
Council
9/87...................................... Presented the Professional
Manager of the Year Award,
by the Society for the
Advancement of Management,
Chicago Chapter, Chicago,
Illinois
5/88...................................... Awarded Honorary Doctor of
Letters Degree, by
Claremont University Center
and Graduate School,
Claremont, California
4/8/90.................................... To be inducted into the
Illinois Wrestling Coaches
and Officials Hall of Fame
6/10/90................................... Awarded Honorary Doctor of
Laws Degree, DePaul
University College of
Commerce, Chicago, Illinois
11/22/91.................................. Awarded Certificate of
Appreciation, Private
Sector Council, Washington,
DC
4/23/92................................... Presented the Henry Townley
Heald Award by Lewis
Collens, President,
Institute of Technology at
Ceremony honoring 10-year
members of the President's
Council, Chicago, Illinois
5/2/92.................................... Induction as a Distinguished
American by the National
Wrestling Hall of Fame &
Museum, Stillwater,
Oklahoma
5/22/93................................... Awarded Honorary Doctor of
Laws Degree, Illinois
Wesleyan University,
Bloomington, Illinois
5/27/93................................... Presented the Dwight David
Eisenhower Medal,
Eisenhower Exchange
Fellowships, Inc.,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
7/10/93................................... Awarded Honorary Degree of
Doctor of Public Policy,
The RAND Graduate School,
Santa Monica, California
6/19/97................................... Presented the Atlantic Legal
Foundation Award for Free
Enterprise, New York, New
York
5/10/98................................... Presented the Doctor of Laws
from Hampden-Sydney
College, Hampden-Sydney,
Virginia
10/7/98................................... The Center for Security
Policy 10th Anniversary
``Keeper of the Flame''
Award, Four Seasons Hotel,
Washington, DC
4/27/00................................... Presented the Distinguished
Community Service Award,
Princeton Club of Chicago,
Chicago, Illinois
9/21/00................................... Named 42nd Ward Republican
of the Year 2000, Chicago,
Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
This attachment represents my best recollections. It is complete to
the best of my ability, but I suspect there may be some unintentional
omissions.
DOCUMENTS WRITTEN BY DR
1/65...................................... ``Freedom of Information
Law''
1966...................................... ``Summary of Congressman
Rumsfeld's Efforts on the
Freedom of Information
Bill''
1967...................................... ``Account of Effort to Free
Future Farmers of America
(FFA) from Federal
Control''
10/68..................................... ``The Long Day''--written
draft unpublished
1976...................................... ``Which Five Year
Shipbuilding Program?''
written for the Naval
Institute Proceedings
1/6/77.................................... ``The All Volunteer Force:
Myths & Realities''
``The Economics of Good
Intentions: The Carter
Guidelines'' for Wage and
Price Guidelines/
Commonsense
2/13/79................................... ``Costly Education: History
Gives a Lesson on Wage
Price Controls,'' The San
Diego Union
12/79..................................... ``Is the Regulatory Process
Working?'' Pharmaceutical
Technology
6/27/80................................... ``The U.S. in a Dangerous,
Untidy World'' National
Review
11/80..................................... ``A Presidency for the
1980s''
12/10/80.................................. ``The North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO)''
12/80..................................... ``ORBIS: A Journal of World
Affairs''
1980...................................... ``Rumsfeld's Rules''
1980...................................... ``America Must Respond,''
Comparative Strategy
1983...................................... ``The Gauntlet-In Search of
a Bipartisan Foreign
Policy, The Challenge to a
Genuine Debate''
1/14/83................................... ``The Nuclear Balance in
Europe: Status, Trends,
Implications''
(introduction by DR) for
the United States Strategic
Institute
2/83...................................... Defense Forum, Armed Forces
Journal International
1984...................................... ``Beyond Containment? The
Future of U.S.-Soviet
Relations''
11/84..................................... ``Five Business Views of
Deficits & Taxes,''
Commentary
3/13/85................................... ``Rumsfeld Recollects''
Wilson Award Winner,
Princeton Alumni Weekly
10/18/85.................................. ``The Middle East & State
Sponsored Terrorism'' The
Commonwealth
Winter, 1985.............................. ``Analysis of Capitalism,''
Keynote Address, Business
Today
7/28/86................................... Statement by The Honorable
Donald Rumsfeld as read to
Duncan Sellars of
Conservative Caucus
2/21/87................................... ``America's Competitive
Position in the World, The
Commonwealth
2/92...................................... Message from the Chairman
6/96...................................... ``Economic Freedom,
Political Liberty, and
Prosperity'' for Freedom
House
6/96...................................... Statement for The Wall
Street Journal on Missile
Defense
7/30/96................................... Reprint of Freedom House
article, ``Economic
Freedom. . .'' published by
the Christian Science
Monitor
9/05/96................................... ``The Bob Dole Tax Plan Will
Work'' Chicago Tribune--
Voice of the People
3/05/97................................... ``No to the Chemical Arms
Treaty'' The Washington
Post, written by James
Schlesinger, Caspar
Weinberger, and Donald
Rumsfeld
Fall 1998................................. The Ambassador's Review
1/65...................................... Freedom of Information Law
1966...................................... Freedom of Information,
Summary
1967...................................... Account of Effort to Free
Future Farmers of America
(FFA) from Federal Control
10/68..................................... The Long Day--written draft
unpublished
1977...................................... Which Five Year Shipbuilding
Program? Naval Institute
Proceedings
1/6/77.................................... The All Volunteer Force:
Myths & Realities
Date?..................................... The Economics of Good
Intentions: The Carter
Guidelines
12/79..................................... Is the Regulatory Process
Working? Pharmaceutical
Technology
6/27/80................................... The U.S. in a Dangerous
World, National Report
12/10/80.................................. The North Atlantic Treaty
Organization
1980...................................... Rumsfeld's Rules
1980...................................... American Must Respond,
Comparative Strategy
1983...................................... The Gauntlet
1/14/83................................... The Nuclear Balance in
Europe: Status, Trends,
Implications (introduction
by DR)
2/83...................................... Defense Forum, Armed Forces
International Journal
5/19/85................................... Book foreword for Wadi
Haddad
7/28/86................................... Statement by The Honorable
Donald Rumsfeld read to
Duncan Sellars of
Conservative Caucus
12/86..................................... Book foreword for John
Andrews' Collected Essays
12/2/86................................... The Arms to Iran and Money
to the Contra's Issue
(unpublished)
4/27/92................................... Book forward for Tom Curtis
Congressional Intent
16. Speeches: Provide the committee with two copies of any formal
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have
copies of and are on topics relevant to the position for which you have
been nominated.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
17. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree,
if confirmed, to respond to requests to appear and testify before any
duly constituted committee of the Senate?
Yes.
______
[The nominee responded to the questions in Parts B-F of the
committee questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set
forth in the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to
Parts B-F are contained in the committee's executive files.]
------
Signature and Date
I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate,
and complete
Donald H. Rumsfeld
This 9th day of January, 2001.
[The nomination of Donald H. Rumsfeld was reported to the
Senate by Senator John Warner on January 20, 2001, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on January 20, 2001.]
NOMINATION OF DR. PAUL D. WOLFOWITZ TO BE THE DEPUTY SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE
----------
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2001
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:38 a.m. in room
SD-106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator John Warner
(chairman) presiding.
Committee members present: Senators Warner, Inhofe, Allard,
Hutchinson, Sessions, Collins, Bunning, Levin, Cleland, Reed,
Akaka, Bill Nelson, E. Benjamin Nelson, and Carnahan.
Committee staff members present: Romie L. Brownlee, staff
director; Judith A. Ansley, deputy staff director; Anita H.
Rouse, deputy chief clerk; and Scott W. Stucky, general
counsel.
Professional staff members present: Charles S. Abell, John
R. Barnes, Edward H. Edens IV, William C. Greenwalt, Gary M.
Hall, George W. Lauffer, Patricia L. Lewis, Thomas L.
MacKenzie, Cord A. Sterling, and Eric H. Thoemmes.
Minority staff members present: David S. Lyles, minority
staff director; Richard W. Fieldhouse, professional staff
member; Gerald J. Leeling, professional staff member; Peter K.
Levine, minority counsel; and Michael J. McCord, professional
staff member.
Staff assistants present: Jennifer Key, Thomas C. Moore,
Jennifer L. Naccari, and Michele A. Traficante.
Committee members' assistants present: George M. Bernier
III, assistant to Senator Santorum; Robert Alan McCurry,
assistant to Senator Roberts; Douglas Flanders, assistant to
Senator Allard; Michael P. Ralsky, assistant to Senator
Hutchinson; Arch Galloway II, assistant to Senator Sessions;
Kristine Fauser, assistant to Senator Collins; Menda Sue Fife,
assistant to Senator Kennedy; Christina Evans and Barry Gene
(B.G.) Wright, assistants to Senator Byrd; Frederick M. Downey,
assistant to Senator Lieberman; Andrew Vanlandingham, assistant
to Senator Cleland; Davelyn Noelani Kalipi, assistant to
Senator Akaka; Peter A. Contostavlos, assistant to Senator Bill
Nelson; and Sheila Murphy, assistant to Senator E. Benjamin
Nelson.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN WARNER, CHAIRMAN
Chairman Warner. Good morning. The committee meets today on
a very important nomination by President George W. Bush for the
Deputy Secretary of Defense, Dr. Paul Wolfowitz. I have had the
privilege of knowing Dr. Wolfowitz for many years, worked with
him in various capacities, and I commend the President for his
nomination of this outstanding public servant.
You are a man of accomplishments in many venues. You have
many years of service in government and academia. You served in
the Department of Defense on two previous occasions, as Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Regional Programs from 1977
to 1980 and as Under Secretary of Defense for Policy during the
period 1989 through 1993. You were Under Secretary of Defense
for Policy during the Persian Gulf War, a critical juncture in
the history of our country. The tenth anniversary is now being
observed by our Nation and the coalition partners who came
together under the leadership of President George Bush to mount
that most important offensive against the aggression of Saddam
Hussein.
You have served in various other government assignments,
including Chief of the State Department Policy Planning Staff
and as Ambassador to Indonesia under the Reagan administration.
In addition, you have had a distinguished career in the
academic world, having taught at Yale, Johns Hopkins, and the
National War College. Most recently, you served as Dean and
Professor of International Relations at the Paul H. Nitze
School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins
University.
You have also appeared before this committee many times,
providing valuable testimony, throughout your public career.
Your insights and expertise have assisted this committee, and
indeed Congress as a whole, in our deliberations and
responsibilities, and we are confident, at least this Senator
is, that you will continue to give that valued counsel and
advice to this committee and Congress as a whole.
If confirmed, you will be returning to the Department of
Defense at a very challenging time in our history. In the
judgment of many, and certainly this Senator, the threats
growing against our interests as a Nation and those of our
allies are more diverse, more complicated, than any time in
contemporary history.
I agree wholeheartedly with the directions which President
George W. Bush and Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld are taking
towards their new leadership roles in national security
affairs, and most particularly the Department of Defense. It is
a wise decision for the President and the Secretary of Defense
to determine that they would undertake a top-to-bottom study
long-term of the issues, beginning with the threat, the need to
realign the military in many ways to meet these changing
threats, and to take a long and counseled course for deciding
which programs should continue and those that should be
terminated.
I continue--and I am perhaps a lone voice in some respects
on this--to believe that we have short-term interests that have
to be addressed, hopefully eventually in a supplemental
appropriation late this summer or perhaps even earlier--before
the Fourth of July is the target date I have. We will work
along on that issue.
Secretary Rumsfeld has asked this committee, during his
confirmation hearing and in subsequent consultations, to move
as quickly as we can on key nominations. I think that we are
doing that in every respect. I commend my distinguished
colleague, the ranking member, Mr. Levin, in working to see
that this nomination has been handled properly and promptly,
and we will continue to do that.
Senator Levin.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN
Senator Levin. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Let me welcome our
nominee. I see Senator Sarbanes is here to introduce him and we
are delighted that he is present this morning. I am pleased to
join you in welcoming Paul Wolfowitz and his family to the
Armed Services Committee for today's hearing.
Mr. Wolfowitz is familiar with the work of this committee
from the many times that he has testified before us and the
House in his role as Dean of the Johns Hopkins University
School of Advanced International Studies. He surely is familiar
with the job to which he has been nominated from his previous
service as Under Secretary of Defense for Policy.
The Deputy Secretary of Defense serves in a position of
awesome responsibility. He is the alter ego of the Secretary.
In this capacity, the new Deputy Secretary will play a key role
in determining how our country will meet the national security
challenges that face us today. For example:
How do we need to transform our military
forces to meet a new set of threats over the coming
decades?
What new weapons systems and technologies do
we need to field? Do we need to skip a generation of
technology to do so?
Will the National Missile Defense make us more
or less secure?
Should we commit to deploy such a system?
If so, what system should we deploy and under
what circumstances?
To what extent should the United States remain
engaged around the world--for example in Kosovo,
Bosnia, Colombia, and even on the Korean peninsula?
What is the best approach to restrain Saddam
Hussein from developing weapons of mass destruction and
from threatening his neighbors in the Persian Gulf?
Over the years, the best approach to foreign policy and
national security policy has always been a bipartisan one. The
administration is properly conducting a strategic review to
determine the direction of our national security strategy and
what direction our defense programs should take in the years
ahead.
I have supported President Bush's and Secretary Rumsfeld's
decision to conduct this review before determining the level of
resources that we should apply to our national defense. I look
forward to working with them on these issues over the next
several years.
In addition, the Deputy Secretary has traditionally served
as the chief manager of the Defense Department. A wide array of
management challenges, including financial management,
information security, and human capital issues, cut across
functional areas in the Department to such an extent that no
official other than the Secretary or the Deputy Secretary has
the authority needed to address them.
To take just one example, DOD's financial systems remain in
need of modernization, with hundreds of partially-linked,
error-prone computer systems spread throughout the Department.
As a result, the Department remains unable to account for
billions of dollars of property, equipment, inventory, and
supplies, and unable to reconcile billions of dollars in
differences between checks issued by the Department of Defense
and reported to the Treasury.
So if Mr. Wolfowitz is confirmed, and I expect that he will
be, he will have a very full plate indeed. I look forward to
working with you, as I know all members of this committee do.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator Levin.
Senator Sarbanes, we are very fortunate, and indeed the
nominee, to have you appear before this committee this morning.
In my 23 years in the Senate I have come to know you very well
and respect your knowledge on foreign affairs and national
security matters. Indeed, we have traveled abroad together many
times in this context of our security responsibilities. It is a
privilege for this committee to welcome you this morning and to
have you speak on behalf of this distinguished nominee.
STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL S. SARBANES, U.S. SENATOR FROM MARYLAND
Senator Sarbanes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman,
Senator Levin, members of the Armed Services Committee.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to recommend this
morning to you, very strongly recommend, a distinguished
Maryland resident, Dr. Paul Wolfowitz, for the position of
Deputy Secretary of Defense. Now, Mr. Chairman, I hope you will
not hold it against him that he chose to live on the Maryland
side of the Potomac and not the Virginia side.
Chairman Warner. We observed that, but we will let it go
by.
Senator Sarbanes. We will let it pass. Thank you very much.
Chairman Warner. He will be working in Virginia, though.
Senator Sarbanes. I understand.
Chairman Warner. If confirmed.
Senator Sarbanes. Paul Wolfowitz has had a long and
impressive career in both government and academia. Actually,
his involvement in public service dates back to 1966, when he
was a management intern in the Bureau of the Budget. From 1973
to 1977 he held various positions at the Arms Control and
Disarmament Agency. That posting was followed by his service as
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Regional Programs
from 1977 to 1980, then Director of the Policy Planning Staff
at the State Department in 1981 and 1982, and Assistant
Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs from 1982
to 1986.
President Reagan then sent him from 1986 to 1989 as U.S.
Ambassador to Indonesia, the fourth most populous country in
the world. During his tenure there, his post was cited as one
of the four best-managed embassies reviewed by the inspectors
in 1988. His last government position was Under Secretary of
Defense for Policy from 1989 to 1993, when Dick Cheney was the
Secretary of Defense.
This is a very wide-ranging and balanced government
service, involving both the State Department and the Pentagon,
and I think a very impressive blend of responsibilities.
Shortly after leaving government service in 1993, Paul was
appointed Dean of the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced
International Studies of the Johns Hopkins University here in
Washington, commonly known as SAIS. SAIS is one of the
preeminent institutions of higher learning devoted to the study
of international relations. It is no wonder, of course, that he
was appointed dean at this prestigious school because, in
addition to important government service, he has outstanding
academic qualifications: a B.A. in mathematics and chemistry
from Cornell University in 1965, followed by an M.A. and a
Ph.D. from the University of Chicago in political science and
economics. He has taught at Yale, SAIS, and the National War
College, where he was the George F. Kennan Professor of
National Security Strategy.
In my view, in the post-Cold War environment in which we
operate, Paul's extensive background and experience should
serve him well in this very significant and important post of
Deputy Secretary of Defense. He has a solid grasp of complex
defense and security issues, the diplomatic skills to operate
in the international arena, the intellectual strength to look
ahead to the challenges facing us in the 21st century, and the
administrative skills to be the number two person in our
largest government agency. No doubt his mathematics degree and
his experience on budget matters will also come in handy at the
Pentagon from time to time.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to close with a quote from a
statement released by the President of the Johns Hopkins
University, William Brody, an outstanding educational leader,
issued at the time of President Bush's announcement of his
intention to nominate Paul to this position. President Brody
said: ``The bad news is that Johns Hopkins is losing a great
dean. The good news is that the country is getting a very
smart, very focused, clear-thinking leader as Deputy Secretary
of Defense. Paul Wolfowitz will serve the Nation well.''
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I strongly
concur with this assessment. I believe you have a highly
qualified nominee before you who will serve our country well as
Deputy Secretary of Defense, and I strongly urge his favorable
consideration by the committee.
Chairman Warner. Senator, we thank you. I think those of us
who had the opportunity to know this distinguished nominee
concur in your observations and that of the distinguished
President of Johns Hopkins. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Sarbanes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. At this point, I submit for the record the
statement of Senator Barbara A. Mikulski, who could not be here
in person due to other Senate responsibilities.
I also submit for the record the statement of Senator Strom
Thurmond.
[The prepared statements of Senator Mikulski and Senator
Thurmond follow:]
Prepared Statement by Senator Barbara A. Mikulski
Mr. Chairman: I appreciate the opportunity to express my support
for the nomination of Dr. Paul Wolfowitz to be Deputy Secretary of
Defense.
Dr. Wolfowitz is well known to members of the Armed Services
Committee. For over 30 years, he has committed his life to public
service. As the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, he was the
principal civilian responsible for strategy, plans and policy. As the
Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian Affairs, and as our
Ambassador to Indonesia, Dr. Wolfowitz understands foreign policy as
well as defense policy--and how the two are linked.
Most recently, Dr. Wolfowitz served as dean of the Paul H. Nitze
School of Advanced International Studies at the Johns Hopkins
University. He repositioned the school from a Cold War orientation,
which it had since its founding, to a focus on the impact and
challenges of globalization in the post-Cold War era. He strengthened
the faculty, increased the endowment, raised funds for student aid and
enhanced the school's visibility among policymakers in Washington and
around the world.
At the Pentagon, Dr. Wolfowitz will face great challenges. We need
to improve the quality of life for our men and women in uniform--so
that we can continue to attract the best and the brightest to serve in
our military. We also need to upgrade our weapons and technology. For
example, the average Navy aircraft is 18 years old. We need to invest
in new aircraft quickly--to give our pilots what they need to defend
America.
I am pleased that Dr. Wolfowitz will bring his keen intellect and
wide ranging experience to the important position of Deputy Secretary
of Defense. I look forward to working with him to ensure that our
military remains strong in a world constantly challenged by ethnic
conflict, civil and nationalist tensions, and the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction.
Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry that other Senate responsibilities prevent
me from being here in person, but I look forward to voting for Dr.
Wolfowitz when his nomination is considered by the full Senate.
______
Prepared Statement by Senator Strom Thurmond
Thank you, Mr. Chairman:
Mr. Chairman, I join you and the members of the Committee in
welcoming Dr. Wolfowitz. I also want to take this opportunity to thank
Deputy Secretary of Defense DeLeon for his service to our Nation while
on the House Armed Services Committee and during the past 8 years in
the many challenging positions he held in the Department of Defense. We
may not always have been on the same side, but we always had the same
goal of providing the best for our soldiers, sailors, airmen and
Marines.
Secretary Wolfowitz, congratulations on your nomination and on your
superb record of public service. Your willingness to serve a third tour
in the Department of Defense speaks highly of your dedication to our
country and to the men and women who wear the uniforms of our military
services. It is also noteworthy because holding public office requires
many sacrifices and the rewards are few.
Mr. Secretary, once confirmed, you will be part of the team that
will face the challenge of transforming our armed forces, and for that
matter the Department of Defense, to meet the challenges and threats of
a new century. I want you to know that you can count on me, and, I
believe the entire Armed Services Committee, to provide, on a
bipartisan basis, the support that will be so critical toward achieving
that goal. I wish you success and hope you will not hesitate to speak
out forcefully on behalf of the men and women of our Armed Forces and
the civilian employees of the Department of Defense.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Dr. Wolfowitz, you now have the unlimited
opportunity to express such views as you wish. Following that,
we will have a 6-minute round of questions by our members.
STATEMENT OF DR. PAUL D. WOLFOWITZ, NOMINATED TO BE DEPUTY
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
Dr. Wolfowitz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know that
unlimited opportunities are best kept short and I will read
just a part of my statement and submit the rest for the record.
I want to thank Senator Sarbanes for being so gracious as
to make time in a very busy schedule to come and introduce me.
Chairman Warner, Senator Levin, members of the Armed
Services Committee, it is a great honor to appear again before
this committee, one that has done so much over the years to
make our Nation strong and the world more peaceful. I am
grateful to the President and to Secretary Rumsfeld for the
confidence that they have shown in me by nominating me for a
position of such great responsibility.
If confirmed by the Senate, this will be my third tour in
the Pentagon. It is also the second time that I come before
this distinguished committee to seek confirmation for a senior
position in the Department of Defense. On the previous occasion
in 1989, it was a very different world. The Cold War was still
a reality. Even in the heyday of Mr. Gorbachev, the principal
threat to our Nation still came from a Soviet Union that was
armed to the teeth with nuclear and conventional weapons. We
had well over two million men and women on active duty to deter
and, if necessary, to defend against this constant threat.
Twelve years ago many observers believed that the United
States was in a period of permanent decline and many pointed to
other nations as models for reforming our economy. Budget
deficits were taken as a given, the personal computer was a
toddler, and the Internet was a mere infant.
In the intervening years, the Cold War has become truly a
part of history and we've fought and won a major war in the
Persian Gulf. America did not decline, it prospered. We remain
a vibrant world power with a position that is in many respects
unique in the history of the world.
Under these circumstances, it was only natural that our
Nation desired to reap a peace dividend. We reduced our defense
budget by 40 percent. We cut the force by nearly the same
amount. Our defense budget was drawn down to the lowest
percentage of our gross domestic product since the late 1930s.
But the world remains, in Secretary Rumsfeld's phrase, a
dangerous and untidy place. The need, indeed the demand, for
U.S. leadership has increased as well. So, despite declining
defense budgets and a shrinking force structure, in the past
decade we drastically increased the number of military
deployments for humanitarian and peacekeeping operations. This
added greatly to the workload of an already busy force, one
that was struggling to maintain its combat readiness, with
dedicated but tired troops manning aging equipment.
Today, as General Shelton has said, the force is frayed. We
must begin a long overdue renovation and transformation of the
armed forces, so that we can preserve and extend the peace well
into the 21st century. President Bush has set this task as one
of the highest priorities of his administration.
The President has set three important goals for the
Department of Defense. First, we must strengthen the bond of
trust with the American military. As General Creighton Abrams
said when the all-volunteer force was first created: ``People
aren't in the Army; they are the Army.'' The same is true of
all the military services. Building on the dedicated work of
the Senate and the House, we must continue to improve military
pay and quality of life.
But good pay and fair allowances by themselves won't keep
the best people in the service. Working with Congress and our
allies, we must also re-examine the balance among force levels,
commitments, and deployments. We will have to make sure that we
are focused on the most important defense tasks and not placing
unreasonable demands on our men and women in uniform.
We will also have to acknowledge the relationship between
morale and readiness. President Bush has said that even the
highest morale is eventually undermined by back-to-back
deployments, poor pay, shortage of spare parts and equipment,
and declining readiness.
Second, we must develop the capabilities to defend against
missiles, terrorists, and the complex set of threats to our
information systems and our all-important assets in space. U.S.
military strength in the field is unparalleled. Many of our
enemies therefore have determined that in order to move against
us they must be able to strike us at home. Some have chosen to
develop long-range missile systems. Others have chosen to
support or direct terrorist attacks with conventional devices,
weapons of mass destruction, or cyber weapons against our
Nation, our forces, or our diplomats abroad. We must do
everything in our power to stop them.
Third, the Department of Defense must take advantage of the
technological revolution to help us create a military for the
21st century. To this end, at the direction of the President,
Secretary Rumsfeld has already launched a review of our defense
strategy and programs designed to provide a sound understanding
of the state of our armed forces and their readiness for the
21st century security environment.
This work must be done quickly and it must be done before
we can know what our true defense resource requirements are.
President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld believe, as the Secretary
puts it, that we need to engage our brains before we open the
taxpayers' wallets. I strongly support that approach and will
work hard to shape a prompt and effective review.
In addition to that review, to support and make progress on
the President's goals, the Secretary has set five key
objectives for the Department of Defense: First, to fashion and
sustain a new form of deterrence appropriate to the new
strategic environment, a deterrence based less on massive
levels of punishment or retaliation and more on the use of both
defensive and offensive means to deny our adversaries the
opportunity and benefits that come from the use of weapons of
mass destruction.
Second, to assure the readiness and sustainability of our
armed forces now and into the future. This will require not
only spending to bring up current readiness levels, but also
investment in the modernization efforts that our forces need to
avoid being caught in a trap of making ever-increasing
expenditures to maintain aging equipment.
Third, to modernize our command and control and space
capabilities to support our 21st century needs. That
infrastructure is the foundation of American military strength.
Fourth, to begin reshaping the U.S. defense establishment
to meet new challenges and take advantage of new opportunities,
we must begin to move, as President Bush has said, beyond
marginal improvements to replace existing programs with new
technologies and strategies. Building on the superb human
capital of the current force, we must fashion a future force
that is at once more agile, more lethal, and more rapidly
deployable. It must be able to operate over increasingly longer
ranges. It must integrate the capabilities of all of the
services so that field commanders have the best possible
combination of air, sea, and land weapons for each situation,
and it must have the best technology that America can offer.
Our dedicated soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and Coast
Guardsmen deserve no less.
Finally, we must reform Department of Defense structures,
processes, and organizations. We need to seek greater
efficiencies, not only to safeguard the taxpayers' money, but
also because that will allow us to create better weapon systems
and invest more in the cutting edge of our Nation's defenses.
There is no more solemn responsibility that the American
people entrust to the Federal Government than to provide for
the common defense. There is no group of Americans who deserve
more respect and honor from their fellow citizens than the men
and women of our armed forces who daily put themselves in
harm's way for that constitutional purpose. It is both exciting
and humbling to be asked once again to help lead them in their
work for the common defense.
Mr. Chairman, it is more than just an honor to be nominated
by the President to be Deputy Secretary of Defense. It is also
a great responsibility. I appreciate the trust that President
Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld have placed in me. If confirmed, I
look forward to continuing to work closely with this committee
to achieve our common goals. Indeed, I pledge to you that, if
confirmed, I will work with the services, Congress, and the
defense industry to help the President and the Secretary
prepare our armed forces to meet the challenges of the 21st
century.
Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Wolfowitz follows:]
Prepared Statement by Dr. Paul Wolfowitz
Senator Warner, Senator Levin, Members of the Armed Services
Committee: It is an honor to appear again before this great committee,
one that has done so much over the years to make our Nation strong and
the world more peaceful. I am grateful to the President and Secretary
Rumsfeld for the confidence that they have shown in me by nominating me
for a position of such great responsibility. When I think of the men
and women who have sought confirmation here in the past, and the number
of important laws--like the Goldwater-Nichols Act--that have originated
with this committee, I feel truly humbled.
If confirmed by the Senate, this will be my third tour in the
Pentagon. It is also the second time that I have come before this
distinguished committee to seek confirmation for a senior position in
the Department of Defense.
On the previous occasion, in 1989, it was a very different world.
The Cold War was still a reality. Even in the heyday of Mr. Gorbachev,
the principal threat to our Nation still came from a Soviet Union that
was armed to the teeth with nuclear and conventional weapons.
We had well over 2 million men and women on Active Duty to deter
and, if necessary, defend against this constant threat.
Twelve years ago, many observers believed that the United States
was in a period of permanent decline, and many pointed to other nations
as models for reforming the U.S. economy. Budget deficits were taken as
a given, the personal computer was a toddler, and the Internet was a
mere infant.
In the intervening years, the Cold War has become part of history,
and we have fought and won a major war in the Persian Gulf. America did
not decline, it prospered. We remain a vibrant world power, with a
position that is in many respects unique in the history of the world.
Under these circumstances, it was only natural that our Nation
desired to reap a peace dividend. We reduced our defense budget by 40
percent, and cut the force by nearly the same amount. Our defense
budget was drawn down to the lowest percentage of our gross domestic
product since the late 1930s.
But the world remained, in Secretary Rumsfeld's phrase, a
``dangerous and untidy'' place. Amidst the peace that encompassed the
developed world, ethnic conflict, regional thugs, failed states,
terrorists, and the proliferation of missiles and weapons of mass
destruction presented new challenges. The need, indeed the demand, for
U.S. leadership increased, as well.
Despite declining defense budgets and a shrinking force structure,
in the past decade we drastically increased the number of military
deployments for humanitarian and peacekeeping operations. This added
greatly to the workload of an already busy force, one that was
struggling to maintain its combat readiness with dedicated, but tired
troops manning aging equipment. Today, as General Shelton has said, the
force is ``frayed.''
We must begin a long overdue renovation and transformation of the
Armed Forces in order to preserve and extend the peace well into the
21st century. President Bush has set this task as one of the highest
priorities of his administration. As the President has reminded us,
peace is not ordained, it is earned; and it must be earned, in
particular, by the hard and often dangerous work of our men and women
in uniform.
The President has set three important goals for the Defense
Department:
First, we must strengthen the bond of trust with the American
military.
As General Creighton Abrams said when the All-Volunteer Force
was first created, ``people aren't in the Army, people are the
Army''--and the same is true of all the military services.
Building on the dedicated work of the House and the Senate,
we must continue to improve military pay and quality of life.
But good pay and fair allowances by themselves won't keep the
best people in the service. Working with Congress and with our
allies, we must also reexamine the balance among force levels,
commitments, and deployments. We will have to make sure that we
are focused on the most important defense tasks, and not
placing unreasonable demands on our men and women in uniform.
We will also have to acknowledge the relationship between
morale and readiness. President Bush has said that ``even the
highest morale is eventually undermined by back-to-back
deployments, poor pay, shortage of spare parts and equipment,
and rapidly declining readiness.'' Our men and women in uniform
must have first-class equipment, adequate materiel for training
and maintenance, decent barracks, modern family quarters, and
suitable working conditions.
Second, we must develop the capabilities to defend against
missiles, terrorists and the complex set of threats to our
information systems and our all-important assets in space. U.S.
power in the field is unparalleled. Many of our enemies have
determined that in order to move against us, they must be able
to strike us at home. Some have chosen to develop long-range
missile systems. Others have chosen to support or direct
terrorist attacks--with conventional devices, weapons of mass
destruction, or cyber weapons--against our Nation, our forces,
or our diplomats abroad. We must do everything in our power to
stop them.
Third, the Department of Defense must take advantage of the
technological revolution to help us create a military for the
21st century. To this end, at the direction of the President,
Secretary Rumsfeld has already launched a review of our defense
strategy and programs designed to provide a sound understanding
of the state of our Armed Forces and their readiness for the
21st century security environment. This work must be done
quickly, and it must be done before we can know what our true
defense resource requirements are. President Bush and Secretary
Rumsfeld believe, as the Secretary puts it, that we need to
``engage our brains before we open the taxpayer's wallet.'' I
strongly support that approach and will work hard to shape a
prompt and effective review.
In addition to that review, to support and make progress on the
President's goals, the Secretary has set five key objectives for the
Department of Defense:
First, we must fashion and sustain a new form of deterrence
appropriate to the new strategic environment. The proliferation
of missiles and weapons of mass destruction is a key element in
the new strategic environment. We need new concepts and forms
of deterrence to deal with it. We need a deterrence based less
on massive levels of punishment or retaliation, and more on the
use of both defensive and offensive means to deny our
adversaries the opportunity and benefits that come from the use
of weapons of mass destruction.
Second, we must assure the readiness and sustainability of
our Armed Forces, now and into the future. This will require
not only spending to bring up current readiness levels, but
also investment in the re-capitalization and modernization
efforts that our forces need to avoid being caught in the trap
of making ever-increasing expenditures to maintain aging
equipment.
Third, we must modernize our command and control, and space
capabilities to support our 21st century needs. Our command,
control, communications, and intelligence infrastructure is the
foundation of American military strength. That infrastructure
is essential for current operations and indispensable for
adapting today's force to take advantage of new technology to
meet 21st century challenges. As Secretary Rumsfeld has said,
we must significantly improve our intelligence and space
capabilities, as well as our ability to protect them against
various forms of attack.
Fourth, we must begin reshaping the U.S. defense
establishment to meet new challenges and take advantage of new
opportunities. We face the demanding task of preparing for an
uncertain future where there are many individual, unpredictable
threats but no single major adversary to focus our efforts. We
will have to make a stronger effort to define the key tasks and
begin to move, as President Bush has said, ``beyond marginal
improvements to replace existing programs with new technologies
and strategies.''
Building on the superb human capital of the current force, we
must fashion a future force that is at once more agile, more
lethal, and more rapidly deployable. It must be able to operate
over increasingly longer ranges. It must integrate the
capabilities of all of the services so that field commanders
have the best possible combination of air, sea, and land
weapons for each situation; and it must have the best
technology that America can offer. Our dedicated soldiers,
sailors, airmen, marines and coast guardsmen deserve no less.
Finally, we must reform Department of Defense structures,
processes, and organizations. We need to seek greater
efficiencies not only to safeguard the taxpayer's money, but
also because that will allow us to create better weapons
systems and invest more in the cutting edge of our Nation's
defenses.
There is no more solemn responsibility that the American people
entrust to the Federal Government than--in the words of the
Constitution--``to provide for the common defense.'' There is no group
of Americans who deserve more respect and honor from their fellow
citizens than the men and women of our Armed Forces, who daily put
themselves in harm's way for that constitutional purpose. It is both
exciting and humbling to be asked again to help lead them in their work
for the common defense.
Mr. Chairman, it is more than just an honor to be nominated by the
President to be Deputy Secretary of Defense, it is also a great
responsibility. I appreciate the trust that President Bush and
Secretary Rumsfeld have placed in me. If confirmed, I look forward to
continuing to work closely with this committee to achieve our common
goals. Indeed, I pledge to you that I will work with the Services,
Congress, and the defense industry to help the President and the
Secretary prepare our Armed Forces to meet the challenges of the 21st
century.
Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Dr. Wolfowitz.
By the long-standing tradition of this committee, the Chair
now propounds to you questions that are given to each nominee.
First, have you adhered to applicable laws and regulations
governing conflict of interest?
Dr. Wolfowitz. Yes, I have, Senator.
Chairman Warner. Have you assumed any duties or undertaken
any actions which would appear to presume the outcome of the
confirmation process?
Dr. Wolfowitz. No, I have not, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Will you ensure that you and your staff
comply with the deadlines established for requested
communications, including questions for the record, by this
committee and other committees of Congress?
Dr. Wolfowitz. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I consider that a high
priority. I also will work with Secretary Rumsfeld, as he
indicated in his testimony, to try and see if we can streamline
some of those requirements, because they are quite substantial,
I have observed already.
Chairman Warner. Will you cooperate in providing witnesses
and briefers in response to congressional requests?
Dr. Wolfowitz. I certainly will, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Will those witnesses be protected from any
reprisal for their testimony or briefings?
Dr. Wolfowitz. Yes, they will.
Chairman Warner. The Chair notes that you have responded to
the questions propounded by this committee and that they will
be made a part of the record today.
Now we will proceed on a round of 6 minutes to each member.
Dr. Wolfowitz, you were in the Department of Defense during the
Gulf War, and I copied a note from your opening statement in
which you said, ``We fought and won the war in the Persian
Gulf.'' Unquestionably, the coalition of military forces did
fight bravely and win that war. It is interesting, it was a war
of about 100 hours.
The decision was made not to pursue Saddam Hussein's forces
back into Iraq and I have always defended that decision that
was made by our then-President George Bush. But the aftermath
is not necessarily one of victory. We have seen 10 consecutive
years now in which, although early on there was some compliance
with the UN Security Council resolutions by Iraq, there has
been absolute defiance of the Security Council resolutions and
the understandings that were agreed to by Saddam Hussein.
This morning I looked at the headlines and it said the U.S.
is prepared to revise the sanctions regime and the caption was
that we would lessen the sanctions. My question to you is, what
do we get in return from Saddam Hussein and what is the
likelihood that he will now comply with the clear obligations
he undertook at the end of the conflict and the clear mandates
of the Security Council?
Dr. Wolfowitz. Mr. Chairman, in compliance with the
strictures on me as a not yet confirmed nominee, I have not
been intimately involved in the policy process on Iraq. I saw
the same article you saw in the paper this morning. I have not
yet seen a complete transcript of what Secretary Powell said.
Chairman Warner. I recognize that you have not been
involved in that. I understand that. But you have devoted much
of your career to these types of issues and questions. What
counsel and advice would you share with the President and the
Secretary of Defense?
Dr. Wolfowitz. I believe that what one has to do in
approaching this issue, and it is a very difficult issue and
you are absolutely correct in saying that we may have won the
war, but we still have a major problem there as long as Saddam
Hussein is in power--one needs not just a single policy
decision, for example one concerning sanctions, one needs an
overall strategy.
That strategy has to reflect the reality of where you are
today and where you hope to be a year from now or 2 years from
now. I do believe that part of the reality is that where we are
today is that we have lost a lot of ground since the end of the
Gulf War and he has gained a lot of ground. In particular, the
coalition that the first President Bush assembled to confront
Iraq is not anything like what it used to be.
Part of that problem is that Saddam has succeeded to a
disturbing degree in cultivating the notion that the sanctions
are not punishing him, they are only punishing the Iraqi
people. I believe that part of what we need to do is make clear
that the sanctions that are in place are not intended and
should not prevent humanitarian assistance or food or medical
supplies from getting to the Iraqi people.
But I would also emphasize sanctions are not a policy; they
are at best a part of a policy. I think the overall policy has
to focus on how one can prevent him from getting weapons of
mass destruction or get rid of them if he has them, how to keep
him from becoming a threat to his neighbors by conventional or
unconventional means, and hopefully, if possible, to devise a
strategy to assist the Iraqi people in freeing themselves from
this tyrant. That is not going to be something that is going to
happen overnight.
Chairman Warner. I have just returned from a trip to that
region. Senator Stevens, Chairman of the Appropriations
Committee, and I and several other Senators, visited in Egypt
with President Mubarak. We visited in Israel with Prime
Minister-designate Sharon. It seems that there is a feeling
that we can reconstitute under U.S. leadership in some measure
the coalition of nations that fought that battle 10 years ago.
Speaking for myself, I think that is probably the key to such
new policies as we have towards Iraq.
Regrettably, the United States and Great Britain have been
going it alone certainly in the containment of Saddam Hussein
through the very courageous air operations in the north and the
south. In the Gulf itself we have been joined by several other
nations in the naval activities to curtail the smuggling and
other trafficking to and from Iraq in the Gulf waterways. But
largely it has been the United States and Great Britain alone.
My question to you is what is the likelihood that we can
reconstitute in some measure that some 20-plus nations, is my
recollection, that participated in that Gulf action?
Dr. Wolfowitz. I think it is going to depend on what we
want them for, and in fact we may not need all of them,
depending on what we want to do. But I do think the key to
putting the coalition together the first time and the key to
reassembling another coalition if we need it is to convince
people that there is a long-term outcome that benefits them.
I think one of the problems we face today is they see many
short-term costs. Every time there is a military strike, Arab
governments suffer criticism from their own people. That is
just one of many short-term costs. They do not see the long-
term gain or benefit. It is crucial, I think, as the American
piece of putting this coalition together to convince people
that there is an outcome that is worth enduring those obvious
costs.
Chairman Warner. During the course of the early comments by
President George W. Bush and based on his campaign commitments
to the American people was the commitment to say that we would
not engage the U.S. forces in the many and diverse actions that
were undertaken by President Clinton. We now recognize that the
Department of Defense was underfunded and the troops
overextended in that period and corrections have to be made.
In your work with Secretary Rumsfeld and indeed with the
extraordinary competent security team the President has put
together, what is the general framework? What are the general
guidelines that should be laid down, in your judgment, to guide
future military commitments by the United States and to guide
those situations in which we will simply say, no, we will not
participate?
Dr. Wolfowitz. I think clearly one of the most important
criteria is that it has to be something that is important to
our national interests. It also has to be something where
military forces can achieve the objectives of our national
interest, and I think it has to be something where we have a
strategy for success, that we have a way of achieving our goals
and completing the mission and not end up in something that is
an unending commitment with no way out.
It is also true, Mr. Chairman, that I believe we need to be
more careful about how we engage our forces. But one also has
to be very careful about how you disengage. One cannot rewrite
history and it is very important as we try to reduce the
requirements and burdens that we have imposed by many
commitments all around the world that we not recreate the very
situations that we went in to prevent.
Chairman Warner. Thank you.
Senator Levin.
Senator Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Wolfowitz, applying those criteria, where are we
currently deployed where we should not be?
Dr. Wolfowitz. It is not so much that we are deployed
somewhere that we should not be, but I think everywhere that we
are deployed we should look at the question of whether we need
as much as we have. We should look at the question of whether
we are heading down a road where we may tragically pull out
precipitously.
I think one of the very important things we want to avoid
is the precedent--and it has been a bipartisan failure--in
Beirut where we lost Marines and then suddenly pulled out, and
Somalia where we lost Rangers and suddenly pulled out. It is
very dangerous to have a commitment where we are undertaking
dangers that we have not fully appreciated and that the
American people are not prepared to support.
As a general principle, I think we need to look as much as
possible at turning responsibilities over to other people.
Sometimes that means turning responsibilities over to our
allies, sometimes--and I would hope this might be true in some
places like East Timor and the Balkans--turning more
responsibility over to the indigenous people themselves.
Sometimes, where it is a matter where our highly trained combat
people are performing what is essentially a police function, I
would hope we could find policemen, hopefully not Americans,
who can perform those functions.
So it is less a matter that there is a specific place that
we should pull out of, but rather everywhere that we have this
very precious resource engaged we should try to make sure that
there are not better alternatives.
Senator Levin. I think we always should do that on an on-
going and continuing basis. But you are not prepared to tell us
where, applying those criteria and asking those questions, we
should now plan on withdrawing forces?
Dr. Wolfowitz. No, I am not. I think that is part of what
this defense review that the Secretary is undertaking has to
look at, although it is not entirely a Defense Department
responsibility.
Senator Levin. On the Iraq questions that the Chairman
asked, you have previously said that the no-fly zones do not
matter. You have been highly critical of that policy. You have
also advocated what you have called a serious policy aimed at
liberating the Iraqi people by creating a liberated zone in
southern Iraq that could be used as a base by the Iraqi
opposition. You have stated that it will take American forces,
to use your words, to create a protected area in which the
opposition forces can organize.
Now, General Zinni, who is our most recent CINC in that
area of the world, has taken a very different approach, saying
that that approach which you have proposed is a dangerous
illusion that was likely to lead to what he called a ``Bay of
Goats''--like a Bay of Pigs kind of an operation.
Do you still advocate the commitment of U.S. forces to
support opposition elements within Iraq in an effort to
overthrow Saddam?
Dr. Wolfowitz. Senator, it would depend on what those
opposition forces are actually capable of doing. Every
statement one makes, thoughtful statement about Iraq policy, as
I said to the Chairman before, has to look at the context. In
1991, a month after the end of the Gulf War, we actually did
put ground forces back into northern Iraq to create a protected
zone under which Kurdish opposition forces could operate, and
to this day, although there was a significant failure in 1996,
northern Iraq is a largely liberated area.
I think some of the statements you are referring to go back
to a time a few years ago when Sandy Berger, President
Clinton's National Security Adviser, was saying that the
problem of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction was something
worth fighting for, and my reaction was, if it is worth
fighting for, then it is worth fighting with whatever
capabilities we need and not simply limiting ourselves to air
power.
Senator Levin. Is it worth fighting for?
Dr. Wolfowitz. It depends on what we are being asked to do.
When we were asked in 1991 to get the Kurdish refugees back
into northern Iraq, it was a plausible plan that made sense. I
have not yet seen a plausible plan today, but I would be very
interested in seeing one.
Senator Levin. Is that goal worth seeking?
Dr. Wolfowitz. I think there is no question that the whole
region would be a safer place, Iraq would be a much more
successful country, and American national interests would
benefit greatly if there were a change of regime in Iraq.
Senator Levin. That being the case, why then do you
apparently now back away from your previous statement that it
is worth achieving a base from which the Iraqi opposition can
attack Saddam?
Dr. Wolfowitz. Senator, because I believe it depends on the
context. It depends on what your real options are. If there is
a real option to do that, I would certainly think it is still
worthwhile.
Senator Levin. But you are not then saying that as of today
there is a real option?
Dr. Wolfowitz. I have not seen it yet.
Senator Levin. On North Korea, do you have evidence that
North Korea has cheated on the Framework Agreement?
Dr. Wolfowitz. No, I do not, Senator. But during the months
I spent with now Secretary Rumsfeld on the Ballistic Missile
Threat Commission that he chaired, we kept hearing statements
that there is no evidence of this and no evidence of that, and
the commission as a whole began to come up with the saying,
which I think George Tenet adopted, that absence of evidence is
not evidence of absence.
In the case of a country like North Korea, where it is so
hard to know what is going on, it is very hard to get hard
evidence. There are bits of information that suggest it might
be possible, but there is certainly no proof.
Senator Levin. Do you advocate abrogating the Framework
Agreement at this time?
Dr. Wolfowitz. Not if the North Koreans comply with it, no.
Senator Levin. Based on what you know, do you favor
abrogating it at this time?
Dr. Wolfowitz. No.
Senator Levin. Thank you.
My time is up. Thank you very much.
Chairman Warner. Senator Inhofe.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JAMES M. INHOFE
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Wolfowitz, I do not think I have ever seen someone come
in for confirmation with a more glittering array of credentials
than you have. I think we are very fortunate to be having you
at this confirmation hearing. Your credentials, as I think
outlined by the Chairman and others, are both in the world of
academia as well as in the Pentagon.
What do you in your mind feel particularly qualifies you
for this job with your background?
Dr. Wolfowitz. I appreciate the question, Senator, because
you have been polite, but I think one of the questions is: You
are taking on--I am asking to be confirmed for a job that is
essentially the chief operating officer of the Pentagon and it
is quite a management challenge. I have had quite a bit of
management experience. I would say for the last, ever since I
was Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian Affairs, so
that makes it the last 18 years, I have been managing
organizations of 100 or multiple hundreds of people, and I
think I would say reasonably successfully.
I think there are two things that I bring to it as a
manager. One is I believe in managing for results, whether the
result was a focused American policy that helped to remove
Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines or the result when I was
Under Secretary of Defense for Policy implementing, designing
and implementing a strategy that helped to keep Israel out of
the Gulf War, or designing and implementing a strategy that
raised $50 billion, more than $50 billion, from our allies and
friends to support the war effort, or, on a more modest scale,
but I hope I had a real impact, as Dean of the Johns Hopkins
School of Advanced International Studies, managing an
enterprise of, if you count our students, over a thousand
people, tens of millions of dollars, which is just a rounding
error at the Pentagon, but it's real money, and a very
successful capital campaign that raised four times our original
goal.
So I believe results is the way you measure management, not
how many jobs you've held, and I believe people are the way you
get results. That is the other thing I hope I bring to the job.
There is something I think that some private sector
managers do not quite appreciate about managing in government.
It is even more so in the academic world. Your flexibility to
reward people or to penalize people tangibly is limited. You
have to motivate them in other ways. I think I have had the
experience of motivating very good people to work ungodly hours
for the national interest, and I hope I can continue to do
that.
Senator Inhofe. I am sure you can.
The Chairman talked about how it might become necessary to
reconstitute the 20-plus nation alliance that we once had
should it become necessary in the Middle East. My concern is,
while I am concerned for that, I am also concerned equally
about reconstituting our state of readiness. The CINCs have
identified some 87 readiness-related deficiencies, of which 31
of these are listed as category one, and that is our ability to
fight a war.
Are you prepared to try to address these? We brought these
up before and nothing has happened in the last few years. How
do you look at these identified deficiencies?
Dr. Wolfowitz. I think that is one of the most important
issues that this defense review that Secretary Rumsfeld is
undertaking has to address. It is really central to the first
of the President's priorities, because readiness is both a
matter of our ability to fight wars, but it is also a measure
of our ability to keep competent, capable people in the
military services. So it is a top priority.
Senator Inhofe. Also, some of the readiness issues that are
there today, where there are some $4.5 billion of near-term
readiness requirements, some of these I have been out in the
field and I have seen. I use the example of out at Fort Bragg
during a rain storm just that there is no roof on the barracks
and they are covering up their equipment with their bodies.
Real Property Maintenance (RPM) accounts that are supposed to
be done immediately, they are robbing one account for the other
to get ammunition.
What is your feeling about a supplemental covering some of
these things that really have to be done?
Dr. Wolfowitz. As the Secretary said, we really have to do
this review and do it quickly and see what our total
requirements are and see if everything we are doing we need to
do. But clearly we cannot have a force that is suffering from
the kinds of problems that you have identified and we have to
cover those things.
Senator Inhofe. They are immediate.
In your statement, I appreciate the fact that you talked
about the problems that are out there threatening us, not just
being missiles but other types, the suitcase type. When you sit
on the floor of the Senate, those who are opposed to a National
Missile Defense system are saying the real threat is that in a
truck or a suitcase. Certainly, being from Oklahoma and the
Murrah Federal Office Building, which you are very familiar
with, I guess the most significant domestic terrorist attack in
the history of America, I am very sensitive to that. Yet, just
one nuclear warhead has a thousand times that explosive power.
So I hope that you would look at both of these tracks at the
same time as the real threat that is out there.
You performed very well in the Rumsfeld Commission
concerning the necessity for a National Missile Defense system
and I applaud you for that, and I look forward to working with
you in this committee to achieve that goal.
Thank you.
Dr. Wolfowitz. Thank you.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much.
Senator Cleland.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR MAX CLELAND
Senator Cleland. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Wolfowitz, welcome and we appreciate your commitment to
public service. You talked earlier in your testimony today
about the over-commitment of American men and women and the
stress on families from our commitments, the need to review
those commitments, which I certainly share. Senator Pat Roberts
and I took the Senate floor a number of times last year to talk
about the sense in which we were over-committed and under-
funded as a Nation.
Then, in terms of Iraq, I hear that the air campaign may
not be enough, that certain things are worth fighting for. I
just want to get it straight. Are you prepared to support an
American ground invasion of Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein?
Dr. Wolfowitz. No one has proposed that, Senator, and I do
not believe that even the statement Senator Levin referred to
has to do with how we might support efforts by the Iraqi people
to overthrow their own government.
Senator Cleland. I just wanted to say that that would be a
dramatic increase in American commitment abroad and American
forces are now stretched pretty thin. I just wanted to make
that clear, since you have talked about over-commitment and
then in effect indicated the air campaign may not be enough and
that certain things were worth fighting for. I just wanted to
clarify your position on that. You do not now support an
American ground invasion with American forces to overthrow
Saddam Hussein?
Dr. Wolfowitz. I have never supported an American invasion
to overthrow Saddam.
Senator Cleland. Thank you very much.
Dr. Wolfowitz. But Senator, I think it is also fair to say,
to point out that the prolonged commitment to that region of
our forces that Chairman Warner referred to earlier is in part
because that war ended inconclusively. We can debate endlessly
whether we should have fought longer, fought differently. But
the fact is one of the things that produces protracted
commitments is inconclusive conclusions.
Senator Cleland. As a Vietnam veteran myself, I am familiar
with inconclusive conclusions and situations that turn out
badly if you do not pursue them in the right way. Enough said.
May I just say that part of my concern about the
overcommitment of American forces is the inability to get them
there quickly. If we are to actually make sure that we are not
overcommitted, but are able to respond to hot spots in the
world, that means that we have to have global airlift strength.
The Hart-Rudman Commission recently reviewed American airlift
capability and found it basically inadequate.
I would just like to call that to your attention, because
great aircraft like the new C-130J, the C-5B, and its possible
modernization, are all part of a global airlift strategy that I
think fits into our strategic needs very well, and I would just
call that to your attention, the deficit in the airlift
capability.
There is another deficit I would like to bring to your
attention. The key to our defense is our defenders and I think
we would all agree with that. Almost all new service members
enroll and contribute to the GI Bill, the Montgomery GI Bill,
yet only about half of these service men and women actually use
these benefits. Many who use the benefits do not use all of
their entitlement. The great historian Steven Ambrose has said
that the creation of the GI Bill was the single most important
law ever passed by the Federal Government. Yet many of these
soldiers and sailors and airmen and Marines are getting out of
the service. Many would like to stay in the service, they tell
me as I get around to bases, not only here in this country but
around the world, but they feel they have to leave so that they
can provide, especially for the education of their spouses and
children.
I believe many of these service members would stay in the
military if they could transfer part of their unused
entitlement to the GI Bill to family members in return for a
service commitment. That is a win-win situation, it seems to
me. It is an idea actually supported by the Hart-Rudman
Commission report. Service secretaries could use this retention
tool selectively, just as they use reenlistment bonuses
selectively.
I would deeply appreciate it if you would give serious
consideration to how the Department of Defense can use the
transfer of GI Bill benefits to family members, in other words
making the GI Bill more family-friendly, as the military itself
has become a more family institution, use it as a retention
tool, and continue to give us your best thoughts on how we
might pursue this idea.
Is that something that might be of interest to you?
Dr. Wolfowitz. It sounds very interesting and it certainly
addresses probably our highest priority, which is how to keep
good people, attract good people, and keep them in the service.
I know there is nothing that a parent cares more about than the
education of their children. I know that as a father.
Senator Cleland. You put your finger right on it. The old
saying is you recruit a soldier, but you retain a family. I was
just in Osaka, Japan, and a Navy admiral mentioned to me that
the decision to stay in the Navy is made at the dinner table.
So these retention decisions of our aviators, of our top
quality people, of our high tech people, of our senior captains
and senior NCOs seem to be made around the dinner table. This
question of the ability to care for the education of our
spouses, the education of our kids, is something that is of
growing importance.
We thank you very much for your testimony today.
Mr. Chairman, no further questions. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator. I wish to associate
myself with your observations about that GI Bill. You know that
I will work with you again to achieve those goals. Just
yesterday in Virginia I had a constituent raise that very issue
of transferability.
Senator Levin. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if you would yield
for 10 seconds so I could join in the Chairman's support of
Senator Cleland's comment on the GI Bill transferability issue.
This committee has been very supportive of that effort. So, if
you are confirmed, maybe you can help us persuade some of our
House colleagues on it.
Dr. Wolfowitz. It will be high on my list to look at,
Senator.
Chairman Warner. Senator Hutchinson.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR TIM HUTCHINSON
Senator Hutchinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Wolfowitz, I join my colleagues in welcoming you and in
expressing our belief that our Nation is very fortunate to have
you. I also want to pick up on what Senator Cleland was saying.
I chair the Personnel Subcommittee. Senator Cleland is our
ranking member. We have worked closely on this whole issue of
retaining our men and women in uniform. While at one time most
of our service men and women were single, that is not the case
any more. Most of them have families, and the issue of not just
their education, but the education of dependents, is foremost
in their minds.
I have supported, and still support very strongly, Senator
Cleland's efforts at portability on the Montgomery GI Bill. But
I also believe that there may be other areas, other methods by
which service men and women can ensure that their children are
going to receive an education. I just ask for your commitment
to work with our committee in exploring ways in which we can
ensure that that opportunity is there for all of the dependents
of our men and women in uniform.
Dr. Wolfowitz. I will do so with enthusiasm.
Senator Hutchinson. Thank you. I think when you speak of
strengthening the bond of trust, that is a big part of the
quality of life that we are all concerned about.
Also, I want to raise an issue concerning the acquisition
policy of the Department of Defense on vaccine production. In
the early 1990s the Department made the mistake, I believe, of
abandoning its plans to construct a GOCO vaccine production
facility. The consequences of that erroneous decision are only
now being made fully evident and fully demonstrated.
Last summer, partly as a result of prodding from this
committee and our subcommittee's hearings, the gentleman that
you will replace if confirmed, wisely, I think, decided to
throw in the towel on that existing vaccine acquisition
strategy and signaled that the Department would return to the
pre-1994 strategy, namely the construction of a GOCO.
Now, during this time of transition there are grumblings
that there are those who now want to abandon that or head in
another direction, which concerns me. I have written Secretary
Rumsfeld and have asked him personally to investigate that
matter. If confirmed, will you assure me that you will
personally look into this vaccine acquisition strategy to
ensure that it is an open and fair process?
Dr. Wolfowitz. Yes, I will.
Senator Hutchinson. I also want to raise something I have
been very concerned about, as well as Senator Reed and Senator
Cleland, and that is the C-130 acquisition and beddown schedule
for the future. The Little Rock Air Force Base, in my home
State of Arkansas, is the schoolhouse for the training for the
C-130s, and the Little Rock Air Force Base is scheduled to
receive the C-130J flight simulator, it should be up and
running by 2004.
But Little Rock is not scheduled to receive the first C-
130J aircraft until 2006. That means there will be a 2-year gap
between the availability of the simulator and the arrival of
the aircraft. That is obviously a problem. It is a problem that
Senator Reed faces in his State as well. That would be eased
considerably if OSD and the Air Force provided $130 million in
the budget, the 2002 budget, as was promised last year, for the
purchase of two C-130J aircraft.
I do not ask you to make a commitment on that, but I do ask
you to make a commitment that you will examine this budget
issue and get back to me on what the possibilities are, because
obviously if you are going to have a schoolhouse to train the
pilots and you have the simulators there you need the aircraft
there.
Dr. Wolfowitz. I will look into that.
[The information referred to follows:]
There are two C-130J aircraft in the President's budget request for
fiscal year 2002, while a third aircraft is on the Air Force's unfunded
priority list. For now, the Air Force will continue to conduct in-
flight training at the students' ultimate operational training bases.
Senator Hutchinson. That is a very brief answer, but we are
going to hold you to that.
Dr. Wolfowitz. I will do it.
Senator Hutchinson. We look forward to working with you,
and we are very pleased that the President has nominated you
and I look forward to your confirmation and being able to have
the next couple of years to really see that commitment to the
quality of life, to health care, to housing, to pay, being
fulfilled and the whole retention issue that has been such a
severe problem eased.
Dr. Wolfowitz. Thank you. It is, I think, a unique time to
both fix some old problems and move forward on some new ones,
and I really look forward to working with you and this
committee to do that.
Senator Hutchinson. Thank you, Dr. Wolfowitz.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator. Senator Nelson.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR E. BENJAMIN NELSON
Senator Ben Nelson. Thank you very much.
Dr. Wolfowitz, there is a report coming out from the
Pentagon that questions the policy in ``Plan Colombia'' as it
relates to strengthening the efforts at controlling the growth
in coca and therefore the growth of cocaine to the United
States. It is questioning whether the policy ought to be on
controlling the area of supply or whether our efforts in ``Plan
Colombia'' ought to be more in the nature of working with sub-
south countries as well as within Colombia to build those
economies and to work with those countries.
I wonder if you can give us your distinction between what
you would consider to be an appropriate role for the United
States in Colombia with ``Plan Colombia'' and what might border
on nation-building. My concern is that there is a lot of
discussion and things are categorized as nation-building when
we disagree with the efforts, but also it seems to be sanitized
language when we say we need to work with these countries to
help them with their infrastructure and with their democracy.
Can you give us a distinction? I note that in the answers
to the questions about Colombia that you have reserved the
right to make statements later, given the fact that you are
only being considered for approval here at the present time,
and I can appreciate that. But I wonder if you could share with
us a distinction that you would have between, let us say, what
we are doing in Colombia and what might be considered by others
as nation-building.
Dr. Wolfowitz. I have a lot to learn about Colombia,
Senator, I think, including from you. I think you were just
down there, I understand. I know the other Senator Nelson was
and I met with him yesterday.
It does seem to me that one of the essential things that
has everyone concerned, including myself, is that we not find
ourselves in a situation as we were 35 years ago where we are
fighting someone else's civil war. I think that is the
essential thing to stay out of, and that that means I would
draw the line, I think, less at--I try to understand what we
mean by the exact terms, but I think most importantly we know
when they are doing the job as opposed to us taking over the
job.
I think helping the Colombians to help themselves is
something that probably does serve American interests. But I
would be very leery of something that looked like we were
starting to get our troops involved in another war down there.
Senator Ben Nelson. Is it a question of an internal
struggle or is our policy and our national interest to stem the
flow of drugs north to the United States, which may be a
completely different mission than strengthening Colombia,
although it may have some connection, but it may be a different
mission?
Dr. Wolfowitz. I think that is ultimately a major part of
our interest, although I would think also it is not in our
interest from either point of view to see a so far rather
democratic government in Latin America taken over by drug
lords. So yes, I think there is a difference, and I think the
primary purpose of our efforts to date has been to stem the
flow of narcotics.
One of the things I need to learn is whether you can really
disentangle those two as much as we say we are doing.
Senator Ben Nelson. At some point you might be in a
position to help us understand which is the primary role and
which is the secondary role.
Dr. Wolfowitz. I will work very hard on that, and I look
forward to actually learning from those of you who have just
been down there. I think there is nothing like being on the
spot.
Senator Ben Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Thank you. That is a very important
subject before this committee and I commend you and our
distinguished ranking member for undertaking a trip down there.
Senator Sessions.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JEFF SESSIONS
Senator Sessions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Wolfowitz, we are delighted to have you here. You have
an extraordinary background, the kind of background I think is
most valuable in public service. You have had three tours in
the Pentagon, the State Department, SALT talks, but have also
been in the private sector and in a university, where you have
had the opportunity to study, maybe more objectively, the
events that go on around the world, and now back in the
leadership. I think it is tremendous that you have agreed to
take on this challenge, which I think is very great.
When I first came here about 4 years ago, George Gilder
gave a little talk and told us that the 19th Century was a
century of progress, the 20th Century was the century of the
devil, with wars and oppressions and death, the likes of which
we had never seen before, in a time when it really should not
have happened, and that the 21st century has the potential to
be the greatest in the history of mankind.
I guess I want to ask you, do you feel that the United
States has an interest, a responsibility, and an ability to
help shape this new century in a way that promotes peace and
prosperity around the world, and if so, would you comment in
general about how that might be done?
Dr. Wolfowitz. I believe very strongly, Senator, and I
think the reference you made to past history is unfortunately
all too true. The 20th Century started on an extremely
optimistic note. People thought technology and economic
progress was going to bring untold benefits and even outlaw
war, that people would see war was not worth pursuing any
longer. Then World War I came and it was all downhill from
there. Once that terrible genie is out of the bottle, the
consequences ripple on for decades. The consequences of World
War I were felt well into the end of the last century.
I think one of the greatest things to be concerned about is
that we come to take for granted the structures that have
produced a relatively peaceful world today. I say relatively.
It is peaceful for us. It is peaceful for the big countries of
Europe. Obviously, there are a lot of parts of the world that
do not look peaceful at all. But the big wars do not threaten
us now.
I think it is very important to have an active strategy
that is not just a military strategy--in fact, I think
diplomacy and even economic policy may be just as important or
more important--a policy that tries to protect those large
zones of peace that we have created in the world and to try to
extend them. I do believe a strong American military is part of
that. I think it is an indispensable part of that. I think the
goal is to keep wars as small and as far away as possible, and
hopefully smaller and further away, until eventually the whole
world benefits from that.
Senator Sessions. So I take it that you are committed to
creating the kind of defense force that would be relevant to
this new world we are in for the purpose of promoting peace and
prosperity?
Dr. Wolfowitz. Exactly, and I also think that is a
significant part of what Secretary Rumsfeld means when he talks
about the need for rethinking the concept of deterrence for
this new world.
Senator Sessions. That is going to take a challenge,
because we have constructed a defense establishment designed
for a different kind of threat. Institutions, I think maybe
even government institutions most of all, are reluctant to
change. Do you think and believe at this point that you will
have to confront some outmoded thinking and to recreate some
strategies and equipment that would meet these new challenges?
Dr. Wolfowitz. I am sure we will, and I know there is
resistance to change. I would say that I also think there is
particularly high resistance to change when you have a
situation, as I think we have today, where we are trying to do
too much with the force that we have and when people are
stretched thin, when you are losing people because of excessive
deployments, when they are afraid that if they identify some
function they do not need that money will get taken away and
they will suffer in their operational readiness accounts.
I think all of that puts a pressure on the force that makes
it much harder to be innovative. So I think on the one hand we
have to fix some of these immediate needs, but if you want to
create the head room for people to think in an innovative
fashion, I think you have to give them some confidence that
when they do try to do things differently there will be rewards
for that, rather than people saying, oh, well, you have just
demonstrated we can do without that division because you are
experimenting with it.
Senator Sessions. I agree. I have been to Kosovo a couple
of times and I do believe that our men and women are basically
doing police work. In fact, the UN was under an obligation and
agreed to produce police forces that would allow our military
to leave and they have not done so. So I think generating a
system that actually produces police force in those kind of
circumstances, so that our military do not have to be deployed,
is the correct policy.
Let me mention one other thing. I am on the Seapower
Subcommittee and I chair it now. We have learned that we had,
perhaps when you were last in the Department or in the early
1990s, we had over 500 ships; we are now at 315. We have seen,
as you note in your opening remarks, a 40 percent reduction in
funding and personnel pretty much across the board.
I believe that there will be no way to transform this
military, to maintain it at the right level, without some
increasing expenditures to accomplish those goals. I hope and
believe you will find every possible efficiency. I hope and
believe you will find programs that you do not have to continue
to fund, that could free up money for the things that we do
have to fund.
But how are you feeling about this review that is going to
take place, and how are you feeling about how much additional
funding the Defense Department is going to need?
Dr. Wolfowitz. I would not, even in the security of a
closed hearing, feel comfortable taking a guess at a number
like that. I do share Secretary Rumsfeld's general feeling that
we probably need more, but if we are going to ask for more we
had better be very sure that everything we are asking for is
something we need. I suspect there are things we are doing now
that we could either stop doing or do much more efficiently.
I think it was President Bush during the campaign said that
we need to spend more, but we need to spend smarter. Part of
this review is going to be focused very much on spending
smarter, so that if we come and ask you for more you can be
convinced that it is needed.
Senator Sessions. I support your idea that you need to
conduct a review before we just continue to continue programs.
But I do believe that you will need some additional support. We
will need to increase this budget, not beyond reason. A solid
increase for a number of years to compensate for a long period
now of neglect is going to be necessary if we are going to
maintain our ability to defend our just national interests
around the world.
I look forward to working with you. I am absolutely
convinced that you and Secretary Rumsfeld are about to lead a
tremendous revitalization of our Defense Department, and we
thank you for it.
Chairman Warner. We thank you, Senator.
Senator Akaka.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL K. AKAKA
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to add my welcome to Dr. Wolfowitz this
morning. I am familiar with you, as others who have been in
Congress for a while, and I am familiar with your experience,
accomplishments, and of course as has been said already,
familiar with your impressive record here of service to our
country.
I am also familiar with your prior service as Under
Secretary of Defense for Policy from 1989 to 1993. I'm
particularly pleased to know that you have given service as
Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific
Affairs, since policies in the Pacific have the most direct
impact in my home State. I should tell you, in case you were
not aware, that my friend who worked at East-West Center, Mike
Oxenberg, just recently passed on. I know you have known him
and have worked with him on China.
Dr. Wolfowitz. It is a great loss to our country, Senator.
Senator Akaka. News reports indicate that China has been
helping develop a fiber optics communication system for Iraq's
military. This is the same system that British and American
forces just attacked, I understand. How important do you think
it is that we should prevent this system from becoming
operational and how persistent should we be in attacking it?
Dr. Wolfowitz. Senator, I have not had the benefit yet of
classified briefings on the details of that. It does seem to me
the principle is very clear. If they are building something
that threatens the safety of our air crews, we should do what
we have to do to eliminate it or otherwise assure their safety.
We should also, I think, make it very clear to the Chinese
that this is behavior that has a real cost in our relations.
Senator Akaka. I know, as I said, you have been in policy.
Do you support a policy which would permit the Chinese to
resume the launching of commercial satellites which the U.S.
licenses?
Dr. Wolfowitz. I think it depends crucially on whether we
can have the kind of adequate safeguards that make sure that
our missile guidance technology does not end up in the hands of
the Chinese. As a commercial matter, it is probably good all
around, but I think there is evidence that suggests the
practices in the past were not sufficiently rigorous.
Senator Akaka. As I have indicated, I regard you as a
person who has had such a broad view of our country and our
security. So let me ask you this one. There have been
discrepancies in the readiness reports of operational forces.
It is my understanding that some of the discrepancies have been
attributed to a reporting system which is designed to provide a
view of the current state of readiness, rather than a
projection of the future.
If confirmed, how will you address the issues surrounding
the accuracy of determining the readiness of operational
forces?
Dr. Wolfowitz. The first thing I would do, if it has not
been done already, is to work with Secretary Rumsfeld to make
sure that we have a really first class person in that Under
Secretary job, Manpower and Readiness, because this is a huge
task. I would work with that individual to try to consider
carefully whether the kinds of measures we are using for
readiness are, number one, measuring what we want them to
measure; and number two, to make sure they are not--every time
you set up a way of measurement, whether it is military
readiness or academic excellence, people start to game the
system and they start to design to the measurement instead of
to something else.
So you have to be very careful. I suppose this is a
Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. When you start to measure and
you put out a certain measurement, you change how people
behave. You want to make sure that you are changing it in the
way you want to change it and not in an unintended way. But it
is a very big issue that you raise and a very legitimate one.
Senator Akaka. I am also aware of your work out in the
Pacific Rim and in the Philippines and what you have done
there. Again, I want to say that I am glad to see you here and
seeking, I think, the position here with this administration.
We all know that the future of our country and the security of
our country leans in the Pacific and that area, so it is
important to have a person like you.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator.
Dr. Wolfowitz. Thank you.
Chairman Warner. Senator Bunning.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JIM BUNNING
Senator Bunning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, welcome to the committee.
Dr. Wolfowitz. Thank you.
Senator Bunning. I want to explore just three different
areas with you, Doctor. First, base realignment and closures. I
notice in your answers that Senator Warner has shared with all
the members that you took what we call a powder. You did not
answer the question. You said: ``As Secretary Rumsfeld noted in
his response to advance policy questions from this committee,
we withhold an assessment of this issue until after the
completion of the defense review.'' At least that is what is
written down here.
Do you have any idea what the President's feelings are on
base realignment and closure, because I am deeply concerned
until I have seen the savings that occurred from the first and
the second round of base closures and had them proven to me,
not just put down on paper and here is what we saved, but a
much more thorough examination. If we proceed in another round
you are going to have a terrible time up here on the Hill
trying to convince anyone that this is in the best interests of
this country.
So do you have anything to add to your statement here?
Dr. Wolfowitz. I think I would say what I believe Secretary
Rumsfeld said when he was up here, that he believes, and I
agree with him, that the base structure should correspond to
the force structure. We are only now looking at what the force
structure ought to be as a product of this review.
There is a general feeling that we have more base structure
than our present force structure requires. But until the review
is done, it is a little early to state that as a firm
conclusion.
You bring up another issue which I discussed with you in
your office yesterday, and I concur very strongly that we need
to make sure that the savings that are attributed to past BRACs
have actually been realized and if we end up in another process
of that kind, that we get real savings out of it. That is
certainly something I will look into very hard if I am
confirmed.
Senator Bunning. Second, there is a statement that you just
made this morning and I wonder how that fits into this
statement. I will read from the statement: ``Finally, we must
reform the Department of Defense structures, processes, and
organizations. We need to seek greater efficiencies, not only
to safeguard the taxpayers' money, but also because that will
allow us to create better weapons systems and invest more in
the cutting edge of our national defense.''
I want to make sure that if we are going to do something
here in closing down a base or removing structures that it is
not just to save money, but that it does not force us to try to
do more with less. If I have heard it once in the last 14
years, I have heard it an awful lot of times, that the Defense
Department can do more with less.
It can like heck, and it has been proven that it cannot do
more with less and ask for more deployments. So does that fit
into that statement that you made?
Dr. Wolfowitz. I certainly agree with you we have been
trying to do more with less and the consequences are that
frayed force that General Shelton referred to. I do believe--
when I wrote those words in that statement, I am thinking much
more of the kinds of efficiencies that people say we could
achieve in things like the way we do our pay and accounts
system, the way we purchase electricity for our bases.
There seem to be a lot of places where we are much less
efficient than the private sector and there is no obvious
reason why we ought to be. But I certainly agree with you the
purpose is not simply to save money. We need that money. There
are a lot of needs, both immediate needs and long-term needs,
it has to be applied to.
Senator Bunning. Last but not least, Britain's Foreign
Minister, Robin Cook, recently was before this committee. He
told us about the effort of the European allies to form a
60,000-member force which would perform humanitarian action and
perform military police type duties, such as overtaking
security checkpoint duties in the Kosovo region and those
things.
Are you familiar with this effort of our European allies?
Dr. Wolfowitz. I am in general terms and in some detail.
Senator Bunning. Let me give you an experience that I had
that shows that maybe we should encourage our European allies.
I just spent a day or 2 at Fort Campbell in Kentucky, and 3,000
of our finest young men and women are about on June 1st to go
off and replace 3,000 people that are in Kosovo.
I went out to the training site on site, and those men and
women were being trained to be MPs. I asked the general, how is
that in the best national interest of our country, national
security, to be MPs in Kosovo? He disagreed that it was not in
our best interest, but they were being trained to secure their
own safety when they were there.
Would you like to expand on that a little bit?
Dr. Wolfowitz. I repeat I think what I said earlier, which
is I believe it is in our interest, where possible, to get our
allies to take over jobs that they can do and that we do not
need to do. It is in our interest to get local forces to take
over tasks that they can do that we do not need to do. Where we
are talking about police work, we really ought to be looking
for policemen or their equivalent to do it and not sending
highly trained combat troops, in fact, as you correctly point
out, untraining them, retraining them for a whole new task, and
then having to retrain them for their combat missions when they
come home. There is a lot in that that does not make sense and
we ought to be looking for alternatives.
Senator Bunning. I wish you good luck. Thank you.
Dr. Wolfowitz. Thank you.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Carnahan.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JEAN CARNAHAN
Senator Carnahan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to welcome you to the committee today. I also want
to congratulate you on your nomination and for your years of
national service.
Although we live in a time of peace and prosperity, these
are certainly challenging times for the Department of Defense.
Once the threat to our national security was formidable and
apparent. Now the overall threat has been reduced, but we do
not always know where the enemy is or where he is located or
who he is or what weapons are at his disposal.
We live in a time of unprecedented budget surpluses, but
the pressure on the defense budget remains quite heavy. If we
are to continue to have the best and the most highly trained
and most effective military in the world, we have to invest in
our military personnel. That means higher salaries and better
health care and improved quality of life for those who wear the
uniform.
I think we also owe it to our troops that when they are
placed in harm's way that they are properly equipped and that
they are trained to perform the tasks for which they have been
sent.
The military services continue to demand newer and
sophisticated weapons systems, but these demands must be
evaluated against the type of threats we expect to face and
balanced against competing defense and domestic spending
priorities. There are discussions of transforming our entire
armed forces structure, but we face a bureaucracy that is set
in its ways and very resistant to change. So I expect that you
will have a difficult time, but hopefully a very rewarding job.
I look forward to working with you in those efforts.
I have a few questions I would like to ask today. Senator
Bond and Congressman Gephardt have been very involved in urging
the South Korean government to purchase F-15s. I am very
supportive of those efforts as well. The new purchase of F-15s
is necessary to keep the F-15 production line running.
Given the uncertainty of whether we will be relying on the
Super Hornet or the F-22 or the Joint Strike Fighter, do you
agree that it is in our national interest to continue the
production of the F-15?
Dr. Wolfowitz. Senator, I certainly think it is very much
in our national interest to maintain a strong industrial base.
Clearly, aircraft production is a big part of that. You asked
me when I met with you yesterday about this forthcoming Korean
decision. It seems to me that there are two strong principles
here which we should emphasize to our Korean allies in their
consideration of what kind of aircraft to buy. One is that it
will be far more effective if we are both flying the same kind
of aircraft. It is not just a matter of interoperability, but
the ability to repair one another's systems.
Second, given that their budgets are tight as well as ours,
I hope they will buy the best value for the dollar or for the
won, and I suspect very much that is going to be the American
plane.
Senator Carnahan. I also mentioned to Secretary Rumsfeld
when he was here a concern that had been expressed to me a
number of times. That has to do with the readiness of our
TRADOC posts, especially the one at Fort Leonard Wood. I would
like for you to, if you would, check on that for me and get
back to me with more information about that.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The question I will ask today is one that is a little bit
more general. I understand the Department is doing a
comprehensive review, but I would like to hear what your views
are on what measures the Department should take to address the
short-term readiness of our troops.
Dr. Wolfowitz. Clearly, one of the most serious readiness
deficiencies that I have been briefed on is shortages in
training facilities and lack of training time and lack of
resources to do training properly. There is no, I think, more
important contributor to the readiness of forces than the fact
that they are well-trained.
I remember going right after the Gulf War with Secretary
Cheney to visit the Second Armored Division inside Iraq, and
Secretary Cheney talked to a tough-looking senior master
sergeant who I think had spent 26 years in the Army and asked
him, was it tough? He said it wasn't anywhere near as tough as
the National Training Center. That is the kind of training you
want to have. It is an essential part of readiness and it is
certainly something we will be looking hard at in this review.
Senator Carnahan. Thank you very much.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Collins.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR SUSAN COLLINS
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Wolfowitz, I first want to echo the comments of my
colleagues in thanking you for accepting this considerable
challenge and for bringing your considerable expertise and
talents to bear in this exciting new position.
Dr. Wolfowitz. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Collins. As a new member of the Senate Armed
Services Committee, I have had a parade of service chiefs and
senior officers come to my office to brief me and those
meetings have been very helpful. I have, however, been
concerned by what I have heard. Over and over again, senior
officers have told me that there has been a pattern in the last
administration of robbing our modernization accounts to pay for
pressing readiness problems.
Indeed, one senior officer told me that he was actually
instructed to prepare a budget in the last administration that
he knew would not possibly meet the readiness needs of his
service. In fact, there was a reliance on supplementals in the
last administration that caused there to be lots of concerns
about the training moneys available for our troops and other
readiness issues.
It seems to me we need a new approach and that is a lousy
way to go about budgeting. Are you going to commit today to a
truth-in-budgeting process so that we really know what the
numbers are and can make sure that we are not essentially
gaming the system?
Dr. Wolfowitz. I think it is essential not only for
Congress to know, but for the President and the Secretary of
Defense to know. I certainly agree with you it is a misuse of
the budgeting process to have expenditures that you fully know
you are going to need submitted as an emergency supplement to
your budget. We have to figure out how we work our way out of
that process that you correctly identify we have gotten into.
Senator Collins. On a related issue, I have also heard from
these senior officers about inefficiencies within the Defense
Department's acquisition and procurement process. For example,
one senior officer told me that the Defense Logistics Agency
adds a markup of 22 percent to each uniform that it buys. He
was saying that if he could eliminate the middleman within DOD
that he could save a great deal of money.
Are you planning to take a thorough look at the internal
acquisition and procurement systems of DOD to see whether there
are ways to improve efficiencies and perhaps save substantial
sums of money?
Dr. Wolfowitz. Absolutely. One of the things that has
struck me a lot in briefings I have had over the last 6 weeks
or so is there just are shelves full of studies going back at
least to David Packard's commission in the early 1980s that
identify all kinds of reforms. I keep asking the question: We
do not need more studies; we need to implement these things;
why is it not happening?
It is not that people have not tried, and it is not as
though it is going to be simple to do so. But I certainly
think, with this unusual man we have as Secretary of Defense,
we have a real opportunity now to get some things done that
everyone agrees are long overdue.
Senator Collins. I agree. I think everyone knows what the
problems are, but there has been too much internal resistance
to solving them that has prevented needed reforms from being
implemented, so I appreciate that commitment.
Finally, I want to echo Senator Sessions' concerns about
our current shipbuilding rates. The current rates of
shipbuilding do not support the goal of a 300-ship naval fleet
as identified by the last QDR. The Clinton administration's
defense budgets have been gradually taking the Navy, not toward
a 300-ship Navy, but rather toward a considerably smaller
fleet.
Adding to the challenges are the facts that many defense
experts believe that even a 300-ship Navy is inadequate for our
current operational and deployment requirements. I hope as part
of the top-to-bottom review that you and the Secretary are
conducting that you will take a very hard look at what we can
do to make sure that our shipbuilding budgets are adequate to
make up for the deficiencies of the past 8 years.
Dr. Wolfowitz. That will be a very important part of what
we look at, yes.
Senator Collins. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator, very much.
Senator Nelson.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR BILL NELSON
Senator Bill Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to say to the ranking member, thank you again
for that trip to Colombia over the last few days. It was
extraordinary, it was informative, it was personally enjoyable
to be with you and the other members, and I thank you very
much.
Senator Levin. Thank you. Your contribution to that very
quick trip was really crucial. Our learning was mutually at a
high level. You and Senator Ben Nelson, Senator Jack Reed, and
I travelled and again, thank you for participating.
Senator Bill Nelson. Dr. Wolfowitz, it was a pleasure to
visit with you yesterday. I want to encourage you on the
seeming new policy of the administration to break the mold, to
think outside the lines. It is, I think, refreshing that you
approach it this way, and with the changing nature of the
threat to the United States I think it is essential. I thank
you about that.
Now, what I would like to get from you is some of your
ideas about what are going to be the appropriations needs over
the course of the next decade. Chairman Warner and a group of
other Senators from this committee had recently written a
letter asking for necessary appropriations having to do with a
supplemental for this year. Senator Warner, if I recall, it
totaled some perhaps $7 billion additional moneys in this
particular year. This is for the 2001 budget, even before we
get to the 2002 budget.
If I recall also, that had to do with pay and benefits,
health benefits. It had to do with spare parts. It had to do
with the cost of fuel and a number of things like that. That is
$7 billion before we even get to the decade that we are talking
about.
Can you give me some clue as to what you think are going to
be the needs of increased defense spending over the course of
the next decade?
Dr. Wolfowitz. I suppose the real answer is without the
review I cannot say very much. But I guess if you want a clue,
it seems to me there is a general feeling, unless we are going
to radically change what we try to do in the world--and I say
radically because I think we probably do have to change what we
try to do in the world, and we may want to do more. But unless
we are going to do radically less, we probably need more
resources.
But we also have to find savings within what we do, because
we cannot simply add to the defense budget. That is why even
the short-term question of what do we need to make it through
2001 is something that requires a thorough look at what we are
already spending our money on.
Senator Bill Nelson. I know that that is the answer that
you have to give at this point and I respect that. So let me
suggest what I think the truth is on the answer. The fact is,
as we change the nature of our defense posture we can save
money, but at the same time, since the reason for a Federal
Government in large part is to provide for the national
defense, we cannot be penny wise and pound foolish,
particularly with research and development and particularly
with regard to the provision of our forces in the field, the
supplies, the material, and the quality of the troops by virtue
of what it is going to cost in competition with the private
sector in order to be able to retain them.
I think the bottom line is that there is going to be a
considerable demand for increased spending over the course of
the next decade. I think we are fooling ourselves if we do not
plan for that. We have some choices to make very shortly in
formulating a budget and how much are we going to allocate for
defense and how much for education and for prescription drug
benefit, and balance all that against the need to protect
social security and the surplus in the Medicare trust fund, and
then balance all of that on the question of how large is going
to be the tax cut.
So I think there are, as we approach the subject matter of
this committee, people that are fooling themselves if they
think that we are not going to need substantial defense
increases over the next 10 years and do so at the peril of
providing for the common defense if you use it up in other
areas so that we do not have it, or so that the only choice
that is left to us is the choice of going back into deficit
financing, which was one of the reasons of a poorly performing
economy in the decade of the 1980s.
So you see where I am coming from, Dr. Wolfowitz. I
congratulate you on your nomination. I congratulate you ahead
of time. I am going to be visiting with you about these
budgetary matters in the future.
Dr. Wolfowitz. I look forward to it, Senator. Thank you.
Senator Bill Nelson. Thank you.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Senator.
We will now have a second round of questions. I will
initiate those questions and my distinguished colleague, Mr.
Levin, will follow up.
I was quite interested in your selection of a quote in your
opening statement, that General Creighton Abrams said when the
all-volunteer force was first created that, ``People are not in
the Army; people are the Army.'' I was privileged to serve in
the Pentagon at that time when he was Chief of Staff and I have
the greatest respect for that military leader. He was exactly
right.
As you said, you will become the chief operating officer
and people will be at the very top of your agenda. This
committee, indeed Congress as a whole, are very concerned about
the inability of the Department of Defense, all services, some
with varying degrees, but all services, having difficulty
retaining particularly that critical group of younger officers,
captains, so to speak, lieutenants in the Navy, who are making
that pivotal decision as to whether to go on and perhaps commit
for a career of at least 20 years.
Similarly, the enlisted ranks, the middle grade and senior
petty officers, sergeants and the like, are likewise not
staying in the numbers that we need.
Now, there has been some modest improvement here recently,
possibly as a consequence of the initiatives taken by the past
administration and Congress. This committee took the initiative
to increase the pay raises, took the initiative to increase the
quality of health care.
What are your initiatives that you are going to assert, if
confirmed and you take on this responsibility, to stem the flow
of these young people out of the military, somewhat induced by
very lucrative opportunities for their trained skills in the
private sector?
Dr. Wolfowitz. Pay and allowances are one of the first
things one looks at. You are absolutely correct, this committee
has taken very important decisions, including just at the end
of the last year, that I think should help us. Some of I
suppose the kinds of tangible benefits that Senator Cleland
referred to earlier that can help service people think that by
staying in they are ensuring their children's future, that is
very important.
I think, as I said earlier, it is equally important to make
sure that people feel that they are getting the right kind of
training and equipment to perform the missions, because at the
end of the day I think what keeps people in the service will
never be the pay and allowances. Pay and allowances have to be
adequate, but they can almost always earn more money with less
time away from home and less risk of life doing something else.
It is the sense of mission.
It is very hard to convince people of a sense of mission if
they are not being given equipment for that mission or the
training for the mission is not adequate.
I also believe that, and I think hopefully this will be
part of this review, we need as a country--and certainly this
committee makes a big contribution in that respect--to convince
the country that the mission these men and women are doing is
important, because that I think is one of the greatest psychic
rewards and therefore one of the greatest rewards that they get
for service.
So you have to look at it, I think, as a whole. It starts
with pay and allowances, but it goes right up to what the
President, Congress, and the country believe is the importance
of what they are doing.
Chairman Warner. It is also family separation, Dr.
Wolfowitz. That is brought about by overdeployments in terms of
the number of times that these young men and women are sent
abroad. They will accept not only a reasonable level, but a
high level, because that is what they joined to do. But I think
we have in the past few years seen where we have crossed that
invisible line to where they are now confronted with serious
family situations because of their departure from family for
prolonged periods, and they are all too often coming at a
critical time when they are trying to raise some young
children. How well all of us who have had that great privilege
and challenge in life know the essential need for the two
parents to be together as much as possible with those children
in their formative years. Bear that in mind.
Dr. Wolfowitz. You are absolutely right, Senator.
Chairman Warner. Also, but for a spare part no bigger than
that tip of that pencil, airplanes cannot fly. The mechanics
are instructed to go over and take it out of another airplane
which is operational and cannibalize it and put that airplane
parked for a while. That is why I am urging consideration of
this supplemental. We have to get into the spare parts
replenishment and the distribution of those spare parts right
away, because these young people working, whether it is on
ships or on the line of airplanes on the tarmac working on it,
they need to feel that we are supplying those parts such that
they can keep those pieces of equipment up and ready.
In my most recent visit to Kosovo a week or so ago, we
visited a young captain who had several tanks and other
motorized vehicles high on a hill in that sector that is
becoming more and more destabilized, the valley. He said some
of those units that he had up there were in a precarious
situation because of spare parts. There is a trooper right out
on the front line taking risks.
Again, I know this question of the supplemental is not a
cheerful one, but I take the brunt of criticism directed. I
just think it has to be studied and studied very carefully. I
am confident that Senator Stevens, Senator Byrd, and others
that are entrusted with the appropriations--therein is the
primary responsibility--can manage that in a way that we can
achieve it, hopefully for the military, and maybe restrict it
and let the President indicate that he will veto if this thing
becomes a giant snowball rolling down the hillside with
everybody's need attached to it. So I will continue to work on
that.
The industrial base. We can really be no stronger as a
Nation and a military if we do not have those companies who are
willing to get out there and put at risk their capital and to
have the ability to attract the talent that is necessary to do
the research and development and the test and evaluation on
these systems that are coming along.
What are your views about assisting the industrial base,
and particularly the question of across-the-ocean mergers? They
are primarily in the Atlantic, trans-Atlantic, but they could
well become also in the Pacific region a factor that concerns
the industrial base here at home. That will be your
responsibility. What are your views on that subject?
Dr. Wolfowitz. First, Senator, Mr. Chairman, I am very
concerned about the health of our industrial base. It is
crucial to our ability to support forces in the future. It is
crucial to our ability to innovate. I think it is hurting
badly.
I think when one looks at this issue of trans-Atlantic or
even possibly trans-Pacific mergers, I think the crucial
question is do these mergers contribute to our ability to
innovate, contribute to the long-term health of our industrial
base, or conversely are they a kind of fire sale where we are
transferring absolutely essential American capabilities abroad
in a way that will hurt our long-term competitiveness.
I think some degree of distributing production across
defense establishments of our allies as well as ourselves may
be a way to make the overall industrial base more efficient.
But certainly one of the things we better look at is to make
sure that if some of that is going eastward across the Atlantic
that there is enough gain coming back the other direction that
we are all better off in the long run.
Chairman Warner. I thank you.
Senator Levin.
Senator Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to go back to Colombia first. Senator Bill Nelson
indicated that four of us went down to Colombia last weekend.
Let me just give you a quick impression, and then ask you for a
response. First, our focus clearly has to be on the demand side
of this equation. We are creating the demand which is creating
the supply that Colombia currently is supplying in the area of
cocaine. But stemming the flow of cocaine and the supply of it
is an important goal as well. That is number one.
Second, we should not send our forces there to try to go
after the narco-terrorists and the narco-suppliers, but we
should, as you put it, assist them to assist themselves, to go
after those folks that are creating this problem.
This is third--unlike many other countries in Latin
America, the army in Colombia has been supportive of the
democratic government in Colombia traditionally and is now.
Strengthening that army is essential to the survival of that
democracy against the onslaught of the narco-traffickers,
number one. Those narco-traffickers are now funding the threats
to that democracy both from the guerrillas and from the
paramilitaries. So, when we strengthen the professionalism and
the training and the protection of human rights by that army,
we are in the process trying to accomplish two things. First,
we are stemming the flow of narcotics to this country,
attempting to reduce that coca crop. Second, we are in the
process strengthening Colombian democracy. Both things are
going on and they are inseparable.
So when you talk about disentangling the two goals, the
goal of supporting Colombian democracy or nation-building and
the goal of stemming the flow of cocaine, both of those goals
are dependent upon strengthening the professionalism, training
of the army, and making sure that they protect human rights in
order to reduce the power of the narco-traffickers. So the
goals, it seems to me, are inseparable and talking about
disentangling them may miss the point. I just want to give you
that thought and give you a chance to respond if you want, or
just to think about it, either way.
Dr. Wolfowitz. I will respond. You are taking me in the
direction I was heading already. I can see a clear difference
between their doing the job and our doing the job, and that is
the line I would like to keep clear and bright. I know people
make a distinction between fighting narco-terrorists and
fighting the civil war. I guess I have--you are saying it
yourself. It is hard to disentangle because the instrument for
doing both, especially if they are going to do it themselves,
is their own military.
When I was Ambassador in Jakarta, the Colombian
Ambassador--and it may have been the first they ever sent to
Indonesia--was not a foreign service officer. He was a judge
who had sent some narco-terrorist to jail and he was in
Indonesia essentially to protect his life. He told me with
great bitterness that all that money from the United States
that's sucking cocaine up from Latin America is destroying his
country and destroying democracy in his country. It was very
poignant and very moving. People like that judge-become-
ambassador are very courageous people.
It seems to me if they want our financial support, our
material support, our training support, within limits we ought
to provide it. If they want the lives of our service people,
then we will say, it is your country, it is your lives that
should be on the line.
Senator Levin. They have not asked for that.
Dr. Wolfowitz. I know they have not.
Senator Levin. I do not think there is any support for that
that I know of in this country. What there is, however, support
for in ``Plan Colombia'' is what I just described and what you
just described. I gather you, in general, are supportive of
that goal; is that fair to say?
Dr. Wolfowitz. Yes.
Senator Levin. Back to Iraq for a moment and what many
thought, including myself, was an unclear signal to Saddam
prior to his invasion of Kuwait. Would you comment on that? I
think you have spoken on that issue before. Comment on the
importance of clarity of our signals and the lack of clarity in
terms of that signal to him as to what the impact would be
should he move on Kuwait.
Dr. Wolfowitz. Well, I believed at the time and I believe
now that we sent ambiguous signals. I argued strongly at the
time that we should send a clearer signal. In fairness to that
administration, it also has to be said that one of the greatest
ambiguities came in congressional testimony where an Assistant
Secretary of State was pushed in my view a little bit too hard
to say exactly what our commitments were.
I liked Secretary Cheney's formulation at the time, which
was: We have stood by our friends in the past and we will stand
by them in the future, no further questions. I think if the
administration had stuck to that line it would have been a
better signal.
But having said that, two things. Number one, given how
Saddam behaved when he was faced with the threat of Desert
Storm and his unwillingness to yield at that point, I think
there is every reason to be skeptical that even a very clear
signal would have deterred him. He was convinced that we were
weak, that we had lost in Vietnam, we would lose again there.
Number two, there is no question that once he invaded it
was a great help in dealing with our Arab friends in the region
that no one could accuse us of having provoked the attack.
There is always a little bit of a tradeoff between sending
clear signals on the one hand and being seen as being
belligerent on the other.
At the end of the day, I think history probably would have
taken a similar course.
Senator Levin. Just two last questions, and I thank our
Chairman for yielding to me and so graciously allowing me to
extend my questions so I can go to another hearing.
When you were Under Secretary for Policy in President
George Bush's administration, there was an employee in the
Office of Nonproliferation Policy who became convinced that the
administration was about to present false information to
Congress in a classified briefing about Pakistan's nuclear
capabilities. The individual complained to his supervisor and
the supervisor then became concerned that the employee might
take it upon himself to correct the inaccurate information
presented to Congress.
I am not getting into the merits at all of that case, as to
who was right or who was wrong. But there was a response by the
supervisor there ordering him not to supply that information,
and terminated the employment and apparently acted to ensure
that security clearances be removed from that employee. I do
not want to get involved in the specifics of that, either. That
is the background. There is apparently litigation going on, so
I am not asking you to comment in any way which could affect
that litigation. The reason I am asking you this is because of
the questions asked of you at this hearing about providing
information to this committee and to our designated staff, who
are cleared to receive classified information. It is important,
I believe, to us that people who wish to come to give us
classified information in no way be deterred from doing so or
be threatened or be in any way deterred from providing that to,
again, designated staff who are cleared to receive classified
information.
The Whistleblower Protection Act does not apply to this
type of case because information is classified. But putting
that aside, do you believe that it is appropriate in any way to
retaliate against an employee who threatens to take accurate
information to properly cleared congressional staffers, as a
matter of policy?
Dr. Wolfowitz. My answer is absolutely not. I do not
believe that kind of retaliation is appropriate at all. I would
go a bit further, too. I think it is terribly important, and on
that specific issue of what Pakistan was doing with nuclear
weapons there was a legal obligation to keep Congress
appropriately informed.
Senator, I was not even aware of that employee or the
entire case until about 18 months ago when I was asked to give
a deposition in a civil suit. Most of the events he alleged
took place before I was confirmed as Under Secretary.
Senator Levin. I did not want to get into your----
Dr. Wolfowitz. Well, OK, but you brought it up. So I
believe----
Senator Levin. I assume you were aware of it one way or
another.
Dr. Wolfowitz. Only within the last----
Senator Levin. The issue. I do not mean back then. I mean
you are aware of it.
Dr. Wolfowitz. I have been aware of the issue. In fact,
there have been times on that issue when I specifically sensed
that people thought we could somehow construct a policy on the
house of cards that Congress would not know what the Pakistanis
were doing. I have always thought policies based on withholding
information from Congress are going to fail in the long run. In
that case, there was a clear legal obligation to keep Congress
informed.
Senator Levin. I appreciate that.
My final question is the question of whether and how to
deploy a National Missile Defense part of the strategic review
or is it left out of the strategic review as far as you know?
Dr. Wolfowitz. My understanding is it is a piece of the
strategic review. There are many pieces. There is not a
single--as Secretary Rumsfeld said when he was up here, surely
one of the things that is going to come out of this strategic
review is we can make some decisions now, we are going to have
to review some more. I do not think this is a process that is
going to end. But clearly you cannot make decisions about long-
term resource requirements without factoring in what missile
defense requirements are going to be.
Senator Levin. Mr. Chairman, let me just again thank you. I
want to congratulate Dr. Wolfowitz and wish him the best of
luck. I know there will be a lot of important efforts here to
keep this committee on the bipartisan tack that it has always
tried to follow and that we can look to you to assist us in
that process.
Dr. Wolfowitz. Thank you. I think I have had courtesy calls
with 18 members of this committee, and every one of them has
been a strong bipartisan supporter of a strong national
defense. So I am sure the other six are as well, and I really
look forward to working with this committee if I am confirmed.
Senator Levin. Thank you.
Chairman Warner. I have several more questions I wish to
ask. Speaking for myself and I think others, we were shocked
about this recent series of allegations regarding a long and
trusted member of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the
allegations of his sharing classified material with another
nation. Also, regrettably, a person who preceded you in the
office to which you aspire to serve this Nation was the subject
of a pardon recently by the President with regard to
allegations about his handling of classified materials.
As the chief operating officer, it seems to me, in
consultation with the Secretary of Defense and other persons in
the administration, you should undertake a review of the
Department of Defense with regard to the handling of classified
material and the means by which to detect any violation of the
regulations of the use of that material by employees at all
levels of the Department.
Therefore, my question to you is how do you view the
importance of classification, the responsibility that those
entrusted with documents that are classified and how they
should deal, not only in the safeguarding of that, but the
sharing of that information? How do you intend to deal with
that issue and what are your views with regard to classified
material?
I feel very strongly that the most rigid rules should apply
and that when an individual is found to have violated, and
subject to the appropriate legal actions that have to be
reviewed to verify that violation, whether it is a court case
or whatever, that accountability of the strongest measures
should be done. What are your views?
Dr. Wolfowitz. I agree very strongly with you about that,
Senator. It is kind of shocking, the extent to which classified
information frequently and with great speed finds its way into
public in one form or another. I do think we need to do
everything we can to hold people accountable, to make it clear
that we take this seriously.
I know any one of us has come across a classified document
that we may have thought was overclassified. But that does not
give you an individual right to take it on yourself to
declassify it or downgrade it. There are procedures for doing
that and they should be stuck with.
You are talking about two very different things and the
second one--the first one is a matter of treason. We clearly
have to look at what that whole Hansen case tells us about our
counterintelligence capabilities, which clearly have missed two
big ones in recent times, and think about how to protect
ourselves from that kind of traitor.
On the more almost mundane matter of the day-to-day
handling of classified materials, I think we lead by example.
We have to be careful ourselves. We have to take infractions
seriously. If we think that things are overclassified, then we
need in an orderly way to take care of that problem, but not
let individuals take it on themselves.
Chairman Warner. Are you prepared to commit to this
committee that, if confirmed, you will undertake as one of your
top priorities a review of that subject within your Department?
Dr. Wolfowitz. I will do so, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Thank you.
The President, I think quite wisely, and the Secretary of
Defense, in the course of his hearing before this committee,
put increased emphasis on the subject of homeland defense. This
committee has taken a number of initiatives to strengthen the
ability of our communities to deal with a terrorist attack
involving weapons of mass destruction, biological, chemical. We
have really been out on the cutting edge. We have a
Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities and it has
been one of the most active subcommittees. I commend the
chairman and ranking member for the past work and indeed what
they propose to do in the coming year.
But this is a subject of great concern to this Senator and
I think many others. It is astonishing. I do not want to harp
too much on my recollections, but I remember when we had
blackouts in Washington, D.C., in the early stages of World War
II. I was a youngster then. I remember it well. People would
sit here and listen to me make that statement in astonishment.
But that was the last time, really, that this Nation felt
imperiled at the hands of an adversary. At that time it was
primarily the Nazi submarine fleet, which was actively sinking
shipping off of the shores. I will not go into further details,
but it was the silhouetting of the shipping as a consequence of
the lighting emanating from the shores. A drastic number of
ships lost right off the Atlantic coast of the United States.
There have been other incidents. But now we have come to
the point where we are threatened by intercontinental ballistic
missiles, we are defenseless. I commend the President for his
strong initiatives to address the question of missile defense.
We have covered it here today.
But the terrorism that could strike here at home is a major
concern. We have taken initiatives in the last authorization
bill of this committee, to try and urge a reorganization of the
lines of responsibility in our Federal Government. I do not
have it with me, but I will see that you get it, a chart
showing the voluminous number of crossed lines and crossed
authority that exists today. I do not say that as a criticism
of the past administration. It is just a statement of fact.
I would hope that you would put this high on your list of
priorities to address, because we have to have, I think,
greater involvement by all departments and agencies of the
Federal Government in this question of homeland defense. I just
wondered what you thought about the missions for the Department
which you will hopefully be responsible as Deputy Secretary of
Defense. Right now the Department of Justice has primary
authority, and we come up against the time-honored law of Posse
Comitatus which limits the involvement of the U.S. military as
it relates to the daily lives of our people in this country. I
think that doctrine is well-founded in history and should be
protected.
But again, the assets and the knowledge of the Department
of Defense need to be shared at every level of government and
with the communities as to how best to protect themselves and,
if an incident were to happen, how we can best assist those in
the community that will come to the rescue of their fellow
citizens.
Dr. Wolfowitz. Actually, I know John Hamre, when he was
Deputy Secretary, took a very strong interest in this issue, as
will I if I am confirmed.
Chairman Warner. I commend him. He did indeed. We talked
many times on this subject.
Dr. Wolfowitz. Actually, during, I guess it was the
transition--it was actually the period of the recount of the
Florida vote--he convened a very interesting 3-hour session
over at CSIS of officials from the Clinton administration with
a number of people prospectively on both the Gore and Bush
group, to talk about this issue. What that discussion and many
others reveals is there is a fundamental problem that you
identify of how the U.S. Government organizes itself to deal
with this problem, which has both a domestic and a foreign
aspect, both a law enforcement and a security aspect.
We need to do everything we can to prevent that kind of
attack, everything we can, where possible, to defend against
it. But also this question of how you respond is crucial. I was
in Israel during the Gulf War with Deputy Secretary Larry
Eagleburger, whom President Bush sent over to persuade the
Israelis not to get in the war. So I have been in a country
under missile attack. We knew the odds and the odds
individually were not that dangerous, but the whole country is
immobilized by it.
The Israelis had a very substantial civil defense effort
and they were quite clear that without that civil defense
effort, without the little bit of warning that our satellites
were able to provide so the people could go into shelters, they
would have had a mass panic. So the ability to deal with an
event if it happens I think is very important for the stability
of society as a whole. It has to get a high priority.
Chairman Warner. That is an interesting historical footnote
that you mention about your visit with my old friend Dr.
Eagleburger, former Secretary of State. I too was in Israel, on
February 18th, 1991, with Senator Nunn--then Chairman of the
Armed Services Committee--Senator Stevens, and Senator Inouye.
We were in the headquarters of the Defense Ministry when the
last Scud fell on Tel Aviv. We had to stop our meetings and put
on our gas masks.
The strike landed a mile or two away. I never felt--well,
you are in the hands of the gods when that thing came in,
because it did not have any particular target except to hit the
population. It was used as a terrorist weapon, not as a
military.
The people of Israel and the government of Israel showed
enormous courage at that time to withhold their ability, and
they had it, to retaliate because they knew of how it could
fracture and impede the progress of the coalition at that time
engaged in repressing Saddam Hussein.
So I share that. But I hope that you put this high on your
agenda, this subject of homeland defense.
Dr. Wolfowitz. I will, Mr. Chairman. I hope our whole
government does.
Chairman Warner. The National Missile Defense system, as I
said, the President is taking a strong leadership role,
together with other members of his cabinet. Secretary of State
Powell, I think in a very forceful and successful way, based on
the reports received, asserted the right of the United States
to defend itself in the face of this threat. We stand, as I
think we have to repeatedly say, defenseless against an
incoming strategic intercontinental ballistic missile, and
indeed other missiles for that matter, and we must marshall the
resources of this country to determine whether or not we can
devise a limited ability to interdict the accidentally fired or
terrorist missile or whatever the case may be, up to a dozen or
more of these missiles.
As the President and Secretary Powell and others have
pointed out, it is not a system that in any way should lessen
the deterrence that Russia looks to its system to provide, or
indeed other nations. It is simply an essential protection for
our cities and communities here at home.
Now, you have spent time on this. Have you ever sorted out
the sea-based system and how that could be brought in a timely
way to augment the current architecture that was employed by
the last administration?
Dr. Wolfowitz. If I may make one general point quickly and
then get to your question. I think you said something which I
think is missed too often, and that is we are not talking about
missile defense as it emerged during the Cold War. We are not
talking about SDI, we are not talking about how to compete with
the Soviet Union. We are talking about a limited missile
defense, of a kind that, frankly, I would think the Russians
themselves would want to have.
On the specific question of sea-based options or, I would
say, other options more generally, I think one of the things we
need to do, and hopefully the Russians will concur in this and
we can do it cooperatively, is to relax a number of the
restrictions of the ABM Treaty that I believe have prevented us
from looking adequately at those kinds of options. I am just
starting to get read into this on a classified basis, but it is
quite clear to me from what I have seen already that our
development would have looked very different over the last 10
years if the ABM Treaty had not been there or if it had been
modified.
What we want to do is find the most effective, least
expensive, and least provocative way of proceeding in this
direction. I think that is something that hopefully we can
persuade the Russians and our allies and many other people is
in their interest as well.
Chairman Warner. I thank you for that observation and I
share that. Actually, I was in the Department at the time the
ABM Treaty was negotiated and happen to have been part of the
delegation that attended the signing, that ceremony. I was
there for other purposes.
Dr. Wolfowitz. It was a different era, was it not, Mr.
Chairman?
Chairman Warner. It was a different era. It was May 1972,
and at that time I was Secretary of the Navy and had finished
negotiations of the Incidents at Sea agreement which was signed
the day before the ABM Treaty.
The point being that, yes, we do need to address
modifications, amendments, to the ABM Treaty because the Treaty
does serve, I think, an important role in the architecture, the
world architecture of arms control agreements. But I think
progress is being made with the Russians to come to the
realization that this country has a right to defend itself and
employ that technology which can be most efficiently and cost
effectively used to achieve that system.
Again, I commend the President for his very clear, forceful
message to the entire world that he is going to protect the
rights of this country to defend itself and that he will
pursue, I think, in a diligent way, in consultation with our
allies, amendments to the ABM Treaty.
Dr. Wolfowitz. I think we are getting more of a bipartisan
consensus in this country, which is progress.
Chairman Warner. I think you are correct in that.
But I do believe that we have to begin to put more focus on
the sea-based option as a follow-on or an adjunct, whatever
phraseology you wish, because that gives us in my judgment a
greater protection of the instruments themselves on the high
seas from interdiction of the defense system as a part of any
attack, a limited attack.
Now, moving on to Secretary Rumsfeld's very important point
when he was before this committee, he said that this Nation
needs ``a reasonable exit strategy'' as a precondition for the
decision to make a military intervention. What definition would
you apply to ``a reasonable exit strategy''?
Dr. Wolfowitz. That we can define what our goals are,
successfully achieve those goals, and then take our forces out.
I suppose one might--at least that would be what I would
generally strive to achieve. I suppose there might be a
situation like the one we used to have in Europe or the one we
still have in Korea, where ``exit'' is not the right word; it
is a long-term commitment, but a stable one where you have a
deterrent force in place.
But certainly for most of the things we are talking about I
would hope it is the kind of thing where you can finish the job
and be done.
Chairman Warner. Dr. Wolfowitz, that concludes the
questions from the committee. I think that your responses have
been very clear. I thank you for your what I perceive as total
cooperation today. This committee will very shortly gather to
determine the balance of the confirmation process, but at the
moment I am optimistic we can conclude it in an expeditious
manner.
I thank you very much.
Dr. Wolfowitz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Whereupon, at 12 noon, the committee adjourned.]
[Prepared questions submitted to Dr. Paul D. Wolfowitz by
Chairman Warner prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
February 23, 2001.
Hon. John Warner,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Enclosed herewith are the answers to the policy
questions the Senate Armed Services Committee asked me to complete.
Sincerely,
Paul D. Wolfowitz.
cc: Senator Carl Levin,
Ranking Minority Member.
______
Questions and Responses
defense reforms
Question. More than 10 years have passed since the enactment of the
Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and
the Special Operations reforms. From your close association with
defense issues, you have had an opportunity to observe the
implementation and impact of those reforms.
Do you support full implementation of these defense reforms?
Answer. The establishment of the unified and specified combatant
commands, the delineation of responsibilities, and most importantly,
the focus on ``jointness'' outlined in the Defense Reorganization Act
of 1986 has enhanced the readiness and warfighting capabilities of the
U.S. Armed Forces.
Question. What is your view of the extent to which these defense
reforms have been implemented?
Answer. These reforms have changed the way the Department of
Defense works by strengthening the role of the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff and the combatant commanders, and significantly
improving the ability of the Department to protect America's security
and further its vital interests. The reforms have helped improve the
interaction among the services in conducting military operations by
making joint operations the norm.
Question. What do you consider to be the most important aspects of
these defense reforms?
Answer. I would consider each of the goals noted below to be an
important aspect of these defense reforms. Each one has enhanced the
ability of the Department of Defense to carry out its assigned
responsibilities.
Question. The goals of Congress in enacting these defense reforms,
as reflected in section 3 of the Goldwater-Nichols Department of
Defense Reorganization Act, can be summarized as strengthening civilian
control; improving military advice; placing a clear responsibility on
the combatant commanders for the accomplishment of their missions;
ensuring the authority of the combatant commanders is commensurate with
their responsibility; increasing attention to the formulation of
strategy and to contingency planning; providing for more efficient use
of defense resources; and enhancing the effectiveness of military
operations and improving the management and administration of the
Department of Defense.
Do you agree with these goals?
Answer. Yes, I support the goals of Congress in enacting the
reforms of the Goldwater-Nichols legislation.
Question. Do you anticipate submitting legislative proposals to
amend Goldwater-Nichols?
Answer. If confirmed as Deputy Secretary of Defense, I will work
with the Secretary to review the extent to which the reforms have been
implemented and the extent to which they have achieved their stated
goals. As Secretary Rumsfeld has noted, we would consult with Congress
on any changes that might be appropriate.
Question. If so, what areas do you plan to address in these
proposals?
Answer. It would be premature to offer any thoughts on the question
at this time.
relationships
Question. What do you see as the relationship between the Deputy
Secretary of Defense and each of the following?
The Secretary of Defense
Answer. If confirmed, it is the Secretary's intent that I act as
the Department's chief operating officer under the Secretary's
direction as chief executive officer. It will be my duty to execute the
policies of the President and the Secretary within the department, and,
when new direction or guidance is needed, to facilitate the timely,
accurate, and reasoned presentation to the Secretary of issues that
require his or the President's consideration.
Question. The Under Secretaries of Defense
Answer. My relationship with all other senior officials of the
Department will, for the most part, be based on the chief operating
officer role described above. If I am confirmed, I will seek to carry
out the policies and guidance of the Secretary with respect to actions
and initiatives of the respective Under Secretaries, and bring to the
Secretary's attention facts, options, analyses, and recommendations
from the Under Secretaries when such guidance or direction is needed.
Question. The Assistant Secretaries of Defense
Answer. My relationship with Assistant Secretaries of Defense and
other senior officials of the Office of the Secretary of Defense would
be similar to that described above in relation to the Under Secretaries
of Defense.
Question. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Answer. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is the principal
military advisor to the President, the National Security Council, and
the Secretary of Defense. If confirmed, I intend to work closely with
the Chairman to assure his full participation in the leadership team of
the Department of Defense.
Question. The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Answer. The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has a vital
role in developing and implementing joint plans, programs, and policies
for the Services. If confirmed, I anticipate working very closely with
the Vice Chairman.
Question. The Secretaries of the Military Departments
Answer. The Secretaries of the Military Departments carry out the
policies of the President and the Secretary of Defense in their
respective Military Departments and make recommendations to the
Secretary and to Congress relating to their Military Departments and
the Department of Defense. If confirmed, I intend to work closely with
the Secretaries of the Military Departments. I will assure that they
are aware of the President's and the Secretary's policies and
priorities and assist them in contributing to the successful
development and implementation of effective DOD policies and programs.
This includes assuring that the recommendations of the Secretaries of
the Military Departments are brought to the Secretary of Defense and
that they understand his policies.
Question. The Chiefs of Staff of the Services
Answer. The Chiefs of Staff provide advice to the Secretaries of
their respective Military Departments and other senior officials, and
carry out the policies of the Secretaries of their respective Military
Departments and the Secretary of Defense. My relationship with the
Service Chiefs will follow the model outlined above, but with the extra
dimension that my relationship will be in the context of my overarching
relationship with the Military Departments and the Joint Chiefs of
Staff.
Question. The Service Acquisition Executives
Answer. The Service Acquisition Executives are most directly
involved with their respective Service Secretaries and the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. In the
role of chief operating officer of the Department, I will, if
confirmed, promote the successful involvement of the Service
Acquisition Executives in the development and execution of the policies
and initiatives of the Secretary of Defense in the acquisition field.
Question. The Inspector General
Answer. As the Department's chief operating officer, I consider it
my responsibility to support the Department of Defense Inspector
General (DODIG) in carrying out his or her duties as set forth in the
Inspector General Act.
qualifications
Question. Section 132 of Title 10, United States Code, provides
that the duties of the Deputy Secretary of Defense are to be prescribed
by the Secretary of Defense.
Assuming you are confirmed, what duties do you expect that
Secretary Rumsfeld will prescribe for you?
Answer. In general, if confirmed, I expect to be the chief
operating officer of the Department while the Secretary fulfills the
role of the chief executive officer. It will be my duty to execute the
policies of the President and the Secretary within the Department and,
where necessary, to present well-reasoned advice when policy must be
changed or modified. If confirmed, I will endeavor to establish close
and effective relationships with Congress and to insist that
responsible officials in the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the
Military Departments do likewise.
Question. What background and expertise do you possess that you
believe qualifies you to perform these duties?
Answer. If confirmed, this will be my third senior position in the
Department of Defense and the second one that requires confirmation by
the Senate. I served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Regional Programs from 1977-1980 and as Under Secretary of Defense for
Policy from 1989-1993. This latter position covered a period of time
that included the end of the Cold War, the revision of our national
strategy, and the planning for and conduct of major military operations
in Panama and the Persian Gulf region. In addition to these positions,
I have held senior management positions as Assistant Secretary of State
for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, and served as U.S. Ambassador to
Indonesia, running one of the most important U.S. embassies in Asia.
Finally, for the last 7 years I have managed a school of international
affairs that entailed the development of fiscal and academic programs
for 750 students on campuses in Washington, D.C.; Nanjing, China; and
Bologna, Italy. The school is a $30 million per year operation. While
in the job, I also supervised a team that more than doubled the
school's endowment.
Question. Do you believe that there are any steps you need to take
to enhance your expertise to perform the duties of Deputy Secretary of
Defense?
Answer. I believe that I have an excellent, general base of
experience for this position. Without presuming confirmation, I have
already begun to benefit from excellent information briefings from the
SASC Staff, various offices within the Office of the Secretary of
Defense, and the Joint Staff. Courtesy calls with over a dozen members
of this committee have been invaluable. I believe if confirmed, I am
ready to assume the duties of the position of Deputy Secretary of
Defense, which will remain a learning experience, as long as I hold the
office.
budgetary impact of contingency operations
Question. Over the past several years, military units have been
increasingly deployed to contingency operations around the world. While
participation in these operations may improve discipline, unit cohesion
and leadership skills that are not generally possible to develop during
normal garrison activities, they disrupt operating budgets, cause lost
training opportunities, and accelerate wear and tear on equipment.
Additionally, increased OPTEMPO impacts quality of life and could
jeopardize retention of high-quality people. Finally, unless funded
through timely emergency supplemental appropriations, they divert funds
from programs designed for needed readiness or modernization.
Do you have any ideas as to how to reduce the impact of these
operations on both near and long-term readiness and modernization
programs?
Answer. Near term, contingency operations--regardless of their
intrinsic merits--can damage readiness by interrupting needed training
for wartime operations, accelerating wear and tear on equipment, and
eroding the quality of life of military personnel and their families.
However, that damage can be minimized through careful management, and
whatever damage is unavoidable can sometimes be offset by benefits to
the units participating in these operations. Key to avoiding damage is
robust funding for readiness accounts, so that readiness needs can be
met before, during, and after contingency operations. Looking long-
term, damage to modernization programs is best prevented by timely
funding so that the Department does not have to disrupt procurement and
RDT&E programs. Especially key is accurate DOD projections of
operational costs and timely congressional approval of supplemental
appropriations that are needed for unbudgeted contingency operations.
preparation for future threats
Question. We have heard a great deal recently about the fact that
Russia no longer poses the threat to U.S. interests that the Soviet
Union and the Warsaw Pact once did. Because of this, many argue that we
can continue to cut back on defense spending and force structure beyond
that which we have already achieved. Recognizing the need for a
comprehensive examination of our national security requirements,
Congress passed legislation last year that would make permanent the
requirement for the Department of Defense to conduct the Quadrennial
Defense Review (QDR). As a result of the last QDR, the Department
recommended a reduction in military personnel levels despite the
recognition that we will continue to engage in numerous peacekeeping
activities. This, in part, led the National Defense Panel to state that
``there is insufficient connectivity between the strategy on the one
hand, and force structure, operational concepts, and procurement
decisions on the other.''
Do you believe that the Two Major Theater War scenario continues to
be the most appropriate basis for determining force structure,
operational concepts and procurement decisions for U.S. armed forces?
Answer. Modern history suggests that the United States has often
faced more than one security contingency at a time. With that history
in mind, preparations are appropriate. The increasing diversification
of current and emerging threats requires that we build forces and
operational concepts aimed at fashioning a new approach to deterrence.
The manner in which the United States underwrites deterrence--for
example, how we posture our military to be able to respond to multiple
contingencies--is an issue of military strategy and operations and the
adequacy of available resources at the time. This issue will be
examined in the strategic review.
Question. Do you believe that the force structure, operational
concepts, and procurement decisions recommended by the QDR are
sufficient to provide the capability to engage in overlapping Major
Theater Wars today, and to prepare for the potential military threats
of the future?
Answer. It is important that we shape and prepare the armed forces
to respond to whatever national security challenges may confront us. We
must ensure that the military has the tools it needs to fight and win,
should that be necessary. The technological revolution makes possible
new forces and concepts of operations that can transform the way we
fight in the future. These matters will be among those examined in the
strategic review.
Question. What are the principal threats to U.S. vital national
security interests that you believe the Department should examine both
in the near and long term?
Answer. The centrifugal forces in world politics have created a
more diverse and less predictable set of potential adversaries, whose
aspirations for regional influence and whose willingness to use
military force will produce challenges to important U.S. interests and
to those of our friends and allies. Modern technology and its
proliferation also confront us with an expansion of unconventional
threats, including nuclear, biological, and chemical (NBC) weapons,
missiles, terrorism, and the newer threats against space assets and
information systems. At the same time, we have traditional
responsibilities to existing allies in key strategic theaters that
remain in our vital interests.
Question. Would you agree that the uncertainty which we face in the
future requires us to maintain a military which is both strong and
flexible?
Answer. In addition to fielding strong, flexible military forces
for an uncertain future, the United States can help build a new
national security environment by integrating the economic,
technological, and diplomatic tools at our disposal, maintaining and
strengthening our alliances, and promoting continued market and
democratic reforms around the world. By providing for a military that
is second-to-none and equipped to meet the newer challenges of the 21st
century, I believe we can best ensure a peaceful strategic environment
that advances U.S. national security interests and those of our friends
and allies. The goal is to assure that our country has the new
capabilities necessary to deter and defend in this new security
environment so we are able to contribute to lasting peace and
stability.
readiness indicators
Question. Over the past several years, the committee has observed
discrepancies between the readiness reports we receive from the
Pentagon and the information we receive from the operational forces.
Many of these discrepancies are attributed to a readiness reporting
system including the SORTS data which is designed to provide a snapshot
of the current state of readiness rather than a projection of the
future.
If confirmed as the Deputy Secretary of Defense, will you work with
the Services to try to develop a better system of measuring and
reporting readiness, including a way to predict future readiness, so
that we have an adequate understanding of any readiness problems within
the operational forces?
Answer. At its core, our readiness reporting system centers on the
readiness of our forces for high intensity combat operations. While the
current system is useful, I know that it can be improved, and I support
efforts to do so. The basic position as developed in this committee and
others and as outlined by President Bush remains clear: we have an
urgent need to address any decline in operational readiness.
plan colombia
Question. The United States is heavily involved in resourcing and
training Colombian security forces that are fighting the growth and
processing of coca leaves and the transport of refined cocaine. U.S.
forces are specifically precluded, by policy, from taking a direct part
in any such operations.
Do you favor continuing U.S. support for Colombian security forces
in this effort?
Answer. The Department's counterdrug programs and policies are
currently under review. This is a process in which I will participate
if confirmed. At this point, however, it would be premature on my part
to comment on this review until it is completed.
Question. Are you committed to maintaining the policy that
precludes U.S. forces from taking a direct part in these operations?
Answer. As with all other Department policies, if confirmed I will
reserve the right to review the existing policy and make my
recommendations to the Secretary. However, in principle, I support the
policy which prohibits DOD personnel from accompanying drug law
enforcement and foreign military forces on counterdrug field
operations.
Question. Would you favor increasing U.S. assistance to the
countries bordering Columbia to prevent a relocation of coca growth
elsewhere?
Answer. U.S. counterdrug policy relative to programs in the region
is currently under review within the interagency, to include the
Department of Defense. It would be premature on my part to speculate on
the outcome of these reviews.
maintaining our infrastructure
Question. The Department of Defense maintains the world's largest
infrastructure, with a physical plant value exceeding $500 million. It
is widely acknowledged that much of this infrastructure is in poor
condition and therefore impacts quality of life and readiness.
What are the most critical infrastructure issues facing the
Department of Defense?
Answer. Our physical plant is too big, too old, and too often in
poor condition. The Department faces the daunting task of rationalizing
its infrastructure and finding the resources to properly sustain,
restore and modernize the facilities and installations we will keep.
Improving the quality of life and workplaces for our servicemembers and
their families is critical to readiness and retention. The Department
believes that it has excess facility capacity and infrastructure in the
wrong locations. We will address these issues during our planned review
and the months thereafter.
Question. The Military Housing Privatization Initiative was enacted
to provide a means for solving the military services' housing crisis.
Has the initiative lived up to its expectations? If not, what
actions would you advocate to assure the success of the program?
Answer. The Military Housing Privatization Initiative was slow to
start, but with nine projects now awarded, it has demonstrated that it
is a powerful and important tool to solve our housing shortfall.
Enthusiasm is high in the Military Services to do more, but the success
of the program depends on capturing lessons learned at the initial
projects and applying them as we move forward.
defense health funding
Question. As you are aware from your current position, the
Department of Defense has identified a core program shortfall in the
Defense Health Program of $6 billion from fiscal year 2002-2005. These
figures do not include any expansion of the Department's capabilities
or resources to meet the commitment to the over 65 military retiree
population and their families.
If confirmed as Deputy Secretary of Defense, how do you plan to
address this shortfall?
Answer. Addressing this or any other major program funding
shortfall will be our task once the DOD strategic review is completed
and used to set guidelines for future spending. Additionally, however,
we will be scrutinizing processes and management--including those in
the Defense Health Program--to make improvements, increase efficiency,
and save money.
aviation modernization programs
Question. In a recent presentation, the Air Force Chief of Staff
stated that if all of our current aviation modernization programs
execute as planned, in 15 years the average age of aircraft in the
inventory will be 30 years. Specifically there has been much
speculation that the current tactical aviation modernization plan is
not affordable.
Is this a viable program?
Answer. The requirements and timing of the tactical fighter
programs are subjects in the on-going review which Secretary Rumsfeld
has initiated. Although a major investment, the modernization of U.S.
tactical fighters is of immense importance and deserves careful review.
Question. With the cost of individual platforms escalating, will we
ever be able to rejuvenate our fleet of aircraft without a significant
increase in our modernization budgets?
Answer. Given the aging of the current fighter force structure,
replacement aircraft must be procured. Once the review is complete, we
will be in a position to address the budget necessary to satisfy the
required future force structure.
Question. How do you expect the development of unmanned aerial
vehicles to impact our requirements for manned platforms over this
period?
Answer. Our unmanned aerial vehicles have demonstrated their value
as intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets. As the
quantity and capability of these unmanned systems increase, we expect
them to pick up more of these roles, complementing our heavily tasked,
manned intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance fleet. We also have
technology programs to begin to develop combat roles for unmanned
aerial vehicles. If the technologies prove successful, these unmanned
systems will complement our manned combat fleet.
readiness
Question. Over the last few years we have seen increasing evidence
that the readiness of the U.S. Armed Forces has begun to deteriorate as
a result of the over-commitment of an under-resourced Department of
Defense. Whether you look at the comments of Army Training and Doctrine
Command commanders, the testimony of the Service Chiefs, or reports of
severe shortages aboard deployed naval vessels, all point to a pending
readiness crisis. Many have argued that we are approaching a readiness
death spiral where maintaining today's aging equipment and facilities
is preventing the modernization necessary to maintain readiness in the
future.
What do you view as the major readiness challenges that will have
to be addressed by the Bush administration, and, if confirmed, how will
you approach these issues?
Answer. Our new administration faces a number of readiness
challenges across the military. These include the classic ``unit
readiness'' concerns of robust manning, functioning equipment, and
realistic training so that our military is prepared to defend the vital
national interests of the United States. Our war fighting commanders
around the world must have the assets to synchronize and use their
units in effective joint and coalition forces. This ``joint readiness''
requires effective command, control, communications, and computer
(C\4\) systems; robust intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance
(ISR) systems; sufficient lift to mobilize forces and equipment;
interoperability; and healthy logistics practices and sustainment
stocks. I believe that the U.S. also needs to be better prepared for
the growing threats posed by terrorism, weapons of mass destruction
(WMD), threats to critical information and other infrastructure
systems, and vulnerable space assets. Some of the more pressing
concerns lie in the condition of equipment, or more broadly, the
materiel readiness of the forces. Of particular concern is the
readiness of our aviation forces. They continue to struggle to overcome
the ill effects of higher-than-planned use and inadequate parts support
that have accrued since the end of the Cold War. While increased
funding in the past 2 years has had some positive effect on materiel
readiness, there is more work to be done. DOD's equipment is growing
older, and we will be continually challenged to keep our existing
forces ready while preparing for the threats of the future. Our
National Guard and Reserve Forces also have a number of unique
challenges in meeting their mission requirements upon deployment that
require our immediate attention. As we undertake a thorough review of
the National Military Strategy, we will address these concerns.
readiness supplemental funding requirement
Question. The military services have provided this committee with a
list of $4.5 billion in near-term readiness requirements, such as spare
parts and equipment maintenance, and another $2.5 billion for emergency
personnel and modernization programs, that they have identified for
this fiscal year.
Have you taken a look at the military services fiscal year 2001
emergency requirements and will the administration submit a
supplemental budget request to fund these items?
Answer. I have not studied in detail the service's unfunded fiscal
year 2001 requirements. The administration's position is that DOD's
strategic review must be completed before any decision on submitting an
fiscal year 2001 supplemental appropriations request is made.
vieques
Question. Over the past 18 months Naval forces deploying from the
east coast of the United States have been prevented from conducting
live-fire training on the Navy's training range on Vieques, Puerto
Rico, which has had a significant impact on the readiness of these
forces to execute their wartime missions. An agreement was reached with
the then-Governor of Puerto Rico, and legislation passed to implement
that agreement, which will provide economic incentives to the people of
Vieques in return for their cooperation in the restoration of live-fire
training. Unfortunately, the current Governor has stated that she will
not abide by the terms of this agreement and that she will insist the
Navy cease operations immediately.
If confirmed, what actions will you take to achieve the restoration
of live-fire training on Vieques?
Answer. It is my understanding that Vieques is a superior site for
rehearsing amphibious operations, the only site currently used for
aerial mine warfare training, and is the only location currently
available on the east coast where aircraft, naval surface ships, and
ground forces can employ combined arms training with live ammunition
under realistic conditions. It is also the only range currently
available on the east coast that allows the Navy and Marine Corps to
conduct naval gunfire training. I understand that to date no
alternative sites, providing the ability to conduct combined arms
training with live ammunition under realistic conditions, have been
located. If confirmed, I will work with Secretary Rumsfeld and the
Department of the Navy to explore all possible options for solutions
that best meet the national interest.
outsourcing of commercial activities
Question. Do you believe that the military services need to retain
a core capability to perform certain activities such as equipment
maintenance, and what approach you take to allocate workloads between
the public and private sector?
Answer. The size and composition of DOD's facilities to perform
equipment maintenance is an important aspect of the overall readiness
of the Armed Forces. The appropriate balance between government and
private sector facilities must be struck in a manner that assures the
equipment employed by the Armed Forces will be ready for use when
needed. This balance in turn will be affected over time by the nature
of the technology used in military equipment. A balance will be
reviewed to assure that capabilities essential to national defense that
cannot reliably be provided by the private sector will be provided by
the government sector. Moreover, critical capabilities will be
maintained in the government sector.
Question. Do you believe that significant savings can be achieved
through outsourcing, and if so, do you have any data that would be
applicable to those activities which you would outsource?
Answer. I believe significant savings can be achieved by competing
the Department's non-core activities with the private sector. While
there has been some debate over the actual magnitude of the savings,
recent studies have all agreed that savings are substantial. I believe
specific functions should be identified for study where the most
potential for savings and efficiency improvement exists. For example,
past studies indicate base operating support functions achieve above
average savings. I would review all functional areas to identify and
target those commercial activities that offer the most promise for
competition with the private sector.
commercial vs. military requirements for frequency spectrum
Question. If confirmed, what actions will you take to review the
Department's total spectrum requirements and ensure that new systems
are designed to ensure efficient spectrum utilization by the Department
of Defense?
Answer. I understand the Department has reviewed its current and
long-term electromagnetic spectrum needs, and will continue to re-
assess these regularly. The Department has also revised its acquisition
regulations to mandate more stringent procedures for determining and
validating, prior to production decision, the requirements for and
availability of spectrum for all equipment and systems to be utilized
by the Department. If confirmed, I plan to support these efforts and
ensure that the Department continues to investigate new technologies
for the more efficient use of the electromagnetic spectrum such as
software programmable radio technology.
Question. If confirmed, what actions will you take if the study
currently being conducted within the Department of Defense determines
that there will be a significant cost and operational impact if the
military services surrender the 1755--1850 MHz band of frequencies?
Answer. If confirmed, I will need to be thoroughly briefed on the
study to fully appreciate its findings. The Department will continue to
work closely with the National Telecommunication and Information
Administration and the Federal Communications Commission in determining
the best decision for the Nation, balancing national security and
economic development, in identifying spectrum for the next generation
of wireless systems while understanding that the Department's readiness
must not be comprised. I know that Secretary Rumsfeld assigns a very
high priority to this. I would also like to acknowledge the tremendous
support the Department has received from this committee in supporting
the Department's assured access to the electromagnetic spectrum.
base realignment and closure
Question. The previous administration insisted that another round
of base closures was needed to streamline the defense budget and to
shift resources into personnel programs and weapons procurement.
However, when asked if in the absence of an additional base closure
round they would provide, for congressional consideration, a list of
those facilities that they consider excess and eligible for closure,
they have been unable, or unwilling, to do so.
Do you believe that we have excess defense facilities and, if so,
where does this excess capacity exist?
Answer. See response below.
Question. Would you recommend additional rounds of base closures?
Answer. See response below.
Question. Would you provide a list of those facilities for
congressional consideration absent the authorization of another round
of base closure?
Answer. See response below.
Question. Would you support another round of BRAC but limited to
where excess capacity exists?
Answer. As Secretary Rumsfeld noted in his response to Advance
Policy Questions from this committee, we will withhold an assessment of
this issue until after the completion of the defense review.
policy toward iraq
Question. Ten years after the successful conclusion of Operation
Desert Storm, tens of thousands of U.S. troops remain in the Persian
Gulf region--at a cost of $1 billion per year--to enforce the current
U.S. policy of containing Saddam Hussein. Despite our efforts, Saddam
remains in power in Iraq, his weapons programs unchecked; the
international coalition that repelled him from Kuwait has virtually
collapsed; and our friends and allies in Europe and the Gulf region are
reestablishing diplomatic ties with Iraq.
What steps do you think the United States should take to
reinvigorate the international community's efforts to ensure Iraqi
compliance with the obligations Iraq accepted at the end of the Gulf
War--particularly those obligations related to disarmament?
Answer. The administration is in the process of reviewing all the
elements of U.S. policy toward Iraq. This review will have to address
whether more can be done to secure Baghdad's compliance with the
conditions laid down by the United Nations, particularly its obligation
to foreswear the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. It will also
have to address the complex task of rebuilding support for an effective
policy in the region and in the international community.
Question. What role do you believe the Iraqi opposition can play in
these efforts?
Answer. This is an issue that the Iraq policy review now underway
will have to address. It would be inappropriate for me to comment on it
at this time.
Question. Do you believe that sanctions are an effective tool
against Saddam Hussein?
Answer. Sanctions can be a part of an effective policy, but they
are not a substitute for a policy. The administration is reviewing
whether any adjustments are needed in the U.S. approach to
administering the sanctions. It is important to remember that the focus
of the sanctions is not the Iraqi people but preventing Saddam Hussein
from developing and using weapons of mass destruction against his own
people or his neighbors, as he has done before.
u.s. military presence in bosnia
Question. Last December marked the 5-year anniversary of the NATO
military presence in Bosnia. Although reduced from its early high of
about 60,000 troops, the international community, under NATO
leadership, today maintains a force of over 20,000 troops in Bosnia,
almost 4,600 of whom are American. Despite over 5 years of an
international military presence in Bosnia, we are far from achieving
the goal of a unified, multi-ethnic nation, as envisioned in the Dayton
Accords which ended the war. In fact, during the most recent nation-
wide elections in Bosnia, the Nationalists--those who oppose the aims
of Dayton--made surprising gains.
What should the United States do to break the stalemate in Bosnia
and help create the conditions for the withdrawal of U.S. troops?
Answer. NATO is currently assessing options. It would be
inappropriate for me to comment further.
Question. Should we consider a renegotiation of the Dayton Accords?
Answer. Dayton has served the central purpose of stopping the war.
The Dayton Accords include procedures for making changes. Whether any
changes are made is ultimately a matter for the Bosnians themselves to
decide.
north korea
Question. What is your view of the agreed framework between the
United States and North Korea?
Answer. The Agreed Framework is one element of an overall effort by
the U.S. and its democratic allies, the Republic of Korea and Japan, to
prevent war and reduce the level of confrontation on the Korean
Peninsula. It is important to remember that their overall problem is
not only a nuclear one but also involves a large North Korean
conventional military threat and a long record of North Korean
hostility toward the South. The historic summit between Kim Dae-Jung
and Kim Jong-Il is a significant positive step, but we need to proceed
with caution. We also need to make sure that North Korea honors its
commitments as we live up to ours.
Question. What steps can the United States take to reduce the risks
from North Korea's weapons proliferation activities?
Answer. The risks posed by North Korea fall in three areas: the
potential to build an ICBM capable of hitting U.S. territory; the
continued domestic deployment of missiles that put our allies at risk;
and the export of long-range missiles and missile technology to world
trouble spots that heighten regional tensions. The administration is
committed to the deployment of an effective national missile defense as
soon as it is technologically feasible. Given the widespread deployment
of North Korean derived theater range ballistic missiles and the threat
those missiles pose to deployed U.S. forces as well as our friends and
allies, the administration would attach a high priority to the
development and deployment of effective theater missile defense systems
in a timely and efficient manner. It is in the U.S. interest that the
North Koreans terminate their programs and stop exporting missile
technology to other countries. The administration will pursue that
objective--the precise means would likely be determined following a
review of U.S. policy toward North Korea and its proliferation
policies.
africa
Question. The Defense Department is currently involved in a number
of initiatives in Africa to help certain nations be better prepared to
provide their own regional peacekeeping forces and humanitarian
missions. The African Crisis Response Initiative and the ongoing
training of several Nigerian army battalions for peacekeeping duty in
Sierra Leone are two examples of this policy.
Do you support such initiatives which are aimed at helping African
nations be better prepared to respond to a regional crisis?
Answer. Yes. The current strategy to develop peace operations and
humanitarian response capacity in Sub-Saharan Africa includes two key
objectives: to develop defense partnerships with important states, and
to actively engage sub-regional organizations. One of these important
states is Nigeria, with whom the U.S. is currently implementing peace
operations training in support of UNAMSIL in Sierra Leone (Operation
Focus Relief, or OFR).
export controls
Question. The domestic satellite industry has complained that it
has lost a significant amount of market share, and billions of dollars,
as a result of the satellite licensing provisions that were enacted as
part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999.
What is your view of these complaints?
Answer. Let me start by saying that the satellite industry is an
important industry for national defense. We must ensure that government
processes are not unnecessarily impeding legitimate exports of
satellites that provide the critical revenues for the industry to
continue to invest in advancing the state of the art. The satellite
industry itself has released information suggesting that competitive
pressures facing the industry are the result of a number of factors
including launch failures, competition from land-based communications
systems, and growing capabilities of foreign suppliers. All of these
factors must be reviewed in the course of establishing an appropriate
policy on the export of satellites. National security must always be of
paramount consideration.
Question. Do you believe that Congress should revisit the issue of
how we license exports of satellite technology?
Answer. I believe that the administration will be examining this
issue carefully (including any statutory or regulatory changes that
might be required), and will consult closely with Congress as this
review proceeds. Any review must be undertaken in a manner that
preserves fundamental national security interests.
Question. Over the past 2 years, 16 ambassadors from NATO countries
have written to the Secretary of State expressing their deep
frustration with the U.S. export control system. Deputy Secretary of
Defense Hamre initiated an effort to streamline export control process
without weakening controls. What is your view of Secretary Hamre's
reforms?
Do you believe that further streamlining is required?
Answer. The administration will be reviewing this issue.
Question. What policies and procedures do you believe need to be
changed in the export license control process that would reflect the
right balance between national security and commercial interests?
Answer. Exports of sensitive high technology affect U.S. national
security interests in many ways. First, we must protect our military
personnel and our security interests by ensuring that sensitive
technologies are not exported to potential adversaries or to foreign
entities that represent a significant diversion risk. Second, we must
have sensible and effective policies and procedures to ensure that
appropriate transfers of military and commercial systems and
technologies that support our coalition warfighting objectives are
permitted. Finally, we must be mindful that the U.S. is not the only
country with advanced military and commercial technology. Efforts to
control exports can sometimes become counterproductive if they weaken
American technical capacity without protecting truly critical
technologies. Thus, we need to work aggressively with our allies and
friends to ensure that our policies and approaches toward the export of
such technologies meet our mutual security interests. The Department of
Defense has an essential role to play in designing export control
policies and implementing the principles I have outlined. We will be
working closely with Congress and the other Executive Departments on
these important matters.
Question. Do you believe the Department of Defense should play a
greater role in the export licensing process than it currently does in
determining whether sensitive technologies should be exported overseas?
Answer. The Defense Department must play a strong role in the
export control policy process. Defense has a tremendous amount of
technical expertise in the export control area and should have the
ability to apply these assets to the overall export control process. I
will be reviewing whether there are specific changes that should be
proposed concerning DOD participation in these processes.
Question. What critical military technologies do you believe the
United States should not license for export overseas and why?
Answer. There are obviously a number of critical military and dual-
use systems and technologies that must be export controlled to preserve
U.S. military technological advantages and to ensure that these items
do not fall into the wrong hands. This is a changing picture as
military capabilities advance and technology become diffuse worldwide.
We must ensure that we have a system in place that regularly reviews
the specifics to make sure that we are controlling the most important
items and that we are not controlling items that cannot be effectively
controlled because of widespread availability.
Question. Senator Gramm recently reintroduced his bill to
reauthorize the Export Administration Act. Senator Gramm has
characterized his bill as an effort to build a higher fence around a
smaller number of items, the export of which would have a detrimental
impact on our national security. Others have expressed concern that the
bill does not pay sufficient attention to national security concerns.
What is your view of Senator Gramm's bill?
Answer. I have not studied the bill but will do so as soon as
possible.
Question. Do you support the reauthorization of the Export
Administration Act?
Answer. It is my understanding that the administration is in the
process of reviewing the bill and will have some comments soon.
technological capabilities of terrorists
Question. A key disadvantage of the proliferation of information
technology is that potential and acknowledged adversaries can now
gather data, imagery, and intelligence updates from many of the same
sources and means that the U.S. military uses. Keeping a step ahead of
these capabilities is a great concern for this committee.
What would you propose the Department of Defense do to address this
concern?
Answer. While greater access to multiple sources of data has many
advantages for the U.S., it is also true that our adversaries can use
commercial imagery and other burgeoning information technologies to
monitor and target U.S. interests. While we cannot prevent commercial
capabilities from becoming more sophisticated and widespread, we do
have the ability, with the proper blend of resources, personnel and
processes, to enhance the likelihood that the U.S. will continue to
maintain the information advantage it needs. Furthermore, the control
of certain technologies remains an issue of significant concern to the
Department. We will continue to review each export license request and
appropriately apply conditions and provisos to those licenses to
protect our national security interests. The Secretary has made it
clear that information superiority is one of his top priorities. If
confirmed, I intend to fully support these efforts.
Question. According to the Department of Defense's most recent
annual report to Congress entitled ``Worldwide NBC Weapons and Missile
Threat'', ``technology to improve the delivery of nuclear, biological,
and chemical weapons is becoming more advanced and in some cases more
available. Some countries are focused on the production of better
missile guidance and control mechanisms and countermeasures to defeat
ballistic missile defense systems.''
What options should the Department of Defense pursue to address the
threat posed by this growing capability?
Answer. The Department of Defense needs to continue to support U.S.
Government nonproliferation efforts intended to prevent or reverse the
proliferation of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, their means
of delivery, and associated technologies. It needs to press ahead with
its counterproliferation programs to ensure that U.S. forces are
prepared to fight and win in chemical and biological weapons
environments. It must develop and deploy missile defenses that are
effective against current and emerging ballistic missile threats. We
also must strive to build stronger international non-proliferation
regimes and simultaneously look for opportunities for cooperative
programs with like-minded Defense Ministries.
cooperative threat reduction (ctr)
Question. Last month Secretary Rumsfeld told the committee that
``we need to be aware of the fact that Russia, in particular, claims to
lack the financial resources to eliminate weapons of mass destruction,
but continues to invest scarce resources in the development of newer,
more sophisticated ICBMs and other weapons. We would not want the U.S.
investment in the [DOD] CTR program to become the means by which Russia
frees up resources to finance its military modernization programs. A
review of ongoing [DOD] CTR projects and their respective national
security benefits would be appropriate.''
What are the most important factors that should be considered
during this review?
Answer. The most important factor for this review should be the
extent to which the assistance provided to the eligible states of the
former Soviet Union enhances the security of the United States. Each
eligible state is unique and that will also be an important
consideration. Russia is the only eligible state that is permitted by
international treaty to retain and modernize its nuclear forces.
Therefore, an important factor for review should be whether the
Department's CTR program is structured to prevent support for Russian
military modernization programs.
Question. Do you agree that the CTR program serves the U.S.
national interests by reducing the threat from former Soviet weapons of
mass destruction?
Answer. Certainly the elimination of former Soviet strategic and
tactical nuclear weapons and their delivery vehicles that the CTR
program has funded has benefited U.S. national security. As the
previous answer indicates, we need to monitor the details of
implementation to insure that those purposes continue to be achieved.
reserve components
Question. Although the Department of Defense is committed to the
``Total Force,'' as recently demonstrated by the deployment of the 49th
Armored Division of the Texas Army National Guard to Bosnia, there is
concern among the Reserve community that this commitment to the ``Total
Force'' is only ``lip service.'' Those who question the Department's
support of the Reserve components point out the Reserves do not receive
an appropriate share of the defense budget for modernization and
military construction. A specific issue was that the fiscal year 2000
military construction program. While the request for the National Guard
amounted to about 3 percent of its critical needs, the active-component
funding request covered nearly 20 percent of their critical needs.
What role should our Reserve components have in the post-Cold War
era?
Answer. Over the last several years, the National Guard and
Reserves have been transformed from a Cold War force held in Reserve to
an essential force serving in the ``front lines'' daily. For example,
during each of the past 5 years, Reserve component personnel have
performed between 12.5 and 13.5 million workdays per year supporting
the active force. The Total Force Policy is now a fundamental principle
guiding the restructuring and reorientation of our Nation's military
forces. At the same time, though, we must be careful not to place too
much of the burden of our national security objectives on the Guard and
Reserve. These are immensely capable forces that play a critical but
well-defined role in our force structure. As such, the role of our
Reserve components will be examined, along with our other Armed Forces,
during the review of the overall defense strategy.
Question. Do you believe the Reserve components are fully
integrated into the ``Total Force?'' If not, what further steps should
be taken to make the integration a reality?
Answer. The integration of the Reserve components has improved
steadily. Although barriers to full integration into the Total Force
have been reduced or eliminated, work remains. For example, quality of
life programs are needed to recruit and retain Reserve component
forces. We need to work together to address employers' concerns and
provide family support programs.
Question. What should be the basis for level of funding in the
administration's budget request for the Reserve components?
Answer. Keeping the required force trained and ready remains our
top priority. The basis for the level of funding for the Reserve
components in the administration's budget request should be based on
the readiness requirements placed on the Reserve components by the
National Military Strategy, the ongoing strategic review being
undertaken by Secretary Rumsfeld at the President's direction, the
fiscal year 2001 QDR, and other missions assigned by the Services. The
Reserve components should then be resourced to ensure interoperability
to meet the requirements identified by those mandates.
Question. Due to the leaner Active Duty military and greater number
of operational commitments, the Department of Defense has increasingly
called on the Reserves and National Guard. In 1989, reservists and
members of the Guard recorded one million days of duty. In each of the
past 3 years, that figure has averaged 13 million days. This increased
workload has had an impact on the individual reservist and on his
civilian employer. As a result, retention and recruiting are impacted
and in extreme cases the relationship between the reservist and his
employer.
In your judgement, is it realistic to expect the Reserve components
to assume an increasing role in operational deployments and in the
``Total Force'' without adverse impact on their civilian jobs?
Answer. The Reserve Forces are a major and integral part of our
National Defense team. The key to their effective use is maintaining
the proper balance of utilizing their capabilities without overusing
any specific segment of the force. We will endeavor to seek a level of
participation for our reservists that maximizes the investments made in
their training and equipping while mediating the potential for
inadvertent harm done by their overuse.
Question. What can the Department do to mitigate the impact of
increasing Reserve deployments on the civilian employers?
Answer. The key to mitigating the impact of Reserve component
deployments on civilian employers is early notification, a predictable
return of the Reserve component member, and not calling upon the same
individual too often. We will continue to improve our ability to return
reservists from deployments when they are scheduled to return. Work
needs to be done to ensure that the force structure contains sufficient
high demand units so the same reservists are not used too frequently.
Question. The Reserve components represent a great asset to our
Nation as they support the National military strategy while also
serving to link our military forces to hometown populations where they
serve. These forces also provide state governments with a critical
ability to respond to natural disasters and are available to be the
first responders to homeland defense mission requirements.
Unfortunately, a significant portion of these forces appear to be
improperly structured as there are a number of medium and heavy
divisions in the Reserve components that have not been required or
assigned to support warfighting requirements. These forces are
similarly not equipped to properly support state missions. Tanks and
mechanized infantry units are of little utility to governors who need
these forces to respond to natural disasters. Modernizing these forces
with combat support and combat service support equipment appears to be
the most appropriate course to follow but would require Department of
Defense oversight and a significant investment in resources.
How do you believe this issue should be addressed and what will you
do to restructure our Reserve components to be in a better position to
support both Federal and state mission requirements?
Answer. The National Guard and Reserve Forces play an essential
role within today's force in supporting the day-to-day operations, at
home and abroad. It is also my understanding that today's Guard and
Reserve Force structure provides a significant portion of the Total
Force's combat support/combat service support capability, which
coincidentally, is also likely to be needed to help mitigate the
consequences of a domestic Weapons of Mass Destruction event. While we
anticipate that the Guard and Reserve will continue to play an
important role in supporting our homeland security for the reasons you
have articulated, it is important to note that the President and his
key national security advisors are in the process of developing a new
National Security Strategy. The President has already asked the
Secretary of Defense to be prepared to undertake appropriate actions to
reshape and restructure our force to meet that strategy. Therefore, it
would be premature to predict with any precision what changes in
structure are appropriate at this time.
privatization of services
Question. The Department is relying increasingly on the private
sector to provide critical services. Among the most significant
privatization efforts are the areas of military family housing and
utility systems.
What are your views on the ever-increasing reliance by the
Department of Defense on the private sector to provide essential
services to our military personnel?
Answer. I believe the Department should seek out private sector
performance for non-core functions where they are more cost effective
and efficient.
Question. If you support additional privatization of defense
activities, what are they?
Answer. Following the success of housing and utility privatization,
other defense activities should be reviewed as possible privatization
candidates. This is an issue that, if confirmed, I will have to study
in further detail.
Question. Although initial privatization efforts have resulted in
near term savings, there is concern that over the long term there will
be no savings.
What are your expectations of the long term benefits from these
privatization initiatives?
Answer. All of our privatization efforts require analysis of life
cycle savings to ensure they benefit the government over the long term.
My understanding is that analysis of specific competitive sourcing
competitions indicates that initial savings do, in fact, hold up over
the life of the contract. In addition to savings, privatization
supports the rapid infusion of best business practices, and attracts
private sector capital to augment Department resources.
management issues
Question. During your tenure as Deputy Secretary, what key
management performance goals do you want to accomplish, and how would
this committee be able to judge whether you have accomplished them?
Answer. If confirmed, I plan to work with Secretary Rumsfeld to
establish key management performance goals. At this point, it would be
premature for me to offer specific performance initiatives, but in
general, one of our primary goals should be to hire, support, and
retain military and civilian personnel with the necessary skills to
meet our mission needs. As we establish our goals, we must carefully
consider the results of our ongoing strategic reviews as well as the
QDR process, and look to closely tie DOD's strategic plans to our
desired mission outcome. We also need to establish financial management
operations that provide reliable information and foster accountability.
Finally, we must look to reform our acquisition processes, establishing
business practices that are more efficient and effective. I look
forward to working with this committee and Congress as we strive to
reduce or eliminate bureaucratic redundancies in the Department of
Defense and streamline our management practices.
Question. To successfully lead an organization, a leader must be
able to create and share a vision that inspires people to follow.
In your past experience, what specific steps have you taken to
successfully create a vision for an organization, and how did you make
sure that the entire organization had a common understanding of the
mission and was aligned so that it could be accomplished?
Answer. In previous questions and in many documents supplied to the
committee, I have outlined my work history and the many organizations
that I have run. I have always believed that the importance of
leadership and management jobs is measured not by the title but by the
results that the whole organization achieves. Perhaps most telling in
the area of establishing a vision were my positions as Under Secretary
for Policy, and my work as Dean at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced
International Studies (SAIS), The Johns Hopkins University. In OSD
Policy from 1989-1993, I redrew the organization, picked new people,
and held numerous team building sessions to drive home my vision for
how policy would operate. I don't want to say that my team did it all
alone. Indeed, working closely with Congress, the Military Departments,
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and our allies were integral parts of our
standard operating procedures. I hope that the results--a new strategy
and force structure, success in the Gulf War and in Panama, improved
relations with our allies, highly successful arms control initiatives,
and a whole set of new defense relationships with former adversaries--
validated my approach. At SAIS, I followed the same organizational
strategies and was very pleased with the results--we doubled the goal
for the school's 5-year capital campaign, focused it on the school's
top priorities and then reached our goal in 2\1/2\ years (eventually
reaching almost four times the original goal by the end of the
campaign). Through a combined team effort, we were able to not only
achieve significant increases in the school's endowment, but also
created new and up-to-date programs, better faculty, improved
facilities, and improved communications with the central university
administration in Baltimore. In both cases, the keys to success were
setting sensible objectives that could inspire support, clear
communications, good people, and lots of hard work. I agree strongly
with someone who once said that good government is a team sport. If
confirmed by the Senate, that is the spirit I will bring to my duties
as Deputy Secretary of Defense.
Question. What steps do you intend to take to accomplish these
objectives at the Department of Defense?
Answer. As noted above, it would be premature for me to offer
specific performance initiatives at this time. If confirmed, I will
work with Secretary Rumsfeld to establish key management performance
goals. I look forward to working with this committee and Congress as we
move ahead.
Question. The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) is
intended to provide managers with a disciplined approach--developing a
strategic plan, establishing annual goals, measuring performance, and
reporting on the results--for improving the performance and internal
management of an organization.
What are your views on this law and your experience with it, as
well as your preliminary ideas on how this law might be implemented?
Answer. Congress enacted GPRA in 1993 to strengthen performance
management within the Federal Government. At the time GPRA was enacted,
most Federal agencies did not routinely use strategic planning or
performance management to shape resource decisions. DOD was a major
exception, having relied for more than four decades on the Planning,
Programming, and Budgeting System (PPBS) to guide program development
and resource-allocation decisions. The PPBS is well aligned, in
structure and intent, with the results-oriented mandate of GPRA.
Instead of introducing a new data reporting or management system to
implement GPRA, DOD has elected to use GPRA reporting to provide an
executive-level overview of how the Secretary employs PPBS performance
objectives to manage the Department's resources.
Question. Are you familiar with the strategic plan, annual
performance plans, annual accountability report, and financial
statements of the Department of Defense?
Answer. Yes, I'm familiar with these plans and reports, which are
an important part of communicating the President's and the Secretary's
priorities to the Department, Congress, and in a larger sense, to the
American people. GPRA requires each Federal agency to produce a
strategic plan every 3 years, to submit a performance plan with each
budget, and to publish a performance report at the end of each budget
year, summarizing progress in implementing the performance plan. In the
case of DOD, Congress subsequently passed legislation establishing the
Report on the Quadrennial Defense Review as DOD's strategic plan. DOD's
annual performance plans and reports are structured to track progress
in executing the defense strategy. In the next month or 2, the
Department will forward its fiscal year 2000 performance report to
Congress. If confirmed, I will give it close attention.
Question. What do you consider to be the most important priorities
and challenges facing DOD as it strives to achieve these management
goals?
Answer. Fundamentally, I believe the Department has effective
processes in place for developing its strategic plan, establishing
goals and measuring performance, and reporting the results. The
challenge is to make sure that the substantive results of those
processes reflect the true needs of U.S. national security in the 21st
century and that goals are clearly articulated. Overall, the quality of
the data we use to monitor performance has allowed us to measure and
report our progress in meeting annual goals. In those cases where data
is lacking, we are working to improve the underlying data support
systems. Over the past several years, the Department has worked closely
with Congress, the General Accounting Office, and the DOD Inspector
General to enhance the performance of its internal management systems.
In that process, several challenges have been identified, including the
effective management of information technology investments and the need
to streamline and improve the efficiency of financial management
systems. The Secretary has made the modernization of these financial
management systems one of his priorities, and I certainly support that
objective.
Question. What changes, if any, do you feel might be necessary in
these plans?
Answer. With the change of administration, the Department will
revise its strategic plan and annual performance plans to reflect the
priorities of President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld as informed in the
ongoing strategic reviews. We will continue to work with Congress as we
present future GPRA strategic plans, performance plans, and performance
reports to ensure that our GPRA activities reflect a full and effective
implementation of the law.
Question. What are your views on the importance and role of
financial information in managing operations and holding managers
accountable?
Answer. These are immensely important. Accurate financial
information is critical to evaluating outputs, services, costs,
efficiency, productivity, and other essential management indicators.
Such information is a vital tool for holding managers accountable.
Question. How would you address a situation in which you found that
reliable, useful, and timely financial information was not routinely
available for these purposes?
Answer. I would move decisively to improve the system or get a
different one that works. It is my understanding that given the
financial challenges we are facing, systems will need to be replaced
over time.
Question. What is your view of the importance and role of internal
controls (i.e., management controls) in ensuring the reliability of
financial information?
Answer. Internal controls are very important. Their most critical
role is to hold managers accountable for results and the wise use of
resources. Also, these controls are essential to ensuring the proper
allocation, disbursement, and accounting of funds and to prevent waste,
fraud, and abuse.
Question. How would you determine whether the Department has in
place the key information management processes required by law,
including a detailed architecture, an investment control process, and
appropriate information security plans?
Answer. If confirmed, I will look to the DOD Chief Information
Officer to advise the Secretary and me on what information management
initiatives are currently in place and what additional steps need to be
taken to ensure that information technology investments are consistent
with plans, process change requirements, architectures, and other
information management guidance. I believe that the Department already
has laid the foundation for a structured and systematic process for
determining whether the key information management processes required
by law are in place.
Question. What role do you envision you would play in managing or
providing oversight over these processes?
Answer. As I indicated above, if confirmed I will look to the DOD
Chief Information Officer to provide guidance for DOD information
management and to spearhead the coordination of information technology
activities across the Department. As such, I intend to fully support
the DOD Chief Information Officer in these and other information
technology management efforts.
Question. How would you go about implementing or improving these
processes?
Answer. It would be premature for me to make any recommendations
until I have had more time to study this area. However, if confirmed I
intend to work closely with the DOD Chief Information Officer and other
senior leaders in the Department to identify opportunities to improve
existing information technology and management processes, and to
achieve those improvements.
Question. The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA)
envisions that agencies will link their human capital planning with
their strategic and annual plans.
Can you describe your experience in building and maintaining the
human capital needed to achieve results (getting the right employees
for the job and providing the training, structure, incentives, and
accountability to work effectively)?
Answer. Attracting the right people, matching ``faces with
spaces,'' ensuring professional development, and rewarding outstanding
performance have been essential parts of every management job that I
have ever held. Indeed, I believe that recruiting the right people for
the right jobs and motivating them to perform are the most important
keys to effective management. In government and in the academic world,
where I have managed medium to large organizations, there are fewer
tangible incentives to offer for performance and less flexibility to
hire and fire. That means that one has to pay more attention, not less,
to how you motivate people and provide as much intangible job
satisfaction as possible, most importantly by empowering capable
performers and entrusting them with meaningful responsibilities. Given
our tight labor market, the Department of Defense's senior leadership
and personnel managers will have to become more people-centric and
rethink our incentive structure. If confirmed by the Senate, I pledge
to make personnel issues--military and civilian--a central concern for
senior departmental management.
Question. The DOD workforce has undergone significant downsizing in
the past several years, and with the current tight labor market, it is
becoming increasingly difficult to attract and retain talent.
How would you work to attract and retain individuals with the
experience, education, and skills needed throughout the Department of
Defense?
Answer. The issues facing DOD in recruiting, developing, and
retaining an excellent civilian workforce require a multi-faceted
approach. I believe we begin by determining carefully what future
workforce needs will be. Armed with that information, we need to
strengthen or put into place the appropriate accession and retention
strategies, including policies, legislation, and compensation. We also
need to offer development opportunities, both as key accession and
retention tools and as insurance that we are growing the cadre of
leaders and managers necessary to implement our Defense strategy.
Finally, we must continue to manage the workforce transition
effectively.
Question. To become a high-performance organization, an agency
needs senior leaders who are drivers of continuous improvement.
What is your approach to motivating career employees to achieve
excellence?
Answer. Career civil servants represent the core of operations, as
they provide the continuity and institutional knowledge that support
all of our military operations. Therefore, I believe in recognizing
that value and rewarding excellence. One of the most important things
is to communicate clearly the importance of the mission and an
understanding of how their work contributes to the mission. Another way
of doing so is to provide the education and training necessary to meet
the increasingly complex mission. If confirmed, I will review existing
education and training programs to ensure that they give current and
prospective leaders the tools they need to manage effectively in the
highly complex Defense environment. I will also make every effort to
ensure that our career employees are appropriately compensated for all
they do and would encourage public recognition of excellence.
science and technology
Question. The Department of Defense Science and Technology program
is at a 20-year low. The Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization
Bill for Fiscal Year 1999 established the goal of increasing the budget
for the defense science and technology program by at least 2 percent
over inflation for each of the fiscal years 2000 to 2008. This goal has
not been met in the fiscal year 2000 nor the fiscal year 2001 budget
request submitted by President Clinton. In President-elect Bush's
speech at the Citadel he spoke of his support for a strong and stable
technology base.
If confirmed, how will you reflect this support in the defense
budget?
Answer. One of my goals will be to fund the Science and Technology
(S&T) program at a level adequate to ensure the technological
superiority of our armed forces. A downsized military needs a
technological edge now more than ever. President Bush has committed to
increasing defense R&D by at least $20 billion between fiscal years
2001-2006. The S&T accounts should receive a substantial share of this
increase.
Question. The defense laboratories are facing a future of continued
reductions in research and support personnel. This trend, if unchecked,
could result in a loss of ``critical mass'' in research efforts across
a number of areas critical to future programs. This situation is
further complicated by the fact that in the current economy the
Department is vying with industry for the best and the brightest high
tech personnel, but is unable to compete on salary and quality of work.
Finally, the process for hiring can take up to 18 months as opposed to
direct hiring in industry.
If confirmed, how will you attract and retain scientists and
engineers in the Department of Defense?
Answer. This is an important issue, central to transformation.
Unfortunately, I do not yet know enough about it to give you a complete
answer. If confirmed, I will ensure that attracting and retaining
scientists and engineers is a key priority of the Department of
Defense.
modernization
Question. Last fall, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that
if the Department were to execute just the current procurement plans,
at the rates included in the approved acquisition strategy, that an
additional $30 billion a year would be required in the procurement
accounts alone.
Do you agree that the procurement accounts are not executable
unless there is an infusion of additional funds?
Answer. The CBO estimate is based on the assumption that the
currently approved plans are appropriate. The ongoing defense review
directed by Secretary Rumsfeld will specify where shortfalls lie and
what must be done to address those shortfalls. If confirmed, I will
actively support that review.
Question. Do you believe that significant changes are needed in the
Department's current procurement plans?
Answer. See previous answer.
Question. If confirmed, how do you intend to address this
shortfall, if it in fact exists?
Answer. The aforementioned review of the U.S. national security
strategy will result in consideration of which capabilities to
modernize, upgrade or replace with new technology. Properly conducted,
this process would address the Department's procurement plans.
Question. Even if all of the current aircraft modernization
programs execute as planned, the average age of the tactical,
strategic, and tanker fleet will increase. Aging aircraft require ever-
increasing maintenance, but even with these increasing maintenance
costs, readiness levels continue to decline.
How can both the maintenance of the legacy force and the
modernization efforts be affordable at anywhere near the current budget
levels?
Answer. I look at Secretary Rumsfeld's ongoing defense review as
the first step to addressing these issues. That review should clarify
the appropriate balance between legacy forces and modernization
efforts.
department of defense organization
Question. In the 50 years of DOD's existence, there has grown up a
substantial bureaucracy, much of which duplicates functions in the
military departments.
In your opinion, are there areas where functions should be
centralized in DOD, at the expense of the military departments, or
should functions be devolved from DOD to those departments? Please give
examples.
Answer. Without a more careful internal review, it would be
premature for me at this point to offer any thoughts on administrative
restructuring. If confirmed, I will work with Secretary Rumsfeld and
the Service Secretaries to identify redundancies in our bureaucratic
infrastructure and to streamline our operations where possible.
major challenges
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges confronting
the next Deputy Secretary of Defense?
Answer. We will need to consider a number of issues in evaluating
our National Security Strategy and National Military Strategy. Our goal
is to assure that our country has the new capabilities necessary to
deter threats and defend our national security interests and contribute
to peace and stability. This will involve transforming our U.S.
military into a 21st century force, modernizing the intelligence and
command, control, and communications infrastructure, and reforming DOD
structures, processes, and organizations. In addition, our new
capabilities and readiness must be sustainable. Balancing limited
resources--even in an atmosphere of projected budget surpluses--is
always a challenge. Properly outfitting our forces today, while at the
same time ensuring we sustain robust modernization for the future, will
be a key challenge for the new administration. Specific quality of life
issues--such as morale, recruiting and retention, health care and
benefits--will also be important.
Question. If confirmed, what plans do you have for addressing these
challenges?
Answer. These issues and others will be considered in the defense
review and the QDR. Through these reviews, we will examine priorities
and consider the fiscal implications associated with those priorities.
most serious problems
Question. What do you consider to be the most serious problems in
the performance of the functions of the Department of Defense?
Answer. As Secretary Rumsfeld has noted, institutional change
across the board--in the executive branch, the legislative branch, the
private sector, as well as our allies--will present a great challenge.
If confirmed, I plan to work with Secretary Rumsfeld to establish key
management performance goals and to reduce or eliminate bureaucratic
redundancies in the Department of Defense and streamline our management
practices.
Question. What management actions and time lines would you
establish to address these problems?
Answer. It is too early to establish time lines. If confirmed, I
look forward to working with this committee and Congress as we address
current problems in the Department of Defense.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, when asked, to give your personal views,
even if those views differ from the administration in power?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as the Deputy Secretary of
Defense?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings and
other communications of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Strom Thurmond
overseas presence
1. Senator Thurmond. The United States maintains a significant
number of forces in forward deployed locations such as Europe and South
Korea. With the end of the Cold War and ongoing peace initiatives on
the Korean Peninsula, what is the justification for keeping the large
number of forces forward deployed?
Dr. Wolfowitz. Although the Cold War has ended and tensions on the
Korean Peninsula have begun to lessen, forward-deployed U.S. forces in
Europe, South Korea, and elsewhere continue to serve a number of vital
national purposes. Our forces in Europe not only ensure the continuing
security and stability of this critical region, they are also well
postured to respond to crises both in Europe and in adjoining regions
such as the Middle East.
Despite some lessening of tensions on the Korean Peninsula, North
Korea remains a significant military threat to South Korea. U.S. forces
in South Korea and elsewhere in Northeast Asia represent a powerful
deterrent to North Korean aggression and, should deterrence fail, would
constitute a critical element of the initial response to that
aggression. Moreover, as with our forces in Europe, our forces in
Northeast Asia provide broader benefits. They demonstrate our ongoing
security commitment to the region, underwrite regional stability, and
provide rapid response to crises throughout Asia.
most significant challenge
2. Senator Thurmond. Unlike the period of the Cold War, the United
States Armed Forces are facing the challenges of a world that is
politically and economically unstable and unpredictable. In view of
this uncertain future what in your personal views will be the most
significant challenge facing the U.S. Armed Forces in the next 10
years?
Dr. Wolfowitz. The most pressing challenge we face in the next 10
years will be ensuring our men and women in uniform have the
wherewithal they need to address the threats of a new security
environment, in which a more diverse, less predictable set of potential
adversaries will seek to challenge the strategic interests of the
United States and of our allies. Maintaining a capable and flexible
force appropriate for this environment will require us to address
issues ranging from recruitment and quality of life concerns to the
expansion of unconventional threats brought by the proliferation of
modern technology, including nuclear, biological, and chemical (NBC)
weapons, missiles, terrorism and newer threats against space assets and
information systems.
junior rotc programs
3. Senator Thurmond. As you may be aware, I am very interested in
the Junior ROTC program. While the primary purpose of the program is to
develop good citizens, there are tangible benefits to our Nation's
Armed Forces. Statistics show that more than 40 percent of the students
who graduate from the Junior ROTC program choose some form of military
service.
Although I have expressed my goal to enhance the program to
Secretary Rumsfeld, I want to make you aware of my interest in the
program and would appreciate your views regarding Junior ROTC?
Dr. Wolfowitz. In his February 21 letter to you, Secretary Rumsfeld
underscored his support for the Junior ROTC program and reported the
intent to look into expansion during the Department's forthcoming
defense review. I agree that JROTC is a great way to improve the
citizenship of America's high school youth, while helping students and
faculty better understand and appreciate their armed forces.
dod transformation
4. Senator Thurmond. Our services are undergoing or are planning
major transformation to meet the challenges posed by threats of
spreading technologies, increased nationalism, and weapons of mass
destruction. In your personal view, why has it taken this long to begin
the transformation and are these changes looking far enough into the
future to be effective against emerging threats?
Dr. Wolfowitz. Implementing rapid transformation of the world's
premier fighting force is difficult absent a compelling case for how
and why the future security environment demands such change. It is a
difficult challenge to balance this transformation with our nearer-term
readiness concerns. As a greater consensus emerges on future security
challenges, the pace of transformation should accelerate. The means to
measure progress toward transformation goals are also required in order
to manage the allocation of resources appropriately. It is our goal to
achieve a clearer articulation of emerging challenges in the context of
the current strategy review. The metrics for measuring success should
follow closely. We must carefully look at process changes that will
bring new transformed capabilities to the field more rapidly.
key issues
5. Senator Thurmond. Your experience and knowledge regarding the
Department of Defense and Congress will serve you well during your
tenure as Deputy Secretary of Defense.
Based on that experience and on the needs of our Armed Forces, what
is the one key issue that you would like to resolve before you leave
office?
Dr. Wolfowitz. I have no single issue that will animate my work in
the Department. Rather, I will focus my efforts on helping Secretary
Rumsfeld attain the President's three major goals for the Defense
Department:
First, to strengthen the bond of trust with the
American military;
Second, to develop the capabilities to defend against
missiles, terrorists and the complex set of threats to our
information systems and our all-important assets in space; and
Third, to take advantage of the technological
revolution in order to help us create a military for the 21st
century.
At the end of my tour, if I have improved the well-being of the
Department's people--military and civilian, Active and Reserve--and
their ability to defend our Nation, I will consider my mission
accomplished.
multinational force and observers--sinai force deployment
6. Senator Thurmond. A significant concern with both the Bosnia and
Kosovo deployments is that they appear to have no end. We only need to
look at our deployments to the Sinai Peninsula that started in 1982.
The 900 servicemembers year round commitment contributes to the high
operations pace of our Armed Forces and is a drain on the Department of
Defense's resources.
In this era of peace between Egypt and Israel, what do these forces
contribute to the peace in the region and when will this commitment
end?
Dr. Wolfowitz. MFO-Sinai has been a particularly successful
peacekeeping operation and a highlight of the continued peace between
Egypt and Israel. The presence of U.S. forces in the MFO has been a
major contributor to mutual Egyptian-Israeli confidence in the Camp
David Accords. This success now presents the opportunity to consider
whether this commitment is still necessary. The Department is now
reviewing options for the possible reduction of U.S. troop commitment
in the Sinai.
department of defense facilities
7. Senator Thurmond. The average age of the Department of Defense
facilities is 41 years and is increasing. To support this
infrastructure the Department is investing less than 2 percent of its
replacement value while the accepted corporate standard is at least 3
percent. In simple terms, we are not investing sufficient resources to
maintain our facilities to ensure the quality of life and readiness.
As the next Deputy Secretary of Defense you will have a significant
role in ensuring the readiness of our facilities. Other than providing
the necessary fiscal resources to maintain our facilities, what other
steps can the Department take to resolve this critical issue?
Dr. Wolfowitz. You are right, Senator, our physical plant is aging.
DOD has previously reported that it maintains excess infrastructure. We
will continue to demolish and dispose of excess facilities
individually. We plan to improve utilization of existing facilities
through more joint use and through partnering with the private sector
on leasing underutilized facilities. However, the Department is
currently conducting a comprehensive defense review that will help
guide decisions regarding our infrastructure strategy. Until that
review is complete, I will defer judgment on whether further
initiatives and additional funding are needed.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Bob Smith
u.s.-china military-to-military relations
8. Senator Smith. I believe China is a serious threat to U.S.
national security and our allies in Asia. In 1999, Rep. Tom DeLay and I
addressed the threat posed by the Clinton administration's policy of
engagement with China with an amendment restricting military-to-
military exchanges, a law which we believe the Clinton administration
circumvented. We believe the military-to-military briefings given by
DOD made available sensitive U.S. military information to the People's
Liberation Army.
Would you support ending this military-to-military exchange
program? Or would you propose to overhaul it to convert it into a
program that teaches code of conduct for soldiers, the role of a
military in a democratic society, etc., information which would
actually benefit the PLA and would promote our stated goals of
encouraging China to democratize?
Dr. Wolfowitz. Section 1201 of the Fiscal Year 2000 National
Defense Authorization Act prohibits ``inappropriate exposure'' of U.S.
operational capabilities and technologies to Chinese visitors. The
Department of Defense will continue to strictly comply with the
requirements of this provision in our military-to-military engagement
with the PRC. As the new administration settles in place, we are
undertaking a serious review of the schedule of military-to-military
events with the PLA planned for 2001. In this review, we will ensure
that our military-to-military program with the PLA supports U.S. policy
objectives and will emphasize that the program must have increased
reciprocity and transparency on the part of the PLA. Secretary Rumsfeld
conveyed this message clearly and directly to senior Chinese leaders
during his March 22, 2001 meeting at the Pentagon with Chinese Vice
Premier Qian Qichen.
export controls
9. Senator Smith. I am very concerned over easing export control
restrictions to China, which has allowed the Chinese Government to
purchase powerful computers and garner sensitive aerospace technology
assistance from the United States that can be employed for military
purposes. How do you see the DOD working to prevent such dual-use
transfers of technology from occurring under the Bush administration?
Do you believe the DOD should have a heightened role in determining the
sale of sensitive dual-use technologies to China?
Dr. Wolfowitz. My objective is to ensure that we have a robust
export control system that controls sensitive items and technologies
that represent national security or proliferation risks. I am committed
to ensuring that DOD plays a key role in the development and
implementation of export control policy. In this regard, I will be
paying close attention to the operation of existing interagency
mechanisms and will work to revise them if it is necessary to protect
our national security interests, particularly with regard to exports of
sensitive dual-use technologies to high risk destinations.
taiwan policy
10. Senator Smith. I support the sale of U.S. military hardware,
including the Aegis system, to Taiwan in order for the island nation to
defend its democracy against Chinese threats to reunify through
military aggression. Furthermore, I support the Taiwan Security
Enhancement Act (TSEA).
Do you agree that the U.S. should sell advanced military hardware
such as the Aegis system and other types of military hardware to Taiwan
to balance the military situation in the Taiwan Strait? Will you push
for TSEA's passage in the Senate since President Bush endorsed the
measure as a candidate?
Do you believe the United States military has a role to play in the
collective defense of Taiwan as a democratic friendly nation beyond
military hardware sales should China initiate military aggression
towards Taiwan?
Dr. Wolfowitz. We support the provision of defense articles and
services in accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act. We are currently
evaluating this year's Taiwan's arms sales requests, to include the
Aegis-derived Evolved Advanced Combat System. With regard to the Taiwan
Security Enhancement Act, we support the intent of the legislation--
ensuring the security of Taiwan. As has been stated publicly, the
United States remains committed to maintaining regional peace and
stability in this region, and we continue to stand firmly for the
peaceful resolution of differences between the PRC and Taiwan. With
regard to U.S. military support to Taiwan beyond arms sales, our forces
are postured to safeguard U.S. interests and to react quickly to a
range of possible contingencies in the region.
ke-asat
11. Senator Smith. Over the last decade I have encountered
considerable difficulty within the DOD and the previous administration
to ensure the development and deployment of the Kinetic Energy Anti-
Satellite (KE-ASAT) program. I believe we should finish the KE-ASAT
program (which is 90 percent complete), which provides defensive
measures against hostile space assets surveiling U.S. forces.
Do you support programs such as KE-ASAT that will protect U.S.
troops and ensure U.S. military dominance? I would like to ask you for
your commitment to completing this vital program and providing the
necessary oversight over SMDC to do so, including returning the team to
the program and necessary funding for completion, as General Shinseki
committed to me to do.
Dr. Wolfowitz. I fully support protecting our U.S. troops and doing
what is necessary to ensure U.S. military dominance. We will be looking
at a new strategy for America's defense in our strategic review and
subsequently in the Quadrennial Defense Review. As part of these
reviews, we will look at how to programmatically and operationally
support these very important goals.
space commission report
12. Senator Smith. Last month, Secretary Rumsfeld released the
findings of the Space Commission Report which made several
recommendations to improve military space management and assets.
What are your views on the need to reform military space management
and the need to implement the recommendations made by Secretary
Rumsfeld and the Commissioners?
Dr. Wolfowitz. It is clear that the United States relies
significantly on space for our national security. We need to ensure
that the management and the organization of our national security space
program reflect the importance of space to the Nation today. I believe
that a more comprehensive approach is necessary to assign clear
responsibilities and accountability for national security space
programs. The Space Commission has presented a thorough, independent
and objective assessment of our national space program. In our
strategic review, we must seriously consider their recommended
management and organizational changes if we are to meet the national
security space needs of the 21st century.
cooperative threat reduction
13. Senator Smith. I have serious concerns with the Cooperative
Threat Reduction (CTR) program which I believe subsidizes the Russian
Government's ability to improve their military at U.S. taxpayers
expense--allowing the Russians to use our funds to replace obsolete
weapons with more sophisticated ones. Meanwhile, the Russians continue
to modernize their military and proliferate weapons of mass destruction
to other hostile states.
Do you believe the Cooperative Threat Reduction program could be
reinvented to reach its original objectives--i.e. reducing the threat
and conditioning funding to Russian compliance, particularly on
proliferation issues?
Dr. Wolfowitz. As Secretary Rumsfeld has noted to Congress, the
elimination of former Soviet strategic nuclear weapons and their
delivery vehicles under the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program
has benefited U.S. national security. I would note that the CTR program
does not provide funds to the Russian Government. All assistance is in
the form of contracts to either U.S. companies or to Russian
enterprises and institutes. The weapon systems being eliminated are
mainly operational systems while the pace of Russian strategic
modernization remains slower than projected. Nevertheless, a review of
ongoing CTR projects and their national security implications is
appropriate and has now begun.
chinese missiles
14. Senator Smith. Last year, I addressed in a floor amendment the
sale of the Russian-made Moskit sea-skimming missiles purchased by
China for use on Sovremenny Class destroyers, which China now
possesses.
How do you view this direct threat to U.S. naval forces in the
Pacific and how do we aid Taiwan as required under the TRA to counter
this escalated threat?
Dr. Wolfowitz. Due to its high speed and maneuverability, the
Moskit sea-skimming missile does present technical challenges to navies
around the world. The Taiwan military has some limited capability
against Moskit missile through U.S. supplied weapons systems. Perry-
class and Knox-class frigates are equipped with the PHALANX Close-In
Weapons System (CIWS), which is designed to intercept surface skimming,
low-flying anti-ship missiles. In the event of a conflict, Taiwan's F-
16 aircraft, equipped with the air-launched Harpoon missiles, could be
used to attack People's Republic of China ships equipped with the
Moskit anti-ship cruise missile.
phalcon sale
15. Senator Smith. I have recently read in defense industry
publications that Israel is attempting to resurrect its Phalcon early
warning radar sale with China. This sale will increase China's ability
to project force in the Taiwan Strait and into the South China Sea. I
believe this sale would also threaten the U.S. Navy's 7th Fleet. What
would you do as Deputy Secretary of Defense to deter this sale to
China?
Dr. Wolfowitz. The United States has consulted with the Israeli
government closely on its proposal to sell the Phalcon early warning
aircraft to China. We have made clear to the Israelis that we view the
Phalcon as a threat to U.S. interests and regional stability in Asia,
as well as a potential threat to any U.S. forces involved in a military
conflict with China, and we have clearly stated our opposition to the
sale. Then-Prime Minister Barak announced in July 2000 that the sale
would not go forward, and we consider the matter closed.
national missile defense
16. Senator Smith. I am an ardent supporter of the creation of a
multi-tiered missile defense system. I believe the United States should
move forward with developing and deploying this system. Furthermore, I
am in full agreement with Secretary Rumsfeld's assessment that without
a missile defense, hostile nations will be able to alter the actions
and limit options available to the United States.
Would the abrogation of the ABM Treaty help with the goal of
pursuing missile defense?
How should the United States approach providing Great Britain,
Japan and Taiwan and other allies with missile defense capabilities?
Dr. Wolfowitz. The issue of how to handle the ABM Treaty will be
part of our overall strategic review. However, as senior administration
officials have made clear, the ABM Treaty, in its current form, is no
longer relevant. We will look at missile defense options unconstrained
by the ABM Treaty, to see what makes the most sense. We hope to
persuade the Russians of the need to permit deployment of effective
missile defenses. But as Secretary Powell has noted, it may be
necessary to withdraw from the ABM Treaty if the government of the
Russian Federation will not agree to modifications necessary to
accommodate our missile defense programs.
The administration has made clear that our proposed missile
defenses would protect our friends and allies as well as the United
States. We have also made clear our commitment to close and substantive
consultations with allies. These consultations have begun, and we will
seek the views of our allies about specific missile defense responses
to the growing ballistic missile threat.
peacekeeping and humanitarian missions: impact on readiness
17. Senator Smith. I am disturbed at the dangerous decline of the
U.S. military over the last decade. There is a long list of issues that
concern me, but in particular, I see a pressing need to address
military readiness. Furthermore, I believe peacekeeping and
humanitarian missions correlate directly to our current readiness
dilemma. What do you believe is the best way to work with the DOD to
reverse our readiness deficiencies and to terminate U.S. peacekeeping
and humanitarian missions that have no bearing on U.S. national
security interests? Is anyone at DOD conceiving an exit strategy for
the Balkans?
Dr. Wolfowitz. The Secretary is actively reviewing U.S. military
participation in the full range of ongoing peace operations,
humanitarian operations, and routine engagement activities to ascertain
ways for reducing tempo strains on our personnel while also continuing
to advance U.S. interests. In this regard, it is worth noting that in
some cases, such as communications, engineering, and civil affairs, the
impact of ongoing operations on readiness is not entirely negative, as
they can provide excellent training for certain military specialties.
Our strategic goals in the Balkans are to maintain peace and
security in South Eastern Europe, protect the strength of the NATO
Alliance, and maintain U.S. credibility with our European Allies. With
that in mind, we want to avoid precipitous withdrawals while
continuously reviewing troop levels to tailor them properly to mission
and environment. Changing conditions in Bosnia and Kosovo will allow
adjustments with the intent of ``right-sizing'' our forces to the tasks
at hand.
defense review
18. Senator Smith. I am pleased that Andy Marshall has been
selected to review the structure of the Defense Department. When will
this review be completed and what kind of input will you or other
appointees have in it? Will Senate Armed Services Committee members be
briefed on Marshall's findings?
Dr. Wolfowitz. To clarify the structure of our review, Andy
Marshall has been asked to review the Department's overall strategy.
Additional reviews will be conducted to look at other areas of concern.
Later this spring, Secretary Rumsfeld will provide testimony in support
of the fiscal year 2001 Supplemental Budget, at which time he will
outline some broad aspects of the review for Congress.
security clearance backlog
19. Senator Smith. Last year, I passed legislation that tightened
the requirements for people seeking DOD security clearances for job-
related purposes following revelations of clearances being granted to
felons. But there is another problem, the clearance backlog.
The Defense Security Service (DSS) is still a chaotic and
demoralized agency and the security clearance backlog has not improved.
What is being done to resolve this problem? Will new leadership be
appointed at the DSS?
Dr. Wolfowitz. I share your concern that this is a very serious
issue that must be addressed quickly. As we assemble our senior
leadership team, it will be a priority to consider any process changes
that may be necessary to alleviate the current backlog in security
clearances.
base closures
20. Senator Smith. As I understand it, a BRAC round is being
considered as a way to save money by the DOD. Portsmouth Naval
Shipyard, (PNSY), which is located in New Hampshire, represents the
best performance shipyard for attack subs. PNSY successfully rolled out
``smartbase'' technologies to demonstrate to the DOD the cost saving
improvements of the ``smartbase'' technology. Can you outline what you
believe are the parameters of any BRAC Secretary Rumsfeld and you would
like to see?
Dr. Wolfowitz. Our base structure should fit our force structure
requirements. We are looking at the issue of excess infrastructure, and
will make a decision on how best to address this as soon as we can in
the review process. When we have established the proper relationship
between the force structure needed to execute our national security
strategy and the infrastructure needed to support that force, we will
work closely with Congress to develop a process that is fair and true
to that objective.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Rick Santorum
basic research funding
21. Senator Santorum. President Bush has emphasized the need to
fund ``leap ahead'' technologies and has mentioned the possibility of
``skipping a generation of weapons to make them more lethal and
mobile.'' The only way this policy will succeed is if President Bush
commits to investing heavily in basic sciences in American
universities.
The Department of Defense has historically played a major Federal
role in funding basic research and has been a significant sponsor of
engineering research and technology development conducted in American
universities. For over 50 years, Department of Defense investments in
university research have been a dominant element of the Nation's
research and development (R&D) infrastructure and an essential
component of the U.S. capacity for technological innovation.
Supporting university research benefits the Department of Defense
in many ways. In addition to producing important advances in knowledge,
support to university research helps keep top scientists and engineers
involved in defense research. Also, students who get hands-on research
training become the highly qualified scientists and engineers of the
future who go to work in academia, industry, and Federal laboratories.
In the 1990s, Basic Research funded through the Department of
Defense peaked at $1.489 billion in fiscal year 1993 and declined to a
level of $1.059 billion in fiscal year 1998. In fact, funding for
Department of Defense Basic Research began to increase, beginning in
fiscal year 1999, only after Congress took the lead in reversing this
trend.
Do you believe that there exists a mismatch between the goals of
President Bush and levels of investment in our Department of Defense
Basic Research accounts?
If so, what do you believe is a more accurate figure that ought to
be invested in Department of Defense Basic Research funding?
Can you indicate any short-term goals that you feel are achievable
with respect to Department of Defense Basic Research funding?
Dr. Wolfowitz. First, it is important to review the funding history
for the Department's Basic Research program. The funding numbers you
have cited for fiscal years 1993 and 1998 are appropriated values in
fiscal year 2001 constant dollars. The table below shows both the
requested and appropriated amounts for the Department's Basic Research
program in fiscal year 2001 constant dollars.
BASIC RESEARCH DOLLARS IN MILLIONS/FISCAL YEAR 2001 CONSTANT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requested...................... 1,277 1,398 1,337 1,300 1,220 1,215 1,148 1,133 1,217
Appropriated................... 1,489 1,312 1,282 1,176 1,090 1,059 1,098 1,157 1,314
Difference..................... +213 -86 -55 -124 -130 -156 -50 +24 +97
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated in ``A Blueprint for New Beginnings,'' outlining the
President's Budget Request to Congress, ``the President believes that
the Nation's defense strategy should drive decisions on defense
resources.'' Such is the case with Basic Research. However, determining
a sufficient level of investment for Basic Research is not a precise
science, rather it is a strategic decision to invest in broad areas of
research that have the potential of yielding revolutionary advances, as
well as pursuing solutions to known operational problems. An investment
in Basic Research pays dividends in many ways. Basic research is a
long-term investment with an emphasis on opportunities for military
application in the future, yet it also, as you note, contributes to our
national academic and scientific knowledge base by providing
approximately 40 percent of the research funding for the Nation's
colleges of engineering. The Department will sustain an investment in
Basic Research because of proven significant, long-term benefits.
It has always been the Department's goal to fund Basic Research,
and the remainder of the Science and Technology program, at a level
adequate to ensure the technological superiority of our armed forces.
However, we also need to ensure that the funding levels of the various
components of the DOD budget are balanced based on our assessment of
the most urgent requirements at any given time. The Department's
compelling desire to increase the modernization budget, while
sustaining readiness at a high level, must also be considered. The
amount of funding the Department will request for Basic Research will,
I believe, be adequate to maintain our technological superiority both
near-term and in the future.
defense industrial base
22. Senator Santorum. Last year, based on concerns articulated by
the defense industry, the Department of Defense initiated a review of
ways to improve not only the health of the defense industrial base but
also competition among these companies. The review was carried out by a
Defense Science Board (DSB) panel. The goal of the process was to see
what kinds of actions in terms of acquisition practices, rules and
regulations needed to be changed in order to help the Department get
lower costs and more innovation.
The DSB report, Preserving a Healthy and Competitive U.S. Defense
Industry to Ensure our Future National Security, concluded that the
Department of Defense must move aggressively to help American companies
attract and retain top talent as well as improve overall profitability
by continuing changes in profit policies boosting investment in defense
research and development.
The DSB panel issued a listing of 27 regulatory and policy changes
designed to help ensure the financial health of the defense industry.
Have you reviewed the DSB panel's report on improving the health of
the defense industry?
Are there other policy or regulatory changes that you would
recommend to improve the health of the defense industry and improve
innovation that were omitted by the report?
Are there ways that the Department could do a better job at
encouraging firms to increase their independent research and
development (IR&D) efforts?
Are there changes that can be made which will enable individuals
who leave the private sector for public sector service the ability to
return to private sector employment?
Dr. Wolfowitz. We are continuing to address the recommendations of
the DSB panel's report. As we assemble our management team, we will be
examining recommendations made by a variety of groups, such as the
Business Executives for National Security Tail-to-Tooth Commission, in
order to establish the initiatives we intend to pursue. It is
recognized that we must consider ways that the Department can encourage
firms to increase their IR&D efforts. For example, the recommendation
made by the DSB to revise the IR&D policy regarding fees could
incentivize contractors to spend IR&D dollars. This is an area that
certainly requires further analysis and careful consideration. At this
point, it would be premature to offer more specific detail on changes
that may be necessary.
base closures
23. Senator Santorum. The military base closure process (BRAC) was
first established in 1988. Since that time, 97 bases have been closed
and about 400 have been realigned. The process of closure and community
development after the base closes has suffered from problems in the
past, especially in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Accordingly,
between 1992 and 1995, the Federal Government adopted policies to
improve the reuse and redevelopment process governing these closed
facilities.
Congressional efforts to authorize additional base closing rounds
have been unsuccessful due in large part to the belief that President
Clinton interfered with the integrity of the process during the 1995
BRAC review.
In an effort to re-start the base closing process, several Members
of Congress have discussed the creation of a ``two-step'' BRAC process.
Under this proposal, the military services would identify certain
``core'' bases that would not be considered for closure. Facilities
like the Pentagon or Andrews Air Force Base would fall into this
category. These core facilities, which might comprise up to 25 percent
of all bases, would be exempt from further review by the base closure
commission.
A full assessment of ``non-core'' bases would follow this initial
review period. Proponents of this approach believe that the two-step
process would help eliminate community uncertainty and also help ``core
base'' communities avoid the expense of hiring consultants and other
experts to guide them through fighting the closure process.
Do you believe that the Department of Defense should recommend to
President Bush that he request authorization of additional BRAC rounds?
If so, do you believe that the process must be changed to restore
faith in the fairness of the process?
What are your thoughts on the proposed ``two-step'' BRAC process
that has been suggested?
Dr. Wolfowitz. Our base structure should fit our force structure
requirements. We are looking at the issue of excess infrastructure, and
will make a decision on how best to address this as soon as we can in
the review process. When we have established the proper relationship
between the force structure needed to execute our national security
strategy and the infrastructure needed to support that force, we will
work closely with Congress to develop a process that is fair and true
to that objective.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Joseph I. Lieberman
strategic review
24. Senator Lieberman. What is your role in the current strategic
review?
Dr. Wolfowitz. As the Deputy Secretary of Defense I am part of a
small group reviewing the work of each panel associated with our
overall look at the Defense Department structure. I provide guidance
regarding the particular areas each panel undertakes, as well as
reviewing their results. I also make recommendations to Secretary
Rumsfeld on various aspects of the overall review.
transformation
25. Senator Lieberman. What do you think are the necessary actions
to effect transformation?
Dr. Wolfowitz. Successful military transformation will require
several actions, the first of which is to generate organizational slack
and free-up resources needed to develop future capabilities. Second, we
need to create new, experimental forces dedicated to the development of
new combat capabilities. These forces would conduct long-term
experiments, develop operational concepts and even look at new ways of
organizing forces. Finally, when the U.S. engages in conflict, these
new units, should they prove effective, would be vanguard forces to
test and refine our new methods.
strategic review
26. Senator Lieberman. How do you intend to assure the strategic
review puts the main focus on these actions?
Dr. Wolfowitz. As discussed earlier, Andy Marshall is conducting
one element of the strategy review. For the past 8 years, he has
carefully reviewed past military transformation efforts and the
conditions that allowed them to be successful. Also, there is a panel
dedicated solely to the issue of transformation among the group of
panels contributing to the Defense review.
quadrennial defense review
27. Senator Lieberman. How do you see the review connecting to the
Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR)?
Dr. Wolfowitz. The Defense review is an iterative process that will
be ongoing. The findings and recommendations of the various elements of
the Defense review will serve as road maps for key issues that must be
considered during the QDR process, and subsequently, in the development
of future budget requests.
defense review
28. Senator Lieberman. Please tell us the time lines for the
review.
Dr. Wolfowitz. Again, I want to emphasize that the Defense review
is an iterative process that will be ongoing. Accordingly, specific
completion dates have not been established.
top priorities
29. Senator Lieberman. What do you see as the top priorities for
the Defense Department and the Pentagon?
Dr. Wolfowitz. The Department's top priorities, as outlined by
Secretary Rumsfeld are:
1. Fashion and sustain deterrence appropriate to the new national
security environment, aimed at devaluing investment made in weapons of
mass destruction and their delivery systems. This must be based on a
combination of nuclear and non-nuclear defensive capabilities working
together to deny the opportunity and benefits associated with the
threat or the use of weapons of mass destruction against U.S. forces,
our homeland, and our allies.
2. Assure the readiness and sustainability of our forces, reducing
unnecessary risks to American interests and to the lives of American
service men and women. Inadequate readiness takes a larger toll on the
future quality of our forces. Even the highest morale is eventually
undermined by back-to-back deployments, poor pay, shortages of spare
parts and equipment, and declining readiness.
3. Modernize U.S. Command, Control, Communications, and
Intelligence (C\3\I) capabilities to support our 21st century needs.
Modern C\3\I infrastructure is the foundation upon which military power
rests, and is fundamental to the transformation of U.S. military
forces. We must also strengthen our intelligence capabilities and our
space capabilities and protect those assets against various forms of
attack.
4. Transform the U.S. defense establishment to address our new
circumstance by swiftly introducing new weapons systems. Undertake
near-term investment to acquire modern capabilities derived from U.S.
scientific and industrial preeminence.
5. Reform DOD structures, processes, and organization. The legacy
of obsolete institutional structures, processes, and organizations
creates unnecessary costs and imposes unacceptable burden on national
defense. We will examine omnibus approaches to changing the statutory
and regulatory basis for the most significant obstacles to reform.
the role of the deputy secretary of defense
30. Senator Lieberman. Will you adhere to the habitual role of the
DEPSECDEF and manage the day-to-day operations of the Pentagon?
Dr. Wolfowitz. Yes, it is fair to say that while the Secretary is
the Chief Executive Officer, the Deputy functions mainly as the Chief
Operating Officer (COO). This normal business relationship does not
extend to the day-to-day supervision of military operations, but does
cover most other areas of responsibility in the Department.
31. Senator Lieberman. Will your role be policy or management?
Dr. Wolfowitz. I believe it is impossible to separate policy
formulation and management. In general, I intend to be the COO of the
Department. I realize that we will have an Under Secretary for Policy,
as well as other senior officials in the Department with responsibility
for various aspects of policy. My prior service as Under Secretary for
Policy will in no way limit the traditional authority of those
officials.
32. Senator Lieberman. Given your depth of policy expertise, how
will you coordinate your role with the Under Secretary for Policy, once
he/she is nominated?
Dr. Wolfowitz. The Under Secretary for Policy will function in much
the same way as they have in the past. I will assist and give guidance
as necessary, but the fact that I once held this position will not
limit the prerogatives of the incumbent.
homeland defense
33. Senator Lieberman. What should be the Pentagon's role in the
broader issue of homeland defense?
Dr. Wolfowitz. Homeland defense is not a new mission area. The U.S.
military has a long and proud tradition of protecting the American
homeland from a wide variety of threats. Over time, the nature of the
threat has changed--from traditional land and maritime invasion in the
country's early years, to potential nuclear attack during the Cold War,
to the present day potential of nuclear, biological, chemical, missile
and information attacks from both state and non-state actors, such as
terrorists. As part of our strategic review we will be addressing how
the Department of Defense should be postured to ensure continued
defense of the U.S. homeland from these evolving threats.
military pay
34. Senator Lieberman. Do you believe there is a pay gap for
military members?
Dr. Wolfowitz. Much has been written about the existence of a
military ``pay gap.'' Many argue that difficulty in recruiting and
retaining high quality people in itself suggests the presence of a pay
gap, but I believe the fundamental issue is the ability of pay to
attract and retain a quality force. Recognizing that it has become
increasing difficult to recruit and retain amidst today's economy, one
can make a case that pay may not be adequate. One of my important
responsibilities will be to ensure that great attention is paid to
sustaining a level of military pay that is competitive, and supportive
of consistent success in recruiting and retention.
35. Senator Lieberman. Do you support a military pay raise?
Dr. Wolfowitz. Yes. The President recently announced an additional
$1.4 billion to be directed to military pay. This will provide for a
minimum pay raise of 4.6 percent on January 1, 2002, and $1 billion to
be used to address specific recruiting and retention needs.
36. Senator Lieberman. Should the next pay raise be across the
board or targeted, as in pay for skill?
Dr. Wolfowitz. I believe all military members should receive a pay
raise, and the President has proposed that all members will get a
minimum of a 4.6 percent raise on January 1, 2002. Exactly how to use
the President's additional billion dollars needs further review.
defense health program
37. Senator Lieberman. What do you consider to be the most
significant threats to the Defense Health Program (DHP) and the ongoing
implementation of TRICARE?
Dr. Wolfowitz. It is imperative that the Defense Health Program
(DHP) maintains a fully funded budget that allows for a stable business
environment. The absence of adequate funding directly impacts patient
care in the Military Health System. With the implementation of expanded
TRICARE benefits for our Medicare-eligible beneficiaries, directed by
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, funding
continues to be a challenge. The Department has identified an
approximate shortfall of $1.4 billion for fiscal year 2001 and will
continue to assess DHP funding requirements as well as necessary
solutions during the Secretary's strategic review.
tempo for our armed forces
38. Senator Lieberman. Do you have any plans to reduce tempo for
our armed forces?
Dr. Wolfowitz. The use of military force is one of the most
important decisions a President can make. We in the Department will
work closely with the President and his senior advisors to develop
appropriate policies to guide the use of our military forces in
peacetime, crisis and war. A decision to employ U.S. military forces in
support of our national interests is one that should never be taken
lightly. Likewise, the decision to sustain, reduce, or end the
commitment of U.S. forces to ongoing operations must be informed by
careful assessment and deliberation. Working with Congress and our
allies, we will reexamine the balance among force levels, commitments
and deployments. We will ensure that we are focusing on the most
important defense tasks and not placing unreasonable demands on our men
and women in uniform. Still, we recognize that deployments will always
be a part of military life, and we will continue to improve the ways we
monitor and manage them.
39. Senator Lieberman. Given that the Services are different and
even define tempo differently, how do you plan to measure tempo in a
consistent manner?
Dr. Wolfowitz. We recognize that deployments will always be a part
of military life, and we continue to improve the ways we monitor and
manage them. Last year, DOD implemented a department-wide tempo
management system to allow us to identify the activities that have most
affected the pace of operations and help us to better manage the
demands on our people. Also adopted was a common definition for
personnel tempo that allows us to measure it in a consistent manner
across the Department. Personnel tempo is defined as the time an
individual spends away from his or her home station.
two major theater war (mtw) force structure
40. Senator Lieberman. Is the two MTW force structure the right
planning tool to create a military prepared for the dangers of a new
century? If not, what would you support using instead?
Dr. Wolfowitz. Modern history suggests that the United States has
often faced more than one security contingency at a time. With that
history in mind, the Department's preparations to deal with multiple
challenges have been appropriate. However, the increasing
diversification of current and emerging threats requires that we build
forces and operational concepts aimed at fashioning a new approach to
deterrence. This issue will be examined in the strategic review.
national missile defense
41. Senator Lieberman. What type of NMD system should the U.S.
pursue?
Dr. Wolfowitz. President Bush has said that the U.S. must build
effective missile defenses, based on the best available options, at the
earliest possible date, and that missile defenses must be designed to
protect all 50 states, our friends and allies, and our deployed forces
overseas. The administration is currently undertaking a major review of
missile defense as part of a broader strategic review examining our
future offensive and defensive requirements. In this review, we are
examining all available technologies and basing modes that could
contribute to an effective and affordable missile defense.
42. Senator Lieberman. Given the limited funds available, what
recommendations would you give regarding finding money for NMD?
Dr. Wolfowitz. We are currently reviewing our policy with regard to
missile defenses and how they can best contribute to deterrence in the
current and emerging strategic environment. Given this, no decisions
have yet been made with regard to possible deployments or funding
requirements.
43. Senator Lieberman. What is your priority if forced to make
choices among NMD and conventional forces?
Dr. Wolfowitz. The top priorities of the Department include the
deployment of effective missile defenses, the assured readiness and
sustainability of our deployed conventional forces, the modernization
of command, control, communications, intelligence and space
capabilities, and the transformation of the means by which we acquire
these forces. Additionally, the Secretary is currently conducting a
comprehensive review of the defense strategy and program, which
includes our missile defenses as well as our conventional forces. Given
this, no decisions have yet been made with regard to making funding
choices among different programs.
44. Senator Lieberman. How will the U.S.'s plans change if our
European allies refuse to support U.S. NMD plans and Russia and China
execute a nuclear force expansion as a result?
Dr. Wolfowitz. As we move forward with missile defense, the
administration is committed to consulting closely with our friends and
allies to address their concerns and explore their possible
participation in the program. The U.S. wants to deploy defenses that
would protect our friends and allies as well as ourselves. We see
missile defense as a necessary element of deterrence and an opportunity
for a collective approach to enhancing security for all.
We will also engage Russia and China on missile defense and seek to
address their concerns about our defenses.
Clearly, the missile defenses we are pursuing are so limited that
they would not call into question Russia's nuclear deterrent. As for
China, the Chinese have already embarked upon significant modernization
of their nuclear forces that predates, and will take place regardless
of, current U.S. NMD planning.
45. Senator Lieberman. What is your reaction to the Russian
European Missile Defense proposal?
Dr. Wolfowitz. We are currently examining the Russian proposal. The
U.S. government welcomes the fact Russia recognizes that Europe also
faces a serious threat from weapons of mass destruction and missile
delivery systems. While we welcome the prospect of cooperation in
principle, the deployment of a ``Pan-European'' TMD system would not
defend North America from ballistic missile attacks, and is therefore
not a substitute for the deployment of a missile defense capable of
defending North America.
stockpile stewardship program (ssp)
46. Senator Lieberman. Will you support full funding for the
Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP)?
Dr. Wolfowitz. As Secretary Rumsfeld made clear in his confirmation
hearing, maintaining high confidence in the U.S. nuclear weapons
stockpile is critically important to the national security interests of
the United States. I believe that the administration needs to review
the Stockpile Stewardship Program and to evaluate how well it has done
its job to date, and how well it will likely meet future stockpile
issues. Following on that review and evaluation, it should be in a
position to make informed decisions on the future of the Stockpile
Stewardship Program, including appropriate levels of funding.
nuclear weapons testing
47. Senator Lieberman. You have stated that continued nuclear
weapons testing is not an impediment to arms reductions. That, on the
contrary, our confidence in the reliability of our weapons has enabled
us to take the lead in nuclear arms reductions since the end of the
Cold War. Can you explain this? If the U.S. tests, what argument would
you use with the nations who might then decide on their own limited
test program?
Dr. Wolfowitz. During the last 5 years that the United States was
conducting nuclear tests (1987-1992), we concluded arms control
agreements and announced unilateral initiatives to reduce the number of
U.S. nuclear arms by many thousands of warheads. So clearly, nuclear
weapons testing is not an impediment to nuclear arms reductions.
Indeed, our decisions to make these reductions were in part based upon
the fact that due to nuclear testing we believed that our residual
stockpile of nuclear weapons was safe, secure, and highly reliable.
balkans policy
48. Senator Lieberman. What policy do you expect to promote for
U.S. forces in the Balkans?
Dr. Wolfowitz. The presence of U.S. forces in the Balkans is key to
the successful outcome of these missions with associated issues of
regional stability, both U.S. and NATO credibility, and alliance
cohesion. However, we do believe that conditions in Bosnia have changed
so as to allow a restructuring of the force, and we are working with
our allies through the normal NATO 6-Month Review process and
associated Stabilization Force (SFOR) Restructuring Options Study to
achieve this. In Kosovo, the situation remains unstable enough to
require engagement at current levels. However, we will pursue a change
in the capabilities of the existing force more appropriate to the
current mission.
49. Senator Lieberman. Do you advocate a full or partial withdrawal
of U.S. forces in the Balkans?
Dr. Wolfowitz. Withdrawal of U.S. troops from the Balkans is a
function of many things: the security situation, our position in NATO,
regional stability. I am committed to withdrawing U.S. troops when the
situation warrants. That will be done through the established NATO
processes. I do feel that the situation in Bosnia should allow for
restructuring of SFOR. Kosovo, however, is still unstable, and will
require a more careful examination in consultation with our allies
before any decisions are taken there. Within these factors, then, I am
committed to withdrawing our soldiers as quickly as possible.
50. Senator Lieberman. What strategy would you recommend we
undertake regarding the Balkans?
Dr. Wolfowitz. With the fall of Milosevic, and the consequent rise
of a democratic-oriented government in Belgrade, the dynamics of the
region have changed. We should clearly be able to focus on things such
as: promoting rule of law, respect for human rights and civil society;
combating crime and corruption; assisting in economic reform and
revitalization; and regional cooperation as basis for integration into
European institutions. These are the means by which we may capitalize
on the change in the strategic context.
51. Senator Lieberman. How do you intend to pursue that with our
European allies and the Russians?
Dr. Wolfowitz. The current engagement with our European allies
continues to be effective. Increasingly, they are assuming more of the
burden, and we will continue to press them on this.
Ironically, our relations with Russia by way of the SFOR and
International Security Force (KFOR) missions continue to be strong and
cooperative. Our goal should be to build on these relationships through
the NATO Permanent Joint Council and other bilateral means so as to
gain their effective cooperation in dealing with the Balkan states.
accelerating drawdown for iraqi opposition
52. Senator Lieberman. Will you act to accelerate the drawdown
authority you have for the Iraqi opposition?
Dr. Wolfowitz. It all depends on how the drawdown authority is to
be used. The administration is in the process of reviewing all elements
of U.S. policy toward Iraq. This review will address whether efforts to
promote regime change are appropriately focused. Until that review is
complete it would be premature to make a judgment as whether the use of
the drawdown authority should be changed.
upgrading support for the iraqi opposition
53. Senator Lieberman. Some speculate that the new administration's
most promising option for putting Saddam ``back in the box'', in
addition to bombing, is to support the Iraq National Congress (INC).
How would you recommend the U.S. upgrade our political, economic, and
military support of the opposition? What are the plans to do this?
Dr. Wolfowitz. The administration is in the process of reviewing
all elements of U.S. policy toward Iraq. This review will address
whether our efforts to promote regime change are appropriately focused.
Until that review is complete it would be premature to make a judgment
on the exact nature of our future support to the Iraqi National
Congress.
support for the iraqi opposition
54. Senator Lieberman. How far should we be willing to go with
regards to support for the INC-funds, weapons, equipment, sales, joint
training, TMD, etc.?
Dr. Wolfowitz. As part of our comprehensive policy review on Iraq,
we are exploring how best to work with the Iraqi National Congress and
other opposition groups to promote a regime transition in Iraq. Until
the policy review is completed, it would be premature to speculate on
the details of our support.
inc charter
55. Senator Lieberman. What will the INC task force's charter
include? When do you see it in place and functioning?
Dr. Wolfowitz. The administration is reviewing its Iraq policy,
including how it will work with the INC.
regime change strategy
56. Senator Lieberman. You have talked about the current policy of
containment regarding Iraq. You have stated that when this policy
collapses, the U.S. will face a Saddam who has new nuclear, biological,
and chemical weapons and a renewed capacity to conduct conventional
warfare and terrorism, and who is bent on avenging his 1991 defeat.
Further, this policy would risk many more lives than trying to
overthrow Saddam by force. What are your recommendations regarding this
new Iraqi strategy? What do you see as the Pentagon role? How will this
affect U.S. force posture and OPTEMPO? What would you do to deal with
increased OPTEMPO?
Dr. Wolfowitz. There can be do doubt that Iraq under Saddam Hussein
remains a threat to the Gulf region and to U.S. interests and that this
threat must be deterred and contained. Part of the administration's
Iraq policy review must be to consider whether more can be done to
secure Baghdad's compliance with the conditions laid down by the United
Nations in a way that would satisfy us and the world community at large
that Iraq is no longer a threat. We also are exploring whether more can
be done to hasten the replacement of the present regime by one that is
prepared to live at peace with its neighbors and with the people of
Iraq. Clearly, our armed forces will have a prominent part to play in
our national strategy toward Iraq. Until our review is completed,
however, it is not possible to say what the effect will be on OPTEMPO.
taiwan policy
57. Senator Lieberman. You suggested that Taiwan point the way of
democracy to China. That is no doubt several years down the road. How
should the U.S. plan to assist in this endeavor?
Dr. Wolfowitz. Taiwan today is a full-fledged democracy, with a
vibrant multiparty system, a popularly elected president and
representatives at all levels of government, a free and spirited press,
and the people's strong commitment to democratization. One of the most
important measures the United States can take to foster the development
of democracy in the PRC is to support Taiwan's fledgling democracy by
acting in accordance with the principles outlined in the Taiwan
Relations Act.
58. Senator Lieberman. You are known as a fierce defender of
Taiwan, yet you have proposed a status quo in your writings. Can you
elaborate on your approach?
Dr. Wolfowitz. The status quo can best be maintained by ensuring a
dynamic equilibrium of forces in the Taiwan Strait. Such a balance
requires provision of necessary defense articles and services to Taiwan
in accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act to offset an increasingly
capable PRC military.
59. Senator Lieberman. How far should we be willing to go with
regards to support for Taiwan--funds, weapons, equipment, sales, joint
training, TMD, etc.? What about a formal mutual defense pact?
Dr. Wolfowitz. The Department of Defense is engaged with Taiwan in
several ways to ensure the United States is appropriately prepared to
implement relevant sections of the Taiwan Relations Act. The United
States actively monitors the security situation in the Taiwan Strait,
provides articles and services to Taiwan to ensure it can maintain a
sufficient self-defense capability, works with Taiwan on a series of
non-hardware related initiatives to address shortcomings in Taiwan's
readiness, and maintains capabilities to assist in the defense of
Taiwan if required. However, establishment of a formal defense pact
would contradict the unofficial nature of our relationship with Taiwan.
missile defense and china
60. Senator Lieberman. You support NMD. Is this contrary to your
previous call for a status quo approach? Can you clarify this, since
NMD might spur aggressive actions by China?
Dr. Wolfowitz. Missile defense must be designed to protect all 50
states, our allies and friends, and deployed forces overseas from
missile attacks by rogue states and from unauthorized or accidental
launches. The missile defenses that will be deployed by the U.S. are
intended for defense.
Nevertheless, we understand that China has voiced its concerns
about the potential implications for its deterrent posture of any
future U.S. missile defense system. China has recently expressed a
willingness to engage in substantive dialogue on missile defense
issues. We welcome and encourage such dialogue.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Max Cleland
u.s. airlift requirements
61. Senator Cleland. The recently released Hart-Rudman Commission
report places a high priority on the development of expeditionary
forces, much of which is dependent on our strategic and tactical
airlift capabilities. The Mobility Requirements Study estimates we are
woefully short on meeting the future requirement.
With the move away from more forward-deployed forces, airlift and
air mobility will continue to be the key ingredient in our responding
to future military missions and crisis. Do you agree that we need to
focus attention on our airlift needs?
Dr. Wolfowitz. The recent Mobility Requirements Study 2005,
required by the fiscal year 2000 National Defense Authorization Act, is
the most exhaustive study on this subject to date. It provides a
comprehensive assessment of our overall mobility requirements in the
context of a two major theater war strategy and shows that, under
certain extremely demanding conditions, we have insufficient airlift
assets to meet the requirement. Clearly strategic and tactical airlift
capability will remain a vital element of our national military
strategy, and the results of the Mobility Requirements Study 2005 are a
good point of departure for establishing airlift requirements in the
context of the current strategy review. Options for meeting airlift
requirements, however, need to be carefully considered in a manner that
allows them to be balanced with other strategic risk and affordability
decisions.
military health care
62. Senator Cleland. Military health care is a matter of great
importance to our service members and this committee. Last year, in
response to concerns raised by the Secretary of Defense and the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, we enacted legislation that eliminates
deductibles and co-payments under TRICARE Prime for families of Active
Duty service members; provides lifetime health care for military
retirees and their families through the TRICARE program; and provides a
comprehensive pharmacy benefit for military retirees.
We still hear concerns from our constituents about lack of timely
access to health care, portability of benefits as our service members
move around, and poor claims processing. What are your priorities for
maintaining a working, accessible, properly funded health care system?
Dr. Wolfowitz. As you point out, the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2001 includes significant health care benefit
enhancements for military beneficiaries, both for families of Active
Duty members and for retirees and their families. The Department is
working hard to implement these important new programs. In addition, we
have made significant strides recently in improving our health care
business practices, in areas such as providing a portable health care
benefit, exceeding industry standards for claims processing timeliness,
and enhancing appointment systems to ease access to care. Our number
one priority is to assure medical readiness to support wartime
missions; delivery of an excellent peacetime health care benefit on a
cost-effective basis is a vital secondary mission.
montgomery gi bill
63. Senator Cleland. Almost all new service members enroll in and
contribute to the Montgomery GI Bill. Only about half of these use
their benefits, and many who use the benefits do not use all of their
entitlement. Many of these soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines say
they would like to stay in the Service, but feel they have to leave so
that they can provide for the education of their spouses and children.
I believe that many of these service members would stay in the
service if they could transfer all or a part of their unused
entitlement to GI Bill benefits to family members in return for a
service commitment--an idea supported by the Hart-Rudman Commission
report. Service Secretaries could use this retention tool selectively,
just as they use reenlistment bonuses.
Will you give serious consideration to how the Department of
Defense could use the transfer of GI Bill benefits to family members as
a retention tool and give me your thoughts on how we best do this?
Dr. Wolfowitz. I will certainly give this full consideration. I
agree that we must be prepared to adapt our incentive systems to
address the changing needs and aspirations of service members.
hart-rudman commission
64. Senator Cleland. The Hart-Rudman Commission review suggested
numerous initiatives to help prepare for the domestic threats that
endanger the continental U.S. Several of these initiatives involve
reform and restructuring at the Department of Defense in an effort to
streamline and make DOD more efficient and effective to address the
threats in this new world ``disorder.'' With your past experience at
the Department of Defense, you know of the challenges that face the
Department of Defense in this new century. Do you anticipate the need
to review and implement any of the suggestions?
Dr. Wolfowitz. The Hart-Rudman Commission made an important
contribution to the debate about the challenges of the evolving
security environment and how the U.S. government should be aligned in
order to prepare for future threats, particularly to the U.S. homeland.
I welcome the insights of the Commission, whose members represent a
vast wealth of experience in the national security arena, in addition
to recommendations from other experts both inside and outside the
Department.
problem accounting for appropriated funds
65. Senator Cleland. You noted in your response to an advance
question that ``damage to modernization programs is best prevented by
timely funding so that the Department does not have to disrupt
procurement and RDT&E programs.'' However, my distinguished colleague
Senator Byrd has recently reminded us that the Pentagon has a
longstanding problem accounting for the funds appropriated for its use.
As a two-time veteran of senior positions in the Department of Defense,
what are your thoughts on the roots of this problem? Do you believe the
solutions to this problem are internal to the Department, or is there
something Congress can do to facilitate a solution?
Dr. Wolfowitz. The Department's accounting problems are of a very
specific nature. We have had no major problem tracking and accounting
for appropriated funds in terms of ensuring that no more than the
precise amount is spent on specifically the uses for which those funds
were appropriated. Indeed, DOD accounting systems were designed exactly
for this purpose, and that design is one of the root causes of the
accounting problems referred to by Senator Byrd--that problem being
that DOD accounting systems cannot yet produce annual financial
statements that can receive an unqualified (most favorable) audit
opinion. DOD accounting systems were not designed to produce such
statements, and now that such statements are required the Department is
moving expeditiously to transform its accounting systems to do so. This
is an immense challenge, especially since much of the financial data
needed for DOD financial statements originates outside the Department's
accounting and finance systems. The massive effort to achieve
acceptable financial statements is primarily internal to the
Department, but as with all genuine reform the support of Congress
remains essential.
______
[The nomination reference of Dr. Paul D. Wolfowitz
follows:]
Nomination Reference
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
February 15, 2001.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Paul D. Wolfowitz, of Maryland, to be Deputy Secretary of Defense,
vice Rudy F. de Leon, resigned.
______
[The biographical sketch of Dr. Paul D. Wolfowitz, which
was transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Dr. Paul D. Wolfowitz
On February 5, 2001, President Bush announced his intention to
nominate Dr. Paul Wolfowitz to be Deputy Secretary of Defense. If
confirmed by the Senate, this will be Dr. Wolfowitz's third tour of
duty in the Pentagon.
For the last 7 years, Dr. Wolfowitz has served as Dean and
Professor of International Relations at the Paul H. Nitze School of
Advanced International Studies (SAIS) of The Johns Hopkins University.
SAIS is widely regarded as one of the world's leading graduate schools
of international relations with 750 students, studying on campuses in
Washington, DC.; Nanjing, China; and Bologna, Italy. As Dean, he led a
successful capital campaign that raised more than $75 million and
doubled the school's endowment. Also under his leadership, the
curriculum and facilities were modernized and new faculty and programs
were added to shift the school's focus from the Cold War to the era of
globalization.
From 1989 to 1993, Dr. Wolfowitz served as Under Secretary of
Defense for Policy in charge of the 700-person defense policy team that
was responsible to Secretary Dick Cheney for matters concerning
strategy, plans, and policy. During this period Secretary Wolfowitz and
his staff had major responsibilities for the reshaping of strategy and
force posture at the end of the Cold War. Key initiatives included the
development of the Regional Defense Strategy, the Base Force, and two
presidential nuclear initiatives that led to the elimination of tens of
thousands of U.S. and Soviet nuclear weapons. Under his leadership, the
Policy Staff also played a major role in reviewing war plans for the
Gulf War, and developing and executing plans that successfully raised
more than $50 billion in Allied financial support for the war and
prevented Iraq from opening a second front with Israel.
During the Reagan administration, Dr. Wolfowitz served for 3 years
as U.S. Ambassador to Indonesia--the fourth largest country in the
world and the largest in the Moslem world. There he earned a reputation
as a highly popular and effective Ambassador, a tough negotiator on
behalf of American intellectual property owners, and a public advocate
of political openness and democratic values. During his tenure, Embassy
Jakarta was cited as one of the four best-managed embassies inspected
in 1988. Prior to that posting, he served 3\1/2\ years as Assistant
Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, where he was in
charge of U.S. relations with more than twenty countries. In addition
to contributing to substantial improvements in U.S. relations with
Japan and China, Assistant Secretary Wolfowitz played a central role in
coordinating the U.S. policy toward the Philippines that supported a
peaceful transition from the dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos to
democracy.
Dr. Wolfowitz's previous government service included: 2 years as
head of the State Department's Policy Planning Staff (1981-82); an
earlier Pentagon tour as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Regional Programs (1977-80), where he helped create the force that
later became the United States Central Command and initiated the
Maritime Pre-positioning Ships, the backbone of the initial U.S.
deployment 12 years later in Operation Desert Shield; and 4 years
(1973-77) in the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, working on the
Strategic Arms Limitation Talks and a number of nuclear
nonproliferation issues. His first government service was as a
Management Intern at the Bureau of the Budget (1966-67).
Dr. Wolfowitz taught previously at Yale (1970-73) and Johns Hopkins
(1981). In 1993, he was the George F. Kennan Professor of National
Security Strategy at the National War College. He has written widely on
the subject of national strategy and foreign policy and was a member of
the advisory boards of the journals Foreign Affairs and National
Interest. Among his many awards for public service are: the
Presidential Citizen's Medal, the Department of Defense's Distinguished
Public Service Medal, the Department of State's Distinguished Honor
Award, the Department of Defense's Distinguished Civilian Service
Medal, and the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency's Distinguished
Honor Award.
Dr. Wolfowitz received a bachelor's degree from Cornell University
(1965) in mathematics, and a doctorate in political science from the
University of Chicago (1972). He is the father of Sara, David, and
Rachel and lives in Chevy Chase, Maryland.
______
[The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
form that details the biographical, financial and other
information of the nominee. The form executed by Dr. Paul D.
Wolfowitz in connection with his nomination follows:]
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Room SR-228
Washington, DC 20510-6050
(202) 224-3871
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation
of your answer applies.
Part A--Biographical Information
Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.
1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
Paul Dundes Wolfowitz.
2. Position to which nominated:
Deputy Secretary, Department of Defense.
3. Date of nomination:
February 15, 2001.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
5. Date and place of birth:
December 22, 1943; New York, NY.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Separated since January 1999; Frances Clare Selgin Wolfowitz.
7. Names and ages of children:
Sara Elizabeth Wolfowitz, 22.
David Samuel Wolfowitz, 19.
Rachel Dahlia Wolfowitz, 13.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dates Degree
Institution attended received Date granted
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ithaca High School, Ithaca, NY 9/58-6/61 ............ ............
Cornell University Ithaca, NY. 9/61-6/65 AB.......... 1965
University of Chicago, 10/65-6/70 Ph.D........ 1972
Chicago, IL.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Job title Employer Location Dates of employment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dean................................. Johns Hopkins Washington, DC......... January 1994-present.
University School of
Advanced International
Studies.
Professor............................ National Defense Washington, DC......... January 1993-December
University. 1993.
Under Secretary for Policy........... Department of Defense.. Washington, DC......... May 1989-January 1993.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative,
honorary or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State,
or local governments, other than those listed above.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
13. Political affiliations and activities:
(a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or
any public office for which you have been a candidate.
None.
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5
years.
Foreign policy advisor to Bush/Cheney Presidential Committee, 2000.
Foreign policy advisor to Dole/Kemp Presidential Committee, 1996.
(c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $100 or more for the past 5 years.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Amount Recipient
------------------------------------------------------------------------
01-08-96........................... $250 Maggie Tinsman.
03-18-96........................... $1000 Bob Dole.
03-22-96........................... $250 John W. Warner.
09-16-96........................... $500 Republican Primary
PAC.
10-07-97........................... $500 Dylan C. Glenn.
2000............................... $2000 George W. Bush--
(in kind) Primary Campaign.
2000............................... $1000 George W. Bush--
General Campaign.
2000............................... $500 George W. Bush--
Recount Effort.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals and any other special recognitions
for outstanding service or achievements.
President's Citizen's Medal; Department of Defense Distinguished
Public Service Medal; Air Force Decoration for Exceptional Civilian
Service; Department of state Distinguished Honor Award; Department of
Defense Distinguished Civilian Service Medal; Arms Control and
Disarmament Agency Distinguished Honor Award; Bangkok Embassy Refugee
Coordinator's ``Pirate Buster'' Award; 1989 Lempad Prize from
Indonesian Cultural Foundation; Embassy in Jakarta selected as one of
four best-managed embassies in 1988; Phi Beta Kappa; National Science
Foundation Fellow; Woodrow Wilson Fellow; General Motors Scholar;
Telluride Scholar.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
16. Speeches: Provide the committee with two copies of any formal
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have
copies of and are on topics relevant to the position for which you have
been nominated.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
17. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree,
if confirmed, to respond to requests to appear and testify before any
duly constituted committee of the Senate?
Yes.
______
[The nominee responded to the questions in Parts B-F of the
committee questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set
forth in the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to
Parts B-F are contained in the committee's executive files.]
------
Signature and Date
I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate,
and complete.
Dr. Paul Wolfowitz.
This 15th day of February, 2001.
[The nomination of Dr. Paul D. Wolfowitz was reported to
the Senate by Senator John Warner on February 28, 2001, with
the recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The
nomination was confirmed by the Senate on February 28, 2001.]
NOMINATIONS OF DR. DOV S. ZAKHEIM TO BE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE,
COMPTROLLER; CHARLES S. ABELL TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR
FORCE MANAGEMENT POLICY; AND VICTORIA CLARKE TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY
OF DEFENSE FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRS
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 24, 2001
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:40 p.m. in room
SD-106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator John Warner
(chairman) presiding.
Committee members present: Senators Warner, Thurmond,
McCain, Inhofe, Hutchinson, Bunning, Levin, Reed, Akaka, Ben
Nelson, and Dayton.
Committee staff members present: Romie L. Brownlee, staff
director; Judith A. Ansley, deputy staff director; Scott W.
Stucky, general counsel; and Ann M. Mittermeyer, assistant
counsel.
Professional staff members present: Charles S. Abell, John
R. Barnes, William C. Greenwalt, Gary M. Hall, Lawrence J.
Lanzillotta, George W. Lauffer, Patricia L. Lewis, Cord A.
Sterling, and Eric H. Thoemmes.
Minority staff members present: David S. Lyles, staff
director for the minority; Gerald J. Leeling, minority counsel;
Peter K. Levine, minority counsel; Creighton Greene,
professional staff member; and Michael J. McCord, professional
staff member.
Staff assistants present: Thomas C. Moore, Suzanne K.L.
Ross, and Michele A. Traficante.
Committee members' assistants present: Christopher J. Paul,
assistant to Senator McCain; George M. Bernier III, assistant
to Senator Santorum; Robert Alan McCurry, assistant to Senator
Roberts; Douglas Flanders, assistant to Senator Allard; Michael
P. Ralsky, assistant to Senator Hutchinson; Kristine Fauser,
assistant to Senator Collins; David Young, assistant to Senator
Bunning; Menda S. Fife, assistant to Senator Kennedy; Christina
Evans and Barry Gene Wright, assistants to Senator Byrd;
Elizabeth King, assistant to Senator Reed; Davelyn Noelani
Kalipi, assistant to Senator Akaka; Eric Pierce, assistant to
Senator Ben Nelson; and Brady King, assistant to Senator
Dayton.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN
Senator Levin. Chairman Warner has asked me to open up the
hearing. He has been delayed just a few additional minutes, so
we will get going. We meet today to consider the nominations of
Dr. Dov Zakheim to be Under Secretary of Defense, Comptroller;
Charles Abell to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force
Management Policy; and Victoria Clarke to be Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs.
We want to first welcome all of our nominees, and the
colleagues of ours who will be introducing them to the
committee. I know that Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary
Wolfowitz want us to proceed expeditiously with these
nominations. I think they are probably feeling a bit lonely in
the Pentagon these days without the help that you all are going
to be providing them, assuming you are confirmed. I know he has
been looking forward to getting that assistance. The Department
has a lot of important decisions to make. It needs senior
civilian leadership in place to help make those decisions.
Dr. Zakheim, we are all anxious to get the Department's
fiscal year 2002 budget so that we can do our work here in
Congress. The Comptroller, the chief financial officer for the
largest department in the Federal Government, is a critical
leadership position in the Department of Defense. It is an
awesome responsibility. The financial management challenges
facing the Department of Defense are enormous. As we've
discussed, you are going to be in an important position to
address those.
It's always a pleasure to see Charles Abell. He is one of
our own staff, who has been nominated for this important
position in the administration. His service to this committee
and to the Personnel Subcommittee for the last 8 years has been
exceptional. Your committment to the well-being of our military
members and their families is well known to us. We will miss
your experience and expertise on this committee, but it will be
put to good use in the department on behalf of our men and
women in uniform and the civilians who serve in the Department
of Defense.
Ms. Clarke, you've been nominated to the very important
position of public spokesperson for the Department of Defense.
If confirmed, the American people will count on you to tell it
like it is, like the man who sits to your right is famous for
doing. [Laughter.]
A lesser known, but just as important, aspect of the duties
of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, is
the responsibility to keep the men and women in the military
well-informed. So if you're confirmed, I am confident you will
give this duty the attention that it rightfully deserves.
So we have three well-qualified candidates for positions
that the Secretary is anxious to fill. We all look forward to
hearing from our nominees.
I understand, Dr. Zakheim, your wife, Deborah, and your
son, Roger, are here today. We welcome them. Mr. Abell, I
understand that your wife, Kathy, is with you today, and we
surely welcome her. I understand, Ms. Clarke, that your
husband, Brian Graham, and children, Colin, Devon, and Charlie
are here, as well as your parents, Charles and Cecilia Clarke,
and your sister, Caitlin Clarke. We welcome all of them. Family
support is essential in these positions. You will all be put
under great time pressure. There will be too many times when
you're not going to be able to get home as promised, and we ask
your families for their service when we confirm you for your
service.
At this point, I think before I ask the questions that are
traditionally asked, I'm going to call upon Senator Thurmond
for his opening statement. Following that, I will ask the
nominees the standard questions we ask all our nominees, and
then we are going to call upon our colleagues to introduce our
nominees. Senator Thurmond, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR STROM THURMOND
Senator Thurmond. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I join
you in welcoming Dr. Zakheim, Mr. Abell, and Ms. Clarke. Each
of them has had a long and distinguished career, either in the
private sector or within the government, and I do not expect
any surprises on their nominations.
I am especially pleased by Charlie Abell's nomination to be
the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force Management Policy.
Charlie has been truly professional in carrying out his
responsibilities as a staff member of the Armed Services
Committee. He was instrumental in formulating many of the pay
and benefit programs that have started to reverse the
recruiting and retention programs in our military services. I
only regret that the committee's retention program was not
enticing enough to keep him here on the committee staff.
To each nominee, I congratulate you on your nomination and
on your superb record of public service. Your willingness to
serve our Nation in the challenging positions for which you
have been nominated speaks highly of you. I wish you all
success.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Levin. Thank you, Senator. We're going to move
directly to the introductions. Let me call first on Senator
McCain.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN McCAIN
Senator McCain. Thank you very much, Senator Levin, Senator
Thurmond, members of the committee. I have known all three of
the nominees. Dr. Zakheim and I had a professional relationship
for many years.
I am especially here on behalf of Victoria Clarke, who
will, as you mentioned, be the voice of the Department of
Defense. This doesn't mean Secretary Rumsfeld can't speak for
himself, which he does very eloquently, but obviously, the job
of spokesperson is one that requires talent and skills and a
certain degree of sensitivity, particularly when we are faced
with crises, as we have experienced just recently, some of
which entailed the risk or even loss of American lives.
I've known Victoria Clarke and have had the privilege of
working with her since 1983. She has been able to balance the
responsibilities of a true professional and wife and mother.
She not only, I believe, will be an excellent member of the
Bush team, but she will also be a role model to other women in
America as she has moved up the ladder of success to this very
important position.
I recommend her highly. She's a very dear and beloved
friend of mine, and I'm very proud of her at this moment that
she will take over these very difficult and awesome
responsibilities. I hope my colleagues will consider her
positively and I look forward to working with her in the years
ahead.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for allowing me to
speak.
Senator Levin. Senator McCain, thank you.
Senator Hutchinson.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR TIM HUTCHINSON
Senator Hutchinson. Mr. Chairman, I am very honored today
to be able to appear before the committee and to introduce
someone who doesn't need an introduction to this committee,
President Bush's nominee to be Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Force Management Policy, Charlie Abell, one that we all
love dearly. I understand how lonely Secretary Rumsfeld is
getting these days, but I seriously considered putting a hold
on the nomination if it would have given us a chance of keeping
Charlie around. I would ask unanimous consent that a more
lengthy introduction be included in the record.
Charlie served in the Army, in the enlisted ranks, in 1967,
became an officer, served two tours in Vietnam, and is highly
decorated. The distinguished medals he's received include the
Legion of Merit, 4 Meritorious Service Medals, the Purple
Heart, 2 Bronze Stars for Valor, 14 Air Medals, including 2 for
valor, the Army Commendation Medal for Valor, and the Combat
Infantry Badge. So he is highly decorated. But more than that
is he joined our staff, and I've had the opportunity to serve
with him for the last 2\1/2\ years.
We all know him to be knowledgeable, professional, and
totally dedicated. He is committed to the welfare of our men
and women in uniform. Having had the opportunity to work with
him as chairman of the Personnel Subcommittee, I am enthused
about his new opportunities, and I know that he will do an
outstanding job for those he loves and for the country he
serves.
[The prepared statement of Senator Hutchinson follows:]
Prepared Statement by Senator Tim Hutchinson
Mr. Chairman, it is an honor for me to appear before the committee.
Today, I have the privilege of introducing President Bush's nominee to
be the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force Management Policy, Mr.
Charles S. Abell.
In the 2\1/2\ years that I have worked with Charlie, I have learned
what so many of our colleagues already knew--that Charlie is one of the
most patriotic, dedicated, and hardworking public servants in the
Nation's capital.
For those who do not know Charlie personally, let me tell them
something about his background.
Charlie joined the enlisted ranks of the Army in 1967--it was not
long before he became an officer. He served two tours in Vietnam as
both a Cobra helicopter pilot and as an infantry platoon leader.
After Vietnam, Charlie served in numerous command and staff
positions within the Army, including Congressional Affairs Officer for
the Deputy Chief of Staff of Personnel and as a member of the Army
Legislative Liaison Office.
The decorations he earned during his distinguished career as a
soldier include the Legion of Merit, 4 Meritorious Service Medals, the
Purple Heart, 2 Bronze Stars for Valor, 14 Air Medals including 2 for
valor, the Army Commendation Medal for Valor, and the Combat
Infantryman's Badge.
After retiring as a Lieutenant Colonel, after 26 years in the Army,
Charlie joined the staff of this committee.
As the lead staffer on the Personnel Subcommittee, which I now have
the privilege of chairing, he was responsible for issues concerning
military readiness and quality of life. Included in that not-
insignificant portfolio are the topics of manpower; pay and
compensation; health care; personnel management issues affecting Active
Duty, Reserve and civilian personnel; and nominations, both military
and civilian.
During his tenure here on the Hill, Charlie has worked with the
present, and former, members of this committee to achieve great things
for our men and women in uniform and for our Nation's military
retirees. Those accomplishments include:
Significant pay increases for Active Duty and Reserve
service members;
Improving recruiter access to our Nation's high
schools; and,
Enactment of the Warner/Hutchinson Tricare-For-Life
plan, with which our Nation will finally fulfill the decade's-
old promise of lifetime healthcare for those who choose to make
a career of the Armed Forces.
Now, Charlie is in the position, if confirmed, to take the next
logical step in an already distinguished career of public service. From
his new vantage point across the Potomac he will be able to build on
the successes he helped over the last 9 years on behalf of millions of
men and women in uniform, their families, and military retirees.
If confirmed, Charlie will serve as Secretary Rumsfeld's senior
policy advisor on matters concerning the management of military and
civilian personnel and the welfare of their families.
He will promulgate policies relating to recruiting, retention,
career development, compensation, quality of life, equal opportunity
and other force management concerns.
By forwarding to us the nomination, President Bush has publically
declared to the Nation that he has every confidence that Charlie is the
best man for the job. For someone who's relatively new to this town,
that decision marks our President as an excellent judge of character
and a pretty fast learner.
Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the committee, my fellow
Americans, I present to you Mr. Charles S. Abell.
Senator Levin. Senator Hutchinson, thank you very much.
Senator Reed.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JACK REED
Senator Reed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to welcome
all the nominees, but I'm particularly pleased and privileged
to be able to introduce Dr. Dov Zakheim.
One of the best ways to take a measure of a person is to
debate that person on important issues of great consequence to
the Nation, and I had that opportunity last fall at Duke. I
became impressed, as we all will become impressed, with Dov's
intelligence, his patriotism, and his dedication to this
country. We don't agree on everything, but I believe this
committee will agree that he is a superbly qualified and
prepared nominee to become the next Comptroller of the
Department of Defense.
Dr. Zakheim has an extraordinary academic record--after
graduating, summa cum laude, from Columbia University, he
earned his doctorate in economics and politics from Oxford
University. Dr. Zakheim's public career began at the
Congressional Budget Office, where he was an analyst. In the
1980s, he served in a number of senior Defense Department
positions. So he takes great experience to this task.
He became, in 1985, the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
for Planning and Resources. He knows the Department of Defense,
and he will bring that experience and that intellect to bear on
critical issues of financial management of the Department of
Defense.
His skill has been recognized by both Democratic and
Republican administrations. The Clinton administration
appointed him in 1997 to the Task Force on Defense Reform, and
he has had numerous significant positions.
Dr. Zakheim twice has been awarded the distinguished Public
Service Medal from the Department of Defense. He received the
CBO Director's Award for Outstanding Service, the Director's
Award for Outstanding Service for his present firm, System
Planning Corporation. He is eminently qualified and prepared
for the difficult challenges of Comptroller. I know he will
give his all, and he will be tireless in his efforts to improve
the management of the Department of Defense. I would urge his
rapid approval. Thank you.
Senator Levin. Senator Reed, thank you very much. We will
start with the opening statements now of our nominees, if they
have opening statements. Why don't we call on you first, Dr.
Zakheim?
STATEMENT OF DR. DOV S. ZAKHEIM, NOMINEE TO BE UNDER SECRETARY
OF DEFENSE, COMPTROLLER
Dr. Zakheim. Thank you, Senator Levin, and thank you so
much, Senator Reed, for those very kind words.
Senator Levin, members of the committee, it is an honor to
come before you as President Bush's nominee to become the next
Under Secretary of Defense, Comptroller. I thank President Bush
and Secretary Rumsfeld for their confidence in nominating me
for this important position. Many people made this honor
possible. I especially want to thank my wife, Deborah, and my
sons and my parents for their love and support throughout my
career. I will try to keep my remarks brief, and I ask that my
full statement be included for the record.
Senator Levin. It will be. Also, I forgot to mention
Senator Hutchinson's statement will be made part of the record,
too.
Dr. Zakheim. Over the years, it's been my good fortune to
have been guided by sage mentors and thoughtful colleagues. I
especially appreciate the opportunities that were afford me by
President Reagan and Secretary of Defense Weinberger during
their stewardship over America's security, and Secretary
Weinberger's support ever since then.
During my service at the Pentagon, I was also privileged to
work for and with two especially talented and brilliant men,
Fred Ikle and Richard Perle, who also afforded me wise counsel
and support over the years. It was thanks to another good
friend, Dr. Paul Wolfowitz, that I first joined the Pentagon in
1981, and I'm delighted that he has returned to the Department
of Defense as Secretary Rumsfeld's deputy.
This is an important and challenging time for the
Department of Defense. The Cold War may be over, but the
international environment is hardly serene. As leader of the
free world, the United States bears a special responsibility to
protect, not only its interests, but to support those of its
friends and allies. Those responsibilities bear most heavily on
our military personnel, whose welfare must remain our highest
priority, as well as on their civilian colleagues at the DOD.
The office of the Under Secretary of Defense, Comptroller,
is especially critical to ensuring a robust national security
posture. The Comptroller has to budget and manage funds to
achieve the greatest payoff from every taxpayer dollar. The
Department faces many tough choices in the area of strategy,
military capabilities, as well as infrastructure and support
activities. We have to allocate scarce budget dollars to give
our fighting forces the greatest advantage on both current and
future battlefields as they evolve. I assure you that, if I am
confirmed, I will do everything possible to get our uniformed
men and women the resources they need to excel in the difficult
missions assigned to them.
If confirmed as DOD Comptroller, I also intend to make
financial management reform a top priority. We have to improve
our management, including management information and accounting
systems. Congress and the American people have to have full
confidence that the Department maintains the very highest
standards in managing and accounting for its funds. We also
have to ensure that our planning, programming, and budgeting
system remains relevant to the demands of the new century, and
we have to rigorously pursue economies and efficiencies
wherever we might find them.
As one who has spent 6 years on Capitol Hill, I recognize
and profoundly believe that the security of our country depends
on wise decisions in both the legislative and executive
branches of our government. If confirmed, a key goal of mine
would be to foster a close cooperation between the Department
of Defense and its oversight committees, in particular. My
years in the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office taught me
that, on matters of national security, bipartisan cooperation
is essential.
Let me close by saying again how honored I am to have been
nominated by President Bush for a position of such immense
importance for America's future security. I pledge to do my
utmost to fulfill the trust placed in me. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Zakheim follows:]
Prepared Statement by Dr. Dov S. Zakheim
Mr. Chairman, Senator Levin, members of the committee, it is an
honor to come before you as President Bush's nominee to become the next
Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller). I thank President Bush and
Secretary Rumsfeld for their confidence in nominating me for this
important position.
Many people made this honor possible. I especially want to thank my
wife, Deborah, my sons, and my parents for their unwavering love and
support throughout my professional career.
Over the years it has been my good fortune to have been guided by
sage mentors and thoughtful colleagues. I particularly appreciate the
opportunities afforded me by President Reagan and Secretary of Defense
Caspar Weinberger during their extraordinary stewardship over America's
security. Secretary Weinberger has also been especially supportive to
me since I left the Pentagon, and I will always be grateful to him for
writing an exceedingly warm foreword to my book, The Flight of the
Lavi.
During my service at the Pentagon, I was privileged to work for,
and with, two extraordinarily brilliant and talented men, Under
Secretary Fred Ikle and Assistant Secretary Richard Perle. Both have
afforded me wise counsel and support when I most needed it. It was
thanks to another good friend, Dr. Paul Wolfowitz, that I first joined
the Pentagon in 1981, and I am delighted that he has returned to the
Department as Secretary Rumsfeld's deputy.
This is an important and challenging time for the Department of
Defense. The Cold War may be over, but the international environment is
hardly serene. As leader of the Free World, the United States bears
special responsibility to protect not only its interests, but to
support those of its allies and friends. These responsibilities bear
most heavily on our military personnel, whose welfare must remain our
highest priority, as well as on their civilian colleagues at the DOD.
The Office of Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) is
especially critical to ensuring a robust national security posture. The
Comptroller must budget and manage funds to achieve the greatest payoff
from every taxpayer dollar. The Department faces many tough choices in
the areas of strategy, military capabilities, as well as infrastructure
and support activities. Scarce budget dollars must be carefully
allocated to give our fighting forces the greatest advantage on current
and future battlefields as they evolve. I assure you that if confirmed
I will do everything possible to get our uniformed men and women the
resources they need to excel in the difficult missions assigned them.
If confirmed as DOD Comptroller, I intend to make financial
management reform a top priority. We must improve our management,
including management information, and accounting systems. Congress and
the American people must have full confidence that the Department
maintains the very highest standards in managing and accounting for its
funds. We also must ensure that our planning, programming, and
budgeting system remains relevant to the demands of the new century. We
must rigorously pursue economies and efficiencies wherever they are to
be found.
As one who spent 6 years on Capitol Hill, I recognize, and
profoundly believe, that the security of America depends on wise
decisions in both the legislative and executive branches of our
government. If confirmed, a key goal of mine would be to foster a close
cooperation between the Department of Defense and its oversight
committees in particular. My years in the non-partisan Congressional
Budget Office taught me that on matters of national security,
bipartisan cooperation is essential.
Let me close by saying again how honored I am to have been
nominated by President Bush for a position of such immense importance
for America's future security. I pledge to do my utmost to fulfill the
trust placed in me. Thank you.
Senator Levin. Thank you.
Ms. Clarke.
STATEMENT OF VICTORIA CLARKE, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY
OF DEFENSE FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRS
Ms. Clarke. Thank you very much, Senator Levin, and members
of the committee, thank you very much. It is a real honor for
me to be here today. I am deeply grateful to President Bush for
nominating me to this position, and to Secretary Rumsfeld for
giving me the opportunity to serve. I am very grateful to
Senator McCain for his remarks. They mean a great deal to me.
As President Bush has said, the Department of Defense is in
the business of protecting America's freedom, and the essence
of that freedom demands that we join the American people in a
discussion of and commitment to how we defend it. This, for me,
is a matter of patriotism. It is also my professional
philosophy. This committee knows far better than I that the
portrait of international security and national defense is
vastly different today from what it was even just a few years
ago.
As Secretary Rumsfeld has made clear, our challenge is
building a military that fits in that portrait. We must attract
and retain the very best people to serve. We must use public
dollars effectively and efficiently, and we must explore the
use of innovative technologies and policies that promote peace
and stability. Our challenges change, changing an institution
whose roots in our communities and our consciousness runs
deeper than perhaps any other. That demands an aggressive
program of outreach and education, a national conversation
about the challenges, the risk, and the solutions.
If confirmed, I will embrace that challenge in a spirit of
openness and honesty with this committee, with our men and
women in uniform, and with the people of the United States, on
whose support this life-or-death challenge for our country
ultimately depends.
That is my professional philosophy. It is also my patriotic
feeling. I thank the committee, the President, and the
Secretary for giving me the opportunity to act on it. Thank
you, Senator.
Senator Levin. Ms. Clarke, thank you.
Mr. Abell.
STATEMENT OF CHARLES S. ABELL, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR FORCE MANAGEMENT POLICY
Mr. Abell. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, Senator Levin,
members of the committee, I want to thank you and Senator
Hutchinson and Senator Thurmond for the kind words this
afternoon. I really appreciate them. I'm honored to have been
nominated by the President. I'm honored to appear before this
committee today.
If confirmed, I will be privileged to serve in a position
that provides for the personnel readiness of the force and for
the quality of life for service members, retirees, and their
families. It will be an awesome responsibility; however, I look
forward to the challenge.
Mr. Chairman, I want to take this opportunity to personally
and publicly thank you for your confidence in my abilities and
for being a mentor and an inspiration to me during my time here
on the staff.
I've had the good fortune to serve with so many of my
personal heros and those whom I have admired throughout my
life. I plan to thrill my grandchildren with tales of working
on important issues with many noted Americans. Being a part of
this staff--of this great committee--has been a much greater
experience than I could have ever imagined. I'm excited about
the opportunity to serve in the Department of Defense and to
continue to work for soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines.
As a result of my position here as one of your professional
staff members, I'm aware of some of the many critical issues
and important challenges that I will face as the next Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Force Management Policy. I also know
that there are challenges that are not yet apparent to me. Mr.
Chairman, if confirmed, I will eagerly accept each of these
challenges that I will face. I pledge to you and to the men and
women who serve our nation that I will work hard to meet these
challenges. I will conduct my dealings with the force, my
colleagues in the Department of Defense and the administration
and Congress in an open and direct manner.
As the members of this committee know, I prefer to be
forthright and open when dealing with any issue. If confirmed,
I will be the professional this committee has come to know.
As excited as I am for the opportunity that awaits me,
leaving the committee staff will be difficult. I've worked on
the staff of this committee for more than 8 years. I recall the
pride and honor I felt when Senator Thurmond hired me. I fondly
remember my first official trip as a member of the committee
with you, Mr. Chairman. I've had extraordinary opportunities to
be a part of history and to meet some of the most influential
and important people in the world. I've been enriched beyond my
greatest expectations.
I will find another occasion to thank my fellow staff
members, but I would be remiss if I did not publicly
acknowledge the very positive impact that my staff director,
Les Brownlee, has had on my life. As everyone knows, this
gentleman is truly unique, and I owe much of what I am today to
this friendship and his tutelage.
If confirmed, Mr. Chairman, I will serve the soldiers,
sailors, airmen, and marines--active, Reserve, retired--and
their families to the best of this ability. I will also miss
this committee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Mr. Abell. Senator Levin, thank
you for initiating this hearing on time. I had to testify
before another committee of the Senate. I might just start my
opening remarks following your very thoughtful, very insightful
statement to the committee.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN WARNER, CHAIRMAN
Chairman Warner. We are very proud of you, as we are of our
professional staff. We take pride in this committee. Through
the 23 years that I've been privileged to be a member--my
colleague, Senator Levin, and I came to the Senate together
these many years ago, almost a quarter of a century--this
committee has enjoyed the finest of professionals on its staff
throughout these years, and they have gone on to positions of
great responsibility, not only in the public sector, but the
private sector. You stand preeminent among those who have
served this committee.
I think it would be important for those in attendance today
just to know a few facts. You started your career as an
enlisted soldier, a private, and concluded with your retirement
as a lieutenant colonel. You served as a Cobra attack
helicopter pilot. You were decorated as an officer who led an
infantry platoon, an infantry company, and attack helicopter
units during two tours in Vietnam. I remember that war well
because I was then Secretary of the United States Navy, and I
know the personal sacrifice that all those who wore the uniform
during that period made.
Your decorations include the Legion of Merit, 4 Meritorious
Service Medals, the Purple Heart, 2 Bronze Stars for Valor, 14
Air Medals, the Army Commendation Medal for Valor and the
Combat Infantryman's Badge. I think that says it all. After
your 26-year Army career, you joined the committee in 1993, and
you have been a most valuable member of our team. So we wish
you well.
I am confident that the Senate will give you the advice and
consent the President has sought favorably on your nomination.
Would you at this time kindly introduce your family who are
present in the hearing room?
Mr. Abell. Sir, I am accompanied by my wife, Cathy.
Chairman Warner. We welcome you. Thank you, sir.
Now, Dr. Zakheim, I've come to know you, through the years,
with your distinguished career, and you served with the
Congressional Budget Office--that's an experience, isn't it?
[Laughter.]
--and in the Department of Defense during the Reagan
administration in a number of senior positions from 1981 to
1985. From 1985 to 1987, you served as Deputy Under Secretary
of Defense for Planning and Resources and played an active role
in the planning, programming, and budget process. In that
capacity, you successfully negotiated arms cooperation
agreements with various U.S. allies.
Subsequently, you served two terms as the President's
appointee to the United States Commission for the Preservation
of America's Heritage Abroad. In 1997, former Secretary of
Defense Cohen named you to the Task Force on Defense Reform and
later named you to the first Board of Visitors of the
Department of Defense Overseas Regional Schools and the Defense
Science Board Task Force on Impact of DOD Acquisition Policies
and on the Health of the Defense Industry.
You currently serve as Corporate Vice President of Systems
Planning Corporation, a high-technology research analysis and
manufacturing firm. Also, you're Chief Executive Officer of SPC
International Corporation, which specializes in political,
military, and economic consulting and international analysis--
again, a very distinguished public service career. Once again,
you volunteered to go back to serve your country with a most
exciting team. So I commend you.
Would you introduce the members of your family, please?
Dr. Zakheim. Yes, Mr. Chairman. My wife, Deborah, sitting
right behind me and, next to her, one of my sons, Roger.
Chairman Warner. We welcome you. As I've said many times in
the course of these hearings, it is a family affair, serving in
the Department of Defense. There are no hours. The clock
knoweth no finality. Days go into nights and nights into day.
But I must say it was one of the most exciting challenges of my
life, the 5 years, 4 months, and 3 days I spent in that
building. So when I speak to each of you, I speak to your
families, because they are very much a part of the team.
Now, Ms. Clarke served as Press Assistant to Vice President
Bush's office early in the 1980s, and later served as Press
Secretary to Senator McCain. That's a challenge.
[Laughter.]
I say that with respect to our colleague--working in both
the House and Senate offices and then served as Assistant U.S.
Trade Representative for Public Affairs and the private-sector
liaison under Ambassador Carla Hills in 1992, Press Secretary
for President George Bush's re-election campaign in 1992. Ms.
Clarke is currently the General Manager of the Washington
Office of Hill and Knowlton, one of the most distinguished and
venerable institutions of its type in the Nation's capital, and
we welcome you. Would you kindly introduce those who have come
to join you today?
Ms. Clarke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have my parents, Dr.
and Mrs. Charles Clarke; my sister, Caitlin; my husband, Brian
Graham; my son, Colin, who is having his sixth birthday
tomorrow; Devon, who is four; Charlie, who is a little over
two; and my friend Lorraine Voles, who is graciously helping us
out today.
Chairman Warner. That's lovely. Those kids are beautifully
well-behaved and turned out, as we say in the military, for
parade dress.
Well, we thank you for considering, again, public service
and for undertaking it as an exemplary parent with the duties
at home and the duties in the office, and all three of you are
serving on, I think, what will be one of the most exciting
teams--I don't say this, Republican and Democrat, because I've
worked with all the teams in these 23 years we've been here--
but you're going to be on an exciting team and the cutting edge
of history in our Department of Defense. So I wish you well.
Now, the committee has standard questions which we propound
to each of our nominees, and I will do so on behalf of the
committee and ask each of you to respond.
Have you adhered to applicable laws and regulations
governing conflict of interest? Mr. Abell.
Mr. Abell. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Dr. Zakheim.
Dr. Zakheim. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Ms. Clarke.
Ms. Clarke. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Have you assumed any duties or undertaken
any actions which would appear to presume the outcome of the
confirmation process?
Ms. Clarke. No, sir.
Dr. Zakheim. No, sir.
Mr. Abell. No, sir.
Chairman Warner. Will you ensure your staff complies with
the deadlines established for requested communications,
including questions for the record in the hearings? Charlie, I
want you to answer that loud and clear.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Abell. Yes, sir.
Dr. Zakheim. Yes, sir.
Ms. Clarke. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Will you cooperate in providing witnesses
and briefers in response to congressional requests?
Ms. Clarke. Yes, sir.
Dr. Zakheim. Yes, sir.
Mr. Abell. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Would those witnesses be protected from
reprisal for their testimony or briefings?
Ms. Clarke. Yes, sir.
Dr. Zakheim. Yes, sir.
Mr. Abell. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Senator Levin, why don't you start the
questioning period here on behalf of the membership?
Senator Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Zakheim, does
the administration plan to file a detailed budget for defense
for the year 2002?
Dr. Zakheim. To the best of my knowledge, they plan to do
so. I don't have those details myself, obviously.
Senator Levin. Do you know when they plan to do that?
Dr. Zakheim. I do not at this time.
Senator Levin. Do you know whether the administration plans
to request any supplemental funding for defense for fiscal year
2001?
Dr. Zakheim. I believe that is under active consideration,
but I don't know the final answer to that one, sir.
Senator Levin. When will that decision be made, whether or
not to do it? Do you know?
Dr. Zakheim. I don't know the exact date. If confirmed, I
suspect that I'll be part of that decision-making process.
Senator Levin. Do you have any idea as to how much funding
would be requested, if it's requested?
Dr. Zakheim. Not at this time, sir, no.
Senator Levin. You've written in the past, Dr. Zakheim, on
the need for additional base closures.
Dr. Zakheim. Yes, sir.
Senator Levin. Do you believe there is excess
infrastructure in the Defense Department today? If so, are
there unfunded needs within the Department that could benefit
by redirecting resources away from the excess infrastructure?
Dr. Zakheim. I believe the infrastructure is in excess of
the force structure, yes, sir.
Senator Levin. Does that mean it's in excess, you believe,
of what is needed?
Dr. Zakheim. I believe that it is. I think we have to look
closely at the details, of course. But yes, I believe that
there is an excess.
Senator Levin. Have previous rounds of base closures, in
your opinion, resulted in significant reductions in DOD costs
that have made resources available for higher priorities?
Dr. Zakheim. As I understand it, GAO and CBO have said as
much. They have never put a dollar figure on that, though.
Senator Levin. Do you believe that it is true that there
have been significant savings over time from previous rounds of
base closures?
Dr. Zakheim. I haven't done the analysis. I believe there
are savings; but since I haven't done the numbers, I don't know
how big they are.
Senator Levin. Dr. Zakheim, you've also written that
peacekeeping is a ``strategically marginal'' use of U.S.
defense funds. You have advocated, ``withdrawing from much of
the peacekeeping business,'' so that funds can be used for
other needs. Do you believe we should withdraw our forces
unilaterally from the following places: Bosnia, Kosovo, Sinai?
Dr. Zakheim. With regard to Bosnia and Kosovo, I think that
it's a function of consultation with allies. The ``unilateral''
word is key here. We shouldn't do anything unilaterally. The
events in the last few months, particularly in Macedonia,
demonstrated that this is really a very sensitive region. I
believe the same holds true for the Sinai. Clearly, both Israel
and----
Senator Thurmond. Speak a little bit louder. I didn't hear
you.
Dr. Zakheim. I'm sorry, Senator. What I just, Senator--can
you hear me now, sir? What I just said was that the word
``unilateral'' is key here, that on Kosovo and Bosnia, we can't
just pull out without consultation with allies. The events in
Macedonia have indicated how sensitive that region is. So these
issues are a function of what is happening on the ground.
I believe the same applies to the Sinai. The Israelis and
the Egyptians both are deeply concerned about how we approach
this process. So it will certainly have to involve
consultation, Senator.
Senator Levin. I'm glad to hear those answers. It is
somewhat reassuring, both given prior positions, but, in any
event, given current circumstances, I think those are
reassuring answers, at least for me.
Dr. Zakheim, when there are differences between the amounts
that are authorized by us and the amounts that are appropriated
by the appropriators for specific programs, will you work with
the defense committees of Congress to identify and resolve such
differences between authorization and appropriation reports
prior to obligation?
Dr. Zakheim. We have to, and I know it's been the
Department's practice all along, to try to work with all the
oversight committees and resolve these matters as amicably and
as efficiently as possible, and I am committed to consultation
with the committees on a case-by-case basis to resolve these
matters to everyone's satisfaction.
Senator Levin. Thank you. On the financial management end
of your work, you and we all know the Department faces serious
financial management problems. Because these problems are
widespread, they can't be solved at one time, but require
higher-level attention. I was pleased to read in your answers
to the committee's advance questions that you are, in your
words, fully committed to improve financial management in the
Department of Defense. Could you give us just an idea, in your
judgment, as to what needs to be done. What steps do you plan
to take to improve financial management at the Department?
Dr. Zakheim. Senator, there really are some very serious
problems, whether it's a matter of clean audits, whether it's a
matter of proper training, whether it's a matter of inventory
management or management information. I'm coming out of the
private sector, and when you're in the private sector, these
sorts of matters are second nature. You can't run a business
without having the kind of information that is being sought
from the Department of Defense.
If I were confirmed, it's a top priority for me to do a
number of things--first, to reorganize the Comptroller's office
to bring in some first-rate people as deputies to the
Comptroller so that we can have focus on management reform and
on management initiatives.
Second, I would hope, if confirmed, to bring in outsiders,
people with a financial management background, former CFOs and
the like, who could provide what you might call mid-term--mid-
course guidance on a regular basis to see how we're doing.
Finally, I want to work with this committee and with other
interested Members of Congress who have very valuable input and
have made a very big difference over the years in passing a
variety of financial management acts that have to be really
fulfilled.
Senator Levin. Just one last question for you and my time
is up. Do you have any plans to reorganize the Office of the
Comptroller; and if so, what types of changes would you make?
Dr. Zakheim. If confirmed, Senator, I would very much like
to do that. I believe that it would be in everyone's best
interest to have at least one, and probably two, Deputy Under
Secretaries who focus specifically on financial management
issues, and then a third one who focuses on program budget
issues. Financial management is simply not being dealt with as
smoothly and as capably, in my view, as has the program budget
side, and it really needs a lot of work. We need competent,
excellent people to do this, and I'm committed to doing this,
if confirmed.
Senator Levin. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator Levin. For the record,
the chair of this committee, together with the ranking member,
has the responsibility to review the material that is forwarded
on all nominees from the White House to the United States
Senate through this committee. Senator Levin and I have
reviewed that material. We took it upon ourselves to have a
briefing in executive session on three nominees, and that has
been completed. Do you have anything further to add--but we
reviewed this material and it met our criteria. Am I correct in
that?
Senator Levin. There may be an additional executive
session, if possible.
Chairman Warner. I'm going to momentarily defer to my other
senators, but I cannot let go saying that, one, a very valued
staff member of this committee is to do a transfer from this
committee to the Department of Defense to work under your aegis
as your principal deputy. We wish to recommend him very highly.
He is an extraordinary, able, well-trained professional, and
it's been my experience--and I think my staff, who share these
views--that the staff of the Pentagon and your department have
served their country very well. While you certainly have the
right to do certain reorganization, we would want you to do so
knowing that this committee has very high respect for their
performance in their respective duties.
Senator Levin, do you have a statement? Then I'll yield to
Senator Bunning, because I'm going to stay here for a period of
time. Senator, do you have a statement you'd like to make? Just
a brief announcement?
Senator Thurmond. I will pass on the opportunity to ask
questions of our nominees. I have complete confidence in their
abilities and will support their nominations.
Chairman Warner. I thank you.
Now, Senator Bunning, you take my----
Senator Bunning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I
want to thank all of you for coming.
The most important thing I can convey to you today is the
importance of providing, here in Congress to the members of
this committee, timely, accurate information. If an
administration official is asked a question, we need that
official to provide us with accurate information or we cannot
do our jobs. If confirmed, I look forward to working with all
of you.
Dr. Zakheim, there have been many reports of the
deterioration of our readiness in the armed services. Do you
believe that the proposed budget is sufficient to adequately
resource our force at their current levels of commitment?
Dr. Zakheim. Well, Senator, Secretary Rumsfeld is
conducting the strategic review right now, and the budget
submission for 2002 is going to reflect that review. So, in a
sense, I can't really comment on the relationship other than to
say that, clearly Secretary Rumsfeld is going to take into
account exactly the concerns you've talked about.
Senator Bunning. It's my understanding that there's going
to be a request from the Department of Defense for a
supplemental appropriation bill. Do you have that same
understanding?
Dr. Zakheim. I believe that it is under active
consideration. I'm not aware yet of any timing or sizing of it.
Senator Bunning. You're not aware of any sizing or timing.
Dr. Zakheim. Not yet, no, sir.
Senator Bunning. Gee, that's funny, because we are, and
you're about to ask us to confirm you. You're not in any loop
at all?
Dr. Zakheim. Well, Senator, again, I'm briefed. People have
tried to educate and get me up to speed, but on this particular
decision loop, I am simply not aware of any final decision on
either of those matters, Senator.
Chairman Warner. The practice of the Department, Senator,
is the nominee has to await the confirmation process before the
Secretary of Defense can call on you to be an active
participant in the decision making.
Senator Bunning. I understand that. But, in other words, if
he's had a briefing on the proposed budget and/or a possible
supplemental, I thought maybe he might share some of that
information.
Today's Washington Times reports the Secretary of Defense
is forming an executive committee of senior civilian leaders,
including the Comptroller, to implement the transformation
policy. What would be the specific function of that committee,
and what would the Comptroller's role be?
Dr. Zakheim. Again, I have not been given details as to
exactly what the committee will do, except in the most general
sense that you described. The Comptroller is also a chief
financial officer and, in that respect, obviously has input
into acquisition policy. I presume that that is what the
article is alluding to.
Senator Bunning. Senator Levin brought up BRAC and a
possibility of another BRAC, and you were pretty firm in your
statement that you didn't have a handle on any savings, if they
occurred, from the first two rounds, other than to say that you
thought that some savings might have occurred.
Before I ever look at another BRAC, you're going to have to
convince me that there were actual savings in the first two
rounds. I don't think there's any question that the size of the
force doesn't fit the facilities; but sometimes--as I just
stopped on Midway Island on the way home from Taiwan--sometimes
what is shut down is still operating. I say that only to point
out that Midway had been BRAC-ed in 1996; and yet there is a
big need on Midway for refueling and doing a lot of other
things that the military needs to have done.
So I want you to be prepared, if you are ready to recommend
BRAC to us again, that you show us some substantial savings
from the first two rounds. Let me ask a couple of other
questions.
Chairman Warner. Senator, you take such time as you need
and then we'll turn to our other colleague momentarily.
Senator Bunning. Yes, I want to ask our staff member--a
number of years ago, General Mundy, the Commandant of the
Marine Corps, proposed to no longer enlist anyone who is
already married. One of the objectives behind this was to
reduce the pressure placed on newly-enlisted personnel,
particularly given the high number of days per year they are
deployed away from home--and I can speak from personal
experience, with a son in the Air Force. Do you feel that this
would be an effective way to reduce stress on our enlisted
personnel during their initial enlistments?
Mr. Abell. Senator, the short answer is no. I think it's a
fact that more and more of our young soldiers, sailors, airmen,
and marines are enlisting with existing families. Even a
greater number acquire a family shortly after enlistment.
You're right, it is stressful. I have a great deal of
confidence in the abilities of those young men and women to
handle that stress, and I have a great deal of confidence in
their chain of command to assist them in that endeavor.
Senator Bunning. Then why are we falling short in every
service on our enlistment goals?
Mr. Abell. Sir, I think recruiting--recruiting especially,
but retention, as well--is a very tough job. Currently, we
enjoy a very robust economy. I think that probably contributes
more. The opportunities available to young men and women today,
especially the high quality young men and women we seek for the
military, are probably unmatched. I think that is the
difficulty, not so much family.
Senator Bunning. Do you think our current force structure
is large enough to assume the commitments that we have made
presently?
Mr. Abell. Senator, I think there's no doubt the current
force structure is stressed and overtaxed by its missions.
Whether it's the right size or not, I think, is going to be one
of the outcomes that we will see from Secretary Rumsfeld's
several studies, and I look forward to seeing the details of
that--of those studies before I could give you a definitive
answer on that.
Senator Bunning. OK. Ms. Clarke, the Department of Defense
usually uses individual Social Security numbers as their
service-identification numbers. Recently, there have been some
reports of identity theft from active duty military members.
Given the Social Security numbers may be more accessible to
outside parties, Privacy Act requirements notwithstanding, how
do you plan to minimize the danger to service members from this
crime?
Ms. Clarke. Senator, I don't have enough information about
that particular issue to address today, but I do think, when it
comes to the Privacy Act, that one of the utmost priorities of
my department is to respect and protect the privacy of
individuals. I will do everything possible, if confirmed, to
ensure that I and my staff are fully trained and sensitized to
that protection and respect we should give to individual
privacy. I would be happy to take the question for the record
and get back to you with an answer.
Senator Bunning. Well, the question I have is, why does the
military continuously use the Social Security numbers as an ID
number, when most of the banks, most of the driver's licenses,
most other people are starting to phase that out since the
access to the Social Security number and the maiden name of the
mother allows access to your Social Security records?
Ms. Clarke. I don't have an answer for you, Senator, but I
would be happy to get you one.
[The information follows:]
The Department of Defense shares your concern about the potential
misuse of social security numbers and the need to protect the privacy
of the men and women of our Armed Forces. While Defense Department
policies and practices do not appear to have contributed to misuse, we
will continue to be vigilant in safeguarding such information.
The issue of using the social security number (SSN) as the service
identification number, a practice first begun in the 1960s, was
recently studied by both the Defense Department and the General
Accounting Office. In addition to identity theft, we studied the
potential use of the SSN to obtain information that could be used
against captured or detained personnel. However, given the ubiquitous
access to personal information via the Internet, the senior officials
who studied this issue determined that removal of the SSN and
substitution of another number would not remove or even markedly reduce
this threat. Further, any such attempts would likely waste hundreds of
millions of dollars while not providing any significant protection for
servicemembers.
This issue poses a difficult challenge, but we remain committed to
protecting the privacy of servicemembers and will vigilantly safeguard
personal information. We take very seriously our responsibility to
protect social security numbers and limit access to only those uses
permitted by law.
Senator Bunning. OK. During the recent incident with the
U.S.S. Greeneville, the Navy was criticized for initially
providing misleading and inaccurate information. How do you
plan to address this in similar situations in the future?
Ms. Clarke. Senator, if confirmed, I hope one of the mottos
of my department will be ``maximum disclosure with minimal
delay.'' I think one of the priorities for the Department is to
disseminate news and information, the good and bad, as quickly
and as accurately as possible.
Senator Bunning. We are counting on you to do just that.
Ms. Clarke. Yes, sir.
Senator Bunning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. I thank you, Senator, and particularly for
the question about Social Security. I think that this committee
will follow your lead on that issue and look into that question
with some thoroughness.
Senator Bunning. Thank you, because, as Chairman of the
Social Security Subcommittee in the other body, that was one of
my primary concerns, and that now you can tell the bank to go
you-know-where if they ask for your Social Security number.
Chairman Warner. We will look into that.
Senator Akaka.
Senator Akaka. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, am pleased
to be participating in this hearing and want to welcome the
families of the nominees here to the hearing, and to tell you I
was impressed with introductions that were given by our
Senators of each one of you, which tells me that the President
made some good choices of well-qualified people, and I look
forward to working with you as we move forward with this new
administration.
In advance questions that we received, Dr. Zakheim, you
provided the committee--you indicated that you expect Secretary
Rumsfeld to charge you--and I'd like to quote this loud and
clear--``to do everything possible from every budget dollar.''
That is a high calling, and I agree with your assessment that
accurate and timely financial management information is
critical for managers across the Department to ensure
accountability and the most effective use of taxpayers'
dollars, and I then realize why you suggested reorganization of
some of the top-level people under you.
My question is a large one that has been around. I would
just ask you one question, and then ask some of each of the
others. My question to you, Dr. Zakheim is, how long do you
think it will take before the Department can provide Congress
with an accurate accounting of DOD expenditures?
Dr. Zakheim. I can answer it the following way. I have been
told that it will take many years to do that. Many years is not
a good enough answer for me. I would hope that Congress will be
in a position to receive cleaner audits, far more timely
information, certainly within the next few years--in other
words, hopefully, if confirmed, while I'm still around there.
Senator Akaka. I do, too. I've enjoyed working with you,
Mr. Abell, during the past few years, when I was not a member
here on this committee, but we worked in other ways, and I
really appreciate what you've done to help me in other ways.
I'm sure that you will do your best to address the challenges
facing the Assistant Secretary for Force Management and Policy.
I agree with your assessment that, while recruitment is
essential, retention is critical to force readiness. In your
answers to questions by the committee, you referred to
``balancing deployments and military training requirements with
the stability necessary for long-term health of military
families.'' I took that off--a quote. So my question to you is,
if confirmed, how would you address this issue?
Mr. Abell. Well, Senator, this is a tough issue. It is one
that the military services have talked to us about while I've
served on the committee for many years. We--the committee and
Congress--have put into effect some legislation requiring that
the deployments now be tracked on an individual basis and that
the individuals be apprised of how many days they have been
deployed, and that those deployments be managed by senior
officers.
I think as this procedure gets implemented, just getting
visibility on the subject will help a lot. But as we do get the
visibility of how many days soldiers, sailors, airmen, and
marines are actually deployed, we will get a good feel for the
types of units, the types of military specialties and the types
of missions that are consuming these service members' time. I
think then we'll be able to make some judgments as to how to
better balance the needs of the family, the needs of the
individual, and the needs of the service.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much. Ms. Clarke, I liked
your proposal that, if confirmed, your motto would be, and I
quote, ``maximum disclosure exposure and minimum delay.'' I
agree that accuracy is very important in dealing with the
dissemination of information, as evidenced by recent events
that have occurred in the past few months. In my case, many of
these have occurred in the Pacific and Asian areas. How do you
propose to engage and gain the support of the public as the
Department of Defense addresses the threats of the 21st
century?
Ms. Clarke. I think there are two answers, Senator. The
first part is to make sure, on a regular, consistent basis, in
as timely and accurate a fashion as possible, you give them
complete information, the good and the bad, about what is going
on. I think that is an absolute priority.
At the same time, I think it's critical that we do
something that probably hasn't been done for quite some time.
That is, on an ongoing basis, engage the American people, not
just the men and women in uniform and their families, although
I think they're absolutely critical as well, but engage the
American people in a conversation and a dialogue, if you will,
about the risks we face in the 21st century, about the kinds of
changes that might be appropriate. The challenges are too
great, and the issues too serious, not to engage all of them in
that.
So if the first motto of the Department, I hope, will be
``maximum disclosure and minimum delay,'' I hope another motto
that people will come to think about is ``outreach, outreach,
outreach.'' I think we should be talking to and responding to
and educating and making aware everyone we can find. Talk to
them about the risks, about the solutions, talk to them about
the commitments these men and women make. It's very telling,
you asked many questions about the people who are actually
serving, and the stresses and the pressures on them. I think
it's very important the American people see, up close and
personal, the kind of commitment these men and women are
willing to make, the kinds of challenges they face and the
kinds of risks they face, as we've seen over the last few
weeks. Increasingly, there are few people in society who have
much real-life experience with the military. So I think it's
really important that we focus on that outreach so they can see
what's going on.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much for your responses, and
I congratulate you on your nominations. Thank you very much,
Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Senator Reed, I'm going to be the wrap up,
so I'm going to let all members go ahead. You go right ahead.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Then to Senator Dayton, and then we'll go
into another round of questions if there are others.
Senator Reed. Let me first address a question to Mr. Abell.
But before I do that, let me associate myself with all the high
praise that you richly deserve. You've been a key member of
this committee's staff, and you've served every member with
great diligence and professionalism, Charlie. It's a mixed
blessing; we're glad for you, but sorry to see you go.
Let me address a question. We often spend a great deal of
time about the recruitment and retention within the uniformed
services, but I think you're going to be facing a real
challenge with respect to recruitment of civilian Department of
Defense officials and retaining a very qualified workforce. I
wonder if you've given any thought to what you might do.
Mr. Abell. Yes, Senator, I have. I'm concerned about that.
There are a number of senior civilians who will be retiring.
I'm concerned about the developmental programs that enable
folks to be developed professionally to fill those positions.
I'm concerned about whether or not Federal civil service is
attractive to men and women out in America, just like the
military service is, and I look forward to getting into those
issues. I'm not as familiar with those as I am with the
military personnel policies, and so it is going to be a matter
of some focus to me to roll up my sleeves and get involved in
it.
Senator Reed. Well, we have every confidence you will roll
up your sleeves.
Dr. Zakheim, again, welcome. One of the major initiatives
that has been taking place over the last two decades has been
an attempt to foster more ``jointness'' in the Department of
Defense, and we have made some progress with uniformed officers
serving in joint assignments with a requirement for promotion
to have a joint assignment. But I think in the area of
management systems and procurement systems, in the financial
guts of DOD, we have made very little progress in
``jointness.'' Could you mention how you perceive the problem
and what your instincts are at this moment?
Dr. Zakheim. Certainly, Senator. First, again, thanks so
much for the very kind words. I really do appreciate them.
Certainly, one cannot say that on financial management
we've received anything like a Goldwater-Nichols. Of course, it
was this committee that was very much behind that. We have
``jointness'' in the military that was unprecedented when I
came to the Pentagon in 1981. I believe that the only way one
can achieve anything remotely like that in the financial
management side of the Department is by conveying the sense of
high-level attention. The Secretary of Defense is personally
committed to making this happen. If I am confirmed, I'm
personally committed to making this happen. I hope to work with
the team of people who will focus on this full-time.
In addition, the Secretary of Defense has made it clear
that he wants the service secretaries to work as a team. One of
the highest priorities in that team effort is getting
coordinated financial management. So I believe with that degree
of top-level involvement, we will make some progress.
Senator Reed. I know it's very early. In fact, I presume
you really have been barred from any significant discussions
about planning as it goes on today in the Pentagon. That is a
correct presumption, isn't it?
Dr. Zakheim. Yes.
Senator Reed. But do you anticipate, given your background,
that legislation would be required to effectuate the kind of
integration of financial measures and systems that you
anticipate?
Dr. Zakheim. It may well be, in certain respects, and I
would hope to work with this committee and with other cognizant
committees to identify those sorts of requirements. It's very
important that the Department work very closely with Congress
on these matters. Certainly, if I'm confirmed, I intend to make
this not just an occasional practice, but a regular one.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Dr. Zakheim. Ms. Clarke,
best wishes. I'm sure you're going to do a fabulous job.
Ms. Clarke. Thank you.
Senator Reed. You also have a problem of ``jointness,''
which is you have three services that have their own public
affairs operations. Do you have a plan at the moment to either
do more integration or more decentralization, or less?
Ms. Clarke. Sir, I've actually had the opportunity to meet
with the heads of public affairs from the three services in my
private-sector life, and----
Chairman Warner. Let me interrupt. There are four
services----
Ms. Clarke. Yes.
Chairman Warner. The United States Marine Corps, I say to
my graduate of the West Point Academy here----[Laughter.]
Excuse me for the interruption.
Senator Reed. Mr. Chairman, I obviously stand corrected. I
don't know what came over me. [Laughter.]
Chairman Warner. All right. What came over Ms. Clarke? She
picked right up on the same response. [Laughter.]
Senator Reed. Well, she's in an awkward position. She has
to be polite. I should be accurate. Forgive me.
Senator Levin. Actually, you were really testing Ms.
Clarke, and she came through.
Senator Reed. She came through. She was wonderful.
Senator Levin. It was a very conscious effort. I've seen
him do that before. He really knew there were four services,
but he wanted to see just how much you knew. [Laughter.]
Senator Reed. Well, what I--I misspoke. There are three
service secretaries. Chairman Warner is right--I misspoke.
Chairman Warner is always right. That's a good rule on this
committee, by the way. [Laughter.]
Ms. Clarke. As I've been told many times by those in the
Navy, there is no secretary of the Marines, is there--but there
are four heads of Public Affairs, and they are all very
talented, very professional people, and I have had the
opportunity to meet with them. If confirmed, I look forward to
working with them closely. I think the focus on ``jointness''
is absolutely appropriate and absolutely vital, so I look
forward to working with them.
I have not thought through--because I did not want to
presume anything--I haven't thought through the structure, but
I have thought, in general terms, about trying to find a
process, trying to find a way to work more closely together.
Senator Reed. Thank you. Just one final question. Dr.
Zakheim, you have spent a lifetime studying strategic issues
and bringing to that study, not just academic theoretical
instincts, but also the knowledge of budgets and how they work,
how they're put together. I'm just wondering about your view,
as we look ahead, the budget you're seeing emerging, is that
adequate to do modernization and then attempt, if feasible, to
do some very expensive projects, like national missile defense?
Dr. Zakheim. Well, the Secretary of Defense wants very much
to have a top-down approach to this whole matter--that is to
say, to lay out the strategy and then to coordinate the budgets
with that strategy. So, in fact, right now, he has a strategic
review that is ongoing; and hopefully, the budgets and the
program would then reflect that review. If confirmed, I would
hope very much to participate in that activity, but we're
putting first things first.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Senator Dayton.
Senator Dayton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Clarke, I
won't use any numbers in my questioning or comments, but I want
to second what Senator Bunning said about--I'm new to this
committee, and when I read your remarks there that there is a
Principles of Information, I made a note to myself to get a
copy of that, because I'm not aware that--what I imagine they
must be, and what your remarks have suggested is followed in
practice. The U.S.S. Greeneville incident, to me, was a classic
case of providing as little information as absolutely
necessary. Except for watching the television news,
investigative reports, and the newspapers, I don't think a lot
of it would have come to light. So I certainly support his
comments and urge you to act accordingly.
Similarly with the bombing of the Iraq radar installations,
I remember my staff picking that up on CNN and trying to find
somewhere to call and inquire as I was about to walk into a
Minnesota defense establishment and not being able to even get
a courtesy of reply. So I would say good luck to you. You have
a long way to go.
Ms. Clarke. Thank you, Senator. I will need the support.
The Principles of Information, which I'd be happy to provide,
do state clearly that it's the utmost responsibility to release
news and information in as timely and accurate a fashion as
possible. The only time you withhold information, according to
the Principles, is if it would adversely affect national
security or it would threaten the privacy or the safety of the
men and women in uniform.
I absolutely believe that, as many people say, bad news
doesn't get better with age; so get it out there, and get it
out there accurately.
Senator Dayton. Well, I would like to receive a copy of the
Principles. My solution would be to get a direct phone number
for your office. But in either respect, I'm----
Ms. Clarke. You can have it.
Senator Dayton.--encouraged by what you said.
Mr. Abell, I note your comments about the importance of
recruiting and retaining top-qualified military personnel, and
I assume that applies to the Department, as well. Could you
elaborate a bit on what you propose to do, or what you
contemplate, in terms of--especially in making life better for
the families of men and women in our service and improving the
retention of them?
Mr. Abell. Senator, I think, first, recruiting and
retention are a matter of constant vigilance. It is my
experience that anytime that a service takes its eye off of
either of those two tasks, it is inevitable that they have
suffered. So I will be, if confirmed, one who pushes for
maintaining that constant vigilance.
I also believe that the services are now--have responded
well to some problems in the recent past and are being very
innovative and visionary in their approaches to recruiting and
to retention, and they are to be congratulated. I think the
results, both last year and the projected results for this
year--we just had a hearing this morning in the Personnel
Subcommittee--are very encouraging, and they reflect well on
the hard work of a lot of people. I think we need to keep
looking for the fresh way to address these problems with a
crisp delivery of a good message.
As for the quality of life of our families--again, very
important for retention--it is one of the focuses of Secretary
Rumsfeld's strategic review. I have not been briefed on their
progress, and I look forward to receiving that brief, if
confirmed.
Senator Dayton. I would just note that, in the budget
process, there were a couple of amendments, including the
Chairman's, which was adopted, which provided additional funds
which could be used for, among other purposes, those
improvements.
I was at the National Training Center in California during
the recess and asked a couple of the commanding generals there
what they thought were the greatest needs. They both--one said,
``I'm an armaments expert, but the quality of life for the pay
benefits and standards of living for our families is what would
be most valuable and supportive of my mission.'' So I look
forward to your returning and to the administration coming
forward, whether it's a supplemental appropriation or future
requests, and really take advantage of the support of the
members of this committee for those kinds of improvements.
Mr. Abell. Thank you, sir.
Senator Dayton. I would add, as part of that--and I noted
with interest your referencing the health benefits dilemma that
many reservists and National Guard members face. In Minnesota,
we have reservists and members of the Guard who were called up
for a period of 3 to 5 months, and the economic hardships which
they and their families encountered, health being one of them--
again, I would hope and urge that they not be forgotten when it
comes to these kinds of financial and other improvements.
Mr. Abell. I assure you, Senator, I will look at the total
force.
Senator Dayton. Thank you. Dr. Zakheim, when Secretary
Rumsfeld has met with us, he has cited his concern about the
length of time and increasing length of time from the
authorization and design of these weapons systems to their
deployment now, some getting to be some 8 to 10 years. I wonder
if you've had the chance to think about what kind of financial
procedures--I know from the standpoint of military contractors
in Minnesota, it's often very time consuming and contributes to
these overall delays, getting swift billing and receipts and
the like.
Conversely, on the other side, according to Senator Byrd
and others that have longer experience than I, it's almost
astronomical amounts of money that can't be accounted for
within the system. So we have this anomaly that, on the one
hand, it seems that many of the procedures and requirements
just extend delays, but they don't end up accounting for the
money. Do you have a way to reconcile and solve those problems?
Dr. Zakheim. Well, it's not an easy challenge, Senator. I
understand that, in the matter of what Senator Byrd is very
concerned about--and he mentions, I think, $4\1/2\ trillion--
there are technical answers to that question, but I think there
is more than a germ of truth to his concern. If confirmed, one
of my highest priorities would certainly be to, in particular,
work to make sure that the various different sources of
information are all congruent, because it is my impression--and
I do have to study this more, Senator--but it is my impression
that the various--what are called feeder systems and various
sources of information simply don't speak to each other, and
that is where a lot of this falls between the cracks.
As to your first point, Senator, regarding the acquisition
cycle, I am fully aware of Secretary Rumsfeld's concerns. There
are some studies going on, as part of the overall strategic
review, to look at this particular question. Obviously, how one
deals with the funding of these programs is an integral part of
it.
So, if confirmed, I very much would hope to be involved in
reconciling the financial side to the pure mechanics of the
acquisition side so that the program can be speeded up.
Senator Dayton. Thank you. I would appreciate your sharing
those reports with me when they become available. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator. Senator Bunning, do
you have a question, too? Senator Levin? All right. You go,
then I'll do wrap-up.
Senator Levin. Thank you. I appreciate your yielding to me,
Mr. Chairman, so I could leave in a few minutes.
First, Ms. Clarke, last year, the editor of Stars and
Stripes resigned because he was not allowed to publish a story
even after the story was published in the Washington Post. I'm
wondering whether or not you believe that Stars and Stripes
should enjoy the same freedom to publish as other U.S.
newspapers.
Ms. Clarke. Absolutely, Senator. I think Stars and Stripes
should be as independent and as credible as possible. It
provides a very valuable service to the men and women in
uniform and their families who serve overseas. It gives them
news and information that they want, and they need and deserve
to know that it is absolutely credible and independent. I think
the safeguards are there. If confirmed, I would make sure the
safeguards are enforced.
Chairman Warner. That's encouraging to hear that. I concur
in your response.
Senator Levin. There is some real concern about that here,
which you've just alleviated.
Mr. Abell, what actions are you going to take to enhance
recruiter access to secondary schools? This is a big part of
our recruiting issue.
Mr. Abell. Yes, sir. As you're aware, sir, as you recall,
in last year's defense authorization bill, there was a
provision that actually requires recruiter access unless the
local school board takes some action. That provision is not
effective until July 2002. This morning in the hearing,
recruiters reported to us that their access was improving as a
result of that, but they still sought more support. I think
there are some things that we can do to encourage school
systems to be more open to recruiters between now and 2002.
Then in 2002, we'll follow the implementation of that
provision.
Senator Levin. What initiatives would you propose to
improve the employment of spouses of our service members? That
also is a big part of retention.
Mr. Abell. Yes, sir. It's a difficult problem and one that,
as I've traveled on the committee's staff, we find, at almost
every location, is brought to our attention. There are a number
of things that could be done, Senator--more education, tuition
assistance for spouses. I, if confirmed, look forward to
working with local civic organizations and chambers of commerce
on initiatives like that to see what we can do.
Senator Levin. There's been some evidence at least--
perhaps, anecdotal evidence--that we're beginning to lose the
support of employers of our Reserve component personnel because
of the deployments that we have seen. Any plans to address
those concerns?
Mr. Abell. Senator, I've heard the same anecdotes. I, if
confirmed, would like to work very closely with the Assistant
Secretary for Reserve Affairs to examine this and try to
determine the causal factors and actually determine--change it
from anecdote to evidence to find out what the real problem is
and then address that problem. It may be one of communication,
it may be one of over-deploying certain units and not others.
Senator Levin. If confirmed, will you recommend a medal for
children who sit through these confirmation hearings?
[Laughter.]
Ms. Clarke, I must tell you, you have really extraordinary
children. They have been wonderful. I can't take my eyes off
them. We will call it the ``Clarke Medal,'' if Mr. Abell is
able to produce that. I just want to thank all of you. I
shouldn't single out family members. You're all really
deserving of medals for many reasons, but your children have
really been extraordinary. So please give them all of our
thanks.
Ms. Clarke. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator Levin. The committee
really enjoys its responsibilities in the confirmation process.
It gives us an opportunity to share, not only views and elicit
responses, but we really are appreciative of the overall family
contribution to this public service. I thank you, Senator
Levin.
I will start with you, Ms. Clarke. Crisis management--it's
just remarkable how your predecessors from time to time really
are on the point at all hours of the day and night. Secretary
Rumsfeld, I think, has a very good policy. He's been very
careful in keeping Congress informed, certainly this
committee--I can speak for the Senate side--in consultation
with members of this committee and others about decisions that
he's making.
But then we have the tragic incident of the accident with
the Chinese aircraft. I was called early in the morning, as
were other members of this committee. I'm sure those
responsibilities will fall on you. Tell us a bit about how
you're going to go about this, because often you are the point
person, particularly when the military families had their loved
ones, at the end of the long voyage, or flight, whatever the
case may be, at some remote part of the world and trouble is
there--the anxiety in their hearts--you recognize that, being a
family person, yourself.
Ms. Clarke. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Tell us a bit about how you're going to
approach that responsibility.
Ms. Clarke. Certainly, Mr. Chairman. I hesitate to quote
from somebody from just one service, but I think it was General
MacArthur who said, ``The key to success and victory is
preparation.'' I think that holds true across the board,
including crisis management, including being prepared for the
inevitable crises.
If confirmed, one of the first things I want to do is to
look into what is the planning, what processes do we have in
place, and who is responsible for making sure the public
affairs aspect of these incidents is addressed at the earliest
possible position. I know there are some things in place, but I
want to give it the utmost attention to ensure, when things do
happen, the right people know, and the American people know as
quickly as possible. So it's a matter of planning and process.
Chairman Warner. Would you elaborate a little bit? By the
way, I don't question General MacArthur's quote, but Admiral
Jellico used to say, ``All preparation for naval battles starts
in the engine room.'' In those days, they battened the hatches,
and everybody in the engine room knew they were not going to
come out and they had better stoke those old coal boilers and
get full power for the captain to maneuver his ship. I've
always enjoyed military history, and I hope that you share that
curiosity and find a few moments to probe the magnificent
contributions, certainly of those who have worn the uniform of
this country for generations past. Congress--how do you propose
to deal with Congress? Now, there's a long history about
relationships with Congress and I would hope this Department
sets a new high record for fairness and firmness, when
necessary.
Ms. Clarke. Well, Mr. Chairman, I will work closely with my
legislative counterpart to make sure that you, this committee,
the staff, and 535 Members of Congress get as much information
as quickly as possible. Just by way of insight to how
passionately I feel about this, I did work for John McCain for
6\1/2\ years, and every day was a delight; but I know how
important it is to be kept informed by the agencies, so I'll
make that a priority.
Chairman Warner. Also, I must say, you had the privilege of
working with our former president, George Bush. I know of no
finer American. I really have the greatest admiration for him,
and I envy you for your close relationship with him.
Ms. Clarke. It was an honor to work for him.
Chairman Warner. It was mentioned in the hearing today, the
problems that we're having with recruiting and retention, and
the stories you relate and how you relate them will have a
direct impact. I'm sure the secretary-to-be Abell can work with
you on that, because he has studied it from afar, and now he
will be in the responsible position on that. Do you have any
special insights into that problem?
Ms. Clarke. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Two years ago, I was
fortunate to work on a recruiting study. It started out as a
very narrow look at the advertising that was being used by the
recruiting commands, and then it became a broader look at the
recruiting marketing. We spent 6 very intense months working
with the services, working with everybody, from the Secretary
on down, on how we could improve the marketing on recruiting
efforts. One of the things that was so extraordinary to us--we
came about it by chance, and we made part of the research--is
we interviewed everybody from the Secretary on down to the rank
and file to the general public. There was very little
consistency expressed about the role of the U.S. military--very
little consistency. It's very hard to go out there and recruit
when people, including people in uniform, don't have a real
clear picture of what they're about, about what their mission
is.
So I think it's absolutely critical, and part of my agenda
will be, to make sure the American people do know what the role
of the U.S. military is in the 21st century. I think that will
help with recruiting and retention.
Chairman Warner. Well, that's a good response, because that
is a key thing that we're going to have to deal with. There's a
tremendous investment the American taxpayers make in the
training of our service persons. We're so fortunate, when
numbers of them decide to repeat their tours of duty, in the
case of enlisted or, indeed, in the case of the officers, to go
ahead and accept another promotion with the obligation of
active duty associated. So I wish you luck.
The other--and I think I'd better speak and you just
listen--but, again, having had some experience in the
Department and watching it from this side now for these many
years, there's a certain degree of independence that a
Secretary of Defense should and does accord to the Service
Secretaries and their respective chiefs, but from time to time,
we see examples of how a military department will go out on an
issue and then problems begin to arise.
I'm not being critical, but recently the Army made
decisions with regard to the simplest of things, the beret, and
we were besieged on Capitol Hill. Then, of course, they could
not have foreseen the tragic problem with China. That
exacerbated it. Then had to go back through a reassessment. I
would hope that the Secretary and yourself can work with these
departments on certain decisions which have a high profile of
public interest and do everything possible to go ahead and
implement that decision and do it by laying a careful base of
understanding before it is rolled out.
Ms. Clarke. Mr. Chairman, if confirmed, I hope that one of
the things I can do is inject the public affairs sensitivities,
if you will, at the earliest stages to prevent just those sorts
of problems.
Chairman Warner. Well, that's wonderful. I'm very reassured
by your responses. We haven't heard a peep from the back row
yet, so I guess----
Ms. Clarke. Well, my colleagues are actually being very
patient, because we're hearing lots of peeps back here. They're
being very patient. [Laughter.]
Chairman Warner. Dr. Zakheim, we had a marvelous
conversation the other day--it's always enjoyable to have those
calls from the nominees--and you reflected, and I would like to
have the record reflect, your comments to me about one of your
predecessors, Dr. John Hamre. He is just so respected by this
committee. My parting comment was to you, call him up every now
an then when things are going tough and say, ``How did you deal
with this?''
Dr. Zakheim. Mr. Chairman, for the record then, I have
known John Hamre since he left graduate school, and I know he
served this committee with distinction. John Hamre is one of
the finest people--not just public servants, but people who I
have ever come across. The man has truly a heart of gold. He
demonstrates that in very quiet ways. He is not a showboater.
The CSIS, the Center for Strategic and International Studies,
of which I happen to be a senior fellow, is lucky to have him
as President. This is one of the finest people in this city.
Actually, it was you, Mr. Chairman, who said, ``No one has a
bad word to say about John.'' The only people that don't have
bad things said about them are people who are exceedingly good,
and I value him as a friend.
Chairman Warner. That he is. He, of course, served in your
position, then went on to be the number two man in the
Department, and he stayed on for part of the transition to--
when he passed the mantle over to another distinguished House
member, who became Deputy Secretary of Defense, so he served
his country well.
In the course of working with Dr. Hamre, I took an
initiative along the following lines. This committee enacted
legislation last year to pay interest on service contracts that
DFAS takes more than 30 days to pay, and I would hope that this
committee has your commitment that you will continue to work to
resolve this problem with the intent of reaching an on-time
payment rate of these accounts at 100 percent. Do we have that?
Dr. Zakheim. Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm not expert in this.
It's obviously a very important issue to this committee, and I
intend to look into it and certainly to carry out all
commitments the Department has made.
Chairman Warner. There's really a broader issue, and that
is I have seen, through the years, a diminution in the
infrastructure that supports our national defense--fewer
companies. We're down now to one major manufacturer of our
civil aircraft. In years past, the military aircraft programs
produced prototypes, then operational aircraft and the
derivatives found their way into civilian aviation, just to
give one example. Quite frankly, I've stayed very close to this
industry, and they're telling me, in a polite way, ``We're
struggling with so much DOD regulation and red tape, why don't
we just go and devote more of our assets of our corporation and
our manpower of the corporation to performing lucrative, less
complicated contracts, payment on time, in the civilian private
sector?'' Therefore, you have to be conscious of that.
Dr. Zakheim. Mr. Chairman, I served on the Defense Science
Board Task Force on the health of the defense industry, and,
frankly, they weren't as polite to us about this as they were
to you. It is not just a matter of those companies that are
working with the Defense Department and putting up with, as you
put it, red tape; it's also a lot of very talented companies
and people that don't want to touch the Defense Department at
all. Here, we have a high-tech revolution going on, and very
few of those companies want to have any business with DOD.
We heard that in spades, Mr. Chairman, and I'm deeply
concerned about it, and I know the Secretary of Defense is, as
well. Certainly if confirmed, I intend, to the extent that the
Comptroller gets into these matters, to do something about
that.
Chairman Warner. Well, in fact, the budget process has been
singled out often as the major contributor to lengthening the
acquisition process.
Dr. Zakheim. That is very--unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, is
often the case, and what we need are stable budgets. We need
budgets that are predictable for industry. Corporate planners
also have to think ahead. This has to be a partnership. So, Mr.
Chairman, I am certainly aware of your concern, and I do share
it.
Chairman Warner. Thank you. Now, Mr. Abell, this committee
has made some significant progress over the years here,
following Chairman Thurmond and with the help of my
distinguished ranking member. We have increased pay. We're in a
remarkable step forward in military healthcare, both active and
retired. Now that you're leaving, are you going to leave behind
a little memo as to what's next? Are you going to help us, as
you did lead in those legislative efforts, with what's next?
Housing comes to mind. The problems associated with base
maintenance which, in effect, relates to the quality of life on
base. What is next, Mr. Abell?
Mr. Abell. I think you have hit some of them, Senator.
Clearly, the pay always remains an issue, and will as long as
there is a robust economy. Housing, both bachelor and family
quarters, we know are not adequate now within the Department of
Defense, and there are a number of programs under way, some
just beginning, actually, to improve that housing.
I'm, again, aware that that's a focus of some of Secretary
Rumsfeld's efforts; and to the extent that can be accelerated,
I look forward to working with those issues. Again, sir, we're
going to have to keep on the deployment issue. One of the
things we hear when we talk to service members is that they're
away much too much.
Chairman Warner. Away from family--you had better add that
key phrase, ``away from family.'' They all recognize, when they
wear that uniform with great pride, the risks associated, but
we have had a deployment situation over the past 6 or 8 years
which, numerically, has been more than any previous president
and, indeed, the combination of several of them. Am I correct
in that? What is the statistic you recall?
Mr. Abell. Senator, I can't quote it directly off the top
of my head, but my recollection is that in the past 8 years,
they've deployed more than any other time in history. That's my
recollection.
Chairman Warner. That's correct. We will always be there in
response to our own security needs and those of our allies. But
I hope that we can work to reduce those deployments.
But let's talk about what's next. I would like to see
greater partnering with the private sector, in the case of
housing. Maybe we can further enhancements with healthcare.
What are your views on that?
Mr. Abell. Senator, we already know that the Department
can't provide enough healthcare with its internal assets, the
medical departments of the three services. TRICARE is all about
purchasing healthcare from the private sector. So we have to be
more efficient about that, and more effective, but that clearly
is a step in that direction.
This committee has pioneered many of the public-private
ventures, as far as family housing. I was privileged, this past
week, to look at initiatives and the results of those
initiatives in Texas and in California and in Washington State,
some very promising opportunities there, also some problems
that still need to be addressed as we begin, really, the thrust
of those initiatives. I look forward to working with the
committee on those issues and on others.
There are other areas in which the public-private ventures
will be explored, as well. Morale, welfare, and recreation
facilities come to mind. There are certainly opportunities
there, I believe.
Chairman Warner. Well, I am reassured by that. Dr. Zakheim,
you do more than just sign checks and hand them over to the
Secretary. I hope that he brings you into whatever little board
of governors he constitutes, or whatever you want to call the
organization in DOD, and that you will be given a strong voice,
and he will lend an ear, because you understand how, in years
past, the comptrollers have been called upon to take as much
money as they can out of procurement and move it in to fill the
gaps in the expenditures--on overseas deployments, for example.
Mr. Abell knows that history very well.
I hope that you can say, ``Now, Mr. Secretary, we are way
behind in the modernization of our forces, and that has a
direct correlation to retention, lifestyle, the whole thing,''
because when an individual raises their hand to take the oath
of office to serve in the U.S. military, that person is relying
on a commitment to Congress to give them the best weapons
available--maybe not the most expensive or exotic, but the best
available--and they should not be required to take spare parts
out of existing equipment to put in other equipment to meet
their readiness requirements, and things of this nature.
So put your foot down, think of the military in the future.
Procurement is the lifeblood for today's and tomorrow's
military, and we cannot under-fund that account. We're going to
watch. Guess what? We're going to hold you accountable. Is that
understood?
Dr. Zakheim. That is very well understood, Mr. Chairman. I
happen, personally, to share your views on this one. I've
actually written about this on more than one occasion.
Thankfully, Mr. Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense, feels very
strongly the same way, so that, if confirmed, I do not believe
I will be beating against a shut door when I raise those
issues. This is widely felt by the senior leadership of the
Department. We simply cannot shortchange the future to fund the
present. It's as simple as that.
Chairman Warner. All right. We will keep the record open
for questions by the members through 12 noon tomorrow, should
other members who, because of commitments, were not able to get
here today. I would hope the nominees would respond, because
I'm anxious to seek floor confirmation as early as possible.
It may be we can move you as a group, or singularly,
whatever the case may be. There is no significance to be drawn
by the fact that all can't be moved at once, but we're going to
try and do it, because Secretary Rumsfeld has been very
patient. But this committee has had, if I may say on behalf of
every member of the committee, treated all nominees very
carefully, but expeditiously where we can, and we are anxious
to have you join the team with the advice and consent of the
United States Senate.
So I wish each of you well. You're going to take a front-
row seat on some of the greatest challenges facing this country
and the world, and I think each of you are ably competent to
fulfill your offices. Good luck.
[Whereupon, at 5:15 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[Prepared questions submitted to Dr. Dov S. Zakheim by
Chairman Warner prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
March 21, 2001.
Hon. John Warner,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Enclosed herewith are the answers to the advance
questions the Senate Armed Services Committee asked me to complete.
Sincerely,
Dov S. Zakheim.
cc: Senator Carl Levin,
Ranking Minority Member.
______
Questions and Responses
defense reforms
Question. More than 10 years have passed since the enactment of the
Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and
the Special Operations reforms. From your close association with
defense issues, you have had an opportunity to observe the
implementation and impact of those reforms.
Do you support full implementation of these defense reforms?
Answer. Yes I do. The establishment of the combatant commands, the
delineation of responsibilities, and most importantly, the focus on
``jointness'' outlined in the Department of Defense Reorganization Act
of 1986 has enhanced the readiness and warfighting capabilities of the
U.S. Armed Forces.
Question. What is your view of the extent to which these defense
reforms have been implemented?
Answer. These reforms have strengthened the role of the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the combatant commanders, and
significantly improved the ability of the Department to protect
America's security and further its vital interests. The reforms have
helped improve the interaction among the services in conducting
military operations by making joint operations the norm.
Question. What do you consider to be the most important aspects of
these defense reforms?
Answer. I would consider each of the goals noted below to be an
important aspect of these defense reforms. Each one has enhanced the
ability of the Department of Defense to carry out its assigned
responsibilities.
Question. The goals of Congress in enacting these defense reforms,
as reflected in section 3 of the Goldwater-Nichols Department of
Defense Reorganization Act, can be summarized as strengthening civilian
control; improving military advice; placing a clear responsibility on
the combatant commanders for the accomplishment of their missions;
ensuring the authority of the combatant commanders is commensurate with
their responsibility; increasing attention to the formulation of
strategy and to contingency planning; providing for more efficient use
of defense resources; and enhancing the effectiveness of military
operations and improving the management and administration of the
Department of Defense.
Do you agree with these goals?
Answer. Yes, I support the goals of Congress in enacting the
reforms of the Goldwater-Nichols legislation.
Question. Do you anticipate that the Department of Defense will
submit legislative proposals to amend Goldwater-Nichols?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work as appropriate with the Secretary
and with the committee to review the extent to which the reforms have
been implemented and the extent to which they have achieved their
stated goals. As Secretary Rumsfeld has noted, we would consult with
Congress on any changes that might be appropriate.
Question. If so, what areas do you plan to address in these
proposals?
Answer. It would be premature to offer any thoughts on the question
at this time.
relationships
Question. What do you see as the relationship between the Under
Secretary of Defense, Comptroller and each of the following?
The Secretary of Defense.
Answer. The Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) is the
principal assistant and advisor to the Secretary and Deputy Secretary
of Defense on fiscal and budgetary matters. The Under Secretary
(Comptroller) also performs such other duties as the Secretary or
Deputy Secretary may prescribe.
Question. The Deputy Secretary of Defense.
Answer. Please see the answer above.
Question. The other Under Secretaries of Defense.
Answer. My relationship with all other senior officials of the
Department will, for the most part, be based on the role described
above. If confirmed, I will work closely with the other Under
Secretaries to carry out the policies and guidance of the Secretary and
Deputy Secretary.
Question. The Assistant Secretaries of Defense.
Answer. My relationship with the Assistant Secretaries of Defense
and other senior officials of the Office of the Secretary of Defense
would be similar to that described above in relation to the other Under
Secretaries of Defense.
Question. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Answer. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is the principal
military advisor to the President, the National Security Council, and
the Secretary of Defense. If confirmed, I intend to work closely with
the Chairman.
Question. The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Answer. The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has a vital
role in developing and implementing joint plans, programs, and policies
for the Services. If confirmed, I anticipate working closely with the
Vice Chairman.
Question. The Secretaries of the Military Departments.
Answer. The Secretaries of the Military Departments carry out the
policies of the President and the Secretary of Defense in their
respective Military Departments and formulate recommendations to the
Secretary and to Congress relating to their Military Departments and
the Department of Defense. If confirmed, I intend to work closely with
the Secretaries of the Military Departments, and specifically, their
Assistant Secretaries for Financial Management. I will assure that they
are aware of the President's and the Secretary of Defense's policies
and priorities and assist them in contributing to the successful
development and implementation of effective DOD policies and programs.
Question. The Assistant Secretaries of the Military Departments for
Financial Management.
Answer. In the role of Comptroller and Chief Financial Officer for
the Department, I will, if confirmed, work closely with the Assistant
Secretaries of the Military Departments for Financial Management in the
development and execution of the budgetary and fiscal policies and
initiatives of the President and the Secretary of Defense.
Question. The Inspector General.
Answer. As the Department's Comptroller and Chief Financial
Officer, I will, if confirmed, consider it my responsibility to support
the Department of Defense Inspector General (DODIG) in carrying out his
or her duties as set forth in the Inspector General Act.
duties of the comptroller
Question. The duties of the Comptroller of the Department of
Defense are set forth in Section 137 of Title 10, United States Code,
and in DOD Directive 5118.3. Among the duties prescribed in statute,
which were codified in the Goldwater-Nichols Act, are advising and
assisting the Secretary of Defense in ``supervising and directing the
preparation of budget estimates of the Department of Defense,''
establishing and supervising Department of Defense accounting policies,
and supervising the expenditure of Department of Defense funds.
Assuming you are confirmed, what duties do you expect that
Secretary Rumsfeld will prescribe for you?
Answer. I expect that he will charge me to do everything possible
to derive the greatest national security benefit from every budget
dollar. With respect to financial management, he will want me to get
our books in order and work to ensure that all DOD support activities
meet the needs of our combat forces.
Question. What background and experience do you possess that you
believe qualifies you to perform the duties of the Comptroller?
Answer. My previous appointments in the Department of Defense
required daily and extensive involvement in budget issues. For over 20
years I have been enmeshed in the defense questions that surround the
budget process. I have led and managed offices with responsibilities
similar to those in the Comptroller organization.
Question. Do you believe that there are any steps that you need to
take to enhance your expertise to perform these duties?
Answer. Since informed of my nomination, I have worked extensively
to further increase my expertise for this position.
Question. Do you expect Secretary Rumsfeld to make any changes in
the duties of the Comptroller as set out in DOD Directive 5118.3?
Answer. It would be premature to offer any thoughts on the question
at this time.
chief financial officer
Question. Does Secretary Rumsfeld intend to continue to designate
you, if confirmed as the Comptroller, as the Chief Financial Officer of
the Department of Defense?
Answer. Yes, if I am confirmed, I will be the Department's Chief
Financial Officer.
Question. If so, what would be your major responsibilities as Chief
Financial Officer?
Answer. If I am confirmed, I will report directly to the Secretary
regarding overall financial management matters within the Department.
As Chief Financial Officer of the Department, I will be entrusted with
the oversight, design, development and implementation of accounting and
financial management systems within the Department. These
responsibilities complement the Comptroller's oversight
responsibilities of broad budget and programming activities within the
Department.
Question. Does Secretary Rumsfeld intend to transfer any
responsibilities now assigned to the Comptroller by law or regulation
to the Chief Financial Officer?
Answer. No. The Secretary does not intend to transfer any of the
Chief Financial Officer responsibilities.
financial management and accountability
Question. DOD's financial management deficiencies have been the
subject of many audit reports over the past 10 or more years. Each
year, we hear about various strategies and initiatives the Department
or its components are undertaking to correct these deficiencies, yet
the issues still remain and the data continues to be unreliable.
What do you plan to do to provide the needed leadership and
commitment necessary to ensure results and improve financial management
in the Department?
Answer. I am fully committed to improving financial management in
the Department of Defense. Secretary Rumsfeld has stated that improving
the quality of financial management information is one of his highest
priorities. If confirmed, I intend to solicit the direct involvement of
the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary to instill a sense of urgency in
the Department's senior leadership. Second, I intend to draw from
successful private sector models in the development and implementation
of modern financial management processes and systems.
Question. The Chief Financial Officers Act, as amended, requires
the annual preparation and audit of financial statements for Federal
agencies. However, the DOD Inspector General and GAO's financial audit
results have continually pointed out serious internal control
weaknesses concerning hundreds of billions of dollars of material and
equipment, as well as billions of dollars of errors in the Department's
financial records.
Do you believe in the importance of following basic internal
control procedures, and how will you correct this situation?
Answer. Effective internal controls are an absolute necessity. If
confirmed, I intend to ensure that effective internal controls are
embedded in all of the Department's financial management processes and
systems. The internal controls in the non-financial feeder systems,
such as property and inventory, must also be strengthened. I look
forward to the results of the independent review of the Department's
financial management problems that Secretary Rumsfeld has initiated.
Question. If you are confirmed as the Comptroller for the
Department of Defense you will be responsible for a budget of
approximately $310 billion.
What do you consider to be the top financial management issues to
be addressed by the Department over the next 5 years?
Answer. One of the most important financial management issues
facing the Department of Defense is the need for accurate and timely
financial management information. Managers across the Department must
have better information on the costs of operations and programs in
order to ensure accountability and the most effective use of the
taxpayers dollars. Obviously, measure of progress toward this goal will
be to achieve a clean audit opinion on the Department's financial
statements. However, the Department must have processes and systems
that do more than prepare accurate financial statements once a year.
The Department's financial management systems must be able to provide
managers with accurate information at appropriate levels of aggregation
that will facilitate fiscally sound decision-making.
I believe that the Department must focus on implementing compliant
automated financial management and feeder systems. The large volume of
transactions and the extensive number of organizational elements
necessitates an automated solution. Unfortunately, fielding compliant
accounting and financial management systems on time and within budget
has been a major departmental weakness. As part of a systems
implementation effort, the Department must also address the lack of
standardization in its financial management data structures. The lack
of standard data structures has been a significant impediment to the
development and implementation of effective financial management
systems.
Question. To effectively evaluate the management of an organization
you need to have a clear set of standards to use as criteria. DOD has
no shortage of financial management plans. However, we have seen
minimal progress in terms of implementing real improvements in the
Department's financial operations.
What are the most important performance measurements you would use
to evaluate changes in the Department's financial operations to
determine if its plans and initiatives are being implemented as
intended and the anticipated results are being achieved?
Answer. I believe that managers should be held accountable for
meeting established goals and objectives. The Defense Finance and
Accounting Service (DFAS) has an extensive set of performance metrics
that are used to gauge the effectiveness of its operations. If
confirmed, I will review the DFAS metrics and make changes where
appropriate. However, since much of the data needed for effective
financial management originates outside of the DFAS, additional
performance measures may be needed. I will also work with the Secretary
and the DOD Components to establish performance measures, as
appropriate, for each of the functional areas--such as real property
accountability and maintenance, inventory accuracy and valuation--that
must provide data to the financial management systems. Those
performance measures would address both operational outcomes as well as
systems implementation objectives.
Question. Some have suggested that because of the far-reaching and
entrenched nature of the Department's financial management problems, an
independent outside oversight board of experts, or an audit committee,
may be necessary to help lead the Department in its financial
management reform efforts. Such a high level board could be established
to provide counsel, oversight, and perspective to DOD's reform efforts.
Audit committees have been used in the private sector for decades.
These committees have been instrumental in identifying potential
problems in an entity's financial statements as they are audited.
Would you advocate that DOD establish such a board or audit
committee?
Answer. Secretary Rumsfeld has initiated a study to review and
analyze the Department's financial management operations. The study
will result in recommendations to the Secretary. Until the results of
the study are available, it would be premature for me to address
specific proposals.
Question. If so, what are your views on the composition, reporting
level, authorities and responsibilities of such a board?
Answer. In preparing for this confirmation hearing, I have been
informed that the Department has a number of boards and committees
already in existence. If I am confirmed as Comptroller of the
Department, I will evaluate the effectiveness of these existing boards
and committees. I will also review the results of the study authorized
by Secretary Rumsfeld to assess the situation at the Department of
Defense. After I have reviewed these existing boards and committees,
and have reviewed the recommendations contained in the study, I will be
able to address specifics related to the need for such a board.
Question. DOD leadership has acknowledged that the Department
confronts financial management problems deeply grounded in bureaucratic
practices that developed and evolved in a piecemeal fashion over a
period of decades to accommodate many different DOD component
organizations, each with its own parochial interests and history. As a
result, each of the military services now operates unique, nonstandard
financial processes and systems. The Department has reported that an
estimated 80 percent of the data needed for sound financial management
comes from systems owned and operated not by the DOD Comptroller and
Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS), but by other
organizations throughout DOD that are accountable to the secretaries of
the military services or other DOD component heads.
What additional authority or organizational changes, if any, will
you seek to ensure that you have the authority you need to implement
DOD-wide financial management improvements?
Answer. Improving the Department's financial management operations
is one of Secretary Rumsfeld's top priorities. If confirmed, I will
review the organizational structures impacting the delivery of
effective financial management information. However, it would be
premature for me to make any specific recommendations related to
organizational changes or additional authority.
Question. What would be your strategy to work with the Office of
the Secretary of Defense and the military services to effectively bring
about the fundamental changes needed in the Department's financial
management operations?
Answer. If confirmed, I will assume the responsibilities as the
Department's Chief Financial Officer. As the CFO, I will lead the
effort to improve the Department's financial management operations. I
believe in matrix management and will work with other senior officials
in the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Military Departments
to develop and implement the changes that are needed. If need be, I
will not hesitate to call upon the Secretary or Deputy Secretary for
support and assistance.
budgeting
Question. Recently, the Department's Planning, Programming, and
Budgeting System (PPBS) has come under criticism. A recent commission,
which included a number of former Defense officials and former GAO
Comptroller General Bowsher, argued that PPBS has become a hindrance,
essentially causing much of the current planning and budgeting problems
in DOD. One of the commission's principle findings was that instead of
charting a strategic course for the military services, PPBS has bred
bureaucracies that now serve to simply channel consistent percentage
shares of DOD's annual budget to the military services.
What are your views on the PPBS process?
Answer. I believe that three principles must shape the Department's
approach to planning, programming, and budgeting.
First, the process must provide the Secretary and Deputy Secretary
a vehicle for addressing major resource issues in a business-like
manner. The process must (and will) adapt itself to the agenda and
style of the top decision-makers, and must likewise change with the
times, as required to serve their needs.
Second, the process should emulate the ongoing strategic defense
review by presenting to the Secretary and Deputy Secretary decision
packages that offer coherent alternatives, each of which specifies the
essential elements of plans, programs, and fiscal guidance required for
its implementation.
Third, the process should be seamless. The data supporting both
programming and budgeting activities must be congruent and reflect the
same underlying major decisions. The two processes must be properly
coordinated and integrated so as to ensure that major decisions made by
the Secretary and Deputy Secretary are carried out.
Question. In your opinion, is it fundamentally flawed?
Answer. I would refer you to my answer to the question above. I
believe that the PPBS process must be adapted to the requirements of
the administration. It's premature to consider any potential changes
until the Secretary's reviews have been accomplished.
Question. What, if any, reforms or changes would you make in this
area, if confirmed?
Answer. As described above, I believe that the PPBS must adapt to
serve the Secretary's needs. Until completion of the review process
that the Secretary has directed, it would be premature to identify
specific actions.
Question. It has been reported that the Defense Planning Guidance
is produced far too late to provide any useful guidance to the services
in producing their POMs and budgets.
What can be done to make internal DOD planning guidance more useful
and timely?
Answer. If confirmed, this is an area that I will be looking at
closely with the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense. The
President and the Secretary are very interested in reviewing the
Department's strategy before proceeding with resource allocation
decisions for the budget or future years. This focus on upfront ``top
down'' planning will lead to additional emphasis on planning guidance
to ensure that all elements of the Department can address the
Secretary's strategic priorities.
systems/information technology
Question. DOD has acknowledged that its current financial
management systems do not comply with Federal financial management
systems requirements and were not designed to collect data in
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Last year,
DOD reported that it did not expect to have the necessary systems in
place to be able to prepare financial statements that could comply with
generally accepted accounting principles before fiscal year 2003.
Where does this area fit in your list of priorities?
Answer. Achieving compliant financial management systems--
incorporating the associated feeder systems (such as personnel and
logistics systems)--is perhaps the most critical step in the effort to
produce effective financial management information and auditable
financial statements. Without systems that comply with: (1) Federal
financial systems requirements; (2) Federal accounting standards; and
(3) use of the United States Government Standard General Ledger at the
transaction level, the Department will not be able to produce accurate
financial statements on a timely and consistent basis. Ensuring that
the proper emphasis is applied to this effort will be one of my top
priorities if confirmed.
Question. What will be your strategy for ensuring that the
Department's systems reengineering efforts supporting the DOD's
financial operations are carried out in the context of an overall
operations concept--a concept that encompasses all functional areas?
Answer. The Department is committed to improving its financial
operations and meeting Federal financial management systems
requirements.
The Secretary has initiated a study to review and analyze the
Department's financial management operations. The study will yield
recommendations to the Secretary for specific proposals to improve DOD
financial management. Clearly, DOD must focus its attention on
improving or replacing systems in order to provide reliable, useful and
timely financial information. Decision-makers need the most accurate
financial information to evaluate outputs, services, costs, efficiency,
productivity and other essential management indicators. Such
information is a vital tool for holding managers accountable. Once the
review is complete, I will be in a better position to formulate a
strategy to ensure that DOD's system reengineering efforts indeed are
framed within the context of an overall operations concept.
Question. Many of the financial management improvement initiatives
the Department of Defense is implementing are aimed at implementing
standard systems across all DOD components.
What are your views on standardizing accounting systems and related
financial information across the Department?
Answer. I am in favor of standardization when it makes sense to do
so. Obviously, there are efficiencies and economies associated with
standardizing financial processes, practices, systems, and operations.
If confirmed, I plan to review carefully the issue of standardization.
Question. Continuing concerns over escalating weapon system costs
have served to highlight the need for timely and reliable financial
reporting. DOD itself has acknowledged that the lack of a cost
accounting system is the single largest impediment to controlling and
managing weapon system costs.
If confirmed, what steps do you plan to take to ensure that
Congress receives timely and reliable information on the costs
associated with the acquisition, management and disposal of its weapon
systems?
Answer. I recognize that Congress is deeply concerned that it does
not receive reliable and timely cost information related to all facets
of weapons systems programs, from acquisition to disposal. I am
determined to improve upon the current situation. If confirmed, I would
work with the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics) to coordinate efforts to provide the data
Congress requires for its own decision-making processes.
human capital
Question. In response to the Defense Acquisition Workforce
Improvement Act of 1991, DOD has taken action directed at improving the
professionalism of its acquisition workforce. This was brought about as
a result of the need to better ensure that DOD's acquisition workforce
was well versed in the rapidly changing technical skills needed to keep
abreast of acquisition trends. A key part of the effort to upgrade the
professionalism (technical currency) of DOD's acquisition workforce was
the requirement that each acquisition official receive a minimum of 80
hours of continuous learning every 2 years. While DOD has stated that
this should be a goal for financial management personnel, it has not
made it a requirement because of uncertainties over whether necessary
funding would be available.
What are your views on the merits of establishing a requirement
that all DOD financial management personnel receive a minimum of 80
hours of continuous learning every 2 years?
Answer. Within any profession, there is significant value derived
from training to maintain currency and technical proficiency. Today, an
increasing number of DOD financial management personnel are seeking
financial management certification. Some of these certification
programs require 80 hours of relevant training every 2 years in order
to maintain those certifications.
I intend to encourage all DOD financial management personnel to
become certified through one or more of the programs already available,
and to maintain that certification through ongoing training and
education throughout their careers.
Question. If confirmed, what actions would you take to ensure that
DOD's financial management personnel keep abreast of emerging
technologies and developments in financial management?
Answer. If confirmed, I intend to work with the Secretary to see
that adequate funding is made available to train the Department's
financial management workforce and maintain the highest standards of
performance. In that regard, I will examine options for reimbursing
individuals for their professional certification costs as a means of
extending the benefits of such training to all DOD military and
civilian personnel in the financial management workforce. Working with
the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) and the DOD
Component Senior Financial Managers, I intend to pursue the
establishment of specific training and education standards for
professional financial managers. Such standards eventually should be
used as a factor in future hiring and promotion decisions. I also will
actively encourage DOD financial management personnel to take advantage
of the excellent existing financial management professional development
opportunities.
research and development issues
Question. In the past, Pentagon sponsored science and technology
programs made this country the world's undisputed super power with the
development of smart munitions, stealth aircraft, and sophisticated spy
satellites. Today, the number of Pentagon sponsored programs continue
to be reduced because of shrinking budgets and the red tape involved in
doing business with the government.
Do you believe the funding level for science and technology is
adequate or is there a need for more specific science and technology
funding?
Answer. The president's budget includes a $2.6 billion initiative
($20 billion over 5 years) to fund R&D of new technologies. Among areas
in which new investment might be made include: new weapons and
intelligence systems; improvements to the laboratory and test range
infrastructure; and technologies aimed at reducing the costs of weapons
and intelligence.
I would seek Secretary of Defense approval for funding the Science
and Technology (S&T) program at a level that ensures the technological
superiority of our Armed Forces. Since the mid-1990s, the percentage of
the Department's request for S&T compared to the overall defense budget
has declined from 3.1 percent to 2.5 percent. I will seek to provide
the resources needed to meet the administration's goal of developing
new generations of technology and maintaining our technological edge.
Question. The Department of Defense science and technology programs
are generally oriented toward ``breadboard'' valuation of technologies
in a laboratory, not the demonstration of technologies in an
operational environment. While the Department of Defense has a few
demonstration programs that assist in technology transition, including
Advanced Technology Demonstrations, Advanced Concept Technology
Demonstrations, and Experiments (both joint and Service-specific),
there is not a source of funding in the Department that is specifically
dedicated to bridging the gap between science and technology programs
and acquisition programs.
Do you believe that the Department should establish a program
specifically dedicated to demonstrating technologies in an operational
environment, to help provide the Department's acquisition programs with
technologies that are sufficiently mature to be put into an efficient
manner?
Answer. I am aware of the importance of evaluating technologies
outside the laboratory. DOD is currently studying additional innovative
ways of doing so, and I await the product of these study efforts to
determine what new programs might be warranted.
inventory management
Question. Do you believe DOD has adequate controls over, and
financial information on, its inventory?
Answer. The Department's inventory processes have undergone
extensive reviews during the last decade, and the result has been more
in-depth control and accountability over the physical inventory. There
is a need to integrate the financial, acquisition and logistics
information regarding inventory and related materials. Consequently, a
significant effort has recently been initiated to evaluate and improve
the Department's management information, to include its physical
inventory and financial records.
Question. If not, what steps would you take, if confirmed, to
improve inventory management?
Answer. As DOD modernizes its information technology systems, it
has the opportunity more closely to connect the financial, procurement
and logistics data on the material in inventory. I believe that the
Department already has laid the foundation for an in-depth evaluation
of this issue.
Therefore, it would be premature for me to make any specific
recommendations for improvement prior to completion of that analysis.
authorization for national defense programs
Question. Do you believe that an authorization pursuant to Section
114 of Title 10, U.S.C. is necessary before funds for operations and
maintenance, procurement, research and development, and military
construction may be made available for obligation by the Department of
Defense?
Answer. The problem of appropriated not authorized spending has
been a complication for the Department of Defense for many years. If
confirmed as the Department's Comptroller, my goal would be to respect
the prerogatives of all our oversight committees. I believe our
national security is supported best through consensus-building on U.S.
defense needs among DOD leaders and all our oversight committees. If
confirmed, I would work toward supporting such a consensus in every way
I could.
obligation of funds
Question. On occasion, the Comptroller has withheld funds for
programs added by Congress to the defense budget request.
Do you intend to continue this policy?
Answer. As I understand the Department's current practice, the
Comptroller conducts an assessment of the manner in which additional
funding supports a Defense mission, how it fits within current approved
program plans, and whether it will create a future funding requirement.
This practice seems consistent with the Comptroller's responsibility to
establish and supervise the execution of policies and procedures
relating to the expenditure of DOD funds.
defense management reforms
Question. Over the past decade, the Department of Defense has
initiated a series of management reform initiatives (the Defense Reform
Initiative being the most recent) to improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of defense operations. As these initiatives were
unveiled, DOD forecast significant cost savings and, in many cases, the
assumed savings were then deducted from the budgets of the Services in
advance of implementation of the reforms. Unfortunately, the actual
savings were lower than anticipated. Not achieving these savings goals
has resulted in unplanned expenditures that promote additional budget
instability.
How and when should the Department incorporate anticipated savings
from proposed defense reform efforts into its budget plans?
Answer. In some cases it may be appropriate to incorporate
anticipated savings in budget plans. Nevertheless, any efforts to do so
must be undertaken with considerable caution so as to avoid
anticipating savings that ultimately are not realized.
overpayments
Question. Some in Congress have called for mandatory use of
recovery auditing techniques either by internal DOD auditors or outside
private contractors.
Do you agree that such an approach is needed?
Answer. The Department of Defense has several years of experience
with recovery auditing. Based on that experience, I support the use and
expansion of recovery auditing. If confirmed, I will look at the
Department's implementation to see that it is working in the best
interest of the taxpayers, and consider the whether mandatory recovery
should be examined.
With respect to the question as to whether recovery auditing should
be performed internally or by an outside firm, I believe that such a
determination should be made on a case-by-case basis. Where access to a
vendor's financial records is required, such reviews should be
performed by the Defense Contract Audit Agency.
acquisition reform
Question. During his nomination hearing, Secretary Rumsfeld stated
that the need to swiftly introduce new weapons systems is paramount. He
further went on to say that the present acquisition system is ill-
suited to an era of rapid technological advances and pervasive
proliferation. One of the constraints in reducing acquisition cycle
time is the present budget process. The life cycles of some of the
technologies necessary for DOD transformation are sometimes shorter
than the time it takes for DOD to obtain the funding to transition
these technologies into useful capabilities.
What type of budgetary reforms, if any, do you see as necessary to
improve the way DOD buys weapons systems and enhance the Department's
ability to incorporate technology faster, better and cheaper?
Answer. Innovative techniques such as transition funding and
expanded budgetary flexibility could allow rapid transition from
experiments to weapons systems and rapid technology insertion. Two-year
appropriations and internal budget stability between milestones might
also provide stability for acquisition programs, and I know it is under
review in Congress.
base closure savings
Question. You have stated that you believe additional base closures
are needed to bring the Department's base structure in line with its
force structure.
In your view, have the previous base closure rounds resulted in
significant reductions in DOD costs that made resources available for
higher priorities?
Answer. It is important that savings from base closures be real and
meaningful as we strive to ensure that force structure and
infrastructure are properly aligned. The DOD and the General Accounting
Office have concluded that savings from base closures are
``substantial.''
Question. If similar savings result from future base closures or
realignments, do you believe there are unfunded needs within the
Department that could benefit by redirecting resources away from excess
infrastructure?
Answer. The President's budget blueprint discusses excess
infrastructure capacity and the need to consider that as an element of
shaping the military more efficiently. As the Secretary indicated in
his response to advance questions from this committee, we will withhold
an assessment of the need for future base closure rounds until after
the completion of the defense review.
government performance and results act (gpra)
Question. If confirmed as Comptroller, what would your
responsibilities be with respect to DOD implementation of the
requirements of the GPRA to set specific performance goals and measure
progress toward meeting them?
Answer. As Comptroller, I will be responsible for coordinating the
Department's budget development. I will also oversee the implementation
of GPRA within DOD. GPRA will be fully integrated with DOD's Planning,
Programming, and Budgeting System (PPBS), and will reflect the key
performance goals of the Department.
Question. What additional steps can the Department take to fulfill
the goals of the GPRA to link budget inputs to measurable performance
outputs?
Answer. I believe that the Department's annual GPRA performance
plans and reports should continue to provide an executive-level view of
the results we expect from the budget. The output measures we select
should reflect our objective to maintain a quality force that is well
trained and equipped to execute the new defense strategy. Once we
complete our strategic review, I look forward to providing Congress
with the Department's performance plan for the new defense budget, and
discussing with you how we will use performance measures to track the
Department's results during budget execution.
peacekeeping and use of supplementals to fund contingency operations
Question. You have stated that peacekeeping is a ``strategically
marginal'' use of U.S. defense funds and advocated ``withdrawing from
much of the peacekeeping business'' so that funds could be used for
other needs. You cited the Bosnia mission as ``the most egregious
example'' of a peacekeeping mission that cost more than originally
projected.
Is it your view that the United States should refuse to provide
ground troops to participate in peacekeeping missions, either
unilaterally or with our allies?
Answer. U.S. forces should participate in peace operations when we
deem it to be in our national interests. Even then, participation
should occur when the operation has clear objectives, a coherent
strategy, a reasonable chance of success, acceptable command and
control arrangements, and an exit strategy.
Question. If so would you advocate U.S. withdrawal from any current
deployments?
Answer. All ongoing operations should be continually reviewed to
ensure that the nature of our participation remains consistent with our
interests and that we are likely to achieve U.S. objectives. Completing
such a review is one of the President's and Secretary's priorities.
Question. When unanticipated contingency operations do arise,
whether peacekeeping or high intensity combat operations such as
Operation Allied Force in Kosovo, do you believe the Department and
Congress should continue to use the existing process of funding the
incremental costs of such operations through ad hoc supplementals, or
do you intend to propose an alternative approach?
Answer. Ad hoc supplementals traditionally were employed to meet
necessary but unforeseen costs. It would be best to restrict
supplementals to this traditional model and provide funding for ongoing
operations as much as possible within the regular budgeting process.
Question. Does the administration intend to include unanticipated
emergency defense needs in the National Emergency Reserve account
proposed in the President's budget blueprint?
Answer. The President has identified the Reserve for true
emergencies and it remains to be determined how that will be
structured. If confirmed, I will work with the Secretary and other
agencies to ensure the fund is established and developed as
appropriate.
environmental cleanup
Question. You have described environmental cleanup and compliance
on defense installations as an example of ``non-defense programs in the
defense budget''.
Do you advocate removing these costs from the DOD budget?
Answer. As Secretary Rumsfeld testified during his confirmation, we
need a comprehensive approach to satisfy both our readiness needs and
the legal and moral responsibilities as stewards of public lands.
Twenty-five years ago, environmental regulations were in their infancy,
and the cost of compliance was negligible in the DOD budget. Things are
much different today. Regulations have multiplied. America's attitude
toward the environment has changed. Our national tolerance for
pollution has significantly decreased. Environmental cleanup and
compliance are not core missions of national defense any more than they
are core missions of General Motors, IBM, or the U.S. Department of
Agriculture; however, they are a cost of doing business today. There
may be opportunities to achieve savings by outsourcing or
privatization, but still meet our stewardship responsibilities. Without
further review, however, it would be premature to suggest any
alternative.
Question. Do you believe that it would be practical to remove
environmental compliance funding for DOD facilities from the DOD
budget?
Answer. Environmental compliance costs should remain in the DOD
budget where there is a causal connection between compliance and
contamination. Early planning in weapons systems development and other
acquisitions now consider compliance costs in life-cycle cost
accounting to encourage smarter choices early in the programs, and
reduce unexpected cleanup costs in the end. As is the case with
industry, compliance costs should be incorporated in the business model
to provide better visibility of true life-cycle cost. Such early
planning would also consider noise, air quality, and other compliance
issues to ensure systems can be fielded at our current bases and ranges
without significant impact to the environment or surrounding
communities. Completely decoupling compliance and cleanup by removing
them from the DOD budget would make it difficult to encourage this type
of early planning.
Question. Do you believe the Department should not be required to
pay for environmental damage it causes?
Answer. Relieving DOD from the requirement to pay for environmental
damage it causes could seriously erode public trust, which could lead
to restrictions on necessary training and readiness activities.
Question. What incentives would it create for DOD activities if we
were to relieve the Department of the requirement to pay for the
damage?
Answer. See response above.
incremental funding
Question. In the fiscal year 2000 budget request, the previous
administration proposed to shift from the traditional full funding of
military construction projects to an incremental funding approach. This
proposal was unanimously rejected by the four congressional defense
committees. Congress has itself abandoned the full funding approach for
the construction of some naval vessels.
What are your views regarding full funding versus incremental
funding?
Answer. Full funding for capital acquisition programs provides
discipline to the Department's internal programming process. If
confirmed, however, I will give careful consideration to innovative
methods of meeting future requirements and look forward to working with
this committee.
savings from competition
Question. DOD has substantially increased the number of public-
private competitions in recent years in order to achieve greater
efficiency and effectiveness while reducing costs. Studies have shown
that DOD saves money regardless of which side wins the competition.
Do you believe that outsourcing of work currently performed by
government civilians should be assessed through public-private
competition or conducted on a non-competitive basis?
Answer. Opening government functions to competition to the fullest
extent possible is the best way to ensure market-based pricing,
encourage innovation, and maintain fairness between the public and
private sectors. In assessing outsourcing, I believe the Department
should use an open competitive process (considering both public and
private sources) to choose the providers, except in very limited
circumstances.
Question. What steps should the Department undertake to measure the
actual savings achieved after such competitions?
Answer. The Department must continue to improve the accuracy and
responsiveness of this system to allow real time monitoring of savings
and performance from such competitions. I understand that the
Department recently updated its tracking software for public-private
competitions conducted in accordance with OMB Circular A-76. The
Commercial Activities Management Information System (CAMIS) tracks each
competition separately and includes various elements of the competition
that are critical to give us feedback on the process (e.g., bids,
savings, actual contract costs, affected employees, functions being
competed).
working capital funds
Question. Are there any changes you would recommend in the policies
governing working capital funds in the Department of Defense?
Answer. Working capital funds have proved to be a successful tool
for identifying the full cost of operations and for encouraging cost
efficiency in commercial and industrial type functions within the
Department. If confirmed, I will closely review all of the Department's
financial programs, and where appropriate, assess any required policy
changes to working capital funds.
Question. Do you believe the scope of activities funded through
working capital funds should be increased or decreased?
Answer. During the 1990s there have been four major reviews of
working capital funds and their policies and procedures. The most
recent studies were conducted in 1997 and again during 1999-2000. These
studies included a review of the functions now included within the
working capital funds. In the context of the overall review of the
Department's financial programs, however, this issue may need to be
revisited once again.
capital budgeting
Question. The President's budget blueprint released last month
advocated capital planning for information technology budgets.
Does the administration plan to examine the expansion of capital
budgeting for the Department of Defense outside the relatively small
amounts currently programmed in the working capital funds?
Answer. This is a matter for further review in the context of the
ongoing studies. At this time, I do not believe that the Department
will expand capital budgeting beyond the working capital funds. The
Department of Defense already employs the principle of capital planning
in that it considers life-cycle costs, schedule and performance prior
to proceeding with a capital investment. Moreover DOD evaluates capital
investment decisions against capital planning criteria. For example,
the Department budgets for capital investments, including IT
investments, separately from personnel and operation and maintenance
expenses.
outlay estimating differences
Question. In the past 3 years, outlay estimating differences
between the Department of Defense and Office of Management and Budget
estimates prepared in the executive branch and the Congressional Budget
Office estimates used by the legislative branch have grown to record
levels.
If confirmed as Comptroller, will you ensure that your office makes
every effort to work with OMB and CBO to minimize these estimating
differences?
Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure that my office continues to
strive to improve its estimating of outlays, and will continue to make
every effort possible to work with both OMB and CBO to minimize
estimating differences in the future.
major challenges
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges confronting
the next Under Secretary of Defense, Comptroller?
Answer. I believe that there are two primary challenges confronting
the next Comptroller:
First, the Comptroller must prepare and manage a budget that
simultaneously supports the welfare and morale of our men and women in
uniform; finances the operational requirements of our forces; supports
a forward looking research and modernization program to meet the
challenges of the new century, and does all of the foregoing within
constrained resources.
Second, the Comptroller must reform the Department's financial
management system. Only through such reform can the departmental
leadership have ready access to necessary information and accounts that
are critical both for executing the defense program in the most
efficient manner possible, and for ensuring that programmatic choices
are more easily identified and implemented.
Question. If confirmed, what plans do you have for addressing these
challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the office of
Program Analysis and Evaluation to formulate a program and budget that
addresses the multiple needs I outlined in the answer above. In
addition, if confirmed, I will consider possible organizational changes
in order to strengthen top level management in the Comptroller's
office. In particular, these changes would seek to foster rapid
improvements to the management of the Department's finances,
particularly its accounting and management information systems, as well
as a more comprehensive approach to solutions that out-sourcing might
offer.
most serious problems
Question. What do you consider to be the most serious problems in
the performance of the functions of the Department of Defense?
Answer. The Department of Defense has experienced a weakening of
the linkage between overall strategy, programs, and budgets. In
addition, the Department has been underfunded, despite the relief
offered by supplemental appropriations. Indeed, the need to resort to
supplemental appropriations to cover shortfalls of projected budgetary
needs itself has distorted the nature of the budgetary process.
Finally, the Department of Defense continues to suffer from the absence
of an adequate management information system, and from inadequate
financial management systems, especially accounting systems.
Question. What management actions and time lines would you
establish to address these problems?
Answer. If confirmed as Comptroller, I would work closely with
other offices in OSD and the Services to craft programs and budgets
that respond to the results of Secretary Rumsfeld's strategy review.
If confirmed, I hope to oversee the preparation of defense budgets
that adequately fund the programs the Department seeks to implement,
thereby minimizing the need for maintaining the current, and in my view
unhealthy, over-reliance on supplemental appropriations.
Finally, as I indicated in my previous answer, I am considering
management changes in the top level of the Comptroller's office to
focus more attention and, more important, to implement, changes to the
Department's financial management systems. If confirmed, I would move
quickly to evaluate organizational alternatives and implement a
preferred solution. I would also hope to have initiated new management
reforms before the end of this fiscal year or shortly thereafter.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, when asked, to give your personal views,
even if those views differ from the administration in power?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as the Under Secretary of
Defense, Comptroller?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings and
other communications of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes.
______
[Question for the record with answer supplied follows:]
Question Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu
Senator Landrieu. Dr. Zakheim, as ranking member of the Senate
Appropriations District of Columbia Subcommittee, I was surprised to
learn that the Department of Defense has refused to pay over $28
million it owes for water and sewer services provided by the District
of Columbia between 1990 and 2001. I'm sure you're not aware of this
but I want you to know that DOD is the only Executive Branch agency
that has failed to comply with Public Law 101-168, as amended, which
requires Federal agencies to make payment in full for water and sewer
services provided by the District. On July 25, 2000, GAO issued a legal
opinion stating that Federal agencies are required to make the payments
and have no discretion to do otherwise. DOD has maintained that the
District's estimates of water and sewer usage are excessive and based
on poor metering, yet they refused to permit newer, more accurate
meters to be installed until March 2001, citing security concerns.
It is my understanding that the Comptroller's office and DOD IG are
aware of this issue and, once confirmed, I would like you to personally
look into this matter and provide this committee, within 30 days of
confirmation, a plan for making payment in full on these overdue bills.
Dr. Zakheim. Over the past year this office has been actively
engaged in seeking a solution to this issue. The table that follows
provides detailed information on the current status of the DC Water
Bill. To understand the whole problem it is useful to consider
separately the portion of the bill attributable to customers located in
Maryland and DC and the portion associated with users in Northern
Virginia.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
DOD customers in DC and Maryland have been charged for water and
sewage services using meter readings. The DOD customers disputing the
bill use one or more of the following arguments: (1) the meters are
broken or inaccurate, (2) the practice of adjusting current year
estimated billings for actual use from 3 years prior is unsupportable,
and/or (3) the Department of Treasury has not fully credited them for
actual payments. It turns out each of these arguments is insufficient
grounds to withhold full payment. The Treasury is working with the Navy
to track down payments that may have not been properly applied to the
DC Water account. In any event, the Components have been directed to
pay in full the amount they owe for fiscal year 2001. They are also
working to identify unobligated prior year balances that can be used to
pay off arrearages.
DOD customers in Northern Virginia receive water from DC WASA
through two conduits that run underneath the Key Bridge and pump water
into the Federally Owned Water Main (FOWM). Federal customers on the
FOWM include the Army (Fort Myer), the Department of Veterans Affairs
(Arlington National Cemetery), Washington Headquarters Services (the
Pentagon Reservation), and the Department of Interior (National Park
Service sites along the George Washington Parkway). The Ronald Reagan
National Airport also receives water off of the FOWM and is separately
billed by DC WASA. The DOD has disputed the Treasury billing for DOD in
Virginia because there was no attempt made to allocate the bill to the
separate Federal users in Virginia. Until May of this year, Treasury
issued three invoices (Fort Myer, Washington Headquarters Service (for
the Pentagon) and Arlington National Cemetery) charging each entity the
full amount. The Treasury invoices made no attempt to separately
allocate use by customer on the FOWM. The three entities received this
bill and paid Treasury what they each estimated they owed. When added
together, the three payments fell far short of the total billed and
resulted in annual arrearages of approximately $1.0 million a year.
The DC WASA has been working to develop a methodology for
allocating the Virginia billing to Federal customers. As a result of
their work, the Treasury issued to all the Virginia customers a revised
fiscal year 2001 bill with separate estimates for each DOD customer.
For the first time, Treasury has issued an invoice to the Department of
the Interior for National Park Service customers in Northern Virginia.
The efforts of DC WASA to provide estimated allotments goes a long way
toward solving the most intractable aspect of this problem. Using the
same estimates of customer use in Northern Virginia, Treasury intends
to allocate the prior year arrearages to the four Federal customers.
DOD customers will pay the full revised fiscal year 2001 bill by
the July 2, 2001 due date. The Components have also been directed to
pay off as much of the prior year arrearages as possible by the end of
fiscal year 2001. Depending on how aggressively the Components reduce
their prior year arrearages, and how successful they (especially the
Navy) are in working with Treasury to properly credit all their
payments, any remaining balance due will be a current year bill. Given
the challenges the Department faces in the current fiscal year, we
propose to direct the Components to pay off the entire past due amounts
next year using fiscal year 2002 funds. For the portion of the past due
bill attributable to WHS as executive agency for the Pentagon
Reservation, we propose that they levy the bill to the Pentagon tenants
by applying a surcharge to fiscal year 2002 rent billings.
______
[The nomination reference of Dr. Dov S. Zakheim follows:]
Nomination Reference
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
March 13, 2001.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Dr. Dov S. Zakheim of Maryland, to be Under Secretary of Defense
(Comptroller), vice William J. Lynn III, resigned.
______
[The biographical sketch of Dr. Dov S. Zakheim, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Dr. Dov S. Zakheim
Dov S. Zakheim is Corporate Vice President of System Planning
Corporation (SPC), a high technology, research, analysis and
manufacturing firm based in Arlington, Virginia. He is also Chief
Executive Officer of SPC International Corporation, a subsidiary of SPC
that specializes in political, military and economic consulting, and
international sales and analysis. He is an Adjunct Senior Fellow for
Asian Studies of the Council on Foreign Relations, and Adjunct Scholar
of the Heritage Foundation, and a Senior Advisor at the Center for
International and Strategic Studies.
Dr. Zakheim was born and raised in New York City. He is a graduate
of Columbia University, New York, where he earned his B.A., Summa Cum
Laude, and was elected to Phi Beta Kappa, Dr. Zakheim also studied at
the London School of Economics. Dr. Zakheim earned his doctorate in
economics and politics at St. Antony's College, University of Oxford,
where he was a National Science Foundation Graduate Fellow, a Columbia
College Kellett Fellow, and a post-doctoral Research Fellow. He has
served as Adjunct Professor at Yeshiva University; the National War
College and Columbia University, where he taught classes in planning
and programming for national security; and at Trinity College,
Hartford, CT, where he was also a Presidential Scholar.
In 1997 he was appointed by former Secretary of Defense William
Cohen to the Task Force on Defense Reform. In May 1998 Secretary Cohen
named him to the first Board of Visitors of the Department of Defense
Overseas Regional Schools. In February 2000 he was appointed to the
Defense Science Board Task Force on the Impact of DOD Acquisition
Policies on the Health of the Defense Industry. During the 2000
presidential campaign Dr. Zakheim was a senior foreign policy advisor
to Gov. George W. Bush.
From 1985 until March 1987, Dr. Zakheim was Deputy Under Secretary
of Defense for Planning and Resources. In that capacity, he played an
active role in the Department's planning, programming and budget
process, as well as DOD's system acquisition and strategic planning
processes. Dr. Zakheim guided Department of Defense policy in a number
of international economic fora and also successfully negotiated
numerous arms cooperation agreements with various U.S. allies. Dr.
Zakheim served for two terms as former President George Bush's
appointee to the United States Commission for the Preservation of
America's Heritage Abroad.
Dr. Zakheim also served in the Reagan administration in a variety
of other senior Department of Defense posts from 1981 through 1985. He
had previously been Principal Analyst with the National Security and
International Affairs Division of the Congressional Budget Office.
Dr. Zakheim writes, lectures, and provides media commentary on
national defense and foreign policy issues domestically and
internationally, including appearances on major U.S. network news
telecasts, CNN's Newshour and Larry King Live, BBC Arab and World
Service, and Israeli, Swedish and Japanese television. He is a
columnist for the Jerusalem Post, a regular contributor to Defense
News, and an editorial board member of Israel Affairs, The Round Table
(the Commonwealth Journal of International Affairs) and Cooperation and
Conflict (Nordic Journal of International Studies). He is the author of
Flight of the Lavi: Inside a U.S.-lsraeli Crisis (Brassey's, 1996),
Congress and National Security in the Post-Cold War Era (The Nixon
Center, 1998), Toward A Fortress Europe? (Center for Strategic and
International Studies, 2000) and has published numerous articles and
chapters in books on planning, programming and budgetary issues and
other national security concerns.
Dr. Zakheim has twice been awarded the Department of Defense
Distinguished Public Service Medal (1986 and 1987) and is also the
recipient of the Congressional Budget Office Director's Award for
Outstanding Service (1979), and the SPC Director's Award for
Outstanding Service (1997).
______
[The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
form that details the biographical, financial, and other
information of the nominee. The form executed by Dr. Dov S.
Zakheim in connection with his nomination follows:]
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Room SR-228
Washington, DC 20510-6050
(202) 224-3871
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation
of your answer applies.
Part A--Biographical Information
Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.
1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
Dov S. Zakheim.
2. Position to which nominated:
Under Secretary of Defense and Comptroller.
3. Date of nomination:
March 13, 2001.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
5. Date and place of birth:
December 18, 1948; Brooklyn, New York.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Deborah Bing Zakheim.
7. Names and ages of children:
Keith Zakheim, 26; Roger Zakheim, 23; Scott Zakheim, 18; Stepson
Benjamin Lowy, 21.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
Yeshiva University High School, 9/62-6/66; N.Y. Regents Diploma.
Columbia College, Columbia University, 9/67-6/70; B.A. 6/70.
Jewish Theological Seminary, 9/67-6/68 and 9/69-6/70.
London School of Economics, 9/68-6/69; year abroad.
Jews College, University of London 9/68-6/69; year abroad.
St. Antony's College, Oxford University, 9/70-6/74; Ph.D. 6/74.
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
Corporate Vice President, System Planning Corporation, Arlington,
VA, 3/87 to present.
Chief Executive Officer, SPC International Corp., Arlington, VA,
1989 to present.
Adjunct Presidential Fellow, Trinity College, Hartford, CT, fall
1998.
Adjunct Professor of Political Science, Stern College for Women at
Yeshiva University, New York, NY, fall 1995.
Adjunct Professor of International and Public Affairs, Columbia
University, New York, NY, spring 1995 and fall 1996.
Adjunct Professor, National War College, Washington, DC., fall
1992.
10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative,
honorary, or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State,
or local governments, other than those listed above.
Consultant to the Secretary of Defense and Under Secretary for
Policy.
2000--Member, Defense Science Board Task Force on the Impact of DOD
Acquisition Policies on the Health of the Defense Industry.
1998-Present--Member, Board of Visitors of the Department of
Defense Overseas Regional Schools.
1997--Secretary of Defense Task Force on Defense Reform.
Fall 1992--Adjunct Professor, National War College.
1985-87--Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Planning and
Resources.
1984-85--Assistant Under Secretary of Defense (Policy/Resources).
1982-83--Special Assistant to Under Secretary of Defense (Policy).
1981-82--Special Assistant to Assistant Secretary of Defense
(International Security Policy).
1978-81--Principal Analyst, National Security and International
Affairs division, Congressional Budget: Office.
1975-78--Associate Analyst, National Security and International
Affairs Division, Congressional Budget Office.
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
System Planning Corporation: Corporate Vice President 1987-present.
SPC International Corp. (subsidiary of System Planning
Corporation): CEO 1989-present.
Northrop-Grumman Electronic Sensors and Systems Sector: Member,
Advisory Board.
Trinity College: Presidential Fellow, Fall 1998.
Columbia College, Columbia University: Adjunct Professor of
International and Public Affairs, spring 1995 and fall 1996.
Stern College for Women, Yeshiva University: Adjunct Professor of
Political Science, fall 1995.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
Foreign Policy Research Institute: member, Board of Trustees.
Nixon Center for Peace and Freedom: member, Advisory Board.
Center for Security Policy: member, Advisory Board.
Council on Foreign Relations: Adjunct Fellow.
Heritage Foundation: Adjunct Scholar.
Center for Strategic and International Studies: Senior Advisor.
Search for Common Ground: Board member.
Israel Affairs (Academic Journal): member, Advisory Board.
The Roundtable. Commonwealth Journal of International Affairs:
member, Advisory board.
Conflict and Cooperation (Nordic Journal of International Studies):
member, Advisory Board.
Friends of the Jewish Chapel, United States Naval Academy: Board
member.
American Friends of Beth Hatefusoth (Museum of the Diaspora): Board
Member.
American Jewish Committee: Member, National Advisory Committee.
13. Political affiliations and activities:
(a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or
any public office for which you have been a candidate.
None.
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5
years.
National Republican Senatorial Committee: Life member.
(c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $100 or more for the past 5 years.
$2,000 to the campaign of Governor George W. Bush.
14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals, and any other special
recognitions for outstanding service or achievements.
Phi Beta Kappa.
New York State Regents Scholarship.
National Science Foundation Graduate Fellow.
Columbia College Kellett Fellow.
Post-doctoral Research Fellow, St. Antony's College.
Twice awarded the Department of Defense Distinguished Public
Service Medal.
Congressional Budget Office Director's Award for Outstanding
Service.
System Planning Corporation Director's Award for Outstanding
Service.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
Retained in committee files.
16. Speeches: Provide the committee with two copies of any formal
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have
copies of and are on topics relevant to the position for which you have
been nominated.
Retained in committee files.
17. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree,
if confirmed, to respond to requests to appear and testify before any
duly constituted committee of the Senate?
Yes.
______
[The nominee responded to the questions in Parts B-F of the
committee questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set
forth in the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to
Parts B-F are contained in the committee's executive files.]
------
Signature and Date
I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate,
and complete.
Dr. Dov S. Zakheim.
This 14th day of March, 2001.
[The nomination of Dr. Dov S. Zakheim was reported to the
Senate by Senator John Warner on May 1, 2001, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on May 1, 2001.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to Charles S. Abell by
Chairman Warner prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
April 12, 2001.
Hon. John Warner,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for providing me the opportunity to
respond to your questions on defense policy issues. Enclosed are my
responses.
I look forward to my appearance before the Senate Armed Services
Committee and I stand ready to answer any further questions you may
have.
Sincerely,
Charles S. Abell.
cc: Senator Carl Levin,
Ranking Minority Member.
______
Questions and Responses
defense reforms
Question. More than a decade has passed since the enactment of the
Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and
the Special Operations reforms.
Do you support full implementation of these defense reforms?
Answer. Yes, I support the implementation of the defense reforms.
The establishment of the unified and specified combatant commands, the
delineation of responsibilities, and most importantly, the focus on
``jointness'' outlined in the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense
Reorganization Act of 1986, has enhanced the readiness and warfighting
capabilities of the U.S. Armed Forces.
Question. What is your view of the extent to which these defense
reforms have been implemented?
Answer. These reforms have changed the way the Department of
Defense works by strengthening the role of the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff and the combatant commanders, and significantly
improving the ability of the Department to execute America's national
security strategy. The reforms have helped improve communication, joint
operations and interoperability--we have strengthened the Armed Forces
through these reforms through joint planning and execution of
operations.
Question. What do you consider to be the most important aspects of
these defense reforms?
Answer. I would consider each of the goals noted below to be an
important aspect of these defense reforms. Each one has enhanced the
ability of the Department of Defense to carry out its assigned
responsibilities.
Question. The goals of Congress in enacting these defense reforms,
as reflected in section 3 of the Goldwater-Nichols Department of
Defense Reorganization Act, can be summarized as strengthening civilian
control; improving military advice; placing clear responsibility on the
combatant commanders for the accomplishment of their missions; ensuring
the authority of the combatant commanders is commensurate with their
responsibility; increasing attention to the formulation of strategy and
to contingency planning; providing for more efficient use of defense
resources; and enhancing the effectiveness of military operations and
improving the management and administration of the Department of
Defense.
Do you agree with these goals?
Answer. Yes, I support the goals of Congress in enacting the
reforms of the Goldwater-Nichols legislation.
duties
Question. Section 138 of Title 10, United States Code, provides
that the duties of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force
Management Policy are to be prescribed by the Secretary of Defense.
Assuming you are confirmed, what duties do you expect that
Secretary Rumsfeld will prescribe for you?
Answer. If confirmed, I believe that Secretary Rumsfeld would
intend that I be his senior policy advisor on matters concerning the
management of military and civilian personnel and the welfare of their
families. I would expect to work under the direction of the USD(P&R) to
promulgate and oversee policies relating to recruiting, retention,
career development, compensation, quality of life, equal opportunity
and other force management concerns. I understand the duties of the
Assistant Secretary are prescribed in DOD Directive 5124.5 and that I
would perform duties as set forth in that Directive.
major challenges
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges confronting
the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force Management Policy?
Answer. Certainly recruiting and retaining men and women with the
capability and character to ensure success in a demanding national
security environment are the greatest challenges. They are challenges
the Department faces in both its military and civilian forces.
As the number of individuals in the American public who have
military experience declines, and as high school students increasingly
choose to pursue other opportunities upon graduation, the Department of
Defense must be able to compete for talented young people. The
Department also needs to retain the best of its force, particularly in
such fields as aviation and information technology. Providing a strong
quality of life for service members and their families and a quality of
service that inspires and motivates top performance is critical to that
effort. In addition, we must acknowledge that today's youth have
different expectations of the work experience. The All Volunteer Force
has served America well. We need to ensure that we have the right tools
to manage this force for the future.
The Department also needs to take actions to revitalize its
civilian workforce. Due to the increasing numbers of civilians reaching
retirement eligibility, it is necessary to ensure that there is a base
of workers with the qualifications needed to manage the complex
programs and technologies of today and of the future. Managers need to
have the tools to recruit, retain, and develop the future workforce.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review current policies and
initiatives in the above areas to determine their effectiveness and
where adjustments may need to be made to accomplish these goals. I also
expect to incorporate the results of Secretary Rumsfeld's ongoing
quality of life review into an overall strategy to address these
issues.
reserve component health care
Question. The Department of Defense is relying more on the Reserve
components as it attempts to reduce the operational tempo of the Active
Forces. Although the Department of Defense has made great strides in
integrating the Reserve components into the Total Force and providing
for the individual reservist, families of Reserve component service
members still face challenges when the spouse is called to active duty.
Among those challenges is medical care. Although the law allows for
continuing health care under a civilian employer, the cost to a Reserve
member may become prohibitive. If the member elects military health
care for his family while on active duty, it may require a change in
health care provider.
What are your views regarding this dilemma facing our reservists?
Answer. Under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment
Rights Act, employers must allow reservist employees to continue under
their civilian employer-sponsored healthcare plan for up to 18 months;
however, the employer does not have to continue his share of the
premium, compelling the reservist to pick up the entire premium cost
and administrative fees. Deployment is stressful enough for Reserve
families. Changing health care systems and possibly health care
providers adds to that stress. The Deputy Secretary of Defense recently
announced a policy to support DOD civilian employees called to active
duty in support of contingency operations. I believe we should explore
options to similarly support all reservists.
employment of military spouses
Question. The military community includes more than 700,000
spouses. These spouses play an important role in the retention of their
military sponsors. Many of these spouses work, whether it is for
economic needs or to sustain their profession. Many more spouses would
like to work, however, the constant moving associated with military
life, in many cases, precludes a meaningful career or profession.
In your view, what actions can the Department take to provide
increased employment opportunities for military spouses?
Answer. There is no doubt we need to do more for spouses. Most
military spouses are currently working or looking for work. Many
spouses want a career, but are limited because of frequent relocations.
I believe it is critical that the Department address this issue, and if
confirmed, I would ask for an assessment of spouse employment issues
leading to recommendations for improvement. I do think there is more we
can do to assist relocating spouses who are seeking employment,
particularly through partnerships with major employers. Part of this
assessment would be to identify policy changes that might make it
easier to pursue employment within the Department of Defense. However,
I believe we also need to continue to explore partnerships with major
employers, the degree to which our spouses have skills to match their
employment needs, and whether there is any way we can help provide a
better match of skills-to-need for America's employers.
family support
Question. Approximately two-thirds of our military families live
off of the military installation. Since deployment and family
separation are two of the most demanding parts of military life, the
Department of Defense must ensure that it provides the same level of
support to families that live off the installation as it does to those
who live on base.
In your view, does the Department have adequate programs in place
to ensure support for those families off the installation?
Answer. Over the past years, the Department of Defense has done a
superb job designing and delivering programs to support military
families. I am not aware of any specific concerns regarding support to
off-base families, but I believe the Department can do more for these
families by leveraging technology to deliver services and information
through the Internet. I also believe it is important to ensure that our
families can communicate in this manner during deployments. I also
think it would be important to create strong and effective partnerships
with local communities and non-profit organizations to deliver
assistance and services.
civilian personnel management
Question. The management of civilian employees in DOD has largely
been done on a hit-or-miss basis, particularly with respect to senior-
level employees.
Has the Department conducted any audit of Senior Executive Service
positions?
Answer. I am not aware of any specific audits the Department of
Defense may have conducted of its senior workforce. The President has
asked Federal agencies to establish procedures to review and approve
hiring decisions for supervisory and managerial jobs. As I understand
it, this guidance is being implemented within the Department of
Defense.
Question. In your opinion, are there sufficient opportunities for
advancement within the Department for senior career civilians?
Answer. I am sure that the demands of the Department of Defense
continually create opportunities for talented people. With an
increasing number of civilians becoming eligible for retirement over
the next several years, an increased number of opportunities for
advancement should become available.
judge advocate continuation pay
Question. The Department has now had some experience with
implementation of the Judge Advocate Continuation Pay which was
authorized in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2000.
Has this special pay performed its intended purpose of retaining
mid-career judge advocates?
Answer. It is my understanding that DOD is encouraged by the
initial results of the Judge Advocate Continuation Pay and that in some
cases the take-rate has been even higher than expected.
Question. Is further legislation needed?
Answer. This is something I plan to take a close look at, if
confirmed. It is my understanding that the bonus is working well to
retain those who already are serving. Whether the quality and quantity
of new accessions are sufficient to meet future needs is a matter of
equal importance.
officer management issues
Question. Do you believe the officer corps has confidence in the
integrity of the officer promotion system in the military services?
Answer. Yes. I believe the majority of officers serving in our
military services today have confidence in the integrity of the officer
promotion system.
Question. What role would you, as Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Force Management Policy, expect to play in the officer promotion
system?
Answer. If I am confirmed, I intend to be completely involved in
providing policy oversight of the officer promotion process. I expect
to be directly responsible to the Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness in carrying out his duties and responsibilities
with regard to the officer promotion system, and to ensure the
Department has provided clear policy guidance to the military services
which provides for reliability and consistency in the selection board
process.
Question. What role would you, as Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Force Management Policy, expect to play in the general officer
management and nomination process?
Answer. If confirmed, I expect to be involved in the general and
flag officer promotion process. I will be responsible to the Under
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to provide oversight
of the Department's efforts to comply with and implement applicable
laws and policies in the general and flag officer management and
nomination process.
Question. If confirmed, would you make the matter of senior officer
investigations a priority for your review and action?
Answer. Yes. I will place a priority on the timeliness and
thoroughness of investigations of senior officers in conjunction with
promotion and retirement actions.
Question. If confirmed, what actions would you take to ensure that
the services provide timely notice of potentially adverse information
regarding nominees for general and flag officer promotions?
Answer. If confirmed, I will fully commit to providing oversight of
the adverse information reporting process to ensure the committee is
provided proper and timely notification of ongoing investigations and
potentially adverse information pertaining to nominees for general and
flag officer promotion.
recoupment
Question. There are at least 19 separate provisions of law
concerning the service obligation incurred by individuals for
government funded education, training programs, and various bonuses.
Your predecessor testified that he would review these legislative
provisions and recommend legislative changes to bring order and
consistency to these requirements. To date, no such recommendations
have been received.
Do you support recoupment of the residual value of an education,
training program or bonus paid in return for a service commitment?
Answer. Yes, as a general rule, when the service commitment was not
carried out and the military member was clear about this possibility as
part of his or her military contract.
Question. Will you assure this committee that, if confirmed, you
would conduct the review your predecessor agreed to conduct and
recommend appropriate legislative changes?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review recoupment policies and provide
the Secretary with my judgment as to the need for any needed
legislative changes.
recruiting and retention
Question. The end of year statistics assessing the military
services' success in recruiting and retention were released by the
Department of Defense in October 2000. These figures, while not as bad
as earlier predictions, do not in all cases achieve the authorized end
strengths.
What steps would you take, if confirmed, to assist the services in
meeting their recruiting and retention goals?
Answer. First, with regard to recruiting, I would take full
advantage of the change to last year's Authorization Act sponsored by
Senator Hutchinson. I would help the services gain access to high
schools by personally and productively engaging with local educational
agencies, in cooperation with state agencies and the Department of
Education, to ensure current laws are followed. I also would ensure
that the services are working under a coordinated plan, to ensure that
school officials fully understand the opportunities military service
offers to their graduates. Finally, I would ensure that we have aligned
plans and resources in a way that allows us to effectively penetrate
the growing college market.
Clearly we must be successful in recruiting quality people, but
continued attention to what it takes to keep them serving is essential
for force readiness. We must not lose sight of the fact that retention
is not just about the service members, but about their families as
well. Quality of life is key to retaining a service member and his or
her family. Our men and women in uniform recognize they will never
become wealthy as a member of the Armed Forces, but they expect a
standard of living with opportunities for individual and family growth
comparable to their civilian counterparts. Consequently, I would ensure
we keep a sharp focus on pay and compensation issues.
Pay and compensation alone will not address all the problems
service members face. Service members understand time away is part of
the profession, but I believe we should carefully balance deployments
and the associated military training requirements with the stability
necessary for the long-term health of military families. A continued
focus on enhancing predictability, distributing missions carefully
within the ``Total Force,'' and protecting quality of life during the
inter-deployment period is critical.
There is no single solution to guarantee the level of retention
required to ensure a ready force. Retaining our best people will
require a combination of initiatives aimed at enhancing the quality of
family life and quality of service conditions.
Question. Recent emphasis regarding recruiting and retention has
been focused on the active component. The Reserve components are facing
even greater challenges in these areas. What steps would you take, if
confirmed, to assist the Reserve components in achieving their
recruiting and retention goals?
Answer. To maintain a world class fighting force, we must rely on
the Reserve component of the ``Total Force.'' We can't have one without
the other.
With regard to Reserve recruiting, I would ensure that
opportunities in the Reserve components are well known to those
individuals from the active services who choose to separate
voluntarily, as a means of keeping them in uniform. I also would ensure
that ``lessons learned'' and best business practices are effectively
exchanged between the active and Reserve components. The same is true
with respect to assisting the Reserve components with achieving their
retention goals.
anthrax vaccine immunization program
Question. DOD considers the biological agent anthrax the most
serious biological weapon threat to our military force. Tasteless,
odorless, colorless and difficult to detect, anthrax is easy to produce
in large quantities and remains viable over long periods of time. The
Anthrax Vaccine Immunization Program (AVIP) was initiated by the
previous Secretary of Defense after the recommendation of the Chairman,
the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Commanders of Korea and Central
Command. To date, more than 500,000 members have been inoculated using
over 2 million doses. Since July 2000, the program has undergone two
slowdowns because of limited quantities of FDA-approved vaccine.
If confirmed, and if additional FDA-approved vaccine becomes
available, do you plan to reimplement and continue the Anthrax
Vaccination Immunization Policy?
Answer. As I understand it, Secretary Cohen decided to implement
this program on the advice of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
and the Commander-in-Chief, Central Command and Commander-in-Chief,
U.S. Forces Korea. If confirmed, I expect to examine, with my
colleagues in the Department, all aspects of the program carefully to
determine the best approach.
Question. How do you believe the Department should respond to
service members who refuse to take the vaccine when required to do so?
Answer. I know anthrax kills. I am convinced that our enemies have
the ability to deliver anthrax spores on our forces. I believe it would
be irresponsible not to take every step possible to protect our service
members from any known threat. In providing such protection, it is
important that the Department and the military services earn the trust
of service members that the protective measures are safe and effective.
I believe that the Department will ensure that the current and any
future anthrax immunization will be safe, effective and have been
approved by the appropriate government agencies. I also believe that
the Department is committed to pursue new vaccine technologies in order
to protect our military personnel against anthrax and other biological
agents or disease.
homosexual conduct policy
Question. The current Department of Defense Homosexual Conduct
Policy went into effect in February 1994 after months of congressional
hearings and debate resulting in the enactment of a Federal statute.
Although there have been some changes in how this policy has been
implemented, the basic policy has not been changed.
Do you believe the current policy is effective? If confirmed, do
you plan to make any changes to the basic policy or its implementation?
If so, what changes would you propose?
Answer. I believe that the statute in this area is very clear.
Consistent with Secretary Rumsfeld's previous statement, and with what
President Bush said during the campaign, there are no plans to
recommend changes to either current law or policy.
Question. A DOD working group of senior military and civilian
representatives from each of the military services recently proposed an
action plan to address the problem of harassment based on perceived
sexual orientation and other issues raised by the Inspector General.
The review resulted in a 13-point action plan to eliminate all forms of
harassment. The Department announced that it would issue a Department-
wide directive on this subject.
Do you support the 13-point plan issued by the Secretary's working
group? Will you ensure that the Department issues and enforces an
appropriate directive to implement and enforce the plan?
Answer. I believe that harassment in any form is inconsistent with
military values and needs to be dealt with quickly and effectively by
military leaders. If confirmed, I will review the findings of the
working group and recommend actions that should be taken as a result.
montgomery gi bill
Question. Almost all new service members enroll in and contribute
to the Montgomery GI Bill. Only about half use their benefits, and many
do not use all of their entitlement. Many of these soldiers, sailors,
airmen, and marines say they would like to stay in the service, but
feel they have to leave so that they can provide for the education of
their spouses and children. Some of these service members would stay in
the service if they could transfer all or a part of their unused
entitlement to GI Bill benefits to family members in return for a
service commitment. Service Secretaries could use this retention tool
selectively, just as they use reenlistment bonuses.
If confirmed, will you give serious consideration to how the
Department of Defense could use the transfer of unused GI Bill benefits
to family members as a retention tool and provide your thoughts on how
we best do this?
Answer. This is a serious proposal and one, among others, we should
carefully consider.
gender integrated training
Question. Basic training, which may be the single most important
phase of an individual's life in the military, is structured and
defined differently by each service. Men training for direct ground
combat positions in the Army and Marine Corps train in all-male units.
Men and women training to serve in positions that are open to women in
the Army, Navy, and Air Force train in gender-integrated units. Men and
women in the Marine Corps are segregated at boot camp, then integrated
during subsequent training.
Do you believe the current DOD policy of allowing each of the
services to establish its own policy for gender integration in basic
training is effective?
Answer. I believe the test of whether basic training is
accomplishing its goal is whether it is producing the qualified
soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines required for our forces and the
fleet. Service Chiefs and CINCs are the best judge of recruits coming
out of basic training. If confirmed, I would like to consult with these
senior leaders for their assessment.
Question. If confirmed, would you propose changes to the DOD or
service policies? If so, what changes will you propose?
Answer. As noted above, I would want to consult with the Service
Chiefs and CINCs before making any recommendations to the Secretary.
concurrent receipt
Question. Military retirees with disabilities incurred during their
military service are eligible to receive military retired pay from the
Department of Defense and veterans' disability compensation from the
Department of Veterans' Affairs. However, current law requires that
military retired pay be reduced by the amount of the veterans'
benefits. Military retirement pay and disability compensation were
earned and awarded for different purposes. Military retirees earned
their retirement by dedicating 20 or more years of service to our
Nation's defense. Disability compensation is awarded to compensate
veterans for injuries incurred in the line of duty.
If confirmed, would you support a change in the law to permit
disabled military retirees to receive their full retired pay as well as
their disability compensation?
Answer. I recognize that this is a long-standing concern of
military retirees and the Department of Defense alike. I am aware that
the Department has traditionally opposed the idea of concurrent
receipt. If concurrent receipt were to be approved there would be a
funding impact within the Department, which would affect quality of
life and readiness programs.
conversion of military positions to civilian positions
Question. Whenever Defense organizations undergo staffing changes,
a review is conducted to determine which positions are ``military
essential'' and which positions can be converted to civilian positions.
However, there is no systematic process to review positions in
organizations not experiencing such a change to determine whether
military positions should be converted to civilian positions. In 1997,
GAO, using DOD and service guidance, determined that 14 percent of
active duty officer positions were candidates for military to civilian
conversion.
If confirmed, would you initiate a review of military positions to
determine whether they are truly ``military essential'' and identify
those that can be converted to civilian positions?
Answer. If confirmed, I would carefully examine all aspects of this
issue, including any previous studies, to determine whether further
reviews are necessary.
management of the congressional fellowship program
Question. For the past several years, the committee has expressed
concern about the management of legislative fellows by the military
departments and the Department of Defense.
If confirmed, would you review the Department's policies pertaining
to the management of legislative fellows and provide the committee your
assessment of which management reforms have been implemented and which
require additional action?
Answer. Yes.
Question. What are your personal views on the value and current
management of the legislative fellowship program within the Department
of Defense? Specifically, in your opinion are legislative fellowships
awarded to deserving military or civilian personnel?
Answer. I believe the legislative fellowship program is an
excellent opportunity for outstanding individuals, both military and
civilian, to observe and gain an understanding of the legislative
branch of government. I believe legislative fellowships are generally
awarded to deserving military and civilian personnel with demonstrated
potential to benefit from the experience.
Question. Following their fellowship, are legislative fellows
assigned to positions in their service in which the experience and
knowledge they gained during their fellowship is used effectively?
Answer. The Department's directive makes clear that the intent of
the legislative fellowship program is to assign fellows to follow-on
tours in which the education gained by the fellowship can be used. If
confirmed, I will take steps to ensure, that to the maximum extent
possible, the military services are assigning legislative fellows to
positions in which his or her experience will contribute to the
Department or his or her service.
Question. In your opinion, is it appropriate under the authority in
Title 10, United States Code, for Reserve component full-time support
personnel to participate in the legislative fellowship program?
Answer. Participation of Reserve component full-time support
personnel in the legislative fellowship program is appropriate only to
the extent that the fellowship and follow-on assignment are consistent
with the authorities in Title 10, United States Code.
Question. If so, how does such an assignment enhance the readiness
of the Reserve components as required by title 10?
Answer. While there may be full-time support positions for which
the experiences of the fellowship could be helpful, if confirmed, I
would review the Department's policy to ensure consistency with title
10.
Question. In your opinion, is it appropriate to bring a Reserve
component member on active duty solely to participate in a legislative
fellowship program?
Answer. Again, there may be occasions when it is appropriate to
bring a Reserve component member on active duty but, if confirmed, I
would want to review the Department's policy.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, when asked, to give your personal views,
even if those views differ from the administration in power?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Force Management Policy?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings, and
other communications of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Rick Santorum
Senator Santorum. Mr. Abell, the 99th Regional Support Command
(99th RSC), located near Pittsburgh, and Naval Air Station Joint
Reserve Base, Willow Grove, located near Philadelphia, have each sought
my support for the construction of a new commissary to serve members of
their respective military communities.
I had previously raised the issue of a new commissary for the 99th
RSC with Richard Beale, the then-director of the Defense Commissary
Agency (DeCA), and received a less than adequate response from General
Beale. Do I have your assurance that you will work with DeCA to see
that requests for the construction of new commissaries in eastern and
western Pennsylvania are given appropriate attention and consideration?
Mr. Abell. Yes, I will make sure the DeCA and the Commissary
Operating Board give appropriate attention and consideration to
requests for new commissaries in those locations.
Senator Santorum. Mr. Abell, currently, disabled military retirees
who receive disability compensation have a portion of their retired pay
reduced equal to the amount of the compensation. Many in the military
community believe this is tantamount to forcing disabled stretirees to
pay their own disability compensation.
It is my understanding that Senator Hutchinson and Senator Warner
support efforts to allow military retirees to receive both their full
retirement pay and their full disability pay. It is also my
understanding that the cost of this change is significant. In his
fiscal year 2002 views and estimates letter to Budget Committee
Chairman Domenici, Senator Warner indicated that changing this
provision of law will cost $3.8 billion a year in mandatory spending.
With additional funds needed for military health care costs, pay
raises, real property maintenance, and recruiting initiatives, where do
you believe the concurrent receipt problem fits with other unfunded or
underfunded priorities?
Mr. Abell. The issue of concurrent receipt is one that presents
some challenges and deserves further review. There is a perception on
the part of some retirees that they must pay for their own disability
compensation. This perception is rooted in the requirement that retired
military personnel must waive some or all of their retired pay in order
to receive VA disability compensation. However, the law is clear in its
prohibition against concurrent receipt. While the law may be clear, I
believe the important nature of the matter merits reconsideration and a
comprehensive review. I plan to make such a review as soon as possible.
Senator Santorum. Mr. Abell, Section 334 of H.R. 4205, the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, authorized the sale of
magazines and other periodicals as an authorized merchandise category
for sale in commissaries. In addition, conferees to the legislation
directed the Secretary of Defense to promulgate policy guidance that
would limit the display of magazines and other periodicals in
commissaries to the immediate area of the checkout lanes.
A constituent company has shared information with my office
indicating that DeCA has initiated the process of promulgating guidance
on the display of magazines and other periodicals in commissaries. Do I
have your assurance that you will work with DeCA and Maj. Gen. Robert
Courter to see that the magazine publishing industry has the
opportunity to have their views and perspective on DeCA's draft
guidance heard?
Mr. Abell. Yes, DeCA has invited a number of publishers to a
meeting to share information on how the industry operates, DeCA
requirements, and doing business with the Government.
______
[The nomination reference of Charles S. Abell follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
March 29, 2001.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Charles S. Abell of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of
Defense, vice Alphonso Maldon, Jr., resigned.
______
[The biographical sketch of Charles S. Abell, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Charles S. Abell
For the past 8 years, Mr. Charles S. Abell has served as a
professional staff member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Mr. Abell joined the Armed Services Committee staff in 1993, after
a 26-year career in the Army that began as an enlisted soldier and
concluded with his retirement as a Lieutenant Colonel.
He was the lead staffer for the Subcommittee on Personnel,
responsible for issues concerning military readiness and quality of
life. Included in this are manpower; pay and compensation; and
personnel management issues affecting active duty, Reserve and civilian
personnel; health care; nominations, both military and civilian
appointees; and the organization and functions within the Department of
Defense.
He worked on codification of the ``Don't ask, don't tell'' policy
prohibiting open homosexuals from serving in the military and
legislation concerning the assignment of women. In recent years, he has
had the primary committee responsibility for a broad array of important
initiatives aimed at restoring cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) equity
for military retirees and survivors; improving the military health care
program; upgrading Survivor Benefit Plan coverage; and enhancing pay,
allowances and retirement programs for Active Duty and Reserve members
and TRICARE-For-Life, guaranteeing all retires coverage within TRICARE,
the military health care system.
During his Army career, Mr. Abell was a Cobra attack helicopter
pilot--a decorated officer who led an infantry platoon, an infantry
company and attack helicopter units during two tours in Vietnam. He
also served command and staff positions at each level of the Army.
Mr. Abell earned a Bachelor of Science in Political Science form
the University of Tampa and a Master of Science in Human Resource
Management from Columbus University.
Mr. Abell's decorations include the Legion of Merit, 4 Meritorious
Service Medals, the Purple Heart, 2 Bronze Stars for Valor, 14 Air
Medals, 2 for valor, the Army Commendation Medal for valor, and the
Combat Infantryman's Badge.
He is married to Cathy Abell and resides in Fairfax, Virginia.
______
[The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
form that details the biographical, financial and other
information of the nominee. The form executed by Charles S.
Abell in connection with his nomination follows:]
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Room SR-228
Washington, DC 20510-6050
(202) 224-3871
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation
of your answer applies.
Part A--Biographical Information
Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.
1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
Charles S. Abell.
2. Position to which nominated:
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force Management Policy.
3. Date of nomination:
March 29, 2001.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
5. Date and place of birth:
December 20, 1946; Sayre, Pennsylvania.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Cathy (McCaffrey) Abell.
7. Names and ages of children:
Jennifer Ann; 25.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
Wyoming Seminary High School--1962-1964--High School Diploma.
Wake Forest University--1964-1966--None.
University of Tampa--1975-1976--B.S.
Columbus University--1998-1999--M.S.
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
United States Army Officer--1966-1992.
Senate Armed Services Committee.
228 Russell Senate Office Building.
Washington, DC. 20510.
Professional Staff Member--1993-Present.
10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative,
honorary or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State,
or local governments, other than those listed above.
None.
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
None.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
Life Member, The Retired Officers Association.
Life Member, National Rifle Association.
13. Political affiliations and activities:
(a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or
any public office for which you have been a candidate.
None.
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5
years.
None.
(c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $100 or more for the past 5 years.
$500.00 to Bush/Cheney For President--August 1999.
14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals, and any other special
recognitions for outstanding service or achievements.
Alpha Chi National Honor Society.
Militia Award, Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the
United States--1994.
TROA Meritorious Service Award, The Retired Officers Association;
two awards--2000 and 2001.
Order of Military Medical Merit, Army Medical Department--1998.
Award of Merit, The Military Coalition--1998.
Friend of the Regiment, Army Medical Department--1997.
Military Awards:
Legion of Merit, two awards.
Bronze Star with ``V'' device, two awards.
Purple Heart.
Meritorious Service Medal, four awards.
Air Medal with ``V'' device, 15 awards.
Army Commendation Medal with ``V'' device, two awards.
Good Conduct Medal.
National Defense Service Medal.
Armed Forces Reserve Medal.
Overseas Service Ribbon, two awards.
Vietnam Campaign Medal.
Combat Infantryman's Badge.
Army Aviator Wings.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
None.
16. Speeches: Provide the committee with two copies of any formal
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have
copies of and are on topics relevant to the position for which you have
been nominated.
None.
17. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree,
if confirmed, to respond to requests to appear and testify before any
duly constituted committee of the Senate?
Yes.
______
[The nominee responded to the questions in Parts B-F of the
committee questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set
forth in the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to
Parts B-F are contained in the committee's executive files.]
------
Signature and Date
I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate,
and complete.
Charles S. Abell.
This 12th day of March, 2001.
[The nomination of Charles S. Abell was reported to the
Senate by Senator John Warner on May 1, 2001, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on May 3, 2001.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to Victoria Clarke by
Chairman Warner prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
April 19, 2001.
Hon. John Warner,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Enclosed herewith are the answers to the advance
questions the Senate Armed Services Committee asked me to complete.
Sincerely,
Victoria Clarke.
cc: Senator Carl Levin,
Ranking Minority Member.
______
Questions and Responses
defense reforms
Question. More than 10 years have passed since the enactment of the
Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and
the Special Operations reforms. From your close association with
defense issues, you have had an opportunity to observe the
implementation and impact of those reforms.
Do you support full implementation of these defense reforms?
Answer. The establishment of the unified and specified combatant
commands, the delineation of responsibilities, and most importantly,
the focus on ``jointness'' outlined in the Defense Reorganization Act
of 1986 have enhanced the readiness and warfighting capabilities of the
U.S. Armed Forces.
Question. What is your view of the extent to which these defense
reforms have been implemented?
Answer. These reforms have changed the way the Department of
Defense works by strengthening the role of the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff and the combatant commanders and significantly
improving the ability of the Department to protect America's security
and further its vital interests. The reforms have helped improve the
interaction among the services in conducting military operations by
making joint operations the norm.
Question. What do you consider to be the most important aspects of
these defense reforms?
Answer. I would consider each of the goals noted below to be an
important aspect of these defense reforms. Each one has enhanced the
ability of the Department of Defense to carry out its assigned
responsibilities.
Question. The goals of Congress in enacting these defense reforms,
as reflected in Section 3 of the Goldwater-Nichols Department of
Defense Reorganization Act, can be summarized as strengthening civilian
control; improving military advice; placing a clear responsibility on
the combatant commanders for the accomplishment of their missions;
ensuring the authority of the combatant commanders is commensurate with
their responsibilities; increasing attention to the formulation of
strategy and to contingency planning; providing for more efficient use
of defense resources; and enhancing the effectiveness of military
operations and improving the management and administration of the
Department of Defense.
Do you agree with these goals?
Answer. Yes, I support the goals of Congress in enacting the
reforms of the Goldwater-Nichols legislation.
responsibilities
Question. If confirmed as the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Public Affairs, what would you view as your principle responsibilities
to the Secretary of Defense?
Answer. The Secretary is committed to an ambitious agenda to
organize the Department of Defense to more closely reflect and respond
to the threats of the 21st century. I believe the involvement and
commitment of the American people is absolutely critical to that
agenda's successful enactment. If confirmed as the Assistant Secretary
of Defense for Public Affairs, my over-arching responsibility to the
Secretary would be to help him ensure the effectiveness of the Nation's
military by engaging the American people in a national conversation
about the threats we face and how we respond to them. Success in
building the military of the future absolutely depends on their
involvement.
On a day-to-day basis, I would serve as the principal staff
assistant and advisor to the Secretary of Defense and the Deputy
Secretary of Defense for DOD news media relations, public information,
internal information, community relations, public affairs, visual
information training, and audiovisual matters.
Department of Defense directives provide that the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs will ensure a free flow of news
and information to the media, appropriate forums, and the American
people, limited only by national security constraints and statutory
mandates.
Question. What guidelines would you use to determine what
information can and cannot be released to the news media and the
public?
Answer. The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs has
responsibility for the security review of Department of Defense
materials for publication and release, including testimony before
congressional committees.
In keeping with these functions, if confirmed, I will ensure
compliance with the established DOD ``Principles of Information,''
which state that the policy of DOD is to make available timely and
accurate information in order for the public, Congress, and the news
media to assess and understand the facts about national security and
defense strategy. I believe the freest possible flow of information--
both to the public and in the context of a close working relationship
with Congress--will help build the strongest possible public support
for a robust national defense that meets the threats of the 21st
century.
In addition, if confirmed, I will support the Principles of
Information that have long guided the Department's obligations for
releasing information. The Principles are published in DODD 5122.5.
Question. What policy would you intend to follow in carrying out
these responsibilities?
Answer. It is Department of Defense policy to make available timely
and accurate information in order for the public, Congress, and the
news media to assess and understand the facts about national security
and defense strategy. If confirmed, I will ensure that this policy is
continued, that DOD works closely with Congress and that the American
people are engaged in and committed to the process of changing our
military to keep pace with changing threats.
Question. Aside from restrictions related to classified and
sensitive-source materials, what restrictions, if any, would you apply
in approving material prepared for release by Department of Defense
officials?
Answer. Information will be made fully and readily available,
consistent with statutory requirements, unless its release is precluded
by current and valid security classification. The provisions of the
Freedom of Information Act will be supported in letter and spirit.
Restricting the flow of information to the public, Congress, or members
of the Armed Forces would be an impediment to the national consensus I
believe must be achieved for effective change to occur.
Information will not be classified or otherwise withheld to protect
the government from criticism or embarrassment. Information will be
withheld only when disclosure would adversely affect national security
or threaten the safety or privacy of the members of the Armed Forces.
A free flow of general and military information will be made
available, without censorship or propaganda, to the men and women of
the Armed Forces and their family members.
The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs should adopt
the motto: Maximum Disclosure, Minimum Delay. The Department of
Defense's obligation to provide the public with information on its
major programs may require detailed public affairs planning and
coordination within DOD and with other government agencies. The sole
purpose of such activity is to expedite the flow of information to the
public. Ensuring accuracy is one of the very few reasons to delay the
release of information.
news analysis and news clipping service
Question. The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs has
responsibility for overseeing the provision of news analysis and the
news clipping services for the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the
Joint Staff, and the headquarters of the military departments.
What policy do you intend to follow, if confirmed, in providing
news analysis and in determining which news media reports should be
disseminated throughout the Pentagon?
Answer. The Early Bird and its sister publications, the Supplement
and the Radio-TV Dialog, provide the Secretary of Defense and the DOD
leadership with news clippings from major news publications. The
purpose of this clipping service is to inform the leadership about what
the American people are reading and hearing about defense-related
activities. If confirmed, my policy will be to ensure that this service
provides the leadership with the best information they need to perform
their missions and to keep the American people accurately informed
about the Department of Defense.
stars and stripes newspapers
Question. In recent years, there has been much discussion of and
policy changes with regard to the independence of the Stars and Stripes
newspapers.
If confirmed, what would your role and responsibilities be with
regard to the Stars and Stripes newspapers?
Answer. If confirmed, my role will be to provide policy and broad
operational guidance to the Director of the American Forces Information
Service, who would be my point of contact with the Stars and Stripes.
He is responsible for the policy, business, financial, operational, and
administrative control of the Stars and Stripes. My guidance would be
directed at ensuring that the Stars and Stripes continues to serve as
an independent and credible source of news and information to our Armed
Forces and their families serving overseas.
Question. In your opinion, what is the role of the Stars and
Stripes newspapers?
Answer. The Stars and Stripes is a DOD-authorized daily newspaper
distributed overseas for the U.S. military community. It provides
commercially available U.S. and world news and staff-produced objective
reports relevant to the military community. By keeping our troops and
their families informed, the newspaper enhances both the readiness and
the quality of life of its audience.
The Stars and Stripes is needed because no other daily newspaper is
available to our troops, wherever they serve overseas, that focuses on
the military and the activities of the military community, as well as
focusing on the U.S. and world news that is relevant to this audience.
In this sense, the Stars and Stripes is the hometown newspaper for our
overseas servicemen and women and their families.
Question. In your opinion, are the Stars and Stripes newspapers
editorially independent?
Answer. Yes, and there are many safeguards to keep them that way:
The DOD Directive (5122.11) states that the Stars and
Stripes is ``editorially independent of interference from
outside its editorial chain of command.'' No one at the
American Forces Information Service or in my office sees the
content of the newspaper until after publication.
The directive also mandates the hiring of a highly
qualified journalist whose primary responsibility is to ensure
the editorial independence of the newspaper.
The House and Senate Armed Services Committees have
provided additional oversight in helping to ensure the success
and independence of the Stars and Stripes. The Stars and
Stripes Ombudsman has the right to meet independently with
these committees whenever he feels it is necessary.
The Society for Professional Journalists serves as an
unofficial champion of the editorial independence of the
newspaper. An SPJ representative is invited to all Stars and
Stripes Board of Directors meetings.
Question. What restrictions, if any, would you recommend be placed
on the editorial or reporting staff of the Stars and Stripes
newspapers?
Answer. The only limitations on the editorial independence of the
Stars and Stripes are those that are outlined in the DOD Directive. It
is my understanding that that directive is currently being staffed
throughout the Department of Defense to update it. It was last issued
in 1993. If confirmed, I will review it carefully to ensure it meets
the standards and objectives I have outlined.
Question. The function and responsibilities of the Stars and
Stripes Ombudsman have been the subject of debate and discussion within
the American Forces Information Service and among journalists outside
the Department of Defense.
Do you support an independent Ombudsman?
Answer. Absolutely. I view the Ombudsman as a safeguard of the
editorial independence of the newspaper and as a valued proponent of
the readership in ensuring that information published in the Stars and
Stripes is fair, accurate, and balanced. The Ombudsman has the
independence and stature to serve as an honest broker that can
represent and help educate the editorial staff, readers, Commanders,
and Public Affairs Officers.
Question. What guidance would you provide, if confirmed, with
regard to the role, responsibilities and functions of the Stars and
Stripes Ombudsman?
Answer. If confirmed, I will do everything in my power to support
the independence of the Ombudsman. This independence is currently
protected by:
DOD Directive.
The Ombudsman reports directly to the Director of
AFIS. That means he is not subjected to Command or Public
Affairs pressures.
The Ombudsman has direct access to Congress.
The Ombudsman serves a 3-year fixed term. He can't be
fired, and his term cannot be extended. This helps protect his
independence.
The Ombudsman publishes articles in the Stars and
Stripes whenever he deems it necessary and appropriate.
Although he may voluntarily send an advance copy to AFIS
Director for comment, the Ombudsman has final authority to
publish without being edited.
I support all of these protections.
press coverage of contingency or combat operations
Question. In the past 10 years, press coverage of contingency and
other high and low intensity operations has increased. This increased
coverage has, many times, resulted in conflicts between the press corps
and military organizations.
If confirmed, how would you resolve the tension between the media's
demand for access and the need to protect certain operational details?
Answer. If confirmed, it will be my policy that information will be
withheld only when disclosure would adversely affect national security
or threaten the safety or privacy of the members of the Armed Forces.
freedom of information act
Question. If confirmed, what would your role and responsibilities
be with regard to the Freedom of Information Act?
Answer. As a DOD official, I will fully support the Freedom of
Information Act. I will make information readily available, unless its
release is precluded because of classification, by law, or other lawful
reasons authorized by the act. If information is releasable and readily
available, I will not create obstacles by requiring that a formal FOIA
request be submitted. When tasked to provide records in response to a
FOIA request, I will make every effort to comply within the time period
established by the act and make available all responsive documents
under my jurisdiction.
Question. If confirmed, what responsibilities would you have under
the Privacy Act and how would you fulfill those responsibilities?
Answer. It is important to do everything we can to respect and
protect the privacy of individuals. It is, therefore, critical that
Department of Defense personnel who are charged with communicating with
the public or the news media understand the restrictions that the
Privacy Act or other law, such as FOIA, impose on the release of
information about an individual. If confirmed, it will be my
responsibility to balance the need to be responsive to the public's
desire for information with the need to prevent any invasion of privacy
that may result from the disclosure of information. I intend to fulfill
this responsibility by continuing to ensure that the Department's
public affairs personnel are adequately and properly trained and
understand their obligations under current law. My goal is to sensitize
personnel to the importance of avoiding unwarranted invasions of
privacy that can result from information disclosures.
major challenges
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges confronting
the next Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs?
Answer. The major challenge confronting the Department as a whole
is to build a military that reflects the threats of the 21st century.
The extraordinary degree of change that will be necessary to succeed
demands, in turn, the full engagement and support of the American
people.
That challenge is complicated by several factors. On the one hand,
as a frank practical matter, the sheer proliferation of news outlets
combined with the instantaneous and constant news cycle demand daunting
effort just to keep up. On the other hand, the level of interest in
military matters should be viewed as a potential opportunity. Fewer and
fewer Americans have much, if any, contact with men and women in
uniform. Not knowing can too easily evolve into not caring. Especially
today, with threats to national security both grave and new, it is
absolutely critical that Americans know both the threats we face and
the heroic sacrifices our troops are making to meet them.
Question. If confirmed, what plans do you have for addressing these
challenges?
Answer. Given the scope of change and challenge facing DOD, we must
wage a full-scale communications campaign aimed at engaging the
American people in a conversation on and commitment to a military built
for the 21st century. We must educate Americans about what the military
faces and the change we need. That means reaching out to every sector
of society.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, when asked, to give your personal views,
even if those views differ from the administration in power?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Public Affairs?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings, and
other communications of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes.
______
[Question for the record with answer supplied follows:]
Question Submitted by Senator Jim Bunning
Senator Bunning. The Department of Defense uses an individual's
Social Security number as their service identification number.
Recently, there have been some reports of identity theft from active
duty military members. Privacy Act requirements notwithstanding,
anecdotal evidence suggests that it is actually fairly easy to get the
Social Security numbers of active duty military personnel, easier than
for most civilians
What is your plan to stop the use of Social Security numbers as
military identification numbers?
Ms. Clarke.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
[The nomination reference of Victoria Clarke follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
April 5, 2001.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Victoria Clarke of Maryland, to be Assistant Secretary of Defense,
vice Kenneth H. Bacon, resigned.
______
[The biographical sketch of Victoria Clarke, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Victoria Clarke
current position
Victoria Clarke is the General Manager of the Washington, DC office
of Hill and Knowlton. She is responsible for the oversight of all
Washington practice area operations. (November, 1999-present).
prior history
Prior to joining Hill and Knowlton, Ms. Clarke was the President of
Bozell Eskew Advertising, an issues and advocacy advertising firm that
is a division of BSMG Worldwide, Inc. The firm produced advertising for
PhRMA, Microsoft, the National Cable Television Association, the Steel
Industry and others. (December 1998-November 1999).
Previously, Ms. Clarke served for 6 years with the National Cable
Television Association (NCTA), leaving with the position of Vice
President for Public Affairs and Strategic Counsel.
Ms. Clarke has an extensive history in public policy. Starting as a
press assistant in Vice President Bush's office in 1982, she continued
on to the position of press secretary to Senator John McCain (R-AZ),
working in both his House and Senate offices. Following that Ms. Clarke
was the assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Public Affairs and
Private Sector Liaison under Ambassador Carla Hills and in 1992 she was
the Press Secretary for President George Bush's re-election campaign.
other information
Ms. Clarke serves on the Board of Directors for the District of
Columbia Special Olympics and the National Foreign Trade Council. In
addition, she serves on the Board of Trustees for the Washington
Educational Television Association (WETA).
She is married and has three children.
______
[The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
form that details the biographical, financial, and other
information of the nominee. The form executed by Victoria
Clarke in connection with her nomination follows:]
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Room SR-228
Washington, DC 20510-6050
(202) 224-3871
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation
of your answer applies.
Part A--Biographical Information
Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.
1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
Victoria Clarke.
2. Position to which nominated:
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs.
3. Date of nomination:
April 5, 2001.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
5. Date and place of birth:
May 18, 1959; Pittsburgh, PA.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to James Brian Graham.
7. Names and ages of children:
Colin Charles Graham, 5; Devon Grady Graham, 4; Charles William
Graham, 2.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
George Washington University (9/79-6/82).
Received B.A. in Journalism (6/82).
North Carolina State University (9/77-5/79).
Sewickley Academy (9/75-6/77).
Received high school diploma (6/77).
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
11/99--present: General Manager of Hill & Knowlton (Washington,
DC).
12/98-11/99: President of Bozell/Eskew Advertising (Washington,
DC).
9/93-11/98: Vice President for Public Affairs at the National Cable
TV Assoc. (Washington, DC).
4/93-9/93: Consultant for Edelman Public Relations (Washington,
DC).
12/92-4/93: Self-employed consultant (Washington, DC).
1/92-11/92: Press Secretary for Bush-Quayle 1992 (Washington, DC).
11/89-1/92: Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Public Affairs
and Private Sector Liaison.
10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative,
honorary or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State,
or local governments, other than those listed above.
1999: Conducted a review of recruiting advertising for the
Department of Defense.
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational or other institution.
General Manager and member of U.S. Management Committee for Hill &
Knowlton.
Member of Board of Trustees for WETA (Public Broadcasting).
Member of Board of Directors for DC Special Olympics.
Member of Board of the National Foreign Trade Council.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
None.
13. Political affiliations and activities:
(a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or
any public office for which you have been a candidate.
None.
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5
years.
1996: I provided media relations support for 2 weeks for the Dole-
Kemp campaign. I used vacation time from my job (then: NCTA) and was
not paid for the work.
(c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $100 or more for the past 5 years.
Retained in committee files.
14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals, and any other special
recognitions for outstanding service or achievements.
1996--Named Woman of the Year by the Women in Cable &
Telecommunications Assoc.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
None.
16. Speeches: Provide the committee with two copies of any formal
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have
copies of and are on topics relevant to the position for which you have
been nominated.
None.
17. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree,
if confirmed, to respond to requests to appear and testify before any
duly constituted committee of the Senate?
Yes.
______
[The nominee responded to the questions in Parts B-F of the
committee questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set
forth in the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to
Parts B-F are contained in the committee's executive files.]
------
Signature and Date
I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate,
and complete.
Victoria Clarke.
This 1st day of March, 2001.
[The nomination of Victoria Clarke was reported to the
Senate by Senator John Warner on May 1, 2001, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on May 17, 2001.]
NOMINATIONS OF EDWARD C. ALDRIDGE TO BE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR
ACQUISITION AND TECHNOLOGY; WILLIAM J. HAYNES II TO BE GENERAL COUNSEL
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; AND POWELL A. MOORE TO BE ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 26, 2001
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:39 a.m. in room
SD-106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator John Warner
(chairman) presiding.
Committee members present: Senators Warner, Bunning, Levin,
Cleland, and Dayton.
Other Senators present: Senator Thompson.
Committee staff members present: Romie L. Brownlee, staff
director; Judith A. Ansley, deputy staff director; Scott W.
Stucky, general counsel; and Ann M. Mittermeyer, assistant
counsel.
Professional staff members present: Charles S. Abell, John
R. Barnes, William C. Greenwalt, Gary M. Hall, Carolyn M.
Hanna, George W. Lauffer, Patricia L. Lewis, Thomas L.
MacKenzie, Cord A. Sterling, and Eric H. Thoemmes.
Minority staff members present: David S. Lyles, staff
director for the minority; Madelyn R. Creedon, minority
counsel; and Gerald J. Leeling, minority counsel.
Professional staff members present: Daniel J. Cox, Jr.,
Creighton Greene, Michael J. McCord, and Terence P. Szuplat.
Staff assistants present: Beth Ann Barozie, Shekinah Z.
Hill, and Michele A. Traficante.
Committee members' assistants present: J. Mark Powers,
assistant to Senator Inhofe; George M. Bernier, III, assistant
to Senator Santorum; Robert Alan McCurry, assistant to Senator
Roberts; Douglas Flanders and Charles Cogar, assistants to
Senator Allard; Kristine Fauser, assistant to Senator Collins;
David Young, assistant to Senator Bunning; Christina Evans and
Barry Gene (B.G.) Wright, assistants to Senator Byrd; Andrew
Vanlandingham, assistant to Senator Cleland; and Eric Pierce,
assistant to Senator Ben Nelson.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN WARNER, CHAIRMAN
Chairman Warner. Good morning, everyone. The committee
meets today to receive testimony concerning three civilian
nominees for the Department of Defense: Edward C. Aldridge,
nominated to be Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and
Technology; William J. Haynes II to be General Counsel of the
Department of Defense; and Powell A. Moore to be Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs. We welcome you.
Mr. Aldridge, I understand that your wife Jodie, your
daughter and her husband, Laura and Jeff Boyd, and friend Gale
Henderson are here. Would you introduce them, please?
Mr. Aldridge. Yes, sir, they are sitting to my right.
Chairman Warner. All present and accounted for. You did
bring reinforcements, didn't you?
Mr. Haynes, I understand your wife and daughter Sarah and
sons Will and Taylor are with you today. Would you kindly
introduce them?
Mr. Haynes. Yes, sir. They are right behind me.
Chairman Warner. All present and accounted for.
Mr. Moore, I understand that your son, Allen, and Pam
Brookenauer are with you today. We welcome you.
This is a very important event, to which families are
always welcome. The committee is pleased when they attend,
because each of you are undertaking responsibilities in a
Department which knows no hours, and knows no time when they
can go home, and therefore the families in every respect are a
very active participant in these challenging positions to which
you have been nominated, so we welcome you. As you are all
aware, the families support the individuals in these senior
positions in our Government, and we appreciate the support that
they will contribute.
Mr. Aldridge has had a distinguished career, and served in
a variety of positions in the Department of Defense and private
industry for over 30 years.
Mr. Haynes has been active in public service and private
sector endeavors. President George Bush, Sr. appointed Mr.
Haynes as General Counsel of the Department of the Army in
1990, a position he served in for 3 years. He is currently a
partner in the Washington Office of Jenner & Block, where he
represents corporate and individual clients. In the mid-1990s,
Mr. Haynes served as Staff Vice President and Associate General
Counsel for General Dynamics Corporation. He served on advisory
committees of the American Bar Association and Maryville
College in Tennessee, and on a National Academy of Sciences
Naval Studies Board. Mr. Haynes has also worked for a relief
organization and performed pro bono work in the D.C. court
system.
Mr. Moore is currently the Chief of Staff of our
distinguished colleague, Senator Fred Thompson. He has served
in that position since 1998. He has been active in public
policy affairs in Washington for more than 30 years, serving as
Assistant Secretary of State for Intergovernmental Legislative
Affairs under President Reagan, and on the White House staff
under Presidents Nixon, Ford, and Reagan.
Mr. Moore began his Washington career in 1966 as Press
Secretary to Senator Richard B. Russell of Georgia, the
chairman of this committee, and then he moved on, first serving
as Deputy Director of Public Information for the Department of
Justice, and later as a member of the White House legislative
staff. He returned to Government service for the Reagan
administration, serving as Deputy Assistant to the President
for Legislative Affairs. He has worked on numerous presidential
campaigns, and represented business interests as Vice President
for Legislative Affairs for Lockheed Corporation, and as a
consultant.
Our nominees today have a wealth of experience which they
bring to the Department of Defense, and as taxpayers and
citizens of this country, we are grateful to each of you and
your families for offering additional service.
Senator Levin.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN
Senator Levin. Mr. Chairman, let me join you in welcoming
our nominees, Mr. Aldridge, Mr. Haynes, and Mr. Moore. I want
to extend a warm welcome to them and congratulate them on their
nominations. I look forward to their service. All three
nominees come to us with a strong background of public service.
Mr. Aldridge has previously served as Secretary of the Air
Force; Mr. Haynes has served as General Counsel of the Army;
and Mr. Moore served as Assistant Secretary of State for
Intergovernmental Affairs and Legislative Affairs, and in
senior staff positions here in the Senate, including, as was
indicated, as Senator Thompson's Chief of Staff.
We know our nominees from many capacities and we welcome
them all. We thank you for your dedication to public service.
We thank your families in advance for the sacrifice they are
going to be making as a result of the long hours and hard work
that your new jobs are going to entail.
Mr. Aldridge, if confirmed as Under Secretary of Defense
for Acquisition and Technology, you are going to take on some
of the most challenging issues in the Department of Defense,
including the effective management of the Department's major
weapons programs, the revitalization of defense science and
technology, the continuation of acquisition reform and
logistics modernization, and the even-handed management of
public-private competition. This job is a very difficult and
challenging one. It is one that many of us on this committee,
indeed, even not on this committee, such as Chairman Thompson
on the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, have spent a lot
of time trying to bring some common-sense practices to and to
bring greater efficiency to.
Mr. Haynes and Mr. Moore, if confirmed, you are both going
to be serving in important positions of public trust. This
committee relies on the Assistant Secretary for Legislative
Affairs to provide us complete and timely information on the
Department's planned activities. What is less known is that we
also rely heavily upon the General Counsel to ensure that the
laws we write are fully and faithfully executed and to make
sure that the military justice system works well.
Again, I want to thank your families. I notice, Mr. Haynes,
that you have three children with you today.
Mr. Haynes. Yes, sir.
Senator Levin. At least you were able to get the tie on one
of your boys.
Mr. Haynes. It is a struggle. [Laughter.]
Senator Levin. My heart goes out to him. [Laughter.]
I want to commend your younger boy for his courage and
tenacity. I'm probably going to get in trouble with his parents
for saying this, but I am with him. [Laughter.]
That probably is going to make it more difficult to ever
get a tie on him in the future, but at any rate, we are
delighted that you and your family are here. That is true with
all of the families as well.
Chairman Warner. I suggest we recognize our colleague,
Senator Thompson. We are delighted to have you here.
STATEMENT OF HON. FRED THOMPSON, U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE
Senator Thompson. Thank you very much, Senator Levin. I
want to thank you and Chairman Warner for letting me appear
before you here today. I appear before you with very mixed
emotions that I will probably soon be losing my Chief of Staff,
Powell Moore. I told Powell that I would support him here
today, but I am reserving my right to place a hold on his
nomination later. [Laughter.]
As I said when President Bush nominated him, my loss is
certainly the country's gain. His nomination to be Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs will be just the
latest chapter in a distinguished career of public service that
began nearly 35 years ago. Powell was born in Georgia, though
he has grown into a fine Tennessean, attended the University of
Georgia, and served for 3\1/2\ years in the United States Army.
Now, Powell majored in journalism and even served as a
weekly newspaper editor before coming to Washington. He began
his service as Press Secretary for Senator Richard Russell, as
the Chairman pointed out. He then joined the Nixon
administration, serving as Deputy Director of Public
Information for the Justice Department, and later as a member
of the White House legislative affairs staff. He left the White
House in 1975, but returned 6 years later to serve as Deputy
Assistant for Legislative Affairs to President Reagan, a role
in which he managed the Senate component of legislative affairs
at the White House.
In January 1982, President Reagan nominated him to be
Assistant Secretary of State for Intergovernmental and
Legislative Affairs, and in this role he traveled with
congressional delegations to more than 35 countries, and
participated in meetings between congressional leaders and 19
heads of state.
Powell eventually entered the private sector, and answered
the call of public service again in 1998, when I asked him to
serve as my Chief of Staff. I had come to know Powell back in
1973, during the Watergate days, when I was counsel to the
Watergate Committee and Senator Baker. He was friends with
Senator Baker, and Senator Baker's staff, and I got to know him
then. Powell has been a friend ever since that time, so when I
was in need, I felt that his experience and counsel would be a
tremendous asset to me, and I was certainly right in that
regard. I will miss his wisdom and his leadership and his
counsel, as will my staff, some of whom are here today.
I would like to say I was surprised when I learned that
Powell was being called back into the executive branch, but I
was not. I knew that President Bush wanted to assemble the
strongest team possible, and it was obvious that there would be
a place on that team for Powell Moore, so I am proud to
introduce him here today.
I want to also welcome a second Tennessean here today,
William J. Haynes, who we also claim, who is up for position of
General Counsel in the Department of Defense. His parents are
Tennesseans.
So most of your panel here today, Mr. Chairman, have strong
Tennessee connections, and I want to thank you for your
consideration to me and for your consideration for Powell
Moore, who I think is and has been for many years a very strong
public servant. I think the country is fortunate, with what we
put people through nowadays across the board, and we are
looking at the presidential appointment initiative, because it
is taking longer and longer to qualify good people for service.
It took President Clinton, I believe, about 8 months to get
his cabinet together. This will probably take a year. It is
therefore becoming more and more difficult to get good people
to even come forward for public service, and the kind of people
you have at this table here today I think attest to the fact
that we are still getting good people who are willing to give a
part of their time to serve their country, and I am delighted
to see that, and I appreciate what this committee is doing in
that regard.
Thank you very much.
Senator Levin. Senator Thompson, thank you, and also thank
you for your leadership in trying to see if we cannot
streamline this process somewhat. I just left the Secretary of
Defense earlier this morning. He was going through what it is
like to be waiting over in the Pentagon for his assistants to
come on board. You are taking a leadership role in seeing if we
cannot reverse this trend, because it is just simply untenable
that we could operate a Government for up to a year with such
skeleton crews as we are forcing on our Secretaries. Thank you
for that.
Chairman Warner, I am delighted to call on you.
Chairman Warner. Thank you. I think it is a distinct
privilege for me to come down and join this distinguished group
of nominees and have the privilege of introducing an old friend
and a man whom I have admired for many years. Pete Aldridge has
been nominated to be Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition
and Technology. The position is one of the most important in
the Department, and was established by Congress at the
recommendation of the 1986 President's Blue Ribbon Commission
on Defense Management, the Packard Commission, to place a
senior official in charge of defense acquisition, to improve
the effectiveness and efficiency of acquisition management.
Earlier this morning, I had the opportunity to meet with
former Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird. I had the privilege
of serving with him and Dave Packard, and you wear the mantle
of this position for a team, the Laird-Packard team, which I
have always felt was second to none in the history of our
Department. Secretary Laird wishes you the usual, get on with
your business and do your job right. He was rather blunt.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Aldridge was Secretary of the Air Force at the time of
the creation of the position of Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition and Technology. He brings an historical perspective
of the need for the position that he has been nominated for, as
well as first-hand insight into the difficulties of exercising
more centralized oversight and control over an acquisition
process which is executed primarily by the services and the
defense agencies.
Mr. Aldridge is currently Chief Executive Officer of the
Aerospace Corporation. He came to this position from McDonnell
Douglas Electronic Systems Company, where he served as
President from 1988 to 1992. He was confirmed as the 16th
Secretary of the United States Air Force in June 1986, and led
the Department until 1988.
Mr. Aldridge has served in a variety of positions within
the Department of Defense and private industry, in addition to
those previously mentioned, for over 30 years, including
positions as Advisor to the Strategic Arms Limitations Talks in
Helsinki and in Vienna; as a Senior Manager with the LTV
Aerospace Corporation; as the Senior Management Associate in
the Office of Management and Budget; as a Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Strategic Programs; Vice President of the
National Policy and Strategic Systems Group for the Systems
Planning Corporation; and as Under Secretary of the U.S. Air
Force. He has a long and distinguished record of achievement,
including numerous awards and honors, including the Secretary
of Defense Meritorious Civilian Service Award, Distinguished
Civilian Service Award, and Distinguished Public Service Award,
among many others.
Mr. Aldridge has an exceptional record of public service.
He has the necessary experience and the background to tackle
the difficult tasks that await him in this position. This is
not an easy job, as every member of our committee recognizes.
Every sailor, soldier, airman, and marine will depend upon him
to ensure that the equipment placed in their hands is the best
that it can be.
Every taxpayer will depend upon him to ensure that this is
all done at the least possible cost. I trust, and indeed I have
confidence in him, to work hard to meet these objectives, so
Mr. Aldridge, I wish you well. You are on your own. [Laughter.]
Senator Levin. Chairman Warner suggested I proceed now to
ask each of you if you have an opening statement. Mr. Aldridge.
STATEMENT OF EDWARD C. ALDRIDGE, NOMINEE TO BE UNDER SECRETARY
OF DEFENSE FOR ACQUISITION AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Aldridge. Yes, sir. I have provided a little longer
statement for the record, sir. I would like just to summarize
that this morning.
Chairman Warner, Senator Levin, members of the Armed
Services Committee, it is indeed an honor and a privilege to
appear before this committee once again. I am very grateful to
the President and the Secretary of Defense for the confidence
and trust they have shown in me by nominating me for this very
important position and level of responsibility within the
Department of Defense.
Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate your very kind
introduction, especially the introduction of my wife, daughter,
son-in-law, and executive assistant. They all provide
significant support to my life and my career.
If confirmed, this will be my fourth tour in the Pentagon,
and the third time I have appeared before this committee in the
nomination process. My first appearance was in 1981, when I was
nominated by President Reagan to be the Under Secretary of the
Air Force. The second appearance was in 1986, when I had been
nominated to be the Secretary of the Air Force.
After leaving the Secretary of the Air Force position in
1988, I spent 3 years as President of McDonnell Douglas
Electronic Systems Company, and for the last 9 years I have
been President and Chief Executive Officer of the Aerospace
Corporation. I believe my 23 years of experience in the
aerospace industry and 17 years of experience in prior
Government positions will be valuable in conducting the
responsibilities of the office for which I have been nominated.
Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz, during
their confirmation hearings, outlined the national security
goals of the President and five key objectives of the
Department of Defense. I strongly support these goals and
objectives, and if confirmed, will do everything in my power to
assure that they are accomplished.
I have established five goals for myself and the
organization I will be honored to lead, if confirmed. These
goals, if accomplished, will contribute directly to the goals
and objectives of the President and Secretary of Defense.
The first goal is to achieve credibility and efficiency in
the acquisition and logistics support process. Too many cost
overruns, schedule slippage, and performance failures have
deteriorated our credibility and the effective management of
sophisticated weapons systems. While improvements are being
made, our logistics support system is not responsive for our
warfighters, and is archaic with respect to commercial
standards of parts supply and support. We need to attack cycle
times, introduce stability in our programs, and apply good
business practices to achieve efficiencies.
The second goal is to revitalize the quality and morale of
the acquisition workforce. The morale of our acquisition
workforce in military and civilian is low. Some of our best
people are leaving, and we cannot recruit good people as
replacements in the numbers we need. The average age of the
workforce is growing, and 50 percent of them will be eligible
for retirement in the next 4 years. We need to let this
workforce know how valuable they are, and how much they are
appreciated. In 1990, Congress passed the Defense Acquisition
Workforce Improvement Act, the purpose of which was to improve
the quality and effectiveness of the DOD's acquisition process
by enhancing the capabilities of the acquisition workforce. We
need to ensure that we are fully utilizing the internal
flexibilities provided by this act.
The third goal is to improve the health of the defense
industrial base. If we are to have the very best military
forces in the world, we must have the very best industrial base
which supply these forces, their training aids, and their spare
parts. We want to encourage technology investment in the
industry and enhance competition with stronger and more
innovative companies, and encourage increased efficiency by
removing excess capacity and implementing good business
practices, and we must not forget our small and disadvantaged
businesses in this process.
The fourth goal is to rationalize the weapons systems and
infrastructure with the new defense strategy. A revised defense
strategy is being developed. When that work is complete, we
will need to ensure working with the military departments and
other elements of the Office of the Secretary that our science
and technology programs, weapons systems, acquisition plans,
logistics support systems, and basing structure support the
revised defense strategy.
The fifth and final goal is to initiate high-leverage
technologies to create the weapons systems and strategies of
the future. We must identify and initiate weapons system and
information technologies to provide high leverage and major
military advantage in conflict. Such new capabilities could
also influence a change in strategy.
To achieve these five goals, we require a responsive
organization within the Department, with a decisive and active
leadership. That starts with a Secretary of Defense who has
already demonstrated these attributes. If confirmed, I will
also attempt to reflect these attributes. In addition, I hope
to be working more closely than ever before with the
secretaries of military departments on acquisition and
logistics support matters.
If confirmed, it will be my intent to be actively involved
with the committee members and staff to improve the process,
quality, and efficiency of how we procure and support the
weapons systems of our Armed Forces. Again, I want to thank the
President and the Secretary of Defense for their confidence and
trust that they have shown in me to be nominated for this
distinguished and important position.
Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, I thank you for
your time and attention, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Aldridge follows:]
Prepared Statement of E.C. ``Pete'' Aldridge
Chairman Warner, Senator Levin, Members of the Armed Services
Committee, it is indeed an honor and privilege to appear before this
committee once again. I am very grateful to the President and the
Secretary of Defense for the confidence and trust they have shown in me
by nominating me for this very important position and level of
responsibility within the Department of Defense. I had the honor of
working directly for Don Rumsfeld during his first tour as Secretary of
Defense and will be equally honored, if confirmed, to work with him
again.
If confirmed, this will be my fourth tour in the Pentagon, and the
third time I have appeared before this committee in the nomination
process. My first appearance was in 1981, when I had been nominated by
President Reagan to be the Under Secretary of the Air Force. This
committee voted favorably on my nomination and I was confirmed by the
Senate in August 1981. At that time we were facing many of the same
problems in the military that we see today. President Reagan, supported
by the strong efforts of this committee, added significant funds to the
Department for modernization, spare parts, improved maintenance,
military pay, and new technologies. Those funds were well spent. We
fought a major war 10 years ago with the superior forces and
capabilities purchased during this buildup period, and 20 years later
much of the legacy systems acquired during this period remain in our
inventory today.
As Under Secretary of the Air Force I had the dual honor of serving
both as the deputy to the Secretary of the Air Force and as the
Director of the National Reconnaissance Office, working for both the
Secretary of Defense and the Director of Central Intelligence.
In early 1986, when I appeared before this committee for the second
time, I had been nominated to be the Secretary of the Air Force. This
committee voted to confirm me once again. We had reached the peak in
Defense funding in 1985 and began the decline in spending that has
lasted until now. During my tour in this position, we rolled out the B-
2 stealth bomber, exposed the existence of the F-117, rebuilt the
expendable space launch vehicle industry, and started the Advanced
Tactical Fighter, which is now the F-22. With an exchange of visits
between the military leaders of the Soviet Union and United States, we
began to see the ``cracks'' form in the structure of the Soviet Union.
After leaving the Secretary of the Air Force position in 1988, I
spent 3 years as President of the McDonnell Douglas Electronic Systems
Company, developing electronic systems for aircraft, helicopter,
spacecraft and command and control systems. For the last 9 years I have
been President and Chief Executive Officer of The Aerospace
Corporation, a non-profit corporation supporting the Nation's military
and civilian space program.
I believe my experience in the aerospace industry and in prior
government positions will be valuable in conduct of the
responsibilities of the office for which I have been nominated.
Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz, during their
confirmation hearings, outlined the National security goals of the
President and the five key objectives of the Department of Defense. I
strongly support these goals and objectives and, if confirmed, will do
everything in my power to assure that they are accomplished.
I have established five goals for myself and the organization I
will be honored to lead, if confirmed. These goals, if accomplished,
will contribute directly to the goals and objectives of the President
and Secretary of Defense.
The first goal is to Achieve Credibility and Efficiency in the
Acquisition and Logistics Support Process. Too many cost overruns,
schedule slippage, and performance failures have deteriorated our
credibility in the effective management of sophisticated weapon
systems. While improvements are being made, our logistics support
system is not responsive enough for our warfighters, and is archaic
with respect to commercial standards of parts supply and support. We
need to attack cycle times, introduce stability in our programs, and
apply good business practices to achieve efficiencies. We must look at:
(a) streamlining the internal decision processes on weapons
acquisition, (b) establishing realistic pricing, spiral development and
cost-as-an-independent variable (CAIV) as mandatory features of every
program acquisition, (c) expanding multi-year contracting for
procurement and development, (d) introducing electronic business
systems throughout the acquisition and logistics community, (e)
privatizing non-core support functions, (f) achieving excellence in the
acquisition of services, and (g) moving to more performance-based
contracts for both services and supplies.
As Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz stated in his confirmation hearing
``We need to seek greater efficiencies not only to safeguard the
taxpayer's money, but also because that will allow us to create better
weapons systems and invest more in the cutting edge of our Nation's
defenses.'' We need to work closely with Congress to make this happen.
The second goal is to Revitalize the Quality and Morale of the
Acquisition Workforce. The morale of our acquisition workforce,
military and civilian, is low; some of our best people are leaving and
we cannot recruit good people as replacements in the numbers we need.
The average age of the workforce is growing and 50 percent of them will
be eligible for retirement in the next 4 years. We need to let this
workforce know how valuable they are and how much they are appreciated.
Rigorous civilian human capital planning for the future is essential as
we face more demanding skill requirements for future, high technology
weapon systems. Congress authorized the Secretary of Defense to provide
direct hiring authority to the Defense Laboratory Directors, to allow
them to compete better with the private sector for scientific talent.
This addresses one part of the problem, but we should be searching for
additional solutions to improve the quality and morale of the entire
acquisition workforce. In 1990, Congress passed the Defense Acquisition
Workforce Improvement Act (DAWIA), the purpose of which was to improve
the quality and effectiveness of DOD's acquisition process by enhancing
the capabilities of the acquisition workforce. We need to ensure that
we are fully utilizing the internal flexibilities provided by this act
as well as making maximum use of our education and training
capabilities, to include continuous learning for the acquisition
workforce.
The third goal is to Improve the Health of the Defense Industrial
Base. If we are to have the best military forces in the world, we must
have the very best industrial base which supply these forces, their
training aids and their spare parts. We want to encourage technology
investment in the industry, enhance competition with stronger and more
innovative companies, and encourage increased efficiency by removing
excess capacity and implementing good business practices. In response
to many studies on this issue we can do a lot to help the defense
industry improve their business viability, to the advantage of industry
and to the advantage of the Department of Defense. A stronger, more
viable industry encourages technology investment and is more attractive
for recruiting and retention of good people. We need to address cash
flow and profit policies, barriers to commercial companies doing
business with the Department, expedited and proper export control
processes, and more incentives for companies to reduce unnecessary
costs. We also need to address the development and quality of our small
and disadvantaged business contractors, another key part of our overall
industrial base.
The fourth goal is to Rationalize the Weapon Systems and
Infrastructure With the New Defense Strategy. A revised Defense
Strategy is being developed. When that work is complete, we will need
to ensure, working with the Military Departments and other elements of
the Office of the Secretary, that our science and technology programs,
weapons systems and acquisition plans, logistics support systems and
basing structure support the revised Defense strategy. We will review
all the acquisition programs to ensure consistency with the strategy--
recommending for elimination those that are not consistent and
recommending those on-going and new programs that should be funded. For
those programs that are to be included in the Defense budget, we must
ensure that the acquisition strategies and plans are consistent with
the needs of the warfighters. The final step in this goal will be to
adapt the Defense infrastructure to support the strategy and the
resulting force structure.
The fifth, and final, goal is to Initiate High Leverage
Technologies to Create the Weapon Systems and Strategies of the Future.
We must identify and initiate weapon system and information
technologies to provide high leverage and major military advantage in
conflict. Such new capabilities could also influence a change in
strategy. We will be looking at rebalancing the activities of the
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) toward high leverage,
higher risk technologies, increasing the number of Advance Concept
Technology Demonstrations (ACTDs) and taking advantage of commercial
innovations, especially in information technology. An increase in
Science and Technology funding across the Military Departments and DOD
agencies will stimulate more innovative thinking on ``war winning''
technologies and concepts.
To achieve these five goals will require a responsive organization
within the Department with decisive and active leadership. That starts
with the Secretary of Defense, who has already demonstrated these
attributes. If confirmed, I will also attempt to reflect these
attributes. In addition, I hope to be working more closely than ever
before with the Secretaries of the Military Departments on acquisition
and logistic support matters.
Many of the actions I have outlined we can do with authorities
already existing within the Department, and, if confirmed, I will work
toward these as expeditiously as possible. Other initiatives will
require statutory and regulatory changes to remove the barriers to good
and efficient acquisition and logistics support management. If
confirmed, I will need the help of this committee and others in
Congress to remove these barriers and to achieve the goals we have
established for ourselves. It will be my intent to be actively involved
with the committee members and staff to improve the process, quality
and efficiency of how we procure and support the weapon systems of our
Armed Forces.
Again, I want to thank the President and the Secretary of Defense
for their confidence and trust they have shown in me to be nominated
for this distinguished and important position.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I thank you for your
time and attention. I look forward to your questions.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Mr. Aldridge. That
was an excellent opening statement.
Mr. Moore.
STATEMENT OF POWELL A. MOORE, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY
OF DEFENSE FOR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
Mr. Moore. Mr. Chairman, I have no opening statement, but I
would like to offer a few expressions of appreciation, if I
may.
First and foremost, I would like to thank you and Senator
Levin for your prompt consideration of these nominations. The
fact that these nominations arrived here on Monday after a
recess and then you were having this hearing today certainly
indicates an intention on the part, and a record on the part of
this committee to cooperate with this administration. I
certainly would offer my expressions of appreciation for that
spirit of cooperation.
As Senator Thompson pointed out, about 34\1/2\ years almost
to the day, I started work for the chairman of this committee,
and I learned very early about its bipartisan spirit and its
bipartisan approach to public policy, and I know that that
bipartisan spirit has existed for a long time.
Let me say that if I am confirmed to be the Assistant
Secretary for Legislative Affairs, it would be my intention to
make sure that the Department of Defense fosters that spirit of
bipartisanship that has always characterized this committee.
Second, I would like to offer my appreciation to the
President for nominating me to this position. I would like to
thank the Secretary of Defense for recommending me for this
position. I think the President has demonstrated that he
intends to assemble the best, or he has assembled the best
possible cabinet available, especially when he selected
Secretary Rumsfeld to be his Secretary of Defense. I think
Secretary Rumsfeld has the qualities, the character, the
integrity, and the judgment to truly make a historic member of
the presidential cabinet.
Finally, I would like to thank Senator Fred Thompson not
just for his kind comments today, but also for the opportunity
that he provided me 3 years ago to return to public service. I
think the experience as his Chief of Staff has certainly been a
wonderful experience for me and a truly beneficial experience
for me, and I would like to suggest that I know of no one who
sacrifices more in the cause of public service than Senator
Fred Thompson does. He has a lot of options, in view of his
exceptional capabilities and qualities, for a more lucrative
existence, and an easier existence, but he chooses public
service, and I think the Nation benefits from the fact that he
chooses public service, and I offer my appreciation to him.
I look forward, if confirmed, to working with this
committee and you, Mr. Chairman, and you, Senator Levin, and I
am prepared to answer your questions.
Chairman Warner. Thank you again. That was a very moving
statement, and we recognize your long service to your country,
and indeed to this institution, the United States Senate, and
the taxpayers are fortunate, as is this country, to have you
once again volunteer to go back into the harness. We wish you
well.
Now, Mr. Haynes, I observe that both you and Mr. Aldridge
are returning to the Department. I do not want to get personal
about it, but I love that Department. I spent 5 years plus at
it, and there have been times in my career that my heart is
tugged to go back, so I thank you for taking this opportunity
to go back. I know the challenges in that Department are second
to none anywhere in our whole Federal system, so I wish you
well, both of you. Please proceed, Mr. Haynes, for any
statement that you might wish to make.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM J. HAYNES II, NOMINEE TO BE GENERAL
COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Mr. Haynes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Levin. I also
want to thank Senator Thompson for his kind words.
Senators, it is an honor to be back before this committee
today to be considered to be the next General Counsel of the
Department of Defense. If confirmed, I look forward to working
with you and your staffs on behalf of our country, and for our
men and women in uniform. I am deeply grateful to President
Bush for nominating me for this office, and to Secretary
Rumsfeld for this opportunity to join his team.
As I said to Secretary Rumsfeld in one of our discussions
about the privilege of service, my family is the most important
motivation and foundation for me in going forward. I am happy
that most of them are here today. Not here are my parents,
retired Colonel Jim Haynes, and Caroline Haynes, Tennesseans
now and South Carolinians always, who continue to be sources of
inspiration and example for me.
With me today are my children, of whom I am very proud.
They represent for me the next generation whose security and
freedom we all hope to ensure. Indeed, they may be the ones who
have to fight if we are less than perfectly successful in
meeting our challenges. Meg, my wife of 19 years and partner
for a lifetime, is my most important source of sustenance and
focus for commitment. I thank them for their support in this
opportunity to serve.
Finally, I thank this committee and staff for your
significant efforts to schedule this hearing so quickly. We are
all eager to get started, if confirmed.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much. Senator Levin and
members of the committee, I am just sitting here thinking,
Secretary Rumsfeld, previous Secretary of Defense; Secretary
Wolfowitz served in the Department of Defense; Dov Zakheim
served in the Department of Defense; now two more. I do not
think there is any other Department or agency in our Federal
Government that has a record that reflects the challenges of
work there to which you and others have responded time and time
again. It is very unique.
We thank you for your expressions of confidence in this
committee and its work as a separate coequal branch of the
Government, the Senate has the advice and consent role, and we
have, Senator Levin and I and each member of this committee,
tried very hard to move as swiftly as we can, but carefully and
thoroughly with regard to the nominations that our President
has forwarded to the Senate. We have conducted open sessions,
and we have conducted executive sessions on those matters which
we regard as personal to each individual as nominee. We will
have an executive session following this hearing today with
respect to certain nominees, and so we have to move very
swiftly.
Now, at this point, I would like to enter into the record a
statement provided by our former chairman, Senator Sam Nunn,
recognizing your accomplishments, Mr. Moore, and the trust that
he has in you to fulfill the obligation of the office to which
you have been appointed. Following Senator Nunn's statement, I
would also enter into the record the opening statement of
Senator Strom Thurmond.
[The prepared statement of former Senator Nunn follows:]
Prepared Statement by Former Senator Sam Nunn
Mr. Chairman, Senator Levin, and members of the Senate Armed
Services Committee, it is a privilege to join my former colleague,
Senator Fred Thompson, in strongly supporting the nomination of Powell
Moore for the position of Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Legislative Affairs.
I know that Powell will fully justify the confidence that the
President and Secretary of Defense have expressed in him. In Powell
Moore, we have a member of our Senate Armed Services Committee family,
as he started his government career with then-Chairman of the SASC, the
late Senator Richard Russell of Georgia. The committee has been blessed
over the years with truly remarkable staff, and Powell certainly was
one of the best.
My unhesitating support for Powell Moore is based on a major aspect
of his distinguished career--the combination of a solid grasp of
national security issues with remarkable experience and understanding
in the area of executive-legislative relations.
I know the Chairman, and other members believe, as I do, that it is
extremely important that our overall national security and foreign
policy be conducted within a bipartisan framework. This has been a
hallmark of the SASC over the years and is continued by the current
leaders, Chairman Warner and Senator Levin.
Powell Moore recognizes and supports this tenet as he learned this
firsthand from Senator Russell who himself considered bipartisan
statesmanship as an inviolate principle.
Powell worked closely with Senator Russell and learned this
approach and the issues well. He cemented this understanding in
subsequent jobs in the executive branch, in the legislative branch, and
over a decade of highly successful years in the private sector.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, Powell Moore understands
the issues, he understands the need for a bipartisan approach, and he
understands the ``two way street'' that is essential for the proper
implementation and the long-term support and continuity of a sound
national security policy. I am sure most people on this committee know
Powell Moore personally and recognize firsthand his superb capabilities
in this area.
Powell's knowledge and skills were cultivated in his hometown of
Milledgeville, Georgia and during his days at the University of
Georgia. I have known Powell and his family for many years and know
that he has the best interest of this nation as his guiding principle.
His parents were close to another American who shared that goal, my
great-uncle, Congressman Carl Vinson, also of Milledgeville, Georgia.
Powell has a difficult and challenging job ahead as do members of
this committee. Many complex national security issues will be before
Congress that will take a great deal of skill, knowledge,
understanding, and cooperation between the two branches.
I am confident that Powell is more than qualified for this
important task. I want to offer my personal congratulations to Powell,
his family, and his very proud relatives in Milledgeville, Georgia.
I thank the committee for this opportunity and I welcome the
opportunity to support Powell Moore's nomination.
______
Prepared Statement by Senator Strom Thurmond
Mr. Chairman, I join you in welcoming Mr. Aldridge, Mr. Haynes, and
Mr. Moore. Our Nation is fortunate to have individuals such as these
nominees willing to take on the challenges of serving in key positions
and to undergo the scrutiny of the nomination process. Although some
have criticized the nomination process as being too burdensome, I
believe that the confirmation of Presidential appointees is one of the
Senate's most important tasks and one that should not be taken lightly.
Mr. Chairman, we have three able nominees before the committee this
morning. Mr. Aldridge has a distinguished record both in government and
the private sector. He has appeared before this committee often most
notably as the Secretary of the Air Force in the Reagan administration.
Mr. Haynes has served as the Army General Counsel and has extensive
corporate legal experience. Mr. Moore is well known to all who have
served in the Senate for his service to Senator Richard Russell and now
Senator Thompson. He also has distinguished himself in various
positions in the Department of State and the White House.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing from the nominees and I
wish them all success.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. The committee has asked each of our
witnesses a series of advance policy questions, and they have
responded to those questions. Without objection, I shall put
them into the record at the appropriate location.
Senator Levin and I, as Chairman and Ranking Member, have
examined very carefully certain background material as
forwarded by the Counsel for the President. In my judgment,
each of the nominees has a record which brings no reason for
any further consideration in terms of any question of their
background. Do you share that view, Mr. Levin?
Senator Levin. I do.
Chairman Warner. We will be looking into one aspect in
executive session, however, with respect to two of the
nominees. Now, the standard questions that are posed by this
committee to each of the nominees, you have heard them before,
since you have been here, but we will go again. Have you
adhered to the applicable laws and regulations governing
conflict of interest?
Mr. Moore. Yes, sir.
Mr. Aldridge. Yes, sir.
Mr. Haynes. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Have you assumed any duties or undertaken
any actions which would appear to presume the outcome of the
confirmation process?
Mr. Haynes. No, sir.
Mr. Aldridge. No, sir.
Mr. Moore. No, sir.
Chairman Warner. Will you ensure your staff complies with
deadlines for requested communications, including questions for
the record?
Mr. Haynes. Yes, sir.
Mr. Aldridge. Yes, sir.
Mr. Moore. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Will you cooperate in providing witnesses
and briefers in response to congressional requests?
Mr. Moore. Yes, sir.
Mr. Aldridge. Yes, sir.
Mr. Haynes. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Will those witnesses be protected from
reprisals for their testimony or briefings?
Mr. Moore. Yes, sir.
Mr. Aldridge. Yes, sir.
Mr. Haynes. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. All right. We thank you very much. Senator
Levin, why don't you lead off with your questions.
Senator Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As the chairman mentioned, we have received a letter from
Sam Nunn, which is a very strong letter of recommendation for
you, Mr. Moore. I notice in his statement, which the chairman
has made a part of the record, that you come from the same town
as Senator Nunn's great uncle, Congressman Carl Vinson,
Milledgeville--am I pronouncing it correctly?
Mr. Moore. Yes, sir.
Senator Levin. I am glad Senator Cleland is here, because
of that connection. He is going to tell us later where
Milledgeville is. [Laughter.]
There must be something about Georgia which produces the
kind of heroes we have seen, with your former boss, as a matter
of fact, Senator Russell. We have a true hero here in our midst
today in Senator Cleland, Senator Nunn, Congressman Vinson--
there must be something magic down in Georgia. I hope you will
export it.
Mr. Moore. They all come from small towns, Senator Levin.
Senator Cleland. Would the Senator yield?
Senator Levin. I would be happy to yield.
Senator Cleland. I might say that with all due respect to
the great Carl Vinson and the distinguished panelist here, Mr.
Moore, Milledgeville is the site of a State insane asylum.
[Laughter.]
Senator Levin. There is no way to follow that one up
without getting into trouble. I am just sorry that the chairman
talked about throwing some light on this subject earlier today
[Laughter.]
Chairman Warner. Would you yield for a moment?
Senator Levin. I would be happy to.
Chairman Warner. Our colleague from Georgia is second to
none, and he knows exactly when and how to use his humor, but I
know the way to Milledgeville. When I was Secretary of the Navy
we had a problem, a very serious one, and I received a summons
to go to Milledgeville with the Chief of Naval Operations.
There we received, I think, one of the historic lectures
from a man who served in Congress for 50 years, and walked out
of his congressional office exactly to the day, 50 years,
having served first as chairman, I believe, of the Naval
Affairs Committee, and then as the House Armed Services
Committee for, I do not know how many years he was chairman of
those two committees, but I always remember when I was in the
Department of Defense Mr. Laird said there is one man that I
will follow anywhere in this world, and it was Uncle Carl
Vinson.
Mr. Moore. I do not think people who knew him referred to
him as Carl. Senator Nunn, of course, referred to him as Uncle
Carl, but, of course, he was his uncle. The rest of us called
him Mr. Vinson, or Mr. Chairman.
Senator Levin. First, Mr. Moore, let me ask you this
question. We have had a number of nominees in recent weeks tell
us that they do not know when the administration is going to be
submitting the details of the fiscal year 2002 defense budget.
They cannot say whether or not the administration is going to
be submitting a supplemental request for fiscal year 2001.
We all want to work with the Department to strengthen our
military, but we cannot begin our authorization process until
the administration submits that detailed budget. I am wondering
whether you will tell us, when confirmed, as soon as you can on
a regular basis, as to what the plans of the administration are
for submitting that 2002 budget and any 2001 supplemental.
Mr. Moore. Senator Levin, I think that all nominees have
been very cautious about making any assumptions about Senate
confirmation, and I think that is entirely appropriate, so most
of the people who have appeared before you as nominees have
truly not been read into the exact plans for a supplemental.
Let me say that if I am confirmed, that I will cooperate with
you and the chairman and this committee to the maximum extent
possible, including keeping you informed on progress and
developments related to supplementals and any adjustments that
may be made in the 2002 budget.
Senator Levin. Thank you. I believe there have been 20
separate advisory panels that are now participating in various
aspects of Secretary Rumsfeld's strategic review. Will you, if
confirmed, ensure that this committee is provided information
regarding the structure, membership, purpose, and findings of
those panels?
Mr. Moore. If confirmed, yes, sir, I will make every effort
to make sure that the committee is properly informed.
Senator Levin. About those aspects?
Mr. Moore. Yes, sir.
Senator Levin. This is for you, Mr. Aldridge. Secretary
Rumsfeld testified at his confirmation hearing that the cycle
time for major acquisition programs conducted over the last few
decades averages between 8 and 9 years. Others have said that
that cycle can go from 15 to 20 years. The Secretary has said
that the cycle time simply does not respond to urgent
challenges arising, and to rapidly emerging technological
developments. I think all of us would surely agree with that. I
am wondering what your thoughts are on specific steps the
Department might take to reduce that cycle time for major
acquisition programs.
Mr. Aldridge. Yes, sir. There have been many studies done
on this particular problem, the Defense Science Board, various
independent committees, and if confirmed, I will strongly work
toward getting the cycle times down. Many of the previous
studies have talked about a concept called spiral development,
or evolutionary development. Rather than trying to go for the
ultimate configuration right off the bat, it is better to
accept a slightly lesser version or capability of a particular
weapons system, and that can be done much faster and allow that
weapons system to evolve with time.
It reduces risk, it gets weapons systems in the hands of
our troops faster, usually the systems are designed to be lower
cost so you can get rid of the older system that would tend to
be more expensive, so cycle times have a very positive impact.
Reducing cycle times has very positive impacts upon the
capabilities of our forces, and if confirmed, I plan to attack
that aggressively. As I pointed out, one of my goals that I had
in mind, if confirmed to this job, is to go after that for
acquisition as well as logistics.
Senator Levin. After you have had a chance to get settled
and review the studies, would you give us a specific plan for
reducing that acquisition cycle at some point this year? Would
you do that?
Mr. Aldridge. Yes, sir, if confirmed into the job, that is
one of my goals and, in fact, we are developing some metrics to
measure how well we are doing, and I can share that with the
committee as well.
Senator Levin. In addition to the metrics about how well
you are doing, can you give us the specific steps as to how to
achieve those goals that you are going to take after you have
had a chance to do these reviews?
Mr. Aldridge. Yes, sir, when and if I am confirmed.
Senator Levin. Thank you.
Secretary Rumsfeld indicated that the administration is
going to seek to reduce cost by privatizing non-core defense
activities. The Department has said in the past that it
benefits from public-private competition regardless of whether
the competition is won by the public sector or by the private
sector. Others have made the point that it is unfair to take
jobs from public employees without giving them an opportunity
to compete for the work. Would you agree that private-public
competition is an essential precondition to the privatization
of noncore functions that are currently using DOD employees?
Mr. Aldridge. Yes, sir.
Senator Levin. One last question, and this goes to you, Mr.
Haynes, and it relates to the needs of defense laboratories to
have direct hiring authority in order that they can compete
with industry for the best and brightest personnel. The
committee has twice enacted legislation giving the Department
this direct hiring authority, but the Department has yet to use
it.
I am wondering whether you will work with Mr. Aldridge and
others, Mr. Haynes, to address any legal objections that there
may be to using this authority so that we can give the
laboratory directors the authority that they need.
Mr. Haynes. Yes, Senator Levin. If confirmed, I will hope
to be working very closely with Secretary Aldridge. It is one
of my most intense hopes to provide the leadership of the
Department with a range of authorities, and if the Department
is not utilizing some authority that it can to accomplish
objectives the President and the Secretary have laid out, then
we absolutely should pursue that.
Senator Levin. Will you take a specific look at that
authority?
Mr. Haynes. Yes, sir.
Senator Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Senator Bunning, why don't you go ahead. I
have quite a bit to cover later.
Senator Bunning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
gentlemen, for coming to see us. As I told the nominees that
were before us, yesterday or the day before----
Chairman Warner. Excuse me, by the way, I am glad you
mentioned that. In consultation with the Ranking Member, we
would hope to have a vote today of the committee on those
nominees.
Senator Levin. The ones that were before us on Wednesday?
Chairman Warner. Yes. We will notify the committee.
Senator Bunning. --I told them the same thing, that I would
like to relate to you that the most important thing I can
convey to you is the importance of providing us here in
Congress with timely, accurate information. If we ask one of
you a question, or if you are here to report on an issue within
your purview, accuracy is vital, and I repeat that. Accuracy is
vital.
We have had people appear before committees of jurisdiction
and not have accurate information so therefore we made bad
judgments because of inaccurate information. Congress cannot do
its job without good information. If you are confirmed, I am
looking forward to working with you to see to it that we do get
accurate information.
I just have a few questions, Mr. Chairman. This is for Mr.
Aldridge. If confirmed, will the Army's recent decision, at an
estimated cost of approximately $26 million to purchase berets
from China, fall within your jurisdiction?
Mr. Aldridge. Yes, sir, and if confirmed, the process of
that purchase went through the Defense Logistics Agency, and
that is under the control of the Under Secretary for
Acquisition and Technology.
Senator Bunning. What is your view of the Army's decision
to circumvent the Buy America requirement and go to China for
the purchase?
Mr. Aldridge. Sir, I was not involved with that decision at
all.
Senator Bunning. I know you were not.
Mr. Aldridge. I am not sure what the rationale was for that
decision. My understanding is the Army asked the Defense
Logistics Agency to purchase the berets and they went through a
process, which I understand from the discussions was
appropriate. I have read that somewhere in the newspaper, but
the decision as to exactly why they did that, I cannot answer
why they took foreign sources.
Senator Bunning. If confirmed, do you intend to do anything
about it?
Mr. Aldridge. It will fall within my purview, if confirmed,
to address the issues, any remaining issues on that purchase,
if I am confirmed for the office.
Senator Bunning. Mr. Haynes, events such as the World Trade
Center bombing and Oklahoma City bombing have highlighted the
domestic terrorist threat to the United States. To respond to
this threat, various agencies of the executive branch have been
planning and conducting exercises to work out effective
responses to terrorist incidents. An example of this is the
topoff exercise that was conducted in three cities last May.
One issue to be worked out involves the role the military
is to play in the domestic support of law enforcement during
such an incident. This support is allowed under special
circumstances by the posse comitatus--that is good, you can
tell I am not a lawyer, thank God--act and other similar laws.
How do you plan to ensure that the military can provide
effective support to law enforcement during a domestic
terrorist attack while ensuring they don't violate the
Constitution and the laws of the United States in the process?
Mr. Haynes. Senator, the key to that question, I think, is
planning and thought beforehand. One of those delicate issues
in constitutional democracy is the relationship between the
Armed Forces and the civilian leadership. The scenario you
describe, as horrible as it is, presents that very delicate
question perhaps in its most severe light, so careful planning
beforehand to ensure that military support under such
circumstances is always under civilian control is going to be
paramount. I can assure you, if confirmed, that will be a very
important issue for me, and the legal community should and
absolutely must be involved in that planning process.
Senator Bunning. One last question. A topic that has come
up in recent years is information warfare: the ability to
conduct an attack against someone's computer system. In recent
years, the Department of Defense has been working on how these
capabilities would apply under the international laws of armed
conflict.
The Department of Defense has since transferred the
responsibility for information warfare, or, as it is sometimes
called, information operations, to Space Command, an
operational command. This has at least indicated the
possibility of the capability to conduct such an operation.
What is your view regarding how information operations fit into
the law of armed conflict?
Mr. Haynes. My view is a developing one, Senator, as is the
entire field of information warfare. The concept is relatively
new. It has ripened since the last time I was in public
service, although I was involved in a panel with the Naval
Studies Board in the early 1990s to address some of these
issues.
The short answer is that each circumstance will present
novel issues and require very delicate and sophisticated
analysis. It is something we are going to have to address in
the future and, if confirmed, that is going to be one of the
top priorities for all of us: to figure out how to incorporate
that into the roles and missions of the Department of Defense,
and where it is to be placed.
Senator Bunning. Well, I intend, after you are confirmed,
and I expect you to be confirmed, to follow up on that specific
question again, because I think that is a vulnerable and most
important part of your job.
Mr. Haynes. I look forward to working with you and your
staff.
Senator Bunning. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator, a very interesting
line of questions. If my colleagues would bear with me a
minute, that question of the Army berets, you know what
disturbed me, and I communicated some certain thoughts to the
Chief of Staff of the Army and others about that, but the issue
of awarding that contract to China certainly is one that has to
be examined. In hindsight, I would not say that the Chief of
Staff of the Army or others who handled that could have
foreseen in any way the problems that ensued thereafter between
our country and China. I am happy to go into that with you, but
I know that decision has to bear heavily on their thoughts and
minds today.
Senator Bunning. Mr. Chairman, I did not even think in
relationship to the fact that we have had an incident with
China, just the fact that there would be a contract awarded to
China in the situation that we have a Buy American clause in
all procurement, if we can Buy American first.
Chairman Warner. I share the Senator's views, because that
hat is a symbol of great military tradition. Anyway, I just
wanted to say I have great respect for the Chief of Staff of
the Army, and while we may have differences on the policy
decisions, I certainly think he should not bear that one.
Now we will turn to our distinguished colleague, Mr.
Dayton. I am going to do the wrap-up and let all the other
members have their opportunity first.
Senator Dayton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the
nominees for their willingness to serve our country once again,
and since you have provided excellent responses to the prepared
questions and previous questions, I will not belabor those
subjects. I just have a couple of questions.
Mr. Aldridge, you bring a unique perspective, having served
as the head of one of the service branches and also previously
in the Department of Defense itself, and now with the position
you are coming into. I wonder if you could from both those
perspectives assess the benefits and the weaknesses of having
essentially very separate weapons development procurement
systems within the respective branches.
Do you see any opportunities or benefits from increased
coordination or consolidation of those, or do you think they
are best kept separate?
Mr. Aldridge. Sir, the Goldwater-Nichols Act changed the
approach that the Department of Defense had with regard to
weapons systems acquisition. It dictated that there would be a
more centralized approach to weapons acquisition than in prior
years. It established the Under Secretary for, at that time,
Acquisition and Technology, which has now been designated
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics.
The approach that the Secretary has in his new position
with the current Secretary of Defense is to encourage much
closer cooperation between the acquisition and logistics
community within the Department of Defense, with the services,
and has formulated an approach that I would hope to follow
through on, if confirmed, to work very closely with the service
secretaries in this regard. He has clearly indicated that that
is what he expects of this position, and I certainly support
his views on that regard, and if confirmed, I would carry them
out.
Senator Dayton. A related question, sir, one of the
questions about the lack of financial and physical inventory
controls and accounting capabilities, you referenced the
difficulty with the so-called feeder systems coming up.
Obviously, the consolidated information is only as good as the
individual components.
Do you see that as a bottom-up kind of problem, though, and
is there any kind of--again, given the separation and a system
as complicated and mammoth as the institutions and the
branches, is there any hope that we will ever get to a point
where we have a uniform system and better accounting, better
management, and fiscal controls?
Mr. Aldridge. Sir, I think it is essential that we have
such capabilities, and it is a two-way street. It is a bottoms-
up, which is to make sure the feeder systems are consistent and
providing consistent information as it moves up the chain, but
I will tell you, I think it is also a leadership question. This
type of modification to our finance and accounting system is
going to take very strong top leadership to get it, to make it
happen.
It is clear that some kind of directive to achieve such a
capability within a finite period of time, and having that
monitored by the Secretary of Defense and the other DOD
leadership, is going to be absolutely essential.
Senator Dayton. Well, reading through the questions and
getting an understanding of the scope of your responsibilities,
I wish you well. You have a mammoth task in front of you.
Mr. Moore, one question. I would second Senator Bunning's
concerns that at our previous hearing this week with then the
nominee for Assistant Secretary of Public Affairs, Victoria
Clarke, about the accuracy and reliability and the speed of
information provided to Members of Congress, do you see a role
for your office in that effort and, if so, how would you work
with the Secretary for Public Affairs?
Mr. Moore. Senator Dayton, I see that as a primary role.
The Office of Legislative Affairs has a responsibility to make
sure that this committee and all of Congress receives
information on a timely basis that is accurate, and that it
comes on a bipartisan basis, and that would certainly be my
strongest commitment, to make sure that the committee is
informed and that Congress is informed.
I recognize that it is important that Victoria Clarke and I
work very closely together, because one of the challenges in
legislative affairs these days is to make sure that Members of
Congress are not surprised in getting ahead of the flow of
information in today's world, where information spins around so
rapidly, and sometimes announced by the Department and other
times not announced by the Department. It is a challenge to get
ahead of the public flow of information, but it is my
commitment to make sure that Congress is well-informed, and
that we avoid surprises.
Senator Dayton. Thank you.
Mr. Haynes, I am not an attorney. I will not even try to
comprehend the scope of your responsibilities, but I wish you
well. [Laughter.]
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. I thank you very much. Our colleague from
Georgia.
Senator Cleland. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I just
want to say that it is an honor to be here with Powell Moore,
who has risen higher than any former escapee of a mental
institution. [Laughter.]
We are just honored to be with you Powell. I would ask
unanimous consent that a letter endorsing Powell Moore for this
position from Senator Zell Miller be entered into the record?
Chairman Warner. Without objection.
[The information referred to follows:]
Prepared Statement by Senator Zell Miller
I am pleased and honored to endorse Powell A. Moore for the
position of Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs. To
say that he is eminently qualified for this position would be an
understatement. His distinctive record of public and private service is
across a spectrum of military service, politics, journalism, and
industry.
A native Georgian, he has served as a key staff member with such
notable politicians as Senator Richard B. Russell and President Ronald
Reagan. Most recently, he has served as the Chief of Staff for the
distinguished Senator from Tennessee, Fred Thompson.
For more than 30 years, Powell Moore has been active in Washington
public policy affairs, and his breadth and depth of experience will be
a tremendous asset to the Department of Defense. I look forward to his
service as the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs,
and enthusiastically recommend that this esteemed committee confirm
this appointment.
Senator Cleland. I had actually intended, Mr. Moore, to be
here to introduce you but I had another committee engagement. I
think it is marvelous that you have strung together such a
magnificent set of public service accomplishments, particularly
in regard to this committee. Dick Russell was one of my great
heroes in life, and for you to start off your career here in
Washington with him on his staff is a great tribute to you.
Then, of course, the endorsement by Senator Nunn, a former
chairman of this committee, and then of course coming from
Milledgeville--we laugh and joke, but Milledgeville is, of
course, the home of Carl Vinson, and he is legendary there in
that State.
May I just say, it is an honor to support you, and I wish
you well in your activities.
Mr. Moore. Thank you.
Senator Cleland. May I say now, Mr. Aldridge, it is my role
to be the skunk at the picnic here. I do not relish this role.
I want you to know that my respect for you is a great respect
for your public service and for your willingness to offer
yourself for public service once again. May I say to you that
my questions and the tone of my questions are nothing personal,
but it rises out of a frustration that I had with several
issues in the 5 years that I have been here.
I am sorry that you and I were not able to meet before this
hearing. I hope we will be able to meet privately and go over
some of these issues, because quite frankly, in all honesty, my
support for your nomination is contingent upon successful
answers to questions that I have. We have been trying to get
out of this committee for a number of years, answers regarding
logistical support for the Air Force, particularly in terms of
air logistics centers.
I would like to get it straight first of all, did you say
that this position was once formerly Under Secretary for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, and now it is just
Acquisition and Technology?
Mr. Aldridge. No, sir. It was originally created as
Acquisition and Technology, and it has been augmented to
include, now, logistics, Deputy Under Secretary for Logistics
and Materiel Readiness that now reports to the Office of the
Under Secretary.
Senator Cleland. So your position that you seek is Under
Secretary for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics?
Mr. Aldridge. Yes, sir.
Senator Cleland. Which brings me directly to my point.
In recent years, both the House Armed Services Committee
and the Senate Armed Services Committee have expressed our
views that the services were outsourcing to the private sector
work on weapons systems we considered vital to the national
security.
The requirement to maintain a core capability in the public
sector was written into law--written into law--for fiscal year
1998 to ensure that we could perform maintenance, repair, and
long-term sustainment of our critical weapons systems during a
time of war or national crisis, and we have been through
several moments of national crisis just since I have been on
this committee. One was Milosevic, two was Saddam Hussein.
When it comes to aircraft which we relied on heavily in
those engagements, we have established our great air logistics
centers to perform this role. You might want to check it out,
but I understand that this country has never gone to war
without a depot system, either branch.
When I was a young lieutenant, signal officer with the
First Air Cavalry Division in Vietnam, as a matter of fact, my
mission was to provide communications for logistical support,
and what that meant was, sometimes aircraft, helicopters in
this instance, went all the way back to the States for depot
maintenance, and in some cases my radio systems went all the
way back to depot maintenance and came back adjusted or finer
tuned for the war we were fighting, so depot maintenance is the
way we go to war and the way we fight.
The acquisition function has a profound effect on these
centers, as we are in an age when the procurement of a system
such as, say, the C-17 includes stipulations that determine how
and where those systems may be maintained.
Since I have been on the committee, my colleagues and I
have worked hard to protect the essential capabilities that
reside in our air logistics centers. We included provisions in
the fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 authorization acts,
passed this committee, passed the Senate, passed Congress,
signed into law by the President, that required the DOD to take
specific steps to define core capabilities, the ability of the
services to go to war. That is what I determine is a core
capability, to preserve the level of maintenance in these
public depots and to establish plans for the maintenance of
some specific systems in these depots.
I am here today to tell you that I think the work of this
committee and Congress in this arena has been ignored by your
predecessors. You were not part of the sins of the past, but it
is your turn in the barrel now. I intend to ensure that this
does not occur again. In an age when the technology of our
systems is changing rapidly and in profound ways, the failure
to define a core capability that specifically includes newer
systems, the failure to assign a portion of the maintenance
work load on newer high-tech systems, to our air logistics
centers, and the failure to develop a long-range plan for
preserving the work load at these centers, threatens the
continued viability of this key leg of our defense
infrastructure.
I know you have recently been nominated to the post, and I
do not hold you accountable for what went on in the past. I
also know you have familiarity with these issues, so I have
some questions for you that I must have answered.
The first involves a definition of core capability. It is
my understanding that the term, core, includes specific weapons
systems such as the C-17. The GAO has criticized the Air Force
for not doing enough to establish an in-house maintenance
capability for the C-17. We are almost 8 years into the
operational life of that system. None of the maintenance on
this system is being done in our air logistics centers.
Do you define core capability to include the specific
systems that are essential and widely used in the conduct of
military operations?
Mr. Aldridge. Yes, sir.
Senator Cleland. Thank you. Will you ensure that the DOD
complies with the intent of Congress in this regard?
Mr. Aldridge. If confirmed, yes, sir.
Senator Cleland. Thank you.
My second issue concerns the long-term strategy for
assigning work to our air logistics centers. I and many of my
colleagues believe that the long-term strategy for ALC work
should include new weapons systems, but the DOD and the
services are content to place work on older weapons systems in
the depots and ALCs. This allows the services to say to
Congress, well, the depots are full, they could not possibly
handle the work of other systems, hence, they justify their own
argument to out-source and, in so doing, they are actually
undermining the future viability of our public maintenance
facilities.
Will you ensure that the DOD develops and implements
expeditiously a long-term strategy for maintenance of new
weapons systems that assigns work on the systems to our ALCs
from the date they enter our inventory?
Mr. Aldridge. Sir, if confirmed--I cannot address the
specifics of how all of that will come out. I will agree that
we need a long-term plan for how we are going to address the
weapons systems support for our military forces, and I will, if
confirmed, agree to undertake such a long-term plan. How that
will come out, I cannot predict.
Senator Cleland. Thank you very much. I appreciate that
answer in good faith. I, in good faith, will have to withhold
my support for your nomination until you and I actually meet
privately and personally to go over these key points, because
these are central to the question of whether or not I support
your nomination.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Do you wish another minute or two of time,
Senator?
Senator Cleland. No, sir. I think time spent with the
nominee, Mr. Aldridge, could best be spent privately and
personally as we go over some of these sensitive matters.
Chairman Warner. Very well, and the nominee will make
himself available. I will take a few questions, and then if
other Senators wish to continue, I would be happy to recognize
them.
Now, Mr. Moore, I have had the pleasure of knowing you for
many years, and consider you a very valued personal friend, so
I want the record to reflect that. You have observed through a
series of presidencies the relationship between the executive
branch and the legislative branch on the subject of
consultation, and that subject is particularly important as it
relates to matters of national security.
It primarily involves the Departments of State and Defense.
I think there is wisely no clear definition laid down. Each
President will establish his or her, whatever the case may be,
guidelines in the future. What advice would you give to the
current Secretary of Defense, who is very knowledgeable on this
himself, and have you had an opportunity to discuss that issue
with him? I feel that it is a very important function that you
will be the, I think, principal advisor to the Secretary, and I
hope that you will strengthen the subject of consultation and
increase the effectiveness of it. What views do you have?
Mr. Moore. I agree with you on the importance of
consultation, Mr. Chairman, and I would comment that
consultation is a continuing proposition and should not be done
episodically when we have a problem or an emergency of some
kind.
It should be done on a continuing basis, and it is
essential to the effective operation of the Department of
Defense, it is essential to the effective execution of a
national security and foreign policy to have an open line of
communication, especially with the leadership of Congress, the
Chairman of the Armed Services Committee especially, and the
Ranking Minority Member of the Armed Services Committee. There
should be a continuing dialogue, and it should not be done
episodically.
Chairman Warner. I appreciate that. I would say to date,
Secretary Rumsfeld and Secretary Wolfowitz have, I think, been
very respectful of this subject, and others in the Department,
and we have had excellent working relationships between this
committee and those who are observing the Secretary at the
moment. I felt that John Veroneau and Sandi Stuart, who
preceded you in this position, both executed that
responsibility with great expertise.
Mr. Moore. I have spent some time with both of them over
the past several weeks, and continue to stay in touch with both
of them. I would point out that Secretary Rumsfeld, like
several of his predecessors, including the Secretary under whom
you served, Secretary Laird, is himself a former Member of the
House of Representatives. He was also a former staffer, and I
think he has a special appreciation for the importance of
maintaining a dialogue and consultation between the two
branches.
I think, based upon what I have heard--I have not been
engaged in the process in advance of confirmation--that he has
been very diligent in staying in touch with the House and the
Senate since he was confirmed a couple of months ago.
Chairman Warner. I thank you.
Now, Mr. Aldridge, the shrinking industrial base is of
great concern to all of us, as I know you are likewise
concerned. You will be the principal advisor to the Secretary
of Defense and the President on this subject. It is brought
about, frankly, because of declining defense budgets for a
dozen or more years under both Republican and Democratic
administrations, but this is a dangerous world, and our
national defense can really be no stronger than the industrial
base's capacity to provide, first the research and development,
and then the systems that are needed to meet today and tomorrow
and well into the future the adversaries and the threats posed.
We are also facing a unique situation in that the one-world
market is inducing overseas firms to buy subsidiaries here in
the United States and to go into direct competition with the
industrial base in this country. I think it would be wise if we
reflected a few minutes on that and this committee received
your views on that subject.
Mr. Aldridge. Yes, sir, I share all of those views. This
position is awesome in that respect. We have seen just recently
an issue on naval shipbuilding that is going to be a very
critical----
Chairman Warner. I purposely do not bring that up, because
you may have a responsibility in that.
Mr. Aldridge. Yes, sir, and it is something that has to be
looked at very carefully. The health of our industrial base is
very important, as I pointed out in one of the goals that I
would like to pursue, if confirmed. The health has to do with
not only the health of the prime contractors but of the second-
tier contractors, the health of our smaller and disadvantaged
businesses. They make up over 98 percent of our industrial base
and a significant amount of funding.
All of those are factors that we must take into account and
make sure that we address these mergers and acquisitions in a
way that we certainly can preserve our national security and
the future competitiveness of our industrial base, and health.
All of those are key factors in the decision process, and it is
one that is extremely important.
As I point out, the capabilities of our Armed Forces are
critically dependent upon our industrial base to provide those
equipments and spare parts and training aides that make them
work effectively. It is a very critical part of our
responsibility and, if confirmed in this position, I will
address it at the very highest priority.
Chairman Warner. Well, given your background, you are
uniquely qualified to work on this issue. I hope that you will
find the time to listen to the CEOs and others of American
industry and give them an audience.
Mr. Aldridge. Yes, sir, I plan to do so.
Chairman Warner. They deserve it, because so often in my
visits with them I hear that we are less inclined to do defense
business. It is just too difficult to do business with the
Department.
The delays in receiving the payments, that is another
subject that I monitor very carefully here, and will be working
with you on, and there is plenty of business in the private
sector, but if we lose their cooperation and their insight and
their long, many years of contribution, it is irreplaceable, so
keep an eye on it, and also for this committee.
I am proud to say that I have taken somewhat of a
leadership role, have put in a series of laws about set-asides,
set-asides to enable the burgeoning number of small businesses,
many of them with women or CEOs of principal stockholders or
minorities, and to the best of my knowledge, those programs
have been successful and have returned not only a great value
to the American taxpayer through their productivity, but I
think they have enabled these firms to take root and to grow,
and I hope that you will be respectful of that process.
Mr. Aldridge. Yes, sir. As I stated in my opening comments,
that is clearly one of the areas we must pay attention to.
Chairman Warner. The procurement process, again, many firms
are just totally frustrated with the difficulty there, and are
looking elsewhere to do their business. You have covered that
today, and I think quite satisfactorily, but this committee
will work on it a great deal.
Now, to our chief counsel here, you may not know the answer
to this question but you can take it for the record, and that
is, prior to leaving office, President Clinton signed a treaty
establishing an international criminal court. The Pentagon has
been very concerned, this Senator has been concerned, Senator
Helms and others here in the Senate are very concerned, that
the terms and conditions of that treaty leave some doubt as to
the ability to protect men and women in uniform as they carry
out the orders of the commander in chief beyond our shores.
Now, the Senate has, I think, very wisely and properly not
yet rendered its advice and consent on that treaty. Do you have
any knowledge of it? Have you looked into it, and will you do
so in the future?
Mr. Haynes. Senator, I have some limited knowledge of it
from reading the newspapers. I have not been part of the
process. It gives me great concern as well, and I can assure
you I will be looking at it.
Chairman Warner. I would urge that if this question comes
forward at such time, that you stay in close consultation not
only with your Secretary but if confirmed, with Assistant
Secretary for Legislative Affairs Moore, because at this point
in time I think it unlikely that the Senate would give its
advice and consent. I rarely make those predictions, but in
this case we are grievously concerned about it.
When we send men and women into harm's way to carry out the
orders of the commander in chief of this country, and in
conjunction with the service of our allies, we have to give
them the maximum protection when they return home, hopefully
safe and sound, having fulfilled their responsibilities, and
they should not be then subjected to, I think, any court of law
unless there is clear evidence of malfeasance or wrongdoing.
Mr. Haynes. Senator, if confirmed, I would look forward to
working with you on that.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much.
Mr. Aldridge, one of the principal criticisms of the
Department of Defense is that the military services continue to
pursue their individual systems from logistics to data
management, which increases cost, and I suppose some say
hinders interoperability. Although there have been efforts to
remove these service stovepipes in the past, they continue to
exist.
I am a firm believer in the three Departments, the Army,
the Navy, and the Air Force. I think a certain amount of
competition between them, and a certain amount of independence,
and a certain amount of individuality is in the best interests
of our country's overall national defense, but certainly on the
question of interoperability that has been an old issue around
here, and I would hope you would address that. Do you have
views on that?
Mr. Aldridge. Yes, sir, I share all the views you just
outlined. To have an Air Force and a Navy, two aircraft who
cannot talk to each other seems somewhat silly, and I think
this has to be part of our acquisition process, that when a
weapons system comes before the Defense Acquisition Board for
determining its baseline program, interoperability has to be
one of those criteria that has to be addressed, to show by the
program managers how this is going to be done, otherwise the
program does not get approved. It has to be almost that
serious, I believe. I strongly believe that.
If confirmed in this position, I will do everything in my
power to make interoperability one of the criteria, just as
range and payload and things of that nature, the tanks or ships
or any of the systems we buy, the criteria for interoperability
has to be a key element of its performance, and I would intend
to do that, if confirmed for this position.
Chairman Warner. Your predecessors have struggled with it.
Much remains to be done.
Mr. Aldridge. Yes, sir. It will not be an easy job.
Chairman Warner. Well, you tackle it and do what you can,
and you will get support from this committee.
Now, I am going to read a rather complicated question here.
I think you would be well-advised just to listen, and at this
time I will not elicit further response from you. At this very
moment it may well be the Senate will turn to a piece of
legislation. I wish to comment on it in the question and then,
if confirmed hereafter, you will be given the responsibility to
deal with this issue.
In your answers to pre-hearing questions you state that,
and I quote, the ready availability of information technology,
satellite surveillance, weapons of mass destruction
technologies, and the trained personnel to utilize them,
present a clear challenge to the U.S. military dominance, and
that, quote, the U.S. is the largest technology producer, and
therefore it must protect its most sensitive technologies, end
quote.
The Senate may shortly be turning to the Export
Administration Act. This issue is very timely. I am of the view
myself, personally, that it would be wise not to bring this up
at this time, given the fluidity of our relationship with a
major overseas acquirer of U.S. technology, namely China. I
think that situation should settle down.
Furthermore, I think, wisely, the administration has looked
at dealing with this subject in an executive order, and I think
out of deference to our President the opportunity should be
given to the administration to issue that order, and then
Congress determine, in its own infinite wisdom, whether or not
further legislation is needed, but I wish to put you on alert
for that one.
Mr. Aldridge. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Mr. Moore--it is interesting how fast time
moves, and technology. While I am on that subject, you know the
relationship between the Department and Congress is based on a
continuing dialogue. At this time of the Internet, controlling
the flow of information puts a challenge to us. In the year of
the Internet, how do you anticipate you will control the flow
of information between the Department and Congress?
Mr. Moore. Mr. Chairman, it is a subject I have thought
about, and I intend to look into. If I am confirmed, and get to
the Department of Defense, it is going to be a high priority
with me. I recognize that we are in a different age, and we
need to bring ourselves up-to-date. I am not exactly sure what
kind of web page the Office of Legislative Affairs has, but I
intend to look into it, and it offers a lot of advantages in
the flow of information, and I intend to take full advantage of
those advantages.
When I arrived in Senator Thompson's office almost 3 years
ago, I made it a high priority to establish a good web page for
Senator Thompson, and a couple of years ago he received a prize
for having one of the best in the Senate, and so with that
record, I think I have demonstrated that I recognize the
importance of using the Internet to dispense information and
also to obtain information, and I intend to work very hard to
bring the Office of Legislative Affairs into the 21st century
in that regard.
Chairman Warner. Well, it has come on very rapidly. It is
there, it is growing, and I have to tell you, I have an 11-
year-old grandson that reads my web page and sends me e-mails
on it continuously, so I am on alert status.
Mr. Moore. Well, I like your advice, and I look forward to
the advice of other members of the committee in that regard
also, if I am confirmed.
Chairman Warner. Mr. Haynes, does your office possess the
in-house technical expertise to deal with the new areas of law
such as cyber law, which will be of great concern in the
future? I hope that if you find there are some deficiencies,
that you remedy those and do your very best to get up to speed
on it.
Cyber security is a subject that is of great concern to
this committee and, indeed, this committee last year initiated
a scholarship program for the inducement of young persons to
undertake a specific education in the area of cyber security at
Government expense, in return for a commitment to either go
into uniform and/or the civilian part of the military to serve
as advisors to the Department on this subject. Do you have any
views on this?
Mr. Haynes. Well, Senator, it is an exciting area in all
disciplines, and law is no exception. I found it quite useful
to use the Internet in my own private practice, increasingly
so, but there is a long way to go. One of the benefits of the
whole medium is that it seems to be boundless in its
opportunity, but there are dangers, as you point out, and the
law has to be attentive to that, and that is something that I
hope to spend a lot of time on, if confirmed.
Chairman Warner. Attention has been focused recently on the
implications of increasing the average age and retirement in
the Government's civilian workforce. It is a very important
part of the Department of Defense. It is often overlooked
because of the higher visibility of those in uniform.
There are some fears that the Government will lose its most
qualified and experienced personnel, and we will be
disadvantaged because of existing civilian pay scales and other
factors in attracting highly qualified replacements, and the
question goes to all three of you, what steps would you hope to
initiate to alleviate this problem? Why don't you start off,
Mr. Haynes.
Mr. Haynes. Well, Senator, we are mortal, and you cannot
stop the passage of time. People are going to want to retire.
The key to addressing that problem is not limited to law. It is
making sure that we get junior people well-trained, and try to
hang on to their expertise and capture the institutional
knowledge that exists in the system.
Chairman Warner. Thank you. Mr. Aldridge.
Mr. Aldridge. Yes, sir. I share your concern. I have
noticed in the acquisition workforce, we have lost 50 percent
of the acquisition workforce since 1990 as a result of coming
down. We have not hired young people because they just do not
fill the jobs, and so the workforce tends to age with time.
That is a real serious problem, because the demands that
are going to be placed upon our civilian workforce are going to
be increasing in the future as new technologies, as you point
out, are so rapidly appearing. The challenges of new weapons
systems, the challenges of making sure that the Government gets
the proper equipment from our contractors, and the dealings
with the industrial world are all very serious activities.
Congress did pass a law, I think Senator Levin mentioned,
about giving the laboratories some individual hiring
authorities to bring in some new scientists and engineers, and
the Department has not been, I guess, addressing that in any
degree.
I would intend, if confirmed, to look into that matter to
see why hasn't the Department responded to that flexibility
that exists, and maybe we can even look at flexibilities that
go beyond just the laboratories, to give people the incentives
to bring in new people into this workforce. I think it is an
extremely important issue.
Again, I put that as one of my goals, if confirmed in the
position, to address the quality and morale of the acquisition
workforce. I think it is a very important issue we need to
address.
Chairman Warner. We must remember that the civilian
workforce, whether it is acquisition or anywhere else in the
Department, they are full partners in that Department and in no
way have any second-class status, and we have to be ever
watchful to correctly and rightfully give to them that
partnership status.
Mr. Aldridge. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Do you have anything to add on that?
Mr. Moore. Mr. Chairman, if confirmed as Assistant
Secretary for Legislative Affairs, it would be my intention to
work with this committee and work with other committees of
Congress, like the Committee on Governmental Affairs, to
address the pay and benefit issues that might be an impediment
to public service.
I would also say that, beyond that, while we want to
address the pay and benefit issues, I think we need to create a
sense of pride in public service and to attract the best and
the brightest.
Chairman Warner. Let us say, create a greater sense of
pride.
Mr. Moore. A greater sense of pride, yes, sir. That
expresses it better.
Chairman Warner. I thank you.
Senator Dayton, do you have any further questions?
Senator Dayton. No, I do not, Mr. Chairman. I would just
like to compliment the nominees on their excellent responses,
and also compliment them on their families. They have been
wonderfully supportive and patient, and your children, Mr.
Haynes, are extremely well-behaved. [Laughter.]
Chairman Warner. We have had an excellent hearing. I look
forward to these hearings for confirmation. We do it very
thoroughly, very carefully. We will have an executive session
of this committee in 222 Russell, and I wish each of you well,
together with your families. We are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:12 a.m., the committee adjourned.]
[Prepared questions submitted to Edward C. Aldridge by
Chairman Warner prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
April 24, 2001.
Hon. John Warner,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Enclosed herewith are the answers to the advance
questions the Senate Armed Services Committee asked me to complete.
Sincerely,
Edward C. Aldridge.
cc: Honorable Carl Levin,
Ranking Minority Member.
______
Questions and Responses
defense reforms
Question. More than 10 years have passed since the enactment of the
Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and
the Special Operations reforms. From your close association with
defense issues, you have had an opportunity to observe the
implementation and impact of those reforms.
Do you support full implementation of these defense reforms? What
is your view of the extent to which these defense reforms have been
implemented? What do you consider to be the most important aspects of
these defense reforms?
Answer. Yes, the goals of Congress in enacting these defense
reforms, as reflected in section 3 of the Goldwater-Nichols Department
of Defense Reorganization Act, can be summarized as strengthening
civilian control; improving military advice; placing a clear
responsibility on the combatant commanders for the accomplishment of
their missions; ensuring the authority of the combatant commanders is
commensurate with their responsibility; increasing attention to the
formulation of strategy and to contingency planning; providing for more
efficient use of defense resources; and enhancing the effectiveness of
military operations and improving the management and administration of
the Department of Defense.
Question. Do you agree with these goals?
Answer. Yes, I support full implementation of the Goldwater-Nichols
reforms and agree with its goals. The enactment of Goldwater-Nichols
significantly improved the organization of the Department of Defense,
focused our joint warfighting capabilities, and enhanced the military
advice received by the Secretary. If confirmed, I will fully support
the intent of the reforms and advocate policies that will facilitate
joint operations, streamline acquisition management and oversight, and
enhance the department's ability to respond to our 21st century
national security challenges.
duties
Question. Section 133 of Title 10, United States Code, describes
the duties of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics (USD(ATL)).
Assuming you are confirmed, do you expect that Secretary Rumsfeld
will prescribe additional duties for you?
Answer. I am sure as I become even more familiar with the issues
and the organization there may be additional duties that the Secretary
will ask me to do.
Question. What background and experience do you possess that you
believe qualifies you to perform these duties and those outlined in the
law and applicable DOD directives?
Answer. I have served in various assignments in the Pentagon,
working in planning and evaluation, analysis of strategic systems, and
as the Secretary of the Air Force, and also at the Office of Management
and Budget. Additionally, I have experience in the private sector at
Systems Planning Corporation, LTV Aerospace, McDonnell Douglas
Electronic Systems, and, most recently, as the Chief Executive Officer
of The Aerospace Corporation. I believe the combination of my
government service along with my private sector experience provides me
with the best understanding of both worlds.
Question. Do you believe that there are any additional steps that
you need to take to enhance your expertise to perform these duties?
Answer. I think the main thing I need to do now is to learn and
understand more completely current issues and challenges facing the
Department today.
Question. Section 133(a) of Title 10, United States Code states,
``The Under Secretary shall be appointed from among persons who have an
extensive management background in the private sector.''
Describe how your background qualifies you to meet this
requirement.
Answer. My private sector management background consists of serving
in various management roles to include Vice President at Systems
Planning Corporation, responsible for strategic and conventional forces
and strategic planning; President of McDonnell Douglas Electronic
Systems Company; and Chief Executive Officer of The Aerospace
Corporation. This corporation is dedicated to solving critical national
problems through science and technology. I believe this experience
provides me with the insight and abilities I will need to perform this
new assignment, if I am confirmed.
major weapon system acquisition
Question. Secretary Rumsfeld testified at his confirmation hearing
that the cycle time for major acquisition programs conducted over the
past several decades averages between 8 and 9 years. Others have stated
that the cycle time may be as long as 15 to 20 years. The Secretary
stated that this cycle time is not sufficiently responsive to urgent
new challenges and rapidly emerging technological developments.
What specific steps could the Department of Defense take to reduce
cycle time for major acquisition programs?
Answer. The Department is committed to delivering advanced
technology to the warfighter faster. Reduced acquisition cycle time can
be achieved through: (1) rapid acquisition with demonstrated
technology; (2) time-phased requirements and evolutionary development;
and (3) integrated test and evaluation. If confirmed, I would work to
implement these techniques.
Question. Do you believe that incremental or phased acquisition
approaches could help address this problem?
Answer. Yes. Evolutionary acquisition based on time-phased
requirements is an effective approach worth pursuing where appropriate.
Question. One of the features of the Department's acquisition
system that is frequently criticized is the extensive ``concurrency,''
or overlap between the development and production phases of major
weapon system acquisition programs.
Where and under what conditions should concurrency be used in the
development and production phases of DOD's major weapon system
acquisition programs?
Answer. Concurrency should be used in the development and
production phases of major weapon system acquisition programs when
there are near-term threats that must be addressed; and as one
methodology to help reduce cycle time. For example, combining
developmental testing and operational testing--when it makes sense--is
a form of concurrency that can have very beneficial results in
acquisition streamlining.
Question. Do you believe there has been too much concurrency?
Answer. The amount of concurrency in a program is essentially a
business judgment--balancing risk (technology maturity, etc.) and early
fielding (cycle time reduction) capability for the warfighter.
Question. If so, what steps should be taken to reduce concurrency?
Answer. The acquisition strategy should specifically address the
benefits and risks associated with reducing lead-time through.
Question. Over the last 3 years, the General Accounting Office has
prepared a series of reports for this committee, comparing the DOD
acquisition practices with those of the private sector. The GAO's
leading conclusion has been that private sector programs are more
successful in large part because they consistently require a high level
of maturity for new technologies before such technologies are
incorporated into product development programs. Department of Defense
Instruction 5000.2, which governs the acquisition of major weapon
systems, was recently re-written to require that new technologies be
demonstrated in a relevant environment (preferably an operational
environment) before they may be incorporated into DOD acquisition
programs.
Are you familiar with the revised version of DOD Instruction 5000.2
and, if so, what are your views on this revision?
Answer. Yes, I am familiar with the revised DOD Instruction 5000.2
and believe that it is a good first step in the right direction in
responding to the GAO's conclusions.
Question. Do you believe that the process of testing and
demonstrating new technologies is more efficiently conducted in the
context of major acquisition programs, or in stand-alone technology
programs?
Answer. The process should be a combination of both. For example, I
believe the DOD Science and Technology (S&T) community should encourage
initiatives--such as Advanced Technology Demonstrations (ATDs)--that
are designed to accelerate the transition from the S&T base to useful
military products. These types of initiatives are executed more in the
context of major acquisition programs. Yet, basic and applied
research--more characteristic of stand-alone technology programs--are
still the foundation for equipping tomorrow's warfighter with
technologically superior weaponry.
Question. Would the DOD's major acquisition programs be more
successful if the Department were to follow the commercial model and
mature its technologies with research and development funds before they
are incorporated into product development programs?
Answer. The DOD acquisition process depicts three major activity
phases: technology development, system development, and production.
``Technology'' is separate from ``system'' development with more
emphasis on mature technology. As a result of a single system
development phase, entry is made with more matured concepts and
technologies.
Question. The Washington Post reported on March 11 that the
Department of Defense has been soliciting allies to make contributions
to help pay for research and development on the Joint Strike Fighter.
According to the article: ``Using a sliding scale similar to the
`angels' and `patrons' list of a theater company, the Pentagon is
offering select allies the chance to contribute anywhere from $2
billion for a `Level One' partnership to $250 million for a `Level
Three' stake in the Joint Strike Fighter. In return, the allies can put
their officers on teams developing key areas of technology or even have
a say in which contractor--Lockheed Martin or Boeing--would build the
plane.''
Do you believe that it is appropriate for the Department of Defense
to ``sell'' foreign governments access to its technology development
teams (or to grant such access in return for monetary contributions)?
Answer. The Department of Defense has a long history of successful
cooperative development programs with our allies, as exemplified by the
F-16 program. Foreign development investments are negotiated on a case-
by-case basis, with technology access subject to National Disclosure
Policy.
Question. Are you aware of any legal authority that would permit
the Department of Defense to allow a foreign government--or any other
entity outside the U.S. government--to have a say in the selection of a
source for a Federal contract?
Answer. The Department of Defense has the legal authority to enter
into cooperative development programs, to include allowing foreign
government representatives to participate in the source selection
process in some fashion. In the case of the Joint Strike Fighter, the
United Kingdom will be represented in the source selection process, in
an evaluation and advisory capacity only.
Question. Are you concerned that this effort could limit the
flexibility of the Department of Defense to reshape the defense budget
in accordance with the results of the Secretary's strategic review and
quadrennial defense review?
Answer. The Secretary's strategic review is taking into
consideration many factors, and it is premature to speculate on the
decisions to be drawn. Among the factors to be considered should be the
international implications of such programs as the Joint Strike
Fighter.
test and evaluation
Question. The Department has frequently been criticized for failing
to adequately test its major weapon systems before they go into
production. In recent years, the Department has given the Director of
Operational Test and Evaluation increased authority over developmental
testing.
Would you agree that a strong, independent Director of Operational
Test and Evaluation is critical to the success of the Department's
acquisition programs?
Answer. A strong, independent Director of Operational Test and
Evaluation is critical to ensuring the Department's acquisition
programs are realistically and adequately tested in their intended
operational environment. As an independent voice, the Director of
Operational Test and Evaluation provides operational test and
evaluation results to the Secretary of Defense, other decision-makers
in the Department, and Congress before they proceed beyond low rate
initial production.
Question. Do you believe that supervisory authority over
developmental testing is an appropriate role for the Director of
Operational Test and Evaluation, or could this role compromise the
Director's independence?
Answer. The Director, Operational Test and Evaluation does not have
a supervisory position over developmental test and evaluation.
Question. Developmental test and evaluation and operational test
and evaluation are separate, yet complementary, elements in the
acquisition process. Developmental test and evaluation is an integral
part of system engineering designed to verify performance or to
discover anomalies; and, through a test-fix-test process, assure the
system design and mitigate technical risk. Operational test and
evaluation is used to determine a system's military effectiveness and
suitability in its intended operating environment.
Do we need to take any steps to ensure that developmental testing
is realistic, and is used for its intended purpose of identifying and
addressing potential weaknesses in an acquisition program at an early
stage?
Answer. There are several steps we can take to ensure developmental
test and evaluation is realistic and used for its intended purpose.
Developmental test and evaluation is a critical element of the
acquisition process. There needs to be a balance between focused
developmental test and evaluation and schedules that will sufficiently
mitigate program risk. This needs to be done while ensuring a high
probability of successfully completing operational test and evaluation
the first time around and fielding systems that meet warfighter
requirements.
We should get the testers involved early to ensure that an adequate
test and evaluation program is defined, addressed, and maintained in
both program budget and schedule. We need to devote sufficient
resources to conduct well-planned test programs and execute the program
properly.
We need to increase discipline in the developmental test and
evaluation process by assuring systems have passed their exit criteria
and demonstrated a fundamental core capability in developmental test
and evaluation before entering initial operational test and evaluation.
acquisition workforce
Question. There has been considerable pressure to reduce
acquisition organizations on the basis of absolute numbers. The DOD has
reduced its acquisition workforce approximately 50 percent, from the
end of fiscal year 1990 to the end of fiscal year 1999, while the
workload has essentially remained constant, and even increased by some
measures.
Are you concerned that reductions to the acquisition workforce will
have a negative effect on effective program management, and if so, how
do you plan to address this problem?
Answer. I am concerned about the effects of the reductions on the
acquisition workforce. As the Department continues to emphasize
contracting out and competitive sourcing, the skills, training, and
experience of the acquisition workforce will be critical in effectively
managing these contracts. In addition, I am concerned that the DOD may
be faced with a significant demographic challenge as 50 percent of the
acquisition workforce will be eligible to retire in the next 5 years.
Question. Does our current acquisition workforce have the quality
and training to adapt to new acquisition reforms, as well as to the
increased workload and responsibility for managing privatization
efforts?
Answer. The morale of the workforce after 10 years of downsizing is
a concern to me, as is having a workforce with the right size and
skills. I will ensure the development of a strategic human resource
plan that includes educating the current workforce by using modernized
web-based training, and includes maximizing current hiring and
recruiting authorities to attract new talent. If confirmed, I will
capitalize on web-based learning techniques for continuous learning
with increased emphasis on commercial practices to accelerate
acquisition and logistics excellence and enable more cross functional
training.
science and technology
Question. The Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1999 established the goal of increasing the budget for the
defense science and technology program by at least 2 percent over
inflation for each of the fiscal years 2000 to 2008. This goal was not
met in the fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001 budget requests. In
his speech at the Citadel last year, then-Governor Bush spoke of his
support for increased research and development spending and a strong
and stable technology base.
Do you believe that a substantial increase in the Department's
science and technology budget is needed?
Answer. Yes, I believe the Department's Science and Technology
(S&T) budget needs to be increased, consistent with the President's
blueprint and balanced with other DOD needs to ensure the technological
superiority of our Armed Forces. We need to emphasize revolutionary
concepts in the S&T budget to provide more dramatic advances in
capabilities that the President seeks.
Question. Congress has authorized the Department to give laboratory
directors direct hiring authority to enable them to compete more
effectively with the private sector for top scientific and engineering
talent. To date, the Department has been reluctant to use this
authority.
Do you support giving the Department's laboratory directors the
authority to make direct hires without having to go through a lengthy
review process, which can take up to 18 months?
Answer. Yes. Our laboratories are vital for our Nation's
development of future, essential warfighting capabilities.
logistics transformation
Question. Over the last 10 years, the Defense Logistics Agency has
placed an increasing emphasis on approaches such as prime vendor
agreements, virtual prime vendor agreements, and direct vendor delivery
to streamline the Department's logistics systems for commercial items
such as medical supplies, clothing and subsistence, and common hardware
items.
Do you support commercial practices such as these that rely
increasingly on the private sector to meet the Department's logistics
needs?
Do you believe that these types of logistics practices can
appropriately be expanded to the delivery of non-commercial items, such
as aircraft spare parts?
Answer. First I strongly support use of commercial practices in
defense logistics, where it makes sense from a warfighter's
perspective.
The second part of your question (applying those commercial
practices to non-commercial items) is a bit more vexing. Our challenge
is defense-unique items, such as fighter aircraft parts, which tend to
be low-volume, high-cost items, often provided by sole-source
manufacturers. Therefore, a natural market does not exist. At this
juncture, I believe the DOD should continue adopting innovative support
methods, taking advantage of industry- and government-tested best
practices. This approach employs corporate contracts, supply chain
management techniques, emerging business technologies, and DOD-
leveraged buying power.
competitive sourcing
Question. Over the past several years, the DOD has increased its
reliance on the private sector to perform certain activities including
equipment maintenance and facility operations. Some have supported this
effort while others have expressed concern that core activities are
being jeopardized by reducing our reliance on military personnel and
civilian employees of the Federal Government.
What approach would you recommend to balance maintaining necessary
capabilities and outsourcing?
Answer. The private sector is only offered the opportunity to
compete to provide services previously performed by Government
employees when the activity has been determined to be commercial in
nature and not inherently governmental. They only win such competitions
when Government analysis of their offer determines that they can
provide a more cost-effective solution than can the Government
workforce. Thus, procedures are in place to provide the most effective
support possible to the men and women of our armed services as well as
the American taxpayer. I advocate opening all appropriate commercial
activities to competition.
Question. Do you believe that public-private competition results in
significant savings to the Department, and if so, how?
Answer. Many studies have found that public-private competition
generates real savings regardless of whether the Government workforce
or private sector wins the competition. These savings are generally
reflective of reduced manpower dedicated to the activity, a result made
possible through adapting better business practices.
Question. OMB Circular A-76, which establishes the guidelines for
privatizing most government functions, is slated for scrutiny by a
congressionally mandated panel of government and private experts in
this area. The panel, chaired by the Comptroller General, is scheduled
to report to Congress with specific policy and legislative reforms and
recommendations for changing the way the government conducts out-
sourcing decisions and implements them.
What is your view of the current A-76 process?
Answer. The A-76 process is lengthy and complex, having evolved
over time to ensure fairness. I would like to see the process
simplified, and if confirmed, will be involved in the panel you mention
and am optimistic that we will identify improvements.
Question. Are there other effective alternatives to achieve the
benefits of public-private competition?
Answer. Public-private competition has proven to be the most
effective option. However, there are situations where Government
workforce competition is not appropriate, for example when the
Department identifies a new requirement and there is no Government
workforce currently performing the activity. In that case, where the
work is commercial in nature, a competition among private sector
participants ensures the Government achieves the best value.
information technology
Question. There appears to be potential overlap between the
responsibilities of the USD(ATL) and the Chief Information Officer
(currently ASD(C\3\I)) with regards to information technology
acquisition.
How do you anticipate sharing responsibilities with the CIO to
ensure effective acquisition of information technology?
Answer. I am familiar with the Department's Klinger-Cohen Act and
CIO responsibilities. If confirmed, I will establish the appropriate
relationship between the CIO and Office of the USD(AT&L).
Question. What is your assessment of the Department's ability to
rapidly assimilate these commercial technologies?
Answer. I believe the Department is well aware of the rapid growth
and opportunities available with use of commercial technologies and has
the necessary incentives to increase access and to incorporate this
technology as soon as possible.
Question. Is a growing DOD dependence on commercial information
technology a positive or negative development?
Answer. The proper and effective application by DOD of commercial
information technology is a must for the Department. The benefits
outweigh the risks. Those risks that are identified will be addressed
in a comprehensive manner.
the defense industrial base
Question. Some have argued that in many categories the current
industrial base may no longer be able to support the ``winner-take-
all'' competitions of the past.
How can we obtain the benefits of competition given the current
limited number of contractors?
Answer. The Department has multiple approaches to help us meet the
challenge of maintaining competition in our consolidated defense
industry. The DOD has established a formal, rigorous, and centralized
review process for mergers and acquisitions. I also understand that the
DOD has in place a series of policies directed at enhancing acquisition
management insight of the industry, and of the competitive effects of
DOD buying actions. Finally, the Department has expressed support for
pro-competitive, security enhancing industrial linkages between U.S.
defense firms and firms located in coalition partner countries. These
industrial linkages can facilitate trans-Atlantic competition and keep
markets open on both sides of the Atlantic as industries consolidate
and rationalize assets.
Question. Do you support further consolidation of the defense
industry?
Answer. The question of the Department's position on further
consolidation of the defense industry can best be answered on a case-
by-case basis. The competitiveness and financial health of each
industrial sector are different with different characteristics to
consider.
Question. A November 2000 report by the Defense Science Board on
the health of the defense industry identified some significant issues
associated with under-investment and consolidation.
What is your view of the specific recommendations of the Defense
Science Board study?
Answer. We must do what is necessary to retain a robust and
competitive industrial base. I share many of the ideas addressed in the
Defense Science Board study.
Question. What is your view of the current state of the U.S.
defense industry?
Answer. The defense industry still provides the best products and
services to our warfighters and I believe it will continue to provide
those products and services in the future. Over the last year, market
valuations for defense firms have rebounded from a very poor performing
year.
Question. Should the DOD assess providing incentives to further
reduce the number of facilities or is this best left to market forces?
Answer. While it is better to let the market forces provide the
incentives for business decisions of our defense firms, I believe there
are some actions the Department can take to increase the incentives for
rationalizing inefficient operations.
foreign acquisitions
Question. In an era of global markets that are open to foreign
investment and rapid technological innovation, understanding the impact
that foreign acquisitions of U.S. manufacturers have on U.S. national
security is becoming increasingly important. While the President has
the authority to block foreign acquisitions of U.S. manufacturers if
these acquisitions might threaten national security, only one
acquisition has been blocked since 1988. It is also important that
decision-makers understand the impact acquisitions have on the ability
of the U.S. defense industrial base to support the Department of
Defense programs. In recent years, foreign-owned companies have been
purchasing a variety of U.S. defense manufacturers.
What is your position on foreign investment in the U.S. defense
sector?
Answer. In general, I favor foreign investment in the U.S. whether
it be for defense industries or non-defense industries, so long as this
investment does not pose threats to national security. For some time
our military operations have been conducted in a trans-Atlantic, multi-
national coalition environment. If we are to achieve both our U.S.
national security goals and our common strategic objectives with our
allies, it makes sense for the U.S. to take advantage of economic
globalization.
Question. What are your views on the responsibility of the
Department of Defense to monitor and oversee potential acquisitions of
U.S. firms by foreign buyers?
Answer. Since foreign acquisitions of U.S. defense firms could
directly affect both the reliability of suppliers to the DOD weapons
acquisition process as well as the transfer of technology under
development in the DOD, we need to oversee and monitor developments in
this area. Fortunately, there is statutory and regulatory guidance to
assist the DOD and the USD(AT&L) in carrying out these
responsibilities.
Question. What standard should be applied to determine if a foreign
acquisition threatens national security?
Answer. There are some key factors that we must consider. First,
how critical is the technology, whether weapons or manufacturing
technology, possessed by the firm being acquired? Second, is this
technology already available to potential U.S. adversaries and
countries of concern? Third, what do intelligence assessments tell us
about the risks of unauthorized disclosure, especially to third
countries, of this classified or export controlled technology, based on
what we know about both the acquiring firm and the acquiring country?
Fourth, do we have alternative domestic suppliers of the products and
services produced and manufacturing technology possessed by the firm to
be acquired and how high are the costs of new entry if that was
necessary down the road? Fifth, are we confident that the acquiring
firm will continue whatever level of capital and R&D investments we
think are necessary to meet DOD needs and are we confident that the new
owner will be a reliable supplier to the DOD in terms of quality
product or service? Sixth, does the DOD have available through the
foreign ownership, control, or influence (FOCI) program and other
means, enforceable measures that will adequately mitigate and risks of
the acquisition in any of the above areas? Decisions in specific cases
depend on the interaction of all these factors.
Question. When a U.S. manufacturer is acquired by a foreign owner,
there are no mechanisms in place to prevent foreign-owned companies
from moving a U.S. manufacturing capability overseas.
What do you plan to do to ensure that the U.S. does not lose
critical manufacturing capabilities as a result of foreign
acquisitions?
Answer. There are two things which should be done regarding this
issue. First, in each merger or acquisition transaction, we need good
analysis on what vulnerabilities exist for national security in case of
a move offshore involving not just manufacturing facilities, but R&D
facilities as well. This should employ the factors I have already
listed above. The risk of a move of production or R&D facilities
offshore is not the same in each case. Second, we need constant
monitoring of our defense industrial base in critical technology and
manufacturing areas to anticipate where we think vulnerabilities exist
so that we can take actions to help ensure that future supply is
reliable.
Question. What are your plans for strengthening the Defense
Department's oversight role to ensure that U.S. national security is
not compromised from future foreign acquisitions within U.S.
industries?
Answer. Actually, this oversight involves both evaluation of
proposed transactions and working with allied governments to ensure
that their national standards for security oversight meet our
standards. As for individual transactions, if confirmed, I would be
committed to seeing that we maintain good communications within the DOD
and between the DOD and the Treasury Department CFIUS staff on
transactions that have not had voluntary filings. I am committed to
seeing that AT&L's particular interests in avoiding unauthorized
transfer of controlled technology and ensuring reliable suppliers to
the DOD in the future are given sufficient consideration in the DOD's
CFIUS reviews.
foreign industrial cooperation
Question. Do you believe that there should be greater cooperation
and even integration between defense industries in Europe and the U.S.?
If so, how can such cooperation be facilitated?
Answer. I support greater transatlantic defense industrial
cooperation. More cooperative endeavors such as teaming, joint ventures
and even mergers and acquisitions can produce beneficial synergies,
efficient use of limited resources, and healthy competition, so long as
it occurs in a positive and constructive manner.
globalization
Question. In a recent report on globalization, the Defense Science
Board observed: ``The general diffusion of technological know-how and
commercial availability of strategic or enabling technologies (advanced
machine tools, high-performance computing, manufacturing of
biotechnology products) will likely yield rapid advances in indigenous
weapons production capability. States will be able to achieve dramatic
increases in military capability by acquiring, via the burgeoning
commercial space industry, whole ranges of C\3\ISR (command, control,
communications, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance)
capabilities heretofore available only to great powers. The strategic
significance of a global military-technological leveling cannot be
overstated. It presents a direct challenge to perhaps the fundamental
assumption underlying the modern concept of U.S. military superiority:
that the United States enjoys disproportionately greater access to
advanced technology than its potential adversaries.''
Do you agree with these assessments, and if so, how do you propose
that the U.S. maintain its military superiority in the future in light
of these trends?
Answer. I agree with the Defense Science Board assessments.
The ready availability of information technology, satellite
surveillance, weapons of mass destruction technologies, etc., and the
trained personnel to utilize them presents a clear challenge to U.S.
military dominance. The foes our forces may meet on the battlefields of
the future will be more technologically adept and dangerous than they
are today. In cooperation with State, Commerce, and others, the
Department should continue its constructive approach to curbing the
global proliferation of these technologies. The U.S., as the largest
technology producer, must protect its most sensitive technologies. The
U.S. should also continue the long-standing practice of releasing
sensitive technologies, when warranted, to our closest allies in a
time-phased approach, thus helping to preserve our technological lead.
We must also work with our technologically advanced allies to improve
their national export control practices to prevent inappropriate
transfers of military and sensitive commercial technologies.
intellectual property
Question. Many observers have said that one of the major
disincentives for commercial companies interested in doing business
with the Department of Defense is the difficulty of protecting their
intellectual property under a government contract. On January 4, 2001,
the Pentagon issued guidance to improve the Department's handling of
intellectual property rights in order to attract commercial entities to
defense contracts.
Are you familiar with this guidance and, if so, what are your views
of this revised policy?
Answer. I believe the question is referring to a January 5, 2001,
memorandum issued by the Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics.
I support all of the steps outlined in this memorandum.
multiyear procurements
Question. Providing a stable funding profile for defense programs
is absolutely essential to effective program management and
performance, for both the DOD and the defense industry. One already
tested means of increasing program funding stability is the use of
multiyear contracts.
Please provide your views on multiyear procurements.
Answer. Where appropriate, multiyear procurements can reduce the
production cost associated with weapon systems. Multiyear contracting
is also an effective strategy in the procurement of less than major
systems, and in contracting for various categories of services (e.g.,
base services such as ground maintenance; specialized training
requiring high quality instructor skills).
Question. How will you treat proposals to renegotiate a multiyear
procurement?
Answer. With great caution. Multiyear procurement will remain an
effective tool only if the parties to multiyear contracts live up to
the long-term commitment they made. Neither industry nor Congress will
be interested in entering into multiyear contracts unless each can rely
on the other to follow through as planned. If circumstances change
significantly enough to force renegotiation of a multiyear contract, I
would expect any such recommendation to be fully supported by a
description of what changed, why the changes necessitate renegotiation
of the contract, how the benefits of the multiyear contract, including
reduced cost, will be preserved to the extent possible in the
renegotiation, and what will be done to preclude perturbing the
contract in the future.
small business issues
Question. For the last 2 decades, the Department of Defense has
been subject to statutory goals for contracting with small businesses
and minority small businesses. More recently, additional goals have
been added for contracting with women-owned businesses and businesses
owned by disabled veterans. A number of programs have been put in place
to help the Department achieve these goals.
Do you believe that these goals serve a valid purpose in the
Department of Defense contracting system?
Answer. Yes, I believe statutory goals serve to highlight
congressional concerns which the Department of Defense is obligated to
carry out as efficiently and effectively as possible.
Question. Do you support the so-called ``rule of two'', which
provides that if two or more small businesses are capable of performing
a contract, competition will be limited to small business?
Answer. Yes, I do support the ``rule of two.''
Question. Do you support the Section 8(a) program under which the
Department sets aside certain contracts for performance by small
disadvantaged businesses?
Answer. Yes, I do. The 8(a) program has been an important program
in developing small disadvantaged business (SDB) firms to participate
fully in the procurement opportunities the Department offers. It also
allows 8(a) firms to become solid sources of supplies and services on a
continuing basis.
Question. Do you support the Department of Defense mentor-protege
program, under which major defense contractors provide advice and
assistance to small disadvantaged businesses and women-owned businesses
seeking to do business with the Department of Defense?
Answer. Yes, I fully support the mentor-protege program. From my
point of view, the mentor-protege program has become one of the more
innovative programs to develop valued suppliers for the DOD and its
prime contractors.
Question. Would you recommend the extension of the program?
Answer. Yes, I would certainly recommend an extension of the
program.
Question. What is your view of contract ``bundling''?
Answer. I am aware that contract bundling impacts upon small
businesses and support the current statutory and regulatory coverage
that requires the Department to ensure that we anticipate that there
will be measurably substantial benefits accruing to the DOD prior to
proceeding with a bundled action.
Question. Do you believe that there is a value to having small
businesses contract directly with the Federal Government, rather than
being relegated to the role of subcontractors?
Answer. There is value to the Department in having small business
concerns participate in both roles, as prime contractors and as
subcontractors. Small business concerns offer the Department and its
prime contractors the opportunity to access the innovation,
competitiveness, and responsiveness that have always been the hallmark
of U.S. small business concerns. Small business concerns play a
substantial and important role in the Defense industrial base and we
should continue to support them in both prime and subcontracting roles.
Question. Do you believe that the standard adopted by Congress for
approving bundling is the appropriate one, or would you recommend that
this standard be modified?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review this matter carefully and work
the Secretary and this committee to ascertain if the Department should
recommend any modifications.
feeder systems
Question. For years, the Department of Defense has been unable to
ensure proper accountability and control over its physical assets,
proper accounting for the costs of operations, and proper recording and
reconciling of disbursements. In the view of many, the Department will
not be able to get its financial house in order until it has identified
and addressed problems with the so-called ``feeder systems'' that
provide much of the information used by the Department's finance and
accounting systems. These ``feeder systems'' include procurement and
acquisition systems under the control of the Under Secretary for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics.
Do you agree that it must be a high priority for the Department of
Defense to develop systems that can properly account for costs and
disbursements?
Answer. Yes. Developing DOD systems that properly account for the
costs of DOD operations and acquisitions is a high priority and
critically important to sound decision-making.
Question. Would you make it a high priority to work with the DOD
Comptroller, the Chief Information Officer, and the military services
to ensure that the Department's acquisition systems include appropriate
management controls and provide reliable data that can be used for both
acquisition management and financial management purposes?
Answer. Yes.
defense acquisition board
Question. There are a number of decisions which will require a
Defense Acquisition Board (DAB) review in the next 6 months.
Do you foresee any near- or long-term changes in the membership or
procedures for DAB reviews?
Answer. If confirmed, I intend to review the membership and
procedures of the DAB as part of my broader review of acquisition
organizations and processes.
privatized housing initiatives
Question. Under the current Department of Defense organization, the
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics
is responsible for military housing policies and the privatization
initiatives.
a. In your opinion, are the current initiatives sufficient to
address the problems with aging and substandard military housing?
b. What changes or new initiatives, either policy-based or
statutorily, would you recommend to improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of the housing privatization program?
Answer. The authorities included in the Military Housing
Privatization Initiative enacted in 1996 are critical to revitalizing
inadequate military housing and to help satisfy overall housing
requirements. The Department of Defense has established the goal of
revitalizing all inadequate housing in its inventory by 2010.
Privatization is an important element of the strategy that will allow
the Department to meet this important quality-of-life goal.
If confirmed, I will review the program to determine the lessons
learned from the 10 projects already awarded, and to disseminate
information about the most cost-effective ways to use the authorities
in the wide variety of conditions encountered at different locations.
transformation
Question. Over the last year, the military departments have
described or initiated plans to transform so that they will be better
able to deal with a wide range of anticipated 21st century national
security challenges.
What are your views of the transformation initiatives within the
Department as they are currently understood?
Answer. Already, the military departments have taken actions to
transform themselves to be more adaptive, flexible, and suited to the
spectrum of future warfighting challenges. These efforts are essential
to maintaining future military relevance and superiority.
Question. Are you concerned that these initiatives appear to be
``self-defined'' by the services without direct participation of the
Secretary of Defense or the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff?
Answer. The Secretary has embarked on a study to determine the most
appropriate next steps in the transformation process. As I understand
it, as with his other ongoing studies, his transformation review has
included input from the services and independent assessments from
others.
Question. Recognizing that a fundamental change of the military
services will be expensive and understanding that ``legacy''
modernization programs were significantly underfunded before these
transformation initiatives began, what would you do to ensure that a
proper balance of resources is maintained between the two efforts?
Answer. The balance of resource investments between transformation
initiatives and so-called ``legacy'' modernization programs will always
be a difficult one, since we must take all these decisions under
considerable uncertainty about the future. Many of the legacy systems
will be with us for a long time into that future, and during that time
will continue to be essential to our warfighting readiness. We need to
take prudent steps to sustain and upgrade them to be more useful for
the widest range of schemes for modern warfare. It is also important to
work to reduce the ownership costs for these systems, since these costs
have historically eroded our ability to adequately support investment
in future systems. Likewise, we must look very carefully at investments
in new systems intended for replacement of the legacy forces.
cost estimating
Question. As programs move forward to critical decision points,
there often seems to be a wide disparity between the cost estimates
provided by service analysts and those of the Cost Advisory Improvement
Group (OSD-CAIG). If confirmed, you will be the Milestone Decision
Authority when a program requests a decision at a Defense Acquisition
Board.
How do you intend to handle the issue of projected costs when the
estimates may widely differ?
Answer. If confirmed, I intend to rely on the independent estimate
provided by the CAIG to assess the service's projected cost for the
program. I will ensure that the reasons for differences between the
service estimate and the CAIG estimate are understood prior to making a
decision at a Defense Acquisition Board.
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges confronting
the next Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics?
Answer. There are many challenges that confront me, if confirmed,
and they run the full spectrum of my prospective responsibilities:
Reviewing the Department's Acquisition, Technology,
and Logistics organizations and processes with an eye towards
achieving greater availability and efficiency.
Improving the quality of the acquisition workforce and
implementing programs to maintain a viable workforce in the
face of significant challenges over the next decade.
Improving the health of the defense industrial base.
Determining the appropriate level of resources for
infrastructure, and considering what is appropriate when
rationalized against the needs of military strategy, readiness,
and weapons system investment and sustainment.
Fostering leap-ahead technologies, which could alter
the strategic balance.
Question. If confirmed, what plans do you have for addressing these
challenges?
Answer. There are no quick, easy solutions to resolve these
challenges. If confirmed, I plan to establish definitive goals and
metrics to address these challenges and implement comprehensive
programs that will achieve progress in each of these goals.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, when asked, to give your personal views,
even if those views differ from the administration in power?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as the Under Secretary of Defense
for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings, and
other communications of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Strom Thurmond
military specifications
1. Senator Thurmond. Although military hardware must meet certain
specifications to survive in combat conditions, much of the equipment
does not have to meet these standards. I understand that these military
standards drastically increase the cost of development and procurement.
In your view, is the Department of Defense relying too much on military
specifications when commercial off-the-shelf items could fulfill the
requirements?
Mr. Aldridge. Yes, I believe the Department of Defense has made
significant progress in reducing its reliance on unique military
specifications; however, more can and must be done. Since 1994, the
Department has canceledd 9,600 military specifications and standards
and inactivated another 8,100, which are to be used only to support
legacy systems and equipment. Today, 53 percent of the specifications
and standards used by the DOD are either non-government standards
prepared by private sector standards developing organizations or are
commercial item descriptions; however, the DOD still relies on 7,900
unique military standards and specifications. Current DOD actions are
directed toward greater use of commercial standards on legacy parts
through single process initiatives and reprocurement reform, which has
been included in the recent update to DODD 5000.1. If confirmed, I will
continue to support the maximum use of commercial and international
standards and commercial items where appropriate.
global hawk uav
2. Senator Thurmond. Last week the Global Hawk UAV demonstrated its
capability to fly nonstop to Australia. This was a dramatic
demonstration of the potential the UAV has to provide a vast array of
capabilities ranging from reconnaissance to weapons carriers. What are
your views regarding the potential of these vehicles and is the
Department pursuing this technology to its full potential?
Mr. Aldridge. The Global Hawk UAV does indeed bring a most
promising capability to future military operations. As you have pointed
out, the Global Hawk holds great potential in mission areas beyond the
traditional reconnaissance role.
The Department is focusing on the reconnaissance mission first for
Global Hawk, as this is the logical role. We envision Global Hawk will
become the ``workhorse'' for missions requiring long-range deployment
and wide-area surveillance or long sensor dwell over the target area.
If Global Hawk demonstrates equivalent capability and availability with
the U-2 program, the Air Force will consider drawing down the U-2 force
as Global Hawk is fielded. Our current objective is for Global Hawk to
achieve equivalent capabilities with the U-2 at the end of this decade.
However, the Department is currently looking at several acceleration
options, in terms of production rate, payload capacity, and mission
capabilities, which could move this timetable forward.
The high altitude endurance Global Hawk has the potential to bring
a new dimension of support to the warfighter. The Department is
posturing itself to field this new UAV capability in the very near
future. We are also assessing future payloads, for other mission areas,
as they mature to determine their suitability and applicability for
integration onto the Global Hawk UAV.
installation readiness
3. Senator Thurmond. If you are confirmed as the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition and Technology, you not only will have the
responsibility for overseeing the modernization of our Armed Forces,
but also its installations. Although the modernization piece of your
job will present challenges, our installations may be a bigger
challenge. Last year the Department found that 60 percent of military
bases have facilities rated C-3 or C-4 for readiness, which indicates
the potential for not being able to carry out a mission. How do you
intend to prioritize the issue of installation readiness?
Mr. Aldridge. As your question implies, the Department's
installations play a critical role in supporting our Armed Forces in
the conduct of their wartime missions. Unfortunately, the Installation
Readiness Report as of the end of fiscal year 2000 indicated that now
69 percent of all ratings are either C-3 or C-4.
If confirmed, I will endeavor to ensure the Department gives high
priority to improving the condition and readiness of defense
facilities. I believe we must accelerate the recapitalization of those
facilities with deficiencies that may prevent or interrupt the mission,
those facilities rated C-3 or C-4. Further, I believe the Department
must fully sustain its facilities, restore and modernize inadequate
ones, and eliminate facilities we no longer need. To enhance the
stewardship of our facilities, I will work with the military services
and defense agencies on directing additional resources into fixing the
facilities' problems so that the Department has the installations and
facilities available when and where needed, with capabilities to
effectively and efficiently support DOD missions. Quality of life and
workplaces for our servicemembers and their families is critical to
readiness and retention, and I will work to ensure our military
installations support our forces and their missions.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Jeff Sessions
berry amendment
4. Senator Sessions. I am sure you are aware of the fiasco
surrounding the purchase of the black berets and its relation to the
Berry amendment. The Berry amendment in this case was circumvented when
an artificially short deadline was set to procure these berets. This
deadline prevented many American companies from bidding on this multi-
million dollar purchase, and therefore allowed the manufacture of these
berets to move overseas to countries such as Communist China and Sri
Lanka. What is your position on the Berry amendment, and what will you
do in your position to ensure the spirit of ``Buy American'' in the
Berry amendment is honored in the future?
Mr. Aldridge. I support the central requirements of the Berry
amendment. The Department is considering proposing modifications to the
Berry amendment to clarify the amendment and to make it easier for the
Department's suppliers to comply with the amendment.
ship procurement and industry stability
5. Senator Sessions. In my position as Chairman of the Seapower
Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I recently chaired
a hearing with representatives of the American shipbuilding industry
and the overwhelming refrain I heard from these gentlemen is that their
industry needs stability and predictability in the procurement and
contracting of military ships. Many ideas have been floated on how to
achieve this and associated cost savings. I want to hear from you what
you feel is the best way to procure ships and ensure cost savings to
the American taxpayer and stability to industry?
Mr. Aldridge. Shipbuilders can build ships more efficiently,
optimizing the scheduling of their facilities and resources involved in
the construction of ships if they have a known backlog of reliable
business. The Navy can provide such stability, and the taxpayer can
benefit from the resulting lower costs, when Congress authorized
multiyear procurements and provides advance procurement funding to
enable Economic Order Quantity purchasing of components and subsystems.
The Department has used multiyear procurement successfully in the
past 20 years to reduce defense system production cost. Multiyear
procurement is a very useful acquisition strategy when a program has
achieved stability. Statute establishes that the prerequisites to using
a multiyear contract include stable requirements, a stable design for
the product being procured, technical risks low enough to make
realistic estimates of the cost of the contract, and anticipated cost
avoidance through the use of a multiyear contract. Statute also
requires there to be sufficient agency commitment to the program to
expect the agency head to request funding for the multiyear contract at
the level required to avoid contract cancellation. Where these
circumstance exist, I will strongly encourage the use of multiyear
contracts to reduce the production cost associated with weapon systems,
including ships.
Permitting the Department to budget to only a limited portion of
the aggregate cancellation ceilings in the Shipbuilding and Conversion,
Navy, accounts, would allow management of risk at the aggregate level
without straining budgets unduly. Effective use of these techniques
requires discipline on the part of both the executive and legislative
branches, to agree upon a plan and stick with it for several years at a
time. The benefits include better prices for the taxpayer, more
stability for the companies and their employees, and less turmoil all
around.
navy ship fleet size and industry health
6. Senator Sessions. Currently the Navy states it has a need for at
least a ``300-plus'' ship fleet. Yet, during the past administration
our ship building rates were such as to generate a 220-ship fleet.
Obviously there are severe ramifications to this trend. Industry told
me that they currently have the capability to build to a 300-plus-ship
fleet, but will shed this overhead soon if it appears that we will
continue on the trend to a 220-ship Navy. This worries me. We as a
nation cannot afford to lose this industrial capability. Do you have an
idea as to what size of fleet is adequate and what plans do you have to
keep our warship building industry healthy?
Mr. Aldridge. The Secretary of Defense submitted a 30-Year
Shipbuilding Plan Report to Congress in June 2000, which provided the
required shipbuilding procurement rate and ship mix to sustain the
present fleet size. Long-term procurement rates of 8-10 ships per year
are needed to sustain the current fleet size and meet the force
structure requirements. Continuing to procure six ships per year as
reflected in the fiscal year 2002 budget will have three negative
effects. First, it will create a ``bow wave'' of future-shipbuilding
procurement requirements, for which it will be increasingly difficult
to allocate scarce procurement account resources. Second, it will
create additional stress on fleet maintenance budgets to sustain the
service lives of aging and increasingly obsolescent ships to maintain
force structure. Third, the lower shipbuilding rates of this year's
budget and the increased shipbuilding rates in future years will create
a layoff-hiring cycle within the shipbuilding industry, which will
result in increased cost to the Government for future ship
construction. This will exacerbate the previously mentioned procurement
and maintenance affordability problem and causes further stress to the
``top line'' of future Navy budgets.
Our shipbuilding plan is barely adequate to sustain the remaining
Naval shipbuilding industrial base including the suppliers that provide
supporting equipment and associated engineering services. Our plan
provides the best available balance between the Department's
requirements and available resources. The innovative teaming strategy
approved by Congress for the construction of four Virginia Class
submarines, advance procurement for the fiscal year 2002 and fiscal
year 2003 Virginia Class submarines, and the next DDG 51 multiyear
procurement contract, all highlight acquisition strategies aimed at
lowering costs, reducing disruptions from hiring and layoff cycles,
while maintaining level employment, and encouraging capital
investments. Our shipbuilding plan maintains both the LPD 17 and the
Auxiliary Dry Cargo Vessel (T-AKE) programs that, in spite of recent
adjustments in annual acquisition quantities, will help the auxiliary
vessel manufacturers capitalize on past and current program
efficiencies. These actions constitute the Navy's near term effort to
ensure the long-term ability of the shipbuilding industry to support
our future construction programs.
As noted in the November 2000 Report to Congress submitted by the
Secretary of the Navy updating the 1993 Arleigh Burke Destroyer
Industrial Base Study, both of the destroyer shipbuilders will have to
book unprecedented amounts of additional, non-U.S. Navy work in order
to maintain their workforces during the transition from DDG 51 to DD(X)
production. This assessment was based on the shipbuilding profile
presented in the fiscal year 2001 budget submission. However, the
cumulative effect of actions taken in the fiscal year 2002 budget
request including the acceleration of the 58th DDG 51 Class ship to
fiscal year 2002, coupled with congressional action on the LPD 17
program in fiscal year 2001 and the Navy's action in the President's
Budget for Fiscal Year 2002, make the industrial base forecast even
more challenging than that reflected in the November 2000 report. The
acceleration of the 58th DDG 51 Class ship to fiscal year 2002 sustains
the surface combatant industrial base in the near term but exacerbates
the industrial base situation, documented by the report, between the
end of DDG 51 production and the beginning of DD(X) production. This
situation demands closer attention. I also note that the risks of the
destroyer production transition are not confined to the shipbuilding
industrial base. Second tier suppliers of shipboard equipment used on
destroyers and other warships also will be affected to varying degrees.
Possible effects could be higher unit costs for associated equipment
for other Navy shipbuilding programs or a corporate decision to scale
back or stop production. Neither of these consequences is in the best
interest of the Navy or the country.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Susan Collins
missile defense
7. Senator Collins. What are your views on a realistic time frame
for research and development and eventual deployment of theater and
national missile defenses? What do you see as the pros and cons for
missile interceptors, which are land-, sea-, or even space-based?
Mr. Aldridge. Historically, a weapon system of the scale and
complexity of missile defense spends many years in research and
development. In the case of missile defenses, our development process
uses a disciplined approach to ensure that our response incorporates
technologies to meet the challenges of a constantly evolving threat at
an acceptable risk level. Although we have made significant progress in
demonstrating the technologies that enable hit-to-kill performance,
this leads to numerous challenges that can extend the time for research
and development.
The Secretary continues to review the Department's ballistic
missile defense architecture. As the President said in his speech of
May 1, 2001, this review will ``examine all available technologies and
basing modes for effective missile defenses that could protect the
United States.'' This review is considering numerous options for basing
interceptors (land, sea, and/or space) and will identify more specific
deployment schedules. I expect that the Secretary will share the
results of that review with you when it is complete.
military use of space and critical space technologies
8. Senator Collins. I understand that improving military space
systems and military use of space will be high priorities for defense
over the next several years. Space control and space-based strike
capability research and development programs--like the spaceplane,
Clementine 2, and KEASAT--were proposed to develop and demonstrate
technologies needed to protect our space assets and transform our own
deep strike capability through space. Do you support these programs and
do you have plans to expand research on technologies critical to space
operations?
Mr. Aldridge. Yes, I support expanded research on technologies that
are critical to space operations. The Department has recently concluded
a broad area review in the area of space control in order to provide
guidance to the services on technology investments in this mission
area. Critical areas identified through this review and other recently
completed studies identified responsive launch, space-based operations/
logistics, miniaturization, space-based space surveillance, and
temporary/reversible counter space-based communications and electro-
optical systems as areas that may benefit from additional resources.
The Department continues to work closely with the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) on the development and
demonstration of reusable launch vehicle technology that could support
the future development of a military spaceplane. The Department is
currently performing a requirement review and military utility analysis
for the recently canceled X-33 and X-34 technology demonstration
programs. The results from these reviews will define the efforts the
Department supports for near-term investment.
In fiscal year 1998 the Department of Defense restructured the
Clementine 2 program to incorporate it within the existing micro-
satellite technology program. In cooperation with other government
organizations, the micro-satellite technology development program will
focus on pervasive technologies for miniaturization and micro-
satellites such as: multifunctional structures for affordability and
flexibility, lightweight power generation, and storage; advanced
processors; high precision, high efficiency thrusters, autonomous
reconfiguration; and open architecture satellites with standard
interfaces. These technologies will be developed, packaged, and
demonstrated for their utility in future missions such as inspection,
surveillance, and remote servicing operations.
The Kinetic Energy Anti-Satellite (KEASAT) technology demonstration
has been solely funded since 1993 through congressionally directed
funds. The effort is currently developing three kill vehicles through
flight qualified status, scheduled to be complete in fiscal year 2002.
The Department currently places a higher emphasis on temporary/
reversible space negation systems, but will complete the technology
demonstration of the KEASAT kill vehicles to a status of flight
qualified, with the capability to conduct a flight test within 1 year
of a decision to do so.
r&d priorities to transform military forces
9. Senator Collins. The Pentagon's budget blueprint proposes an
additional $2.6 billion for research and development and missile
defense. Without pre-empting the strategic review and budget to be
issued in the upcoming month(s), what are some of your priorities for
R&D initiatives to transform our military forces?
Mr. Aldridge. I intend to increase the development of our ballistic
missile defense program. Part of this increase will go toward the space
component. Another part will be to continue development of existing
ground-based systems. We also need to continue to strive to balance
technology development to support a wide range of potential operational
capabilities.
To accomplish this, funding increases are necessary. The
Department's R&D initiative will also include an increase in investment
for basic research and Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. Also,
our strategic initiatives will focus on new capabilities like target
defeat, urban terrain operations, network centric warfare, space,
autonomous unmanned systems, advanced power, nanotechnology, and
directed energy. This will increase our lethality, survivability,
maneuverability, and supportability for the future military force.
european union ``galileo'' satellite navigation system
10. Senator Collins. The European Union is unilaterally putting
hundreds of millions of dollars into their ``Galileo'' satellite
navigation system in order to compete with the United States' highly
successful Global Positioning System (GPS). Do you think that we can
reach common ground with the Europeans, our NATO partners, to modernize
a single satellite navigation system based on GPS? Do you believe that
this is now in the best interest of the United States to do so?
Mr. Aldridge. The April 2001 European Union Transport Ministry
approval of a Galileo program report indicates a continuing commitment
to pursing the development of the civil-based Galileo system.
Consultations with the European Union on possible cooperation
opportunities between GPS and Galileo are being lead by the Department
of State. However, I do not believe the Europeans will be able to
acquire a civil-based capability as wide-ranging as GPS for anywhere
near the amount of money they state the Galileo system will cost (3.2
billion euros or $2.75 billion).
From a military perspective, NATO remains committed to using
military GPS services and the DOD continues to work within NATO to
ensure that modernized GPS services satisfy mutual military
requirements. The U.S. is modernizing GPS to provide enhanced
capabilities for both civil and military users. One of the challenges
for the U.S. and our allies is to develop capabilities to deny civil
satellite navigation services during times of crisis and thereby avoid
having those services misused against U.S. and allied military forces.
Although the European Union's (EU) initiative to develop Galileo is
advertised as providing civil only services, there are clear benefits
to be gained in reaching common ground on how these civil Galileo
services will be implemented. For this reason, continuing dialogue with
the EU is in the best interest of the U.S.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Joseph I. Lieberman
network centric warfare
11. Senator Lieberman. Given the significant potential of network
centric warfare to exploit the power of information and information
technology to achieve battlefield dominance, how do you plan to: direct
requirements generation and acquisition such that the Armed Forces will
be able to realize a truly network-centric force; carry out a joint
experimentation program to develop new operational concepts which take
full advantage of the advances in network-centric capabilities; and
ensure that OSD and the services place the requisite priority on
development of the associated technologies?
Mr. Aldridge. While I believe that the coupling between the
requirements generation process and acquisition process is more robust
now than ever before, I will continue to support enhancements of their
relationship as well as the improvement of each process. The present
DOD course is a good one. The DOD major systems acquisition directive
5000 and the JS requirements generation process directive, 3170, were
generated hand-in-glove. These are the governing regulations for
systems acquisition. Additionally, the Vice Chairman of the JCS sits on
the Defense Acquisition Board as it reviews programs. One of the
requirements by both directives is the interoperability of systems,
expressed as a program key performance parameter and reflected in the
operational requirements documents of major programs. Within
interoperability are contained the requirements for each system to
comply to various DOD-wide architectures that directly enhance network-
centric warfare performance affecting all our services and allies.
As you may be aware, the DOD has in place a number of activities
that deal with experimentation of new ideas and joint matters. These
include joint warfighting experiments, joint test and evaluation to
develop training tactics and procedures, advanced concept technology
demonstrations (ACTDs), and so on. An example of these is the ACTD
called Coalition Aerial Surveillance and Reconnaissance (CAESAR), which
provides interoperability of ground moving target indicator assets of
the U.S. and seven of our allies and will be demonstrated via NATO
military exercises. Another example is the Network-Centric
Collaborative Targeting (NCCT) ACTD. NCCT includes numerous sensor
types and is developing and applying network-centric techniques,
collaborative concepts, and front-end processing to multi-service
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets to provide
target-quality information on time-critical targets. From the results
of this and other similar demonstrations and experiments, the
Department will gain residual capabilities and valuable experience that
will help us execute programs and similar initiatives.
One of the initiatives I will undertake is to increase the emphasis
on our defense technology base. I also plan to monitor the progress we
make on our tech base activity via the various tools that will be
available to me. One of these tools is the Department's S&T reliance
process, which includes the conduct of technology area review and
assessments. These assessments involve panels composed of members from
the DOD, academia, and industry. They are chartered to review various
technology areas, such as information systems technology.
Recommendations from these panels are presented to senior Defense
officials, including the top service science and technology
representatives. They in turn take appropriate action (i.e., enforce
adjustments to investments) to ensure the services and agencies place
the requisite priority on the development of associated technologies
that support the concept of network-centric warfare. In addition to
defense-unique technology, we need to leverage the commercial sector
technology. The commercial sector offers great opportunities in
information and communication technologies, which are in the heart of
network-centric warfare. We can take advantage of these sectors to get
better results faster and less costly.
interoperability issues
12. Senator Lieberman. Would you find it advisable that any program
which deals with interoperability issues (communications, sensors,
logistics) be handled through the Joint Requirements Oversight
Committee?
Mr. Aldridge. All programs that have Interoperability Key
Performance Parameters (KPPs) must be certified by the J-6 per CJCSI
6212.01B ``Interoperability and Supportability of National Security
Systems, and Information Technology Systems,'' dated 8 May 2000 and/or
CJCSI 370.01B ``Requirements Generation System,'' dated 15 April 2001.
CJCSI 6212.01B Enclosure A, Paragraph A, specifies J-6 will ``Conduct
an interoperability requirements certification of Mission Need
Statement (MNS), Capstone Requirements Document (CRD) and Operational
Requirements Document (ORD), regardless of Acquisition Category (ACAT)
level.'' CJCSI 3170.01B Enclosure B-4, Paragraph 4A, states that all
``Unresolved interoperability issues will be forwarded by the J-6 to
the Military Communications Electronics Board (MCEB) for resolution.
The MCEB will ensure that unresolved issues resulting from
interoperability assessments are presented to the Joint Requirements
Oversight Council (JROC) for resolution.'' Currently, the JROC oversees
the interoperability aspects of all ACAT I and special oversight
programs. Additionally, the chairman of the JROC is a member of the
Defense Acquisition Board (DAB). Expanding the scope of JROC programs
to include all programs that deal with interoperability is not
advisable, due to practical limitations of the council's time and
attention. The current practice of J-6 interoperability certifications
for all programs, regardless of ACAT and jointness and the added
oversight of the MCEB, is seen as an adequate process at this time.
revitalizing dod laboratories
13. Senator Lieberman. In the past several years, we have been
particularly concerned about personnel and management issues in DARPA
and the service laboratories. We have worked hard to provide
legislative relief in the form of several innovation provisions aimed
specifically at improving the ability to recruit and retain high-
quality personnel. These provisions include both the pilot program for
revitalizing DOD laboratories and civilian personnel provisions (fiscal
year 1999 Section 246, fiscal year 2000 Section 245), and a provision
to expand the experimental civilian personnel program (fiscal year 2001
Sections 1113 and 1114). How do you intend to implement these
provisions and are there other ideas you have regarding strategies to
revitalize the laboratories? With cooperation from Congress, do you
feel that you can make noteworthy progress towards revitalizing the
labs through incremental improvements such as the ones previously
mentioned, or do you foresee the need for a major reform of the civil
service?
Mr. Aldridge. As we put the administration's defense team in place,
revitalization of the defense labs and workforce is a priority
discussion and action area for us. Implementation activities have begun
in earnest for each of the authorities granted through the various
public law provisions. Throughout the implementation process we will
keep an eye toward discovering and defining areas that can benefit from
continued interaction with and cooperation of Congress. As a select
example of progress, our pilot lab in the Air Force has successfully
initiated a scholars program and a distinguished space industry fellows
program to infuse new ideas and enthusiasm to their mission area and
workforce. DARPA is aggressively seeking new employees using the
special hiring authority under Sections 1102 and 1113. As we go
forward, I am confident that we will make progress in lab
revitalization. I do not foresee, at present, a need for a major civil
service reform to accomplish the revitalization. But, I will be
attentive to this issue and will seek assistance if current civil
service law becomes an insurmountable barrier to defense lab
revitalization.
s&t leadership
14. Senator Lieberman. Particularly given the trends towards
transformation and the implementation of network-centric warfare, it is
my opinion that we need very strong leadership in S&T both in the
services and in OSD. How do you plan to ensure the voice of the S&T
leadership is prevalent in the highest levels of the DOD? Will you hold
formal briefings to the Secretary or the Joint Chiefs on both S&T and
T&E programs? Also, at what point should we anticipate the appointment
of key S&T personnel including the DARPA Director, Deputy Director of
Research and Engineering, and DUSD S&T?
Mr. Aldridge. I agree that the Department needs strong leadership
in S&T in both the services and the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
I intend to be the strong voice for S&T within the Department, and am
establishing a management structure to ensure the visibility of
technology throughout the Department. On 30 May, the President
announced the nomination of Michael Wynne to be the Principal Deputy
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology. We are also
working to quickly announce other key technology leaders in the new
administration. The process of selecting and nominating individuals to
key positions is a long process. We have named individuals for the
positions above the DDR&E, DARPA Director, and DUSD(S&T), so nomination
of people for the critical technology oversight positions is imminent.
Finally, I do not intend to hold formal periodic briefings to the
Secretary and Service Chiefs on both the S&T and T&E programs, but
instead, pledge to make S&T a critical recurring element of the DOD
acquisition program.
missile defense
15. Senator Lieberman. The administration has emphasized the
commitment to Defense R&D, and has included $2.6 billion of additional
R&D funding for fiscal year 2002. How much of this increase do you
anticipate will go towards supporting R&D for National Missile Defense?
Of that amount, will it be used strictly for R&D or do you anticipate
that a portion will be directed towards T&E in BMDO?
Mr. Aldridge. The Secretary continues to review the Department's
ballistic missile defense architecture. This review will revise the
Department's budget request for fiscal year 2002. We have not yet
decided how much of fiscal year 2002 increase will be allocated toward
R&D. As soon as we have completed those deliberations we will share the
results with you.
darpa transition strategies
16. Senator Lieberman. Although DARPA has long been recognized as a
major leader in developing revolutionary military technologies, there
has been some concern lately that, due to the lack of an effective
transition mechanism, many of these promising technologies are not
fully leveraged in the services. How do you intend to address these
concerns?
Mr. Aldridge. While there is little empirical evidence available by
which to judge transition performance, it is clear that transition is a
formidable challenge. Few would argue that it is not something the DOD
could do better. Although this challenge is naturally exacerbated for
DARPA because of its mission of high-risk, high-payoff research and its
position outside the services, I feel that it is crucial that DARPA
stay focused on revolutionary technology.
DARPA requires a broad array of transition strategies to match the
diversity of the technology it develops. It has recently begun
implementing three thrusts to improve these strategies. The first is to
build on what we know works, such as jointly funding programs with the
services and establishing joint DARPA-service program offices. The
second is to better understand how DARPA technologies have transitioned
in the past, so that those lessons may be reapplied. The third is to
actively explore other transition initiatives around the DOD, such as
those of the Navy's Chief Technology Officer and Advanced Concept
Technology Demonstrations, to see if they can provide additional
pathways for DARPA technology.
DARPA is working carefully to augment its transition strategies
while not diluting the Agency's critical focus on revolutionary
technology. As Under Secretary, I intend to continue a high level of
attention to DARPA's revolutionary technology development as well as to
its technology transition efforts.
dod's highest priority research areas
17. Senator Lieberman. In the Fiscal Year 2000 National Defense
Authorization Act, Section 241, Congress requested a report on emerging
operational concepts and technological objectives for research and
development. We hoped this report would elucidate the DOD's priorities
and serve as a roadmap in establishing current research investment
strategy. Either reflecting the results of this report or from your own
perspective, could you briefly summarize the DOD's highest priority
research areas?
Mr. Aldridge. A significant focus of the Department's S&T program
should be prioritized around research areas that best support our
strategy for the future military. These high priority research areas
include: nanoscience; advanced materials; directed energy; advanced
power; and human-centered systems research that can aid in decision-
making under stress, provide more realistic training, and optimize
human-information interfaces and performance. These foci are in
addition to science and technology for existing ``hard problems''
facing the Department which include: time critical targets; chemical
and biological weapons defense; cruise and ballistic missile defense;
and military operations in urban terrain. Finally, the Department is in
the process of identifying additional research areas with the potential
for revolutionary payoff. These areas include: fuller dominance of
space; autonomous uninhabited vehicles; and network-centric warfare.
18. Senator Lieberman. If confirmed, you will be responsible for a
large spectrum of defense issues. How do you propose to manage this
office given the disparate areas of responsibility?
Mr. Aldridge. First, I plan to establish five new goals to more
effectively and efficiently address the large spectrum of defense
issues. The five new goals are: (1) achieve credibility and
effectiveness in the acquisition and logistics support process; (2)
revitalize the quality and morale of the DOD acquisition, technology,
and logistics workforce; (3) improve the health of the defense
industrial base; (4) rationalize the weapon systems and infrastructure
with defense strategy; and (5) initiate high leverage technologies to
create the warfighting capabilities, systems, and strategies of the
future.
I plan to achieve these goals through such initiatives as:
increasing the empowerment of the workforce; establishing a metrics
system to measure progress toward the attainment of these goals;
reorganizing the acquisition, technology, and logistics organization
along functional lines to more effectively address the issues and to
facilitate accurate and timely decision-making; providing full funding
for the programs--to the greatest extent possible--in concert with
adhering to more realistic cost estimates and establishing prudent
management/risk reserves; and working closely with Congress to restore
credibility to the entire acquisition and logistics process.
In sum, I plan to lead the acquisition, technology, and logistics
organization into a new era of ``acquisition excellence'' by changing
the environment, reducing cycle time, improving the process, linking
human resources, and monitoring progress with metrics.
a-76 process
19. Senator Lieberman. The A-76 process is perceived as a very
bureaucratic system without the expected savings. Do you have any
thoughts about the process and what improvements would you pursue?
Mr. Aldridge. While I agree that the process is very complex and
lengthy, I must disagree with any characterization that it does not
provide savings. The worst that can be said is that we need to improve
the accuracy of our measurements of savings. Numerous independent
reviews have validated that we are reaping very real savings.
A-76 competitions, although complex and contentious, do provide a
proven method for managers to determine the most cost-effective
operation of commercial functions through public/private competition.
I am hopeful that through participation in the Commercial
Activities Panel chaired by the Comptroller General, we will realize
significant improvements and recommend elimination of obstacles that
unduly burden our processes and efforts to become more cost-effective.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Jean Carnahan
20. Senator Carnahan. I am advised that the National Imagery and
Mapping Agency (NIMA) has proposed that work performed by 600 Federal
employees at installations in Missouri and Maryland be directly
converted to contractor performance without a public-private
competition under OMB Circular A-76. Public-private competitions serve
the dual purposes of ensuring that the government obtains the lowest
price available for services and providing skilled Federal employees
the opportunity to compete to keep their jobs.
What is the justification for converting these jobs to the private
sector through a sole source award without any competitive bidding of
any sort, let alone a public-private competition? What are the cost
savings to NIMA that would be achieved by the direct conversion? How
can these cost savings be determined without a public-private
competition?
Do you believe the Office of the Secretary of Defense should
provide oversight over direct conversions such as the one proposed by
NIMA?
Mr. Aldridge. NIMA is considering contracting with an Alaska Native
Corporation, under the Small Business Administration's 8(a) program,
for certain information technology and information services functions.
Such a direct conversion is consistent with OMB Circular A-76 and
section 8014 of the 2001 Department of Defense Appropriations Act,
Public Law 106-259. While NIMA estimates manpower reductions of 20
percent phased in through the life of the contract, no conversion will
be undertaken for these functions unless efficiencies and savings will
result. NIMA also anticipates that this conversion can be made with no
reduction in force or other involuntary personnel action. OSD oversees
outsourcing decisions for compliance with applicable policy.
______
[The nomination reference of Edward C. Aldridge follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
April 23, 2001.
Ordered, that the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Edward C. Aldridge, of Virginia, to be Under Secretary of Defense
for Acquisition and Technology, vice Jacques Gansler.
______
[The biographical sketch of Edward C. Aldridge, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Edward C. Aldridge
The Honorable E.C. ``Pete'' Aldridge, Jr., is currently Chief
Executive Officer of The Aerospace Corporation, an independent,
nonprofit organization dedicated to solving critical national problems
through science and technology. He came to Aerospace from McDonnell
Douglas Electronic Systems Company, where he served as President from
1988 to 1992. In June 1986, he was confirmed as the 16th Secretary of
the United States Air Force, a department he led until 1988.
Edward C. Aldridge was born in Houston in 1938 and spent his youth
in Shreveport, LA. He received a bachelor of science degree in
aeronautical engineering from Texas Agricultural and Mechanical
University in 1960 and a masters of science degree, also in
aeronautical engineering, from the Georgia Institute of Technology in
1962.
Mr. Aldridge began work at the Defense Department in 1967, joining
the staff of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Systems Analysis as
an Operations Research Analyst and then served as Director of the
Strategic Defensive Division until 1972. He also served as an advisor
to the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks in Helsinki and in Vienna.
He re-entered private industry in 1972 as a Senior Manager with LTV
Aerospace Corp. in Dallas for a year, until he was named Senior
Management Associate in the Office of Management and Budget, Executive
Office of the President, in Washington, DC.
Returning to the Department of Defense in 1974, Mr. Aldridge served
as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategic Programs until
1976. He was then selected to be the Director of Planning and
Evaluation, a Principal Advisor to the Secretary of Defense in the
planning and program evaluation of U.S. military forces and support
structure.
In 1977, Mr. Aldridge once again joined the private sector,
assuming the role of Vice President of National Policy and Strategic
Systems Group for the Systems Planning Corp. in Arlington, VA. In that
position, he was responsible for the corporation's study and analysis
activities in the areas of strategic and conventional forces and long-
range strategic planning.
In August 1981, he became Under Secretary of the Air Force, with
the responsibility for providing overall direction, guidance, and
supervision for the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) and the Air
Force space program, including launch and on-orbit operations, and
planning for future space capabilities. Mr. Aldridge was also an
astronaut in training in preparation for his participation as a payload
specialist on the first planned mission from Vandenberg Air Force Base,
CA, which was canceled because of the Challenger accident.
Mr. Aldridge has a long and distinguished record of achievement.
His outstanding work has earned him numerous awards and honors,
including the Secretary of Defense Meritorious Civilian Service Award,
the Department of Defense Distinguished Civilian Service Award, and the
Department of Defense Distinguished Public Service Award, among many
others.
Mr. Aldridge also maintains active ties with various defense-,
industry-, and aerospace-related groups. In many of these groups he has
held leadership roles. His affiliations include: former President and
Fellow, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIM), and
Chair, AIAA Foundation Board; Member, Defense Science Board; National
Director and Life Member, Air Force Association; and Member of the
Board of Directors, Air Force Academy Foundation, among many others.
______
[The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
form that details the biographical, financial, and other
information of the nominee. The form executed by Edward C.
Aldridge in connection with his nomination follows:]
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Room SR-228
Washington, DC 20510-6050
(202) 224-3871
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation
of your answer applies.
Part A--Biographical Information
Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.
1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
Edward Cleveland Aldridge, Jr.; Nickname: Pete.
2. Position to which nominated:
Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition and Technology), Office of
the Secretary of Defense.
3. Date of nomination:
April 23, 2001.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
5. Date and place of birth:
August 18, 1938; Houston, Texas.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Joanne Knotts.
7. Names and ages of children:
Michael C. Aldridge, 41; David L. Aldridge, 39; Mark R. Aldridge,
31; Lori L. Boyd (Stepdaughter), 33.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
Texax A&M University, 1956-60, Bachelor of Science in Aeronautical
Engineering, 1960.
Georgia Institute of Technology, 1960-61, Masters of Science in
Aeronautical Engineering, 1962.
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
President and Chief Executive Officer, The Aerospace Corporation,
El Segundo, CA and Arlington, VA, March 1992 to Present.
President, McDonnell Douglas Electronic Systems Company, McLean,
VA, December 1988-March 1992.
Secretary of the Air Force, Department of the Air Force, The
Pentagon, Washington, DC, June 1986-December 1988.
Under Secretary of the Air Force, Department of the Air Force, The
Pentagon, Washington, DC, August 1981-June 1986.
10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative,
honorary or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State,
or local governments, other than those listed above.
Member of the Defense Science Board (DSB), Department of Defense.
Former Member of the National Security Telecommunications Advisory
Council.
Former Member of Advisory Committee on the Future of NASA.
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational or other institution.
The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA --President and CEO,
Member of the Board of Trustees.
United Industrial Corporation, New York, NY--Member of the Board of
Directors.
AAI Corporation, Hunt Valley, MD--Member of the Board of Directors.
Charles S. Draper Laboratory, Boston, MA--Member of the
Corporation.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics--Life Member.
Air Force Association--Life Member.
International Academy of Astronautics--Member.
United States Space Foundation, Colorado Springs, CO--Member of the
Board of Directors.
Air Force Academy Foundation, Colorado Springs, CO--Member of the
Board of Directors.
Air Force Aid Society, Washington, DC--Member of the Board of
Directors.
Air Force Memorial Committee--Member.
Wolf Trap Foundation, Vienna, VA--Member of the Board of Directors.
Washington Golf and Country Club--Member.
13. Political affiliations and activities:
(a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or
any public office for which you have been a candidate.
None.
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5
years.
None.
(c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $100 or more for the past 5 years.
George W. Bush for President.
14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals, and any other special
recognitions for outstanding service or achievements.
Delta Air Lines Scholarship--Georgia Institute of Technology
DOD Distinguished Public Service Award (1977, 1987, 1988)
Secretary of Defense Meritorious Civilian Service Award (1972)
Air Force Exceptional Civilian Service Award (1986)
Army Distinguished Civilian Service Award (1988)
Navy Distinguished Public Service Award (1988)
National Intelligence Distinguished Service Award (1989)
National Reconnaissance Office Distinguished Service Medal (1997)
Rotary National Award for Space Achievement (1993)
National Space Club Robert H. Goddard Memorial Trophy (1987)
Air Force Association Jimmy Doolittle Fellow (1985)
Air Force Association Ira Eaker Fellow (1986, 1987)
Air Force Academy Foundation Distinguished American Award (1987,
1988)
Air Force Association Max Kriendler Award (1988)
Air Force Association W. Stuart Symington Award (1988)
Air Force Association Gen. Bernard Schriever Award (1986)
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics George M. Low
Space Transportation Award (1989)
National Security Industrial Association James V. Hartinger Award
(1987)
National Defense Industrial Association Bob Hope Distinguished
Citizen Award (1998)
National Guard Association Harry S. Truman Award (1988)
American Astronautical Society Military Astronautics Award (1985)
College of Engineering Honor Alumnus, Texas A&M University (1985)
Texas A&M Corps of Cadets Hall of Fame (1998)
Engineering Hall of Fame, Georgia Institute of Technology (1997)
Armed Forces Council of Chicago Distinguished Civilian Service
Citation (1987)
Brazilian Air Force ``Merito Aeronautico'' (Legion of Merit) (1986)
Honorary Member, U.S. Air Force Thunderbirds
Tau Beta Pi, Sigma Gamma Tau, and Sigma Xi (Honorary Societies)
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
``Defense Against the U.S. Cruise Missile'', Journal of Defense
Research, 1979
``Assured Access: The Bureaucratic Space War'', Goddard Historical
Essay, National Space Club, 1989
``Military Space Systems'', Ohio State University Annual Defense
Report, 1990
``Consistency: A Vital Ingredient for National Security Space
Programs'', DEFENSE, 1988
16. Speeches: Provide the committee with two copies of any formal
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have
copies of and are on topics relevant to the position for which you have
been nominated.
There have been no formal speeches related to the position for
which I have been nominated.
17. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree,
if confirmed, to respond to requests to appear and testify before any
duly constituted committee of the Senate?
Yes.
______
[The nominee responded to the questions in Parts B-F of the
committee questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set
forth in the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to
Parts B-F are contained in the committee's executive files.]
------
Signature and Date
I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate,
and complete.
Edward C. Aldridge.
This 23rd day of April, 2001.
[The nomination of Edward C. Aldridge was reported to the
Senate by Senator John Warner on May 1, 2001, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on May 8, 2001.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to William J. Haynes II by
Chairman Warner prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
April 24, 2001.
Hon. John Warner,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Enclosed are my answers to the questions of the
Senate Armed Services Committee in connection with my nomination to be
the General Counsel of the Department of Defense.
I welcome the opportunity to respond to the committee's questions
and look forward to appearing before you during my confirmation
hearing. If I can provide additional information, I would be happy to
do so.
Sincerely,
William J. Haynes II.
Enclosure.
______
Questions and Responses
defense reforms
Question. More than 10 years have passed since the enactment of the
Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and
the Special Operations reforms. You have had an opportunity to observe
the implementation and impact of those reforms, particularly in your
earlier appointment as the General Counsel of the Army.
Do you support full implementation of these defense reforms?
Answer. Yes.
Question. What is your view of the extent to which these defense
reforms have been implemented?
Answer. Though I have been away from the Department for more than 8
years, it is my impression that the Department of Defense has worked
diligently and effectively to implement the Goldwater-Nichols DOD
Reorganization Act of 1986, as amended, and the Special Operations
reforms.
Question. What do you consider to be the most important aspects of
these defense reforms?
Answer. Important aspects of these defense reforms include: clearly
prescribing the chain of military command from the President to the
Secretary of Defense, and from the Secretary of Defense to the
Combatant Commander; clearly defining the role of the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff as the principal military adviser to the
President, the Secretary of Defense, and the National Security Council;
designating the Chairman as the spokesman for the combatant commanders,
subject to the authority, direction, and control of the Secretary of
Defense; defining the authority and responsibility of the combatant
commanders; and streamlining the operations of the Joint Staff.
Strengthening civilian control over the military and clarifying the
relationships among the Secretary of Defense, the secretaries of the
military departments, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the combatant
commanders are also clearly important.
Question. The goals of Congress in enacting these defense reforms,
as reflected in section 3 of the Goldwater-Nichols Department of
Defense Reorganization Act, can be summarized as strengthening civilian
control; improving military advice; placing clear responsibility on the
combatant commanders for the accomplishment of their missions; ensuring
the authority of the combatant commanders is commensurate with their
responsibility; increasing attention to the formulation of strategy and
to contingency planning; providing for more efficient use of defense
resources; and enhancing the effectiveness of military operations and
improving the management and administration of the Department of
Defense.
Do you agree with these goals?
Answer. Yes.
relationships
Question. What do you see as both the formal and informal
relationship between the General Counsel of the Department of Defense
and the following offices: the Secretary of Defense; the Under
Secretaries of Defense; the Assistant Secretaries of Defense; the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; the Counsels for the Defense
Agencies; the Legal Advisor to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff; the Staff Judge Advocates to the Commanders of Combatant
Commands; the Counsel to the Inspector General; the General Counsels of
the Military Departments; the Judge Advocates General; the Joint
Service Committee on Military Justice; the Comptroller General; the
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces; and the Code
Committee established under Article 146 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice.
Answer. The Secretary of Defense, as the head of the Department, is
the most senior official to whom the DOD General Counsel provides
advice. As General Counsel of the Department of the Army, I had many
opportunities to observe the relationship between the DOD General
Counsel and the Secretary of Defense. I view the General Counsel as the
Secretary's principal adviser on the full breadth of legal issues faced
by the Department. The General Counsel can also serve the Secretary by
providing objective advice on policy initiatives. In addition, the
General Counsel performs such functions as the Secretary may prescribe.
The DOD General Counsel should work closely with the Under
Secretaries, both personally and through the General Counsel's staff,
in assisting them to achieve their policy and programmatic goals within
the parameters established by law.
The DOD General Counsel provides legal advice directly to the
Assistant Secretaries and through the General Counsel's staff.
While the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff relies primarily
upon his Legal Counsel for legal support, the Chairman and the DOD
General Counsel should work closely on the broad range of matters
affecting the Department.
Under DOD Directive 5145.1, which is the regulatory charter of the
DOD General Counsel, and DOD Directive 5145.4, which charters the
Defense Legal Services Agency (DLSA), the DOD General Counsel also
serves as the Director of DLSA. The General Counsels of the Defense
agencies and DOD field activities are part of DLSA, and thus report to
the DOD General Counsel. The DOD General Counsel and the Office of the
DOD General Counsel work closely with the Defense agency and DOD field
activity General Counsel offices, with frequent informal discussions of
legal issues and exchanges of information. On a more formal level, the
DOD General Counsel, primarily through his or her functional Deputy
General Counsels, supervises the Defense agency and DOD field activity
General Counsels, providing professional guidance, supervision, and
coordination.
The Legal Counsel to the Chairman, a military lawyer in the grade
of Colonel or Navy Captain, provides legal advice and services to the
Chairman and the Joint Staff. The DOD General Counsel and the
Chairman's Legal Counsel cooperate fully in assuring that the officials
whom their respective offices advise are well-served. In particular, I
understand that the DOD General Counsel and the Chairman's Legal
Counsel meet frequently to discuss issues of mutual concern and to
exchange information.
The DOD General Counsel's relationship to the Staff Judge Advocates
of the Combatant Commands is, for the most part, through the Chairman's
Legal Counsel. There are also frequent informal contacts between the
Office of the DOD General Counsel and the Staff Judge Advocates of the
Combatant Commands. In addition, the General Counsel serves as the
Designated Agency Ethics Official for DOD. As the Deputy Designated
Agency Ethics Officials for their respective Combatant Commands, the
staff judge advocates report to the General Counsel with respect to
standards of conduct matters. The General Counsel's Standards of
Conduct Office conducts reviews of the Combatant Commands' ethics
programs.
I understand that at least some aspects of the relationship between
the DOD General Counsel and the DOD Inspector General are described in
a memorandum of understanding with respect to the delivery of legal
services to the Inspector General. The Deputy General Counsel
(Inspector General) advises the Inspector General on audits and
investigations and the interpretation of statutes and regulations, in
particular, and regarding all matters, of any kind, that relate to the
programs, duties, functions, or responsibilities of the Inspector
General, while remaining an integral part of Office of the DOD General
Counsel.
The General Counsels of the Military Departments serve as chief
legal officers of their respective departments, and each reports to the
Secretary of his or her respective department. As the Secretaries of
the Military Departments are subject to the authority, direction, and
control of the Secretary of Defense, necessarily the General Counsel of
the Department of Defense should meet regularly and work closely with
the General Counsels of the Military Departments.
The Judge Advocates General report ultimately to their respective
Military Department Secretaries. They provide legal services in a
variety of areas, and have unique responsibilities for military
justice. As the chief legal officer of the Department of Defense, the
DOD General Counsel works closely with the Judge Advocates General and
meets with the Judge Advocates General on a regular basis.
The Joint Service Committee on Military Justice was created within
the DOD ``to assist the President in fulfilling his responsibilities
under the UCMJ in prescribing rules and procedures for the trial of
courts-martial that are uniform insofar as practicable and apply the
principles of law and rules of evidence generally recognized in the
trial of criminal cases in the United States district courts.'' (DOD
Dir. 5500.17; Art. 36, UCMJ) The committee consists of representatives
of the Judge Advocates General of the Military Departments, the Staff
Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine Corps, and the Chief
Counsel of the Coast Guard. The DOD General Counsel designates a non-
voting representative to the Joint Service Committee. Under DOD
Directive 5500.17, the Joint Service Committee on Military Justice
conducts an annual review of the Manual for Courts-Martial. The Joint
Service Committee considers developments in the Federal criminal code,
the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Federal Rules of Evidence,
and judicial decisions in its review. The committee's recommendations
for amendments to the Manual are in the form of proposed Executive
Orders. In addition, the Joint Service Committee prepares legislative
proposals that are subject to the established DOD coordination process.
The Comptroller General's duties include investigating the receipt,
disbursement, and use of public money; evaluating government programs;
auditing agency financial transactions; reporting on the use of public
funds; and reviewing bid protests. The DOD General Counsel provides
legal advice to DOD officials whenever the Department of Defense is
involved in these matters. The DOD General Counsel also supports the
DOD Inspector General, who is the central liaison between the
Department of Defense and the Comptroller General. Further, an agency
head may request an opinion from the Comptroller General on questions
involving payments and vouchers. The DOD General Counsel may submit
such questions to the Comptroller General on behalf of the Secretary of
Defense. On an informal basis, the Office of the DOD General Counsel
enjoys a very good relationship with the Comptroller General's office,
which facilitates dialogue and informal consultation.
Pursuant to Article I of the Constitution, Congress established the
Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces in Article 141 of the Uniform
Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 941. Article 141 provides that
``[t]he court is located for administrative purposes only in the
Department of Defense,'' emphasizing its judicial independence from the
Department of Defense. Traditionally, the DOD General Counsel serves as
an informal liaison with the court for the Department.
The Code Committee consists of the Judges of the United States
Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, the Judge Advocates General of
the Military Departments, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard, the
Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine Corps, and two
recognized authorities on military justice appointed by the Secretary
of Defense from public life. On at least an annual basis, the Code
Committee comprehensively surveys the operation of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice, reporting its findings to the Senate and House
Committees on Armed Services, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretaries
of the Military Departments, and the Secretary of Transportation. While
the DOD General Counsel has no formal relationship to the Code
Committee, he or she provides informal support as the Code Committee
desires. In addition, the DOD General Counsel informs the Code
Committee with respect to the activities and recommendations of the
Joint Service Committee on Military Justice.
qualifications
Question. Section 140 of Title 10, United States Code, provides
that the General Counsel is the chief legal officer of the Department
of Defense and that the General Counsel shall perform such functions as
the Secretary of Defense may prescribe.
Assuming you are confirmed, what duties do you expect that
Secretary Rumsfeld will prescribe for you?
Answer. I anticipate that Secretary Rumsfeld would ask me to
perform all of the duties assigned to the DOD General Counsel by
statute and DOD directives. If confirmed, I would expect, among many
other functions, to provide legal advice to the Secretary and Deputy
Secretary of Defense and other DOD officials, supervise the Office of
the DOD General Counsel and the Defense Legal Services Agency, and work
closely with the senior legal officials of the military departments,
all in an effort to provide the very best legal services possible
throughout the Department of Defense.
legal opinions
Question. Will the legal opinions of your office be binding on all
lawyers within the Department of Defense?
Answer. Under 10 U.S.C. 140(b) and DOD Directive 5145.1 (codified
at 32 C.F.R. part 394), the DOD General Counsel is the chief legal
officer of the Department of Defense. Consequently, the legal opinions
of the Office of General Counsel are binding on all lawyers in the
Department.
Question. How will you ensure that such legal opinions are
available to lawyers in the various components of the Department of
Defense?
Answer. I am advised that the opinions of the Office of General
Counsel are disseminated throughout the Department of Defense in the
ordinary course of business. If confirmed, I would of course expect to
continue this practice. In addition, I would be receptive to
appropriate efforts to make the office's opinions available
electronically.
military justice matters
Question. Since Article 6 of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice
gives primary jurisdiction over military justice to the Judge Advocates
General, how do you see your functions in this area with regard to
those officials?
Answer. In Article 6, Congress gave the Judge Advocates General the
responsibility to ``make frequent inspections in the field in
supervision of the administration of military justice.'' If confirmed,
I will meet regularly with the Judge Advocates General and provide
support to them in carrying out this important responsibility and
ensuring the integrity of the military justice process.
Question. In your view, how should the General Counsel approach
military justice matters--both in terms of specific cases and general
policy issues to provide useful advice without generating problems of
unlawful command influence?
Answer. The DOD General Counsel ordinarily has no role to play in
specific military justice cases. Decisions in these cases are made by
the commander of the accused, the convening authority, the military
judge, and court members. The Service Courts of Criminal Appeals and
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (USCAAF) provide
appellate review of cases arising under the Uniform Code of Military
Justice. The General Counsel, like the Secretary of Defense and other
senior civilian and military officials of the Department, must avoid
any action that may affect or appear to affect the outcome of any case.
I share the USCAAF's view that unlawful command influence can be a
``mortal enemy'' of military justice. The DOD General Counsel helps to
ensure that the military justice system and its judicial officers are
not subjected to inappropriate external pressures that may threaten or
be perceived to threaten the independence of the military's judicial
system or the commander's UCMJ discretion in maintaining good order and
discipline.
The DOD General Counsel plays a major role in developing military
justice policy. The General Counsel performs this role primarily
through the Joint Service Committee on Military Justice, which conducts
an annual review of the Manual for Courts-Martial and other assigned
special reviews of military justice issues of importance to the
Department, through liaison responsibilities with the Code Committee,
through the DOD legislative process by which proposed legislation to
amend the Uniform Code of Military Justice is submitted to Congress,
and through coordination on the issuance of DOD guidance establishing
policy in such related areas as victim and witness assistance,
confinement of military prisoners, and criminal investigation policies.
processing the annual department of defense legislative request
Question. One of the current responsibilities of the General
Counsel of the Department of Defense is to coordinate the Department's
legislative program and to provide the Department's views on
legislative proposals initiated from outside the Department.
What actions will you take to ensure that the Department's
legislative proposals are submitted in a timely manner to ensure ample
opportunity for consideration before markup of the National Defense
Authorization Act?
Answer. I am advised that the Department's ``omnibus'' approach to
the development of the departmental legislation program has matured
during the past few years. It seems an efficient and fair method for
the examination and consideration of legislative initiatives. It is
also more efficient, allowing the Department to provide proposed
legislation to Congress in a timely manner.
If confirmed, I intend to work to improve efficiency and discipline
in the Department's approach and to achieve prompt interagency
coordination on the Department's legislative initiatives.
Question. What actions will you take to ensure Congress receives
the Department's views on other proposed legislation in a timely
manner?
Answer. I understand Congress' need for timely comments from the
Department. If confirmed, I will be attentive to the need to provide
views on all bills in a timely manner.
judicial review
Question. What is your understanding of the appropriate role of the
Article III courts in the review of military activities?
Answer. The Constitution provides that Congress and the President
have the power to control the military. The nature of this power, and
the role of the Article III courts in defining or limiting it, have
been addressed repeatedly by the Supreme Court. As a general
proposition, the Court has explained that ``it would be difficult to
think of a clearer example of the type of governmental action that was
intended to be left to the political branches directly responsible--as
the judicial branch is not--to the electoral process.'' Gilligan v.
Morgan, 413 U.S. 1, 4 (1973).
Many courts and scholars have long recognized that courts should be
reluctant to intrude into the constitutional responsibilities of the
President and Congress for the Armed Forces, in which the professional
judgments made are unique and subject to carefully defined control.
``[J]udges are not given the task of running the Army . . . . Orderly
government requires that the judiciary be as scrupulous not to
intervene in legitimate Army matters as the Army must be scrupulous not
to intervene in judicial matters.'' Orloff v. Willoughby, 345 U.S. 83,
93-94 (1953). ``[I]t is difficult to conceive of an area of
governmental activity in which the courts have less competence. The
complex, subtle, and professional decisions . . . are essentially
professional military judgments, subject always to civilian control of
the legislative and executive branches.'' Gilligan v. Morgan, 413 U.S.
at 10.
The courts have held that the great majority of internal military
decisions are not subject to judicial review. See Sebra v. Neville, 801
F.2d 1135 (9th Cir. 1986); Mindes v. Seaman, 453 F.2d 197 (5th Cir.
1971). In the narrow range of cases in which judicial review of
military activities occurs, the courts must give great deference to
executive and legislative judgments on military matters. Loving v.
United States, 517 U.S. 748, 767 (1996).
client
Question. In your opinion, who is the client of the General Counsel
of the Department of Defense?
Answer. The client of the DOD General Counsel is the Department of
Defense.
legal ethics
Question. What is your understanding of the action a Department of
Defense attorney should take if the attorney becomes aware of improper
activities by a Department of Defense official who has sought the
attorney's legal advice and the official is unwilling to follow the
attorney's advice?
Answer. Working diligently to ensure the faithful execution of the
laws is the duty of every DOD attorney. If any DOD attorney learns of
improper activities by an official who has sought his or her legal
advice but is unwilling to follow it, the attorney should immediately
notify his or her legal supervisor (or the senior lawyer in the next
higher level of his organization) concerning the improper activities.
The professional chain of communication on legal matters provides the
means to take the matter as high as it needs to go in the errant
official's supervisory chain to ensure that corrective action is taken
promptly.
Question. Do you believe that the present limits on pro bono
activities of government attorneys are generally correct as a matter of
policy or does the policy need to be reviewed?
Answer. I am unaware of any concerns by Department of Defense
attorneys regarding limitations on their pro bono activities. If I am
confirmed, I will be attentive to any issues in this area, and
recommend appropriate changes in policy if warranted.
Question. In your view, do the laws, regulations, and guidelines
that establish the rules of professional responsibility for attorneys
in the Department of Defense provide adequate guidance?
Answer. I have not reviewed this issue, but I am advised that the
laws, regulations, and guidelines that establish the rules of
professional responsibility for attorneys in the Department of Defense
provide adequate guidance. All DOD attorneys are members of the Bar of
a State or the District of Columbia. Thus, they are subject to the
rules of their respective Bars. Attorneys in the military departments
and a number of other components are also bound by the rules of
professional responsibility of those components.
role in the officer promotion and confirmation process
Question. In your view, what is the role of the General Counsel of
the Department of Defense in ensuring the integrity of the officer
promotion process?
Answer. Under Subchapter 1 of Chapter 36, Title 10, United States
Code, initial responsibility for the proper functioning of the
promotion selection process as that process is applicable to individual
selection boards resides with the Secretary of the military department
concerned. All reports of promotion selection boards are processed
through the Office of the Department of Defense General Counsel prior
to final action on the report by the Secretary or Deputy Secretary of
Defense. The DOD General Counsel must satisfy himself or herself that
there has been adherence by the military departments to the statutory
standards prescribed in Chapter 36 and that the work product of each
individual selection board, as embodied in its report, is in conformity
with statutory requirements. If, in a given case, the DOD General
Counsel concludes upon the review of a selection board report that
there has been a failure to adhere to the statutory standards, either
generally or with regard to a particular officer being considered for
promotion, the DOD General Counsel should advise the Secretary of
Defense concerning the perceived irregularities. Further, the Office of
General Counsel, in providing advice to the Office of the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Force Management Policy, helps to ensure that
departmental policies dealing with the promotion of officers, as
promulgated in DOD Directives and Instructions, fairly and accurately
reflect the provisions of law set out in chapter 36.
Question. What is the role of the General Counsel of the Department
of Defense in reviewing and providing potentially adverse information
pertaining to a nomination to the Senate Armed Services Committee?
Answer. If adverse information is attributed to a prospective
nominee, the DOD General Counsel should satisfy himself or herself that
the evidence in the investigative file supports the description of the
adverse information attributed to the officer being considered for
nomination. In addition, the DOD General Counsel should raise issues
regarding such adverse information with officials in the appropriate
service and OSD when warranted. When the adverse information attributed
to an officer is unusual or otherwise raises issues that are out of the
ordinary, the DOD General Counsel should give the Secretary of Defense
the benefit of the General Counsel's own evaluation of the significance
of the adverse information with regard to the qualifications of the
officer to serve in the grade or position to which he or she may be
nominated. The DOD General Counsel should work within the Department to
ensure that such adverse information is appropriately reported to the
Senate Armed Services Committee through established channels, and all
written communications forwarded to the committee pertaining to adverse
information attributed to an officer recommended for nomination should
be reviewed by the DOD General Counsel. Ultimately, the Department's
adverse information reporting system must ensure that the committee
receives timely notification of ongoing investigations and potentially
adverse information pertaining to nominees for flag and general officer
appointment.
litigation involving the department of defense
Question. In your opinion, what is the relationship between the
Department of Defense and the Department of Justice with respect to
litigation involving the Department of Defense?
Answer. Attorneys who represent the Defense Department or its
components work directly with the Department of Justice counsel in
cases in which the Department of Defense, or one or more of its
components or its officials, is a party or has an interest. The
Department of Justice has the statutory responsibility to represent the
United States, its agencies, and its officers, including the Department
of Defense, in all litigation matters. See 28 U.S.C. Section 516.
Nonetheless, attorneys representing DOD review pleadings before they
are filed with the courts, conduct and direct discovery, participate in
making major litigation decisions, and in some cases become a part of
the trial team. It is my understanding that attorneys from the
Departments of Defense and Justice work closely to represent the
Department and the United States in all respects.
Question. Is the present arrangement satisfactory, or does the
Department need more independence to conduct its own litigation?
Answer. I am not aware of any need to change the present
arrangement.
court of appeals decision
Question. On January 4, 2000, the United States Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit decided the case of National
Center for Manufacturing Sciences v. Department of Defense, 199 F. 3d
507 (D.C. Cir. 2000). The court concluded that ``Because of the
existence of 10 U.S.C. Section 114, it is clear that any monies
appropriated for NCMS by Congress for research must be authorized
before they can be appropriated and distributed''; and ``Because 10
U.S.C. Section 114(a)(2) requires authorization of these funds before
they become available, appropriation alone is insufficient.''
What is your view of the court's decision in this case and its
implications regarding the obligation of funds that are appropriated,
but not authorized?
Answer. The case in question affirmed the district court's decision
to grant the government's motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim. The basis for the decision was the fact that in the Department's
Fiscal Year 1995 Authorization Act, Congress effectively rescinded the
unreleased portion of a fiscal year 1994 funding earmark for the
National Center for Manufacturing Sciences (NCMS). Accordingly, the
court concluded that NCMS had no legal entitlement to the funds
claimed.
Based on the court's opinion, it appears that all parties to this
litigation, and the court, viewed the funds in issue to have been
authorized by Congress. Thus, the ``appropriated not authorized'' issue
was not squarely presented for decision in this case, but was addressed
only as a collateral matter. Situations where funds have been
appropriated but not authorized are often complex and may involve
unique statutory language. As a result, I would anticipate that the
Department will continue its practice of working closely with our
oversight committees whenever these issues are presented.
role in military personnel policy matters
Question. What role, if any, should the General Counsel play in
military personnel policy and individual cases, including cases before
the service boards for the correction of military records?
Answer. The range of issues potentially requiring legal advice from
the DOD General Counsel's office is very broad. I am advised that
attorneys within the Office of General Counsel frequently become
involved with policy issues pertaining to military personnel, both with
regard to individual cases and to the application of the Department's
personnel policies throughout the services. I believe that the General
Counsel should, in appropriate cases, make his or her views about
individual cases and the development and application of personnel
policies known to the Department's senior leadership, so that
individual cases are resolved fairly and that overall policies are
developed uniformly, fairly, and in conformance with law.
major challenges
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges confronting
the next General Counsel of the Department of Defense?
Answer. If confirmed, my priorities will follow those of the
President and the Secretary of Defense. Consequently, among the major
challenges will be to serve the Secretary and his leadership team as
advisor, counselor, and advocate in addressing those priorities.
Moreover, the Department's routine functions and missions are so vast
and unpredictable that it is difficult to anticipate specific questions
that will arise.
Question. If confirmed, what plans do you have for addressing these
challenges?
Answer. I am convinced that the attorneys and staff of the legal
community of the Department of Defense have addressed their
responsibilities very capably in the past. If confirmed, I will work to
ensure that the Department's lawyers continue to provide sound,
professional, and responsive legal advice to our clients concerning not
only these legal issues, but also the numerous other issues that the
Department of Defense confronts on any given day.
most serious problems
Question. What do you consider to be the most serious problems in
the performance of the functions of the General Counsel of the
Department of Defense?
Answer. I am aware of no serious problems in this area.
Question. What management actions and time lines would you
establish to address these problems?
Answer. If confirmed, I will focus on assuring that the legal
community of the Department of Defense provides quality, timely, and
sound legal advice and counsel.
Question. What do you see as the greatest legal problems facing the
Department in the coming year?
Answer. Please see my response to ``Major Challenges,'' above.
Question. Does the Office of the General Counsel have the resources
to deal with these problems and do its everyday work?
Answer. If I am confirmed, I will be sensitive to the requirement
to ensure that the Office of General Counsel has adequate resources. If
I determine that those resources need augmentation, I will recommend
appropriate increases.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as the General Counsel of the
Department of Defense?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings, and
other communications of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Strom Thurmond
1. Senator Thurmond. Although the potential of additional U.S.
military action has diminished, what is the established mechanism to
ensure that all deployments of U.S. Armed Forces are brought to the
attention of the DOD General Counsel so that the consultation and
reporting provisions of the War Powers Resolution is implemented?
Mr. Haynes. There is an established mechanism within the Department
of Defense to ensure that the General Counsel reviews all orders that
involve the possible deployment of U.S. Armed Forces in situations in
which consultation and reporting consistent with the War Powers
Resolution may be warranted. Operational planning processes and
administrative procedures ensure that all relevant officials in the
Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Office of the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff are aware of the requirement for General
Counsel review of such deployments.
2. Senator Thurmond. In 1985, a comprehensive Department of Defense
``Joint Study on Religious Matters'' concluded that application of the
Religious Freedom Restoration Act style ``strict scrutiny'' standard to
religious practice in the military ``would be a standing invitation to
a wholesale civilian judicial review of internal military affairs. . .
Adoption of the civilian `strict scrutiny' standard poses grave dangers
to military discipline and interferes with the ability of the military
to perform its mission.'' What are your views regarding the
implications of applying the ``strict scrutiny'' standard to religious
practices in the military?
Mr. Haynes. The 1985 Department of Defense ``Joint Study on
Religious Matters'' did not oppose accommodation of religious
practices. The study recommended against a mandatory standard that
required military commanders to accommodate religious practices without
taking into consideration the requirements of military duty. As the
courts have consistently held, the military is, by necessity, a
specialized society separate from civilian society. Accommodation
standards require a different application in the military than may be
applied in a civilian context. The study concluded that it seems
unlikely that the courts will use the same strict scrutiny test in the
military context they use in the civilian context. Furthermore, the
study concluded that the courts would likely continue to give deference
to the military in matters of military requirements, discipline and
military expertise. I believe we have found this to be the case. The
Department has not experienced the wholesale civilian judicial review
of internal military affairs that those conducting the study may have
envisioned. Similarly, the concerns have not materialized regarding
grave dangers to military discipline and interference with the ability
of the military to perform its mission. Department of Defense Directive
1300.17, ``Accommodation of Religious Practices Within the Military
Services,'' has proved successful in balancing the religious interests
of its personnel with the military necessity for readiness, unit
cohesion, standards, and discipline.
While ``strict scrutiny'' is a high standard, the religious beliefs
and practices of our military members are important personal interests
that should not be taken lightly. When military necessity and the
standards of good order and discipline require restrictive action based
on compelling military interests, the courts have historically afforded
the military the appropriate deference that is due. Moreover,
commanders are not reporting adverse impacts on military discipline or
mission accomplishment.
3. Senator Thurmond. We all have read stories in the press
criticizing the military justice system and the Uniform Code of
Military Justice. Often these articles are sensationalized and written
by people who have no understanding of the system. How would you
characterize the military justice system?
Mr. Haynes. I believe much of the criticism of the military justice
system as a whole is, in large part, due to the fact that many members
of the media, jurists, and general public have no actual experience
with the administration of military justice or the military judicial
system. I would characterize the military justice system as a
progressive system of laws and procedures that measures well against
other judicial systems.
We recently observed the 50th anniversary of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice (UCMJ), a great step forward in military jurisprudence
and the protection of rights afforded our service members. Starting
with the creation of a court of appeals, composed of civilian judges,
in 1951 (now the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces),
the authorization of discretionary review of courts-martial by the U.S.
Supreme Court, and the transformation of the courts-martial process
into a judicial system, military justice can take pride in its
evolution. The individual rights afforded our men and women in uniform,
and the due process provided in our court-martial procedures, are
significant levels of achievement. However, no judicial system should
be regarded as perfect. By doing so, we would preclude all interest in
making improvements and tend to overlook, rather than address,
problems. For these reasons, it is important that the Department
continues to work with both the Code Committee, established by Article
146, UCMJ, and the Joint Service Committee on Military Justice,
established by DOD Directive. Both committees perform crucial
functions. The Code Committee conducts an annual review of the
operation of the UCMJ, and the Joint Service Committee on Military
Justice provides an annual review of the Manual for Courts-Martial
procedures.
While some specific issues or areas may warrant further review, the
military justice system as a whole is operating as Congress intended
and as required to meet the needs of the military for good order and
discipline.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Joseph I. Lieberman
4. Senator Lieberman. What are your priorities regarding OSD
General Counsel?
Mr. Haynes. As the DOD General Counsel, I will strive to ensure
that the Department of Defense receives legal services, grounded on
fidelity to the law, that reflect careful and thorough analysis, are
sensitive to the crucial mission of the Department and the Secretary's
policy objectives, and provide, whenever possible a range of legally
appropriate options for the consideration of decisionmakers.
5. Senator Lieberman. DOD's Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR)
Program (resolution of disputes in the earliest stage feasible, by the
fastest and least expensive method, and at the lowest organizational
level) continues to grow and offer less costly means of dispute
resolution. What changes or enhancements, if any, will you make to the
ADR Program?
Mr. Haynes. I am a strong proponent of using ADR to resolve
disputes as early as possible in the course of a dispute. I am aware
that ADR is already being used to a greater extent than ever before and
in more areas throughout the Defense Department. I am learning that the
ADR programs in the various DOD components vary in their size and
scope, and that the components are generally buoyed by their successes
and are seeking further encouragement and support for their ADR
programs.
As General Counsel, I will actively promote the use of ADR. All
Defense Department components will be encouraged to support efforts
both to use ADR early and to move from a focus on ADR as a tool of
lawyers to conflict management as a business objective of the entire
component. My focus will be to reinforce appropriate use of ADR in all
DOD components. I will emphasize to senior leadership in all components
the need to deepen the penetration of ADR and will encourage them to
continue to make progress in improving their ADR programs.
In managing the ADR program, my office will concentrate on
improving the evaluation of the ADR programs in the Department, sharing
lessons learned among the components, and implementing recent
legislation on pilot projects for employing ADR.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Jean Carnahan
6. Senator Carnahan. I am advised that the National Imagery and
Mapping Agency (NIMA) has proposed that work performed by 600 Federal
employees at installations in Missouri and Maryland be directly
converted to contractor performance without a public-private
competition under OMB Circular A-76. According to NIMA, the apparent
authority for this conversion is 10 U.S.C. 8014. But that statute does
not contain an exemption from the blanket requirement to conduct an A-
76 study.
Please provide an explanation of the legal authority under which
NIMA proposes to conduct a direct conversion of these jobs, cite the
specific provisions of Circular A-76 that allow such a conversion, and
provide the documents supporting that the appropriate procedures have
been followed by NIMA in this instance.
Mr. Haynes. This responds to your request that I review the
procedures for outsourcing certain information technology (IT) and
information services (IS) functions at the National Imagery and Mapping
Agency (NIMA).
For some time NIMA management has been reviewing its IT and IS
functions to determine which should be performed only by government
employees (i.e., ``core'' functions), and which could be performed
otherwise. Industry analysts and consultants under contract to NIMA
conducted part of this review. In response to the resulting
recommendations, NIMA management has determined that the IT and IS
functions currently performed by approximately 1,100 government
employees plus a number of contractors could be restructured to provide
more efficient and less costly operations.
NIMA management has determined that 500 of the employees are
performing core functions. The functions performed by the remaining 600
employees, as well as those performed under 12 contracts, are currently
being evaluated to determine whether to consolidate them into a single
prime contract with some number of subcontracts. Working with the Small
Business Administration (SBA), NIMA has identified an 8(a) contractor
with the potential to serve as the prime contractor. SBA's 8(a) program
provides preferential procurement opportunities to developing small,
disadvantaged businesses meeting certain social and economic criteria.
The 8(a) firm is currently developing its proposal for performing and
subcontracting the work and will deliver that proposal to NIMA in late
July. NIMA intends to spend August evaluating the proposal. If the
decision is made to award a contract, the award would not be made
before September 15, 2001, with performance transition commencing
October 1, 2001.
NIMA management's principal concerns in approaching this potential
outsourcing have been continued customer support and the preservation
and protection of its skilled workforce. NIMA's mission will not
tolerate employee uncertainty and disruption. Moreover, management
recognizes that any contractor's performance would benefit from the
unique qualifications of the current NIMA employees, including their
security clearances. Management expects that most of the 600 employees
whose functions are included in this initiative may be interested in
private sector employment. Indeed, NIMA is considering using voluntary
separation incentive payments to assist these employees in the
transition. For these reasons, part of NIMA's requirement that the 8(a)
contractor must include in its proposal is the voluntary transition of
current NIMA IT and IS employees to the contractor's employment over
the course of 5 to 7 years. This requirement should enable NIMA to
convert these functions to contract performance with no reduction-in-
force or other involuntary personnel actions, and permit employees the
full range of normal employment options. NIMA's expectation is that
over the 5-year transition period, current NIMA employees will be able
individually to decide whether and when to accept employment with the
contractor or to remain at NIMA by reassignment within the agency.
The 8(a) firm currently under consideration is an Alaskan Native
Corporation. Consequently, a cost comparison under OMB Circular A-76 is
not required, nor is the analysis required under section 8014 of the
Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2001, Public Law 106-259.
Section 8014 also exempts firms that are ``under 51 percent ownership
by an Indian tribe,'' such as this 8(a) firm, from the reporting and
analysis requirements of section 2461 of Title 10, United States Code.
Nevertheless, NIMA's final decision to award a contract to outsource
these IT and IS functions will be made upon NIMA's determination that
such a decision will produce efficiencies and cost savings.
I am satisfied that appropriate legal procedures have been
followed. Your request for a suspension of NIMA's activities is
unnecessary, as NIMA is still collecting information, and will not be
in a position to make a decision before September 15, 2001. As for your
request for consultation, NIMA management would be pleased to provide a
discussion of their approach to you or your staff at your convenience.
Commander Jim Fraser, Director, Senate Affairs, Office of the Assistant
Secretary of Defense (Legislative Affairs), 703-695-7104, can make the
necessary arrangements.
______
[The nomination reference of William J. Haynes II follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
April 23, 2001.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
William J. Haynes II, of Tennessee, to be General Counsel of the
Department of Defense, vice Douglas A. Dworkin.
______
[The biographical sketch of William J. Haynes II, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of William J. Haynes II
Born in Waco, Texas, Jim Haynes was raised in a United States Air
Force family. Mr. Haynes earned his B.A. degree on an Army R.O.T.C.
scholarship at Davidson College, where he was elected to membership in
Phi Beta Kappa and Omicron Delta Kappa, and earned his J.D. degree from
Harvard Law School. After law school, Mr. Haynes clerked for U.S.
District Judge James B. McMillan in Charlotte, North Carolina. He then
served 4 years on active duty as an officer in the United States Army,
leaving for private practice.
In 1990, President George Bush appointed Mr. Haynes General Counsel
of the Department of the Army, a post he held for 3 years. As chief
legal officer of the Army, Mr. Haynes was ultimately responsible for
all legal matters confronting the Army, and for professional oversight
of the military and civilian lawyers of the Army.
Mr. Haynes is a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of Jenner &
Block, where he represents corporate and individual clients, providing
a range of legal services and counseling. For 3 years in the mid-1990s,
he was Staff Vice President and Associate General Counsel for General
Dynamics Corporation; part of that time he also served as General
Counsel of General Dynamics' Marine Group.
In private life, Mr. Haynes is active in public service. He
recently concluded his service on the Advisory Committee to the
Standing Committee on Law and National Security of the American Bar
Association. He is ``outside'' General Counsel for the Army Engineer
Association. He is a Member of the National Advisory Committee for
Maryville College in Tennessee. He has served on a panel of the
National Academy of Sciences' Naval Studies Board. From February
through April 1999, Mr. Haynes provided pro bono legal services to a
non-governmental relief organization, Mercy Corps International, from
its offices in Central Asia. Mr. Haynes has represented defendants, pro
bono, in the District of Columbia court system, and he currently
advises several non-profit enterprises.
Mr. Haynes is licensed to practice law in the District of Columbia
and in the States of Georgia and North Carolina. He is listed in Who's
Who in America, and Who's Who in American Law. He holds an honorary
Doctor of Laws from Stetson University, where he delivered the
commencement address in May 1999.
Mr. Haynes is married to Margaret Campbell Haynes of Newnan,
Georgia. Mr. and Mrs. Haynes have three children: Will, Sarah, and
Taylor.
______
[The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
form that details the biographical, financial, and other
information of the nominee. The form executed by William J.
Haynes II in connection with his nomination follows:]
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Room SR-228
Washington, DC 20510-6050
(202) 224-3871
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation
of your answer applies.
Part A--Biographical Information
Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.
1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
William James Haynes II.
2. Position to which nominated:
General Counsel of the Department of Defense.
3. Date of nomination:
April 23, 2001.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
5. Date and place of birth:
March 30, 1958; Waco, Texas.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Margaret Frances Campbell Haynes.
7. Names and ages of children:
William James Haynes III (age 14), Sarah Insley Haynes (age 12);
Taylor Bynum Haynes (age 9).
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received and date degree granted.
Harvard Law School, J.D. 1983, Cambridge, MA.
Davidson College, B.A. 1980, Davidson, NC.
Parkway High School, Diploma 1976, Bossier City, LA.
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
May 1999 to present: Partner, Jenner & Block (law firm), 601 13th
Street, NW., Washington, DC.
February-April 1999: Volunteer Consultant, Mercy Corps
International (relief organization), Almaty, Kazakhstan.
July 1996-January 1999: Staff VP and Associate General Counsel, GC
of Marine Group (1997-1998), General Dynamics Corporation, 3190
Fairview Park Drive, Falls Church, VA.
April 1993-July 1996: Partner, Jenner & Block (law firm).
March 1990-January 1993: General Counsel of the Department of the
Army, Washington, DC.
10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative,
honorary or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State,
or local governments, other than those listed above.
Dec. 2000-Feb. 2001: Policy Coordinator (volunteer), Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Bush-Cheney Transition.
1993: Consultant, Information Warfare Panel (pro bono), Naval
Studies Board, National Academy of Sciences.
Nov. 1989-March 1990: Special Assistant to the General Counsel,
Department of Defense.
January 1989-April 1989: Counsel to the Transition, Department of
Defense.
October 1984-Dec. 1988: Officer (eventually Captain), United States
Army.
Sept 1983-Sept. 1984: Law Clerk, Judge James B. McMillan, U.S.
District Judge (W.D.N.C.).
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
Partner, Jenner & Block (law firm).
Member, Maryville College National Advisory Council.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
Member, American Bar Association.
Member, Army Navy Club.
General Counsel, Army Engineer Association.
Member, Phi Beta Kappa.
13. Political affiliations and activities:
(a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or
any public office for which you have been a candidate.
None.
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5
years.
Member, Republican Party.
(c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $100 or more for the past 5 years.
Bush for President, Inc.--$500.00 (July 2000)
Bush for President, Inc.--$250.00 (February 2000)
Friends of George Allen--$500.00 (May 2000)
Quayle 2000--$250.00 (May 1999)
Leahy for U.S. Senator Committee--$250.00 (May 1998)
Snowe for Senate--$250.00 (March 1998)
Shelby for U.S. Senate--$300.00 (October 1997)
George W. Bush for Governor--small, unknown amounts (1995/6 and
1998?)
Various small contributions to the Republican National Committee
over the years.
14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals, and any other special
recognitions for outstanding service or achievements.
Honorary Doctor of Laws, Stetson University (1999).
Decoration for Distinguished Civilian Service (Department of the
Army) (1992).
Meritorious Service Medal (with Oak Leaf cluster) (1986, 1988).
Army ROTC Scholarship (1976-1980).
Phi Beta Kappa (1980).
Omicron Delta Kappa (1980).
Eagle Scout (1971).
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
``The Value of Wetlands as Wetlands: The Case for Mitigation
Banking,'' 23 Environmental Law Reporter 10261, Vol. XXIII, No. 5, May
1993. (Co-authored with Royal C. Gardner.)
16. Speeches: Provide the committee with two copies of any formal
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have
copies of and are on topics relevant to the position for which you have
been nominated.
None relevant to this position.
17. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree,
if confirmed, to respond to requests to appear and testify before any
duly constituted committee of the Senate?
Yes.
______
[The nominee responded to the questions in Parts B-F of the
committee questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set
forth in the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to
Parts B-F are contained in the committee's executive files.]
------
Signature and Date
I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate,
and complete.
William J. Haynes II.
This 18th day of April, 2001.
[The nomination of William J. Haynes II was reported to the
Senate by Senator John Warner on May 1, 2001, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on May 17, 2001.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to Powell A. Moore by
Chairman Warner prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
April 24, 2001.
Hon. John Warner,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Enclosed herewith are the answers to the advance
questions the Senate Armed Services Committee asked me to complete.
Sincerely,
Powell A. Moore.
cc: Honorable Carl Levin,
Ranking Minority Member.
______
Questions and Responses
defense reforms
Question. More than a decade has passed since the enactment of the
Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and
the Special Operations reforms.
Do you support full implementation of these defense reforms?
Answer. Yes. The establishment of the unified and specified
combatant commands, the delineation of responsibilities, and most
importantly, the focus on ``jointness'' outlined in the Defense
Reorganization Act of 1986 has enhanced the readiness and warfighting
capabilities of our Armed Forces.
Question. What is your view of the extent to which these defense
reforms have been implemented?
Answer. These reforms have changed the way the Department of
Defense works by strengthening the role of the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff and the combatant commanders, and significantly
improving the ability of the Department to protect America's security
and further its vital interests. The reforms have helped improve the
interaction among the services in conducting military operations by
making joint operations the norm.
Question. What do you consider to be the most important aspects of
these defense reforms?
Answer. I would consider each of the goals noted below to be an
important aspect of these defense reforms. Each one has enhanced the
ability of the Department of Defense to carry out its assigned
responsibilities.
Question. The goals of Congress in enacting these defense reforms,
as reflected in section 3 of the Goldwater-Nichols Department of
Defense Reorganization Act, can be summarized as strengthening civilian
control; improving military advice; placing clear responsibility on the
combatant commanders for the accomplishment of their missions; ensuring
the authority of the combatant commanders is commensurate with their
responsibility; increasing attention to the formulation of strategy and
to contingency planning; providing for more efficient use of defense
resources; and enhancing the effectiveness of military operations and
improving the management and administration of the Department of
Defense.
Do you agree with these goals?
Answer. Yes, I support the goals of Congress in enacting the
reforms of the Goldwater-Nichols legislation.
relationships
Question. If confirmed, what would be your relationship with: the
Secretary of Defense; the Deputy Secretary of Defense; the Under
Secretaries and Assistant Secretaries of Defense; the General Counsel
of the Department of Defense; the Inspector General of the Department
of Defense; the Defense Agencies; and the legislative affairs officers
of the military departments and the Joint Staff.
Answer. If confirmed, I will function as the principal staff
assistant to the Secretary on congressional matters. Under the
Secretary's direction, I will be responsible for Department legislative
program coordination, congressional liaison in various forms,
participation of departmental witnesses in congressional hearings,
responses to congressional inquiries, and Department support of
congressional travel.
If confirmed, my relationship with the Deputy Secretary of Defense
will be substantially the same as that described above with respect to
the Secretary of Defense.
If confirmed, my relationship with the Under Secretaries of Defense
and the Assistant Secretaries will be to serve as principal advisor
regarding liaison and communications with Congress.
If confirmed, my relationship with the General Counsel will be
based on my role as principal staff assistant to the Secretary of
Defense on congressional matters. Identifying legal issues inherent in
legislative matters and obtaining the views and recommendations of the
General Counsel is central to the effective performance of my duties.
If confirmed, I will fully support the General Counsel in the
development of the DOD legislative program and coordination of
Department positions on proposed legislation, including the preparation
and submission of annual legislative proposals.
If confirmed, I will be fully cooperative and supportive of the
Inspector General's mission.
If confirmed, I will provide overall guidance to the individual
Defense Agencies with respect to the Department's legislative issues. I
will ensure that the agencies are responsive to congressional
inquiries, and have a thorough understanding of the Department's
legislative initiatives and the Secretary's position on issues.
By Title 10 and Department of Defense Directive, ultimate
responsibility for supervision of legislative liaison activities
throughout the Department is vested in the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Legislative Affairs. If confirmed, I will work closely with
the legislative affairs offices of the Military Departments and the
Joint Staff and will continue to foster a climate of effective
cooperation and mutual support.
Question. Within the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the
defense agencies, and the combatant commanders, there are numerous
offices that have their own congressional liaison personnel.
What will you do to ensure that your office is the focal point for
all of the Department of Defense for dealing with Congress?
Answer. If confirmed, I will meet regularly with representatives of
all components of the Department to ensure full coordination on all
legislative matters. It will continue to be our goal that all
legislative affairs activities of the Department are coordinated
through the OSD Legislative Affairs Office.
duties
Question. Section 138 of Title 10, United States Code, provides
that the principal duty of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Legislative Affairs is the overall supervision of legislative affairs
of the Department of Defense. Other duties are to be prescribed by the
Secretary of Defense.
Should you be confirmed as the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Legislative Affairs, what would you view as your principal
responsibilities to the Secretary of Defense?
Answer. My principal responsibility will be to ensure that the
Secretary, Deputy Secretary, and key principals in the Department of
Defense are fully aware of congressional interests, concerns, and
initiatives. If confirmed, I will work closely with our oversight
committees of Congress and the various components of the Department of
Defense to ensure that the Department's policies are properly
articulated and that issues raised by Congress are clearly understood
and addressed by the Department.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what other duties do you
expect that Secretary Rumsfeld will prescribe for you?
Answer. If confirmed, my responsibilities will encompass the full
spectrum of legislative activities and concerns for the Department.
While this will be my primary focus, I will certainly take on any other
duties prescribed by Secretary Rumsfeld.
major challenges and problems
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges confronting
the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs?
Answer. If confirmed, one of the greatest challenges I will face is
to ensure the continued flow of timely, accurate, and relevant
information to Congress on all defense-related issues. As we shape our
military force to meet the challenges of the 21st century, it is
essential that the administration and Department remain fully engaged
with Congress and that we maintain a bipartisan consensus on defense
matters and national security issues.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, I expect to meet on a daily basis with senior
Department leadership to ensure that our legislative priorities are
fully coordinated, and that the Secretary, Deputy Secretary, and senior
Department leadership receive timely and valuable advice on all
legislative issues. While it is essential that the lines of
communication remain open between the Department and our oversight
committees and Senate/House leadership, it is equally important that we
are aware of the priorities and responsive to the defense-related
concerns of other congressional committees and members.
Question. What do you consider to be the most serious problems in
the military services' relationships with Congress?
Answer. As we consider the necessary steps to shape and transform
our military to meet the demands of a new century, the services will
play a central role in the necessary dialogue with Congress. If
confirmed, I expect to work closely with the Legislative Affairs
Service Chiefs and the Joint Staff to meet and address the challenges
ahead. Addressing issues such as readiness, military pay and
retirement, health care, technological advances, and emerging threats
will require close coordination, not only within the Department of
Defense but also between the executive and legislative branches.
Question. If confirmed, what management action and timetables would
you establish to address these problems?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the services and the
Joint Staff to address the challenges noted above.
role of congress in national security policy
Question. In your opinion, what is the role of Congress in setting
national security policy?
Answer. The Constitution charges Congress with raising,
maintaining, and regulating the Armed Forces. The development and
execution of our national security policy must be a shared
responsibility. The administration and Department will work closely
with Congress as we shape our military forces to meet the demands of
the 21st century. If confirmed, I look forward to working with this
committee and Congress to further the cooperative engagement that has
long been the standard, and to forge and maintain a bipartisan
consensus on national defense issues.
liaison with the appropriations committee
Question. The liaison with the Appropriations Committees is
currently carried out through the Office of the Under Secretary of
Defense, Comptroller, not through the Office of the Assistant Secretary
of Defense for Legislative Affairs.
Do you believe that this arrangement allows you to carry out your
responsibility under Section 138 of Title 10, United States Code?
Answer. Ultimate responsibility for the supervision of legislative
liaison activities throughout the Department of Defense is vested in
the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs. If
confirmed, I plan to work closely with the Office of the Under
Secretary of Defense/Comptroller, as well as all other relevant offices
within the Department, the Joint Staff, and the services to ensure that
our legislative priorities in all matters are fully understood and
coordinated.
Question. Based on your experience, does the fact that there are
two separate offices within the Office of the Secretary of Defense
dealing with Congress create coordination problems?
Answer. Our goal will be that the legislative priorities and
concerns of the Department are fully coordinated, not only within the
Pentagon but also with Congress. It's extremely important that we
continue to foster a very close working relationship with both the
authorizing and appropriating defense committees.
Question. Do you believe that the current practice of a separate
liaison between the Appropriations Committees, the Office of the
Secretary of Defense and the budget offices of the military services
should be continued or should all legislative affairs activities be
consolidated under the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative
Affairs?
Answer. If confirmed, I will coordinate closely with the
Comptroller and with all oversight committees to ensure the Department
speaks with one voice before Congress.
Question. What do you anticipate would be your relationship with
the Appropriations Committees?
Answer. Policy issues of importance to the Department require the
support of both the authorization and appropriations committees. If
confirmed, it will be my responsibility to ensure that we are
responsive to the needs of all of our oversight committees.
providing congress with timely information
Question. What steps would you take to ensure that the appropriate
congressional officials and committees are provided with timely
notification and relevant information concerning international crises,
the use of United States military forces, and incidents involving
Department of Defense personnel and equipment?
Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure that this continues to be a top
priority for the Department. It is critical that timely, accurate, and
relevant information is provided to members, committees, and staff.
monitoring legislation affecting the department of defense
Question. The Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the
House of Representatives have principal oversight responsibility in
Congress for Department of Defense activities. However, there is a
great deal of legislation considered by other congressional committees
that specifically affects the Department of Defense or that affects
government agencies in general and which may have a substantial impact
on the Department of Defense.
What steps would you establish to ensure that you and the Secretary
of Defense are kept informed of all legislation that may have an impact
on the Department of Defense?
Answer. It is essential that we focus not only on the legislative
priorities of our oversight committees, but also on relevant
legislation considered by other congressional committees. We must work
closely with our counterparts at the State Department, the National
Security Council, and other federal agencies to ensure that defense-
related issues and concerns are fully addressed. If confirmed, I will
ensure that my staff members maintain a network of contacts on all
congressional committees and strive to learn of all legislative
proposals that could impact the Department.
Question. If confirmed, would you ensure that the Committees on
Armed Services are alerted to all legislative matters of interest to
the Department in a timely manner?
Answer. Yes.
nominations
Question. What role would you, as Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Legislative Affairs, expect to play in the military and civilian
nomination process?
Answer. If confirmed, I would expect to play a primary role in the
civilian nomination process, ensuring that all nominees are prepared to
meet the many requirements of the confirmation process. In the military
nomination process, I would expect to work closely with the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs and the services in preparing key military nominees
for confirmation.
management of the congressional fellowship program
Question. What are your personal views on the value and current
management of the legislative fellowship program within the Department
of Defense? Specifically, in your opinion are legislative fellowships
awarded to deserving military or civilian personnel?
Answer. While my personal knowledge of this subject is limited, it
is my understanding that the legislative fellowship program has proven
to be a valuable and effective vehicle for educating Department
personnel on the workings of the legislative branch. Competition for
these positions is keen, and it is my impression that these fellowships
are awarded to fully deserving military and civilian personnel. If
confirmed, I will obtain more information about the legislative
fellowship program to ensure my office has visibility in its operation.
Question. As Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative
Affairs, would you have any part in the selection of military or
civilian personnel to be a legislative fellow?
Answer. No. I have been advised that selection of the personnel is
a service responsibility, and that oversight of the program is provided
by the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force Management Policy (ASD/
FMP).
Question. As Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative
Affairs, would you have any part in the utilization assignments for
military and civilian fellows upon completion of their fellowship?
Answer. No. This also is a responsibility of the respective
services, taking into account the necessary professional development of
each individual completing the fellowship as well as the needs of the
services.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, when asked, to give your personal views,
even if those views differ from the administration in power?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Legislative Affairs?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings and
other communications of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Strom Thurmond
department coordination
1. Senator Thurmond. One of the more significant challenges of your
office is to ensure that the Departunent speaks with one voice on major
policy issues. How do you plan to address this vexing problem?
Mr. Moore. First, I plan to meet regularly with representatives of
all components of the Department to ensure full coordination on all
legislative matters. It will continue to be our goal that all
legislative affairs activities of the Department are coordinated
through the OSD Legislative Affairs Office. Within the interagency
coordination process, we must work closely with our counterparts at the
State Department, the National Security Council, and other federal
agencies to ensure that our defense-related issues and concerns are
fully addressed. In general, one of the greatest challenges we face is
to ensure the continued flow of timely, accurate, and relevant
information to Congress on all defense-related issues. As we complete
our strategic review and consider the steps necessary to reshape our
military force to meet the challenges of the 21st century, it is
essential that the administration and Department remain fully engaged
with Congress and that we continue to forge a bipartisan consensus on
defense matters and national security issues. It is also essential that
we focus not only on the legislative priorities of our oversight
committees, but also on legislation considered by other congressional
committees and members.
congress and the department of defense
2. Senator Thurmond. Your long and distinguished career serving
both Congress and the executive branch, allowed you to be a witness to
the changes in the relationship between Congress and the Department of
Defense.
What in your judgment had been the most significant change in this
relationship since you first joined Senator Russell's office in 1966?
How does this change affect your role as ASD for Legislative Affairs,
if you are confirmed for that position?
Mr. Moore. We are now in an information age where news is available
around the clock. Given the tremendous challenge we face in staying
ahead of this expansive media coverage, it has become even more
important for the Department to keep open the lines of communication
with Congress at all levels. Our relationship with Congress is based on
a continuing dialogue, and effectively managing the timely flow of
information is essential. For example, I recognize the importance of
using the Internet to dispense and to obtain information, and I intend
to work very hard to bring the Office of Legislative Affairs into the
21st century in that regard. Despite our many technological advances,
however, our guiding principle in the Department of keeping Congress
well-informed in a timely manner has not changed.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Joseph I. Lieberman
strategic review
3. Senator Lieberman. Upon the completion of the strategic review,
what proposals do you have to help relay those recommendations?
Mr. Moore. The Defense review is an iterative process that will be
ongoing. The findings and recommendations of the various elements of
the Defense review will serve as road maps for key issues that must be
considered during the QDR process, and subsequently, in the development
of future budget requests. It is important that we communicate the
results of our Defense review in a timely manner when information is
available. For example, we will look to schedule member and staff
briefings when the various elements of the review have been completed.
Throughout this process, I will work closely with the Secretary, Deputy
Secretary, and senior leadership in the Department to ensure that we
keep open the lines of communication with Congress.
nomination process
4. Senator Lieberman. Do you plan to recommend changes to the
nomination process?
Mr. Moore. As Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative
Affairs, I will do everything I can to ensure that all of the
President's nominees for positions in the Department of Defense move
through the confirmation process as expeditiously as possible. At this
point, it would be premature for me to consider any recommendations for
changes to the nomination process.
legislative fellow program
5. Senator Lieberman. What is your opinion of the legislative
fellow program and will you pursue changes to the program?
Mr. Moore. While my personal knowledge of this subject is limited,
it is my understanding that the legislative fellowship program has
proven to be a valuable and effective vehicle for educating Department
personnel on the workings of the legislative branch. Competition for
these positions is keen, and it is my impression that these fellowships
are awarded to fully deserving military and civilian personnel. It is
my understanding that selection of the personnel is a service
responsibility, and that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force
Management Policy (ASD/FMP) provides oversight of the program. I will
make it a priority to obtain more information about the legislative
fellowship program to ensure my office has visibility in its operation.
At this point, it would be premature for me to consider any possible
changes to the program.
______
[The nomination reference of Powell A. Moore follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
April 23, 2001.
Ordered, that the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Powell A. Moore, of Georgia, to be an Assistant Secretary of
Defense, vice John K. Veroneau.
______
[The biographical sketch of Powell A. Moore, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Powell A. Moore
Powell A. Moore is Chief of Staff for Senator Fred D.
Thompson, Republican of Tennessee and Chairman of the Senate
Committee on Governmental Affairs. He has held this position
since September 1, 1998.
Active in public policy affairs in Washington for more than
30 years, Moore is a former Assistant Secretary of State for
Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs under President
Reagan and has served on the White House staff under Presidents
Nixon, Ford, and Reagan.
Moore began his Washington career in 1966 as Press
Secretary to Senator Richard B. Russell of Georgia and served
in this capacity until Senator Russell's death in January 1971.
He then joined the Nixon Administration, first serving as
Deputy Director of Public Information for the Department of
Justice and later as a member of the White House Legislative
Affairs staff.
He left the White House in 1975, and for the subsequent 6
years, engaged in government relations and legislative affairs
consulting, representing a variety of corporations and
associations.
Moore returned to the White House in January 1981 on the
day following Ronald Reagan's inauguration as the 40th
President of the United States. As Deputy Assistant to the
President for Legislative Affairs during 1981, he managed the
Senate component of the legislative affairs office at the White
House.
In January 1982, President Reagan nominated him to be
Assistant Secretary of State for Intergovernmental and
Legislative Affairs, and he was confirmed by the Senate on
February 4, 1982. As Assistant Secretary of State, Moore
traveled with congressional delegations to more than 35
countries and participated in meetings between U.S.
congressional leaders and 19 heads of state.
During his service in two key legislative affairs positions
of the Reagan administration, he assisted President Reagan in
realizing a number of significant legislative achievements. He
managed the Senate confirmation strategy for several of
President Reagan's high level nominations, including the
historic nomination of Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
Moore worked on the presidential campaign staffs of Richard
Nixon in 1972, Gerald Ford in 1976, and Ronald Reagan in 1980.
He also worked as a volunteer for the presidential campaigns of
George Bush in 1988 and 1992, Bob Dole in 1996 and George W.
Bush in 2000.
After leaving government in late 1983 and before returning
in 1998, Moore advised and represented business interests as
Vice President for Legislative Affairs of the Lockheed
Corporation and as a consultant. In this capacity, he compiled
a substantial list of measurable public policy achievements on
behalf of a wide variety of clients.
Moore was born in Milledgeville, Georgia, on January 5,
1938. He graduated from the University of Georgia in Athens in
1959 after attending preparatory school at Georgia Military
College in Milledgeville. The University of Georgia's Henry W.
Grady School of Journalism selected him as its Outstanding
Alumnus for 1985, and he was similarly honored by Georgia
Military College in 1986. After graduation, he was commissioned
as an officer in the United States Army where he served for
3\1/2\ years with tours in Baumholder, Germany, and Fort
Benning, Georgia. After leaving the Army and before coming to
Washington, he worked as a weekly newspaper editor in Georgia.
Moore lives in Alexandria, Virginia and has a daughter,
Mrs. Frances M. Preston of Greensboro, North Carolina; a son,
Allen Moore of Alexandria, Virginia; and three grandsons.
------
[The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
form that details the biographical, financial, and other
information of the nominee. The form executed by Powell A.
Moore in connection with his nomination follows:]
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Room SR-228
Washington, DC 20510-6050
(202) 224-3871
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation
of your answer applies.
Part A--Biographical Information
Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.
1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
Powell Allen Moore.
2. Position to which nominated:
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs.
3. Date of nomination:
April 23, 2001.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
5. Date and place of birth:
January 5, 1938; Milledgeville, Georgia.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Divorced.
7. Names and ages of children:
Frances Van Moore Preston, age 34 (born on April 19, 1967); Powell
Allen Moore, Junior, age 31 (born on December 6, 1969).
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received and date degree granted.
Georgia Military College (high school division), Milledgeville,
Georgia from September 1951 until June 1955.
Georgia Military College (junior college division), Milledgeville,
Georgia from September 1955 until June 1956.
Georgia College, Milledgeville, Georgia from June 1956 until August
1956.
University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia from September 1957 until
March 1959; Bachelor of Arts degree in Journalism, June 1959.
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
June 1989 until February 1993, self employed consultant, 1133
Connecticut Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.
February 1993 until February 1998, Senior Principal and Managing
Director, Capitoline International Group, 1615 L Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20036.
February 1998 until August 1998, Senior Vice President, Global USA,
Inc., 2121 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037.
September 1998 until present, Chief of Staff, Office of Senator
Fred Thompson, Washington, DC.
10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative,
honorary or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State,
or local governments, other than those listed above.
March 1959 until August 1962, Infantry Officer, United States Army,
Fort Benning, Georgia and Baumholder, Germany.
October 1966 until March 1971, Press Secretary to Senator Richard
B. Russell, Washington, DC.
March 1971 until May 1972, Deputy Director of Public Information,
Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
March 1973 until January 1975, Deputy Special Assistant to the
President, The White House, Washington, DC.
January 1981 until February 1982, Deputy Assistant to the
President, The White House, Washington, DC.
February 1982 until August 1983, Assistant Secretary of State for
Legislative Affairs, Washington, DC.
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
None.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
Metropolitan Club of Washington, DC; Belle Haven Country Club,
Alexandria, Virginia; 116 Club, Washington, DC.
13. Political affiliations and activities:
(a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or
any public office for which you have been a candidate.
None.
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5
years.
August 1996, Official Proceedings Staff, Republican National
Convention, San Diego, California.
September 1, 1998 to present, Political Fund Designee, Tennesseans
for Thompson, Nashville, Tennessee/Washington, DC.
February 2000, Volunteer Surrogate Program Manager, McCain 2000
Committee, Alexandria, Virginia.
August 2000, Official Proceedings Staff, Republican National
Committee, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
(c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $100 or more for the past 5 years.
03/11/96 - Isakson for Senate Committee - $500.00.
04/17/96 - Republican Network to Elect Women (RENEW) - $250.00.
04/22/96 - Helms for Senate Committee - $500.00.
04/22/96 - Congressman Chris Cox Committee - $250.00.
05/02/96 - Re-elect Thurmond Committee - $1,000.00.
05/02/96 - Friends of John Warner 96 Committee - $1,000.00.
06/12/96 - Chambliss for Congress Committee - $500.00.
07/12/96 - Sheila Frahm for U.S. Senate Committee - $250.00.
07/18/96 - Coverdell Good Government Committee - $250.00.
09/09/96 - Bereuter for Congress Committee - $250.00.
09/11/96 - Guy Milner for Senate Committee - $500.00.
10/01/97 - Friends of Jim Bunning Committee - $250.00.
03/03/97 - The Tom Sawyer Committee - $100.00.
03/05/97 - Craig for U.S. Senate Committee - $500.00.
05/15/97 - Coverdell Good Government Committee - $500.00.
10/01/97 - Coverdell Good Government Committee - $250.00.
10/20/97 - Republican Party of Virginia - $150.00.
10/30/97 - Coverdell Good Government Committee - $250.00.
11/14/97 - Stevens for Senate Committee - $250.00.
12/04/97 - Rustoven for Senate Committee - $250.00.
05/07/98 - Bob Kerrey for U.S. Senate Committee - $500.00.
06/22/98 - Northern Lights Political Action Committee - $250.00.
14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals, and any other special
recognitions for outstanding service or achievements.
None.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
To the best of my recollection, everything I have written since
coming to Washington more than 34 years ago has been written in the
name of clients or public officials for whom I worked. I do not recall
anything that has been published in my name. When I was a young man in
my mid-twenties, more than 36 years ago, I was a weekly newspaper
editor in Milledgeville, Georgia. In this capacity, I routinely wrote
news articles, editorials, and a weekly column, but I do not have
practical access to these writings.
16. Speeches: Provide the committee with two copies of any formal
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have
copies of and are on topics relevant to the position for which you have
been nominated.
June 6, 1998 - Commencement Address - Georgia Military College,
Milledgeville, Georgia. [Nominee responded and the information is
contained in the committee's executive files.]
August 11, 1999 - U.S. Capitol Historical Society, Washington, DC,
Subject: Richard B. Russell as part of a series on the Members of
Congress for whom the six Congressional office buildings are named.
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the committee's
executive files.]
17. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree,
if confirmed, to respond to requests to appear and testify before any
duly constituted committee of the Senate?
Yes.
______
[The nominee responded to the questions in Parts B-F of the
committee questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set
forth in the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to
Parts B-F are contained in the committee's executive files.]
------
Signature and Date
I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate,
and complete.
Powell A. Moore.
This 23rd day of April, 2001.
[The nomination of Powell A. Moore was reported to the
Senate by Senator John Warner on May 1, 2001, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on May 1, 2001.]
PENDING MILITARY NOMINATIONS
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 1, 2001
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:20 a.m., in
room SH-216, Hart Senate Office Building, Senator John Warner
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Committee members present: Senators Warner, Inhofe,
Santorum, Roberts, Allard, Sessions, Collins, Bunning, Levin,
Lieberman, Reed, Akaka, Bill Nelson, E. Benjamin Nelson, and
Dayton.
Committee staff members present: Romie L. Brownlee, staff
director; Judith A. Ansley, deputy staff director; Anita R.
Raiford, deputy chief clerk; and Scott W. Stucky, general
counsel.
Professional staff members present: Charles S. Abell,
Charles W. Alsup, John R. Barnes, Ambrose R. Hock, George W.
Lauffer, Patricia L. Lewis, Thomas L. MacKenzie, and Richard F.
Walsh.
Minority staff members present: David S. Lyles, staff
director for the minority; Peter K. Levine, minority counsel;
Creighton Greene, professional staff member; and Michael J.
McCord, professional staff member.
Staff assistants present: Beth Ann Barozie, Thomas C.
Moore, Jennifer L. Naccari, and Michele A. Traficante.
Committee members' assistants present: Dino L. Carluccio,
assistant to Senator Smith; Robert Alan McCurry, assistant to
Senator Roberts; Douglas Flanders and Charles Cogar, assistants
to Senator Allard; Arch Galloway II and Scott Douglass,
assistants to Senator Sessions; Kristine Fauser, assistant to
Senator Collins; Derek Maurer, assistant to Senator Bunning;
Menda S. Fife, assistant to Senator Kennedy; Barry Gene (B.G.)
Wright, assistant to Senator Byrd; Frederick M. Downey,
assistant to Senator Lieberman; Elizabeth King, assistant to
Senator Reed; Davelyn Noelani Kalipi, assistant to Senator
Akaka; William K. Sutey, assistant to Senator Bill Nelson; and
Brady King, assistant to Senator Dayton.
Chairman Warner. I would like the committee to consider the
following nominations for voting and hopefully sending these
nominations to the floor.
First, Edward C. Aldridge, to be Under Secretary of Defense
for Acquisition and Technology; Dr. Dov Zackheim, to be Under
Secretary of Defense, Comptroller; Charles S. Abell, former
member of our committee staff, to be Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Force Management Policy; Ms. Victoria Clark, to be
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs; William J.
Haynes II, to be General Counsel to the Department of Defense;
and Powell A. Moore, to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Legislative Affairs.
I advise the committee that we have had hearings on all of
them. The record has been before the committee for several
days. No questions have been raised by any committee member or
anyone else.
We are also ready to consider 773 pending military
nominations. These nominations have been before the committee
the required length of time. No objection has been raised
regarding them.
I ask unanimous consent that we consider these nominations
en bloc.
I ask first, Senator Levin, do you have any comment?
Senator Levin. No. I would support that and so move.
Senator Bunning. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Warner. Yes.
Senator Bunning. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to inquire
of the 773 military nominations if we have had any adverse
material submitted with any of them.
Chairman Warner. Not the 773, but there is one individual
that was a part of the block submitted by the President that
has been deleted for further consideration by the committee.
Senator Bunning. So, all 773 have no adverse information?
Chairman Warner. That is correct.
Senator Bunning. OK, thank you.
Chairman Warner. Any further comment by members of the
committee?
[No response.]
If not, all those in favor, say aye.
[A chorus of ayes.]
Opposed?
[No response.]
The ayes have it. The nominations are approved by the
committee. They will be sent to the floor. I will be meeting
with the Majority Leader in the hopes that we can schedule
these at an early date.
I thank you.
[Nominations referred to follow:]
1. In the Army there are 482 appointments to the grade of
colonel (list begins with Donald M. Adkins) (Reference No.
160).
2. Rear Admiral Malcolm I. Fages, USN to be appointed to
the grade of vice admiral (Reference No. 206).
3. In the USAF there are 55 appointments to the grade of
colonel (list begins with Gregory O. Allen) (Reference No.
207).
4. In the ARNG there are 3 appointments to the grade of
colonel (list begins with James R. Guise) (Reference No. 208).
5. In the USA there are 2 appointments to the grade of
colonel (list begins with Michael Child) (Reference No. 209).
6. In the Marine Corps Reserve there are 5 appointments to
the grade of colonel (list begins with Walter T. Ellingson)
(Reference No. 210).
7. In the Naval Reserve there are 2 appointments to the
grade of captain (list begins with Manuel E. R. Alsina)
(Reference No. 211).
8. Rear Admiral Keith W. Lippert, USN to be appointed to
the grade of vice admiral (Reference No. 218).
9. In the USAF there are 4 appointments to the grade of
colonel and below (list begins with Steven D. Carey) (Reference
No. 224).
10. In the ARNG there is 1 appointment to the grade of
colonel (Joe L. Smothers) (Reference No. 225).
11. In the ARNG there are 9 appointments to the grade of
colonel (list begins with Louis A. Abbenante) (Reference No.
226).
12. In the USMC there are 15 appointments to the grade of
lieutenant colonel (list begins with Dennis G. Adams)
(Reference No. 227).
13. In the USMC there are 33 appointments to the grade of
major (list begins with Charles E. Brown) (Reference No. 228).
14. In the Naval Reserves there is 1 appointment to the
grade of captain (David C. Barton) (Reference No. 229).
15. In the USN there is 1 appointment to the grade of
lieutenant commander (James W. Hudson) (Reference No. 230).
16. In the USN there is 1 appointment to the grade of
lieutenant commander (Sheila C. Hecht) (Reference No. 231).
17. In the USN there is 1 appointment to the grade of
lieutenant commander (Paul R. Faneuf) (Reference No. 232).
18. In the USN there are 2 appointments to the grade of
lieutenant commander (list begins with Daniel L. Bower)
(Reference No. 233).
19. In the USN there are 9 appointments to the grade of
lieutenant (list begins with Kyle P. Durand) (Reference No.
234).
20. In the USN there are 17 appointments to the grade of
captain and below (list begins with Eduardo C. Cuison)
(Reference No. 235).
21. In the USA there are 121 appointments to the grade of
colonel and below (list begins with Margretta M. Diemer)
(Reference No. 244).
22. Major General Donald A. Lamontagne, USAF to be
appointed to the grade of lieutenant general (Reference No.
252).
23. Lieutenant General Lance W. Lord, USAF to be
reappointed to the grade of lieutenant general (Reference No.
253).
24. Major General Brian A. Arnold, USAF to be appointed to
the grade of lieutenant general (Reference No. 254).
25. Major General Timothy A. Kinnan, USAF to be appointed
to the grade of lieutenant general (Reference No. 255).
26. Major General Richard V. Reynolds, USAF to be appointed
to the grade of lieutenant general (Reference No. 256).
27. Lieutenant General William J. Begert, USAF to be
appointed to the grade of general (Reference No. 257).
28. Major General Garry L. Parks, USMC to be appointed to
the grade of lieutenant general (Reference No. 259).
TOTAL: 773
[The nomination reference of Edward C. Aldridge follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
April 23, 2001.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Edward C. Aldridge, of Virginia, to be Under Secretary of Defense
for Acquisition and Technology, vice Jacques Gansler.
______
[The nomination reference of Dr. Dov S. Zakheim follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
March 13, 2001.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Dr. Dov S. Zakheim, of Maryland, to be Under Secretary of Defense
(Comptroller), vice William J. Lynn III.
______
[The nomination reference of Charles S. Abell follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
March 29, 2001.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Charles S. Abell, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of
Defense, vice Alphonso Maldon, Jr.
______
[The nomination reference of Victoria Clarke follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
April 5, 2001.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Victoria Clarke, of Maryland, to be an Assistant Secretary of
Defense, vice Kenneth H. Bacon.
______
[The nomination reference of William J. Haynes II follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
April 23, 2001.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
William J. Haynes II, of Tennessee, to be General Counsel of the
Department of Defense, vice Douglas A. Dworkin.
______
[The nomination reference of Powell A. Moore follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
April 23, 2001.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Powell A. Moore, of Georgia, to be an Assistant Secretary of
Defense, vice John K. Veroneau.
[Whereupon, at 10:22 a.m., the committee recessed, to
resume in open public hearing.]
NOMINATIONS OF DR. DAVID S.C. CHU TO BE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR
PERSONNEL AND READINESS; THOMAS E. WHITE, JR., TO BE SECRETARY OF THE
ARMY; GORDON R. ENGLAND TO BE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY; DR. JAMES G. ROCHE
TO BE SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE; AND ALFRED V. RASCON TO BE DIRECTOR
OF SELECTIVE SERVICE
----------
THURSDAY, MAY 10, 2001
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., in
room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator John
Warner (chairman) presiding.
Committee members present: Senators Warner, McCain, Smith,
Inhofe, Allard, Hutchinson, Collins, Levin, Cleland, Bill
Nelson, and Carnahan.
Other Senators present: Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison, Phil
Gramm, Paul Sarbanes, and Barbara Mikulski.
Also present: Representative Roscoe Bartlett.
Committee staff members present: Romie L. Brownlee, staff
director; Judith A. Ansley, deputy staff director; and Scott W.
Stucky, general counsel.
Professional staff members present: George W. Lauffer,
Patricia L. Lewis, Thomas L. MacKenzie, Cord A. Sterling, and
Richard F. Walsh.
Minority staff members present: David S. Lyles, staff
director for the minority; Madelyn R. Creedon, minority
counsel; Gerald J. Leeling, minority counsel; Peter K. Levine,
minority counsel; Daniel J. Cox, Jr., professional staff
member; Creighton Greene, professional staff member; and
Michael J. McCord, professional staff member.
Staff assistants present: Kristi M. Freddo, Suzanne K.L.
Ross, and Michele A. Traficante.
Committee members' assistants present: Christopher J. Paul,
assistant to Senator McCain; Margaret Hemenway, assistant to
Senator Smith; John A. Bonsell, assistant to Senator Inhofe;
George M. Bernier III, assistant to Senator Santorum; Michael
P. Ralsky, assistant to Senator Hutchinson; Scott Douglass,
assistant to Senator Sessions; Kristine Fauser, assistant to
Senator Collins; David Young, assistant to Senator Bunning;
Andrew Vanlandingham, assistant to Senator Cleland; Elizabeth
King, assistant to Senator Reed; and Peter A. Contostavlos,
assistant to Senator Bill Nelson.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN WARNER, CHAIRMAN
Senator Inhofe. Mr. Chairman, I chair the Transportation
and Infrastructure Committee, one of the committees you used to
chair, and we had already set for this exact time our
reauthorization hearing, so there are several who will be going
back and forth. We regret it. I just wanted to mention that.
Chairman Warner. We also apologize to many who desired to
be in this hearing room. We do the best we can here in the
Senate, and due to the number of hearings we are having, we
were unable to get a larger room. Nevertheless, members of the
committee welcome this distinguished group of nominees. I have
visited with all and congratulations are going to our President
and Secretary of Defense.
We have Dr. David Chu, who has been nominated to be Under
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness; Thomas E.
White, Jr., to be Secretary of the Army; Gordon R. England, to
be Secretary of the Navy; Dr. James G. Roche, to be Secretary
of the Air Force; and Alfred V. Rascon, to be Director of the
Selective Service. We welcome you all.
Dr. Chu, I understand you have here members of your family.
Would you kindly introduce them and ask them to stand up,
please.
Dr. Chu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My wife; our daughter,
Carolyn; and our son, Jonathan.
Chairman Warner. We welcome you this morning. These are
very important hearings. They are landmark events not only in
the lives of nominees, but the families. Families are very much
a part of the team that works with the Secretary of Defense. I
had breakfast with the Secretary earlier this morning, and he
is full of energy. He suggested I get back here in time to get
started. I am anxious to have you join him.
Mr. White, I understand that you have family here, too, if
you would be kind enough to introduce them.
Mr. White. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am joined by my wife,
Susan, and our daughter, Kate.
Chairman Warner. Mr. England, I understand you have your
wife.
Mr. England. Yes, sir, I do. I have my wife, Dottie, with
me. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Warner. We welcome you.
Dr. Roche.
Dr. Roche. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have my bride, Diane,
and our daughter, Heather. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Warner. Mr. Rascon.
Mr. Rascon. Sir, I have my wife, Carol; my daughter,
Amanda; and my son, Alan.
Chairman Warner. I am going to put the balance of my
statement into the record, and following my statement, the
prepared statements of Senators Thurmond, Santorum, and Allard.
We want to move here quickly this morning. Generally just a
summary of the distinguished biographies that each of you have
and bring to bear in these positions.
[The prepared statement of Senator Warner follows:]
Prepared Statement by Senator John Warner
The committee will come to order.
The committee meets today to receive testimony concerning five very
important nominations.
I am pleased that we have before the committee this morning the
nominees to serve as the civilian leaders of all three military
departments an important part of the fine ``board of directors''
Secretary Rumsfeld is assembling to help him run the Department. We are
also pleased to have two nominees for other key positions. Assuming
Senate confirmation--which I support--you will be joining an excellent,
experienced team at the Pentagon.
Dr. David S.C. Chu has been nominated to be Under Secretary of
Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Thomas E. White, Jr., to be
Secretary of the Army, Gordon R. England to be Secretary of the Navy,
Dr. James G. Roche to be Secretary of the Air Force, and Alfred V.
Rascon to be Director of Selective Service.
We welcome the nominees and their families.
Dr. Chu, I understand that your wife, Dr. Laura Tosi, your daughter
Carolyn, and your son Jonathan are here with you today.
Mr. White, I understand that your wife Susan and daughter Katie are
here with you today.
Mr. England, I understand that your wife Dottie is with you today.
Dr. Roche, I understand that your wife Diane and daughter Heather
are here with you today.
Mr. Rascon, I understand your wife Carol Richardson-Rascon,
daughter Amanda, and son Alan are here with you. I am also informed
today is Alan's 10th birthday, so please accept my congratulations.
Family support is critical to the success of individuals in senior
positions in our government and we appreciate the support and
sacrifices of the families of these distinguished nominees.
Dr. Chu you are returning for a second tour at the Pentagon. Dr.
Chu began his public service career as the Director of Program Analysis
and Evaluation in the Office of the Secretary of Defense during the
Reagan administration. He was then appointed Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Program Analysis and Evaluation by President George Bush
Senior. Dr. Chu is currently the Vice President of RAND's Army Research
Division and Director of the Arroyo Center. He has had a distinguished
career in both the public and private sector.
Thomas E. White, Jr., also possesses both a notable private sector
career and an equally distinguished Army career, which began as a
commissioned officer upon graduation from West Point in 1967. He then
went on to serve his country in uniform for 23 years, including 2 years
of service in combat operations in Vietnam. He retired as a Brigadier
General in 1990. He is currently serving as the Vice Chairman at Enron
Energy Services.
Gordon R. England has had a distinguished career in business,
beginning as an engineer working on the Gemini space program with the
Honeywell Corporation. He then held several important positions with
the General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin Corporations working on
programs vital to the armed services. He has served as a member of the
Defense Science Board and on the USO's Board of Governors. Mr. England
recently departed the position of Executive Vice President of General
Dynamics, where he served for 4 years.
Dr. James G. Roche began his career with 23 years of active duty
service in the Navy. He commanded the destroyer U.S.S. Buchanan (DDG-
14), and held senior policy positions within the Departments of Defense
and State prior to retiring in 1983 at the rank of captain. I recall
with pleasure his service on this committee as Minority Staff Director
under Senator Scoop Jackson. He is currently the Corporate Vice
President and President of the Electronic Sensors and Systems Sector
with the Northrop Grumman Corporation. I am pleased such a
distinguished individual would once again answer the call to public
service.
I extend a particularly warm welcome to our final nominee, Alfred
V. Rascon, a recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor. In 1966, as
an Army medic, ``Doc'' Rascon demonstrated extraordinary valor in
saving the lives of his fellow soldiers during combat in Long Khanh,
Vietnam. It is a testament to his bravery that his former platoon
mates, upon hearing that Mr. Rascon's nomination for the Medal of Honor
had been lost, doggedly pursued it to fruition. He has subsequently had
a distinguished career serving his country as a Special Agent with the
Immigration and Naturalization Service and as an Intelligence
Operations Specialist with the Drug Enforcement Agency. Most recently
he served as Inspector General of the Selective Service.
Our nominees have a wealth of experience, and I believe each of
them will excel in the positions to which they have been nominated. We
welcome our nominees and their families and look forward to their
comments and responses today.
______
Prepared Statement by Senator Strom Thurmond
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I join you and the ranking member, Senator Levin, in
welcoming our distinguished group of nominees. I am especially pleased
that we are considering the nominations to fill the positions of the
service secretaries. As the Department is finalizing the budget for the
fiscal year 2002, it is essential that a secretary that can speak with
total authority represents the service at the bargaining table.
Dr. Chu, I want to welcome you back before the committee. You have
a distinguished record and have been a voice to be reckoned with during
your prior tour in the Department of Defense. I hope you will not shirk
from speaking out after you are confirmed to the important position of
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness.
Dr. Roche, Mr. England, Mr. White, I had the pleasure of meeting
with each of you and want to reemphasize my support for your
nominations. You will be taking the helm of your respective services at
the critical juncture during which President Bush and Secretary
Rumsfeld will transform our National Security Strategy and military
services to meet the challenges of an ever-changing world. I am
confident you will instill a new era of doing business within the
Department and reverse the declining readiness and quality of life.
Mr. Rascon, the Selective Service System is the only time-proven
means of mobilizing this Nation's manpower for a significant crisis. I
view the Selective Service as the country's third tier of defense after
the volunteer Active and Reserve Forces. Your challenge will be no less
great than that of the service secretaries.
Mr. Chairman, I join you in congratulating each of our nominees. I
also want to thank them for their willingness to take on the challenges
of the position for which they have been nominated. More importantly, I
want to express my appreciation for both the professional and personal
sacrifices they are making to serve our Nation and the men and women
who proudly wear the uniforms of the United States military.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
______
Prepared Statement by Senator Rick Santorum
Chairman Warner, thank you for convening this important hearing. As
our committee has heard from both the Secretary of Defense and the
Deputy Secretary of Defense, the confirmation process has been
painstakingly slow. Today's hearing will go a long way towards
providing top-flight civilian leadership in key positions in the
Pentagon.
As we have heard, President Bush and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld
have argued that the military must be more efficient in buying weapons
and providing health care, housing and other services to its personnel.
For that reason, the President's nomination of several former business
executives for positions within the Pentagon is widely viewed as a
first step towards new management policies.
This philosophy is apparent with the nomination of Jim Roche to be
Secretary of the Air Force, Gordon England to be Secretary of the Navy,
and Thomas White to be Secretary of the Army. As the Chairman of the
Airland Subcommittee, I have frequently heard that the Pentagon doesn't
understand or appreciate the needs of our defense industrial base. Each
of the service secretary nominees has experience in the defense
industry and is well-equipped to work with our industry as we begin the
process of transforming our military capabilities to meet 21st century
threats.
While not members of industry, Dr. Chu and Mr. Rascon have
impressive public sector service records and are by all accounts well-
qualified for the positions to which they have been nominated.
I look forward to a productive working relationship with each of
today's nominees.
______
Prepared Statement by Senator Wayne Allard
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank all of you for coming here today. The duties that
you have agreed to accept responsibility for are very important to the
United States and I appreciate your willingness to take them on. I look
forward to hearing your perception of the current readiness and
relevance of our forces and hearing your thoughts on updating and
improving them.
As the Strategic Subcommittee Chairman, I am particularly
interested in your concerns as they relate to our strategic forces and
their ability to defend the ``homeland'' and support the CINCs.
Every time my pager goes off I am reminded of the importance of
space operations to our economy and to the defense of this great
nation. Earlier this week Secretary Rumsfeld provided us with his
assessment of the report of the Commission to Assess United States
National Security Space Management and Organization. I am very pleased
with Secretary Rumsfeld's recommendations. Many of these
recommendations were encouraged by the NRO Commission and Space
Commission and stressed by me during his confirmation hearing. He is
recognizing the long-term security needs of our Nation and unlike some
Senators I think this is the smart thing to do.
So, gentlemen, I thank you for your willingness to serve, and I
look forward to hearing what you have to say.
Chairman Warner. Senator Levin.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN
Senator Levin. Mr. Chairman, I am going to put my
statements about each of our nominees into the record as well.
They are well-qualified, and I look forward to having them at
this hearing. I also want to add my thanks to their families
for the contributions that they will be making to the service
of each of these nominees. I believe also if I could just say
one additional quick comment that Mr. Rascon is a Medal of
Honor winner, is that correct?
Mr. Rascon. Yes, sir.
[The prepared statement of Senator Levin follows:]
Prepared Statement by Senator Carl Levin
Mr. Chairman, I join you in welcoming our nominees to the committee
this morning. I also want to extend a warm welcome to their families
who are with them today.
Dr. Chu, nominated to be the Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness, comes to us from Rand. Rand is known for high-
quality, objective research on national security issues. Dr. Chu, once
you are confirmed, you change from the position of making
recommendations in a more or less academic environment to a position of
putting those recommendations into practice.
Mr. White comes to us from the Enron Corporation. Fortune magazine
has named Enron ``America's Most Innovative Company'' for 6 consecutive
years. Mr. White, I hope that you bring that same innovation to the
Army as you lead it through its transformation. I also want to
congratulate Mr. White for having the good sense to be born in Detroit,
Michigan. It is always nice to see native Michiganders appointed to
high positions.
Mr. England comes to us from the General Dynamics Corporation,
where he recently served as vice president and where he was responsible
for two major sectors of the corporation. His biography reflects his
steady hand at managing many different programs. Mr. England, your
experience at managing these diverse programs will serve you well as
you manage the air, land, and sea functions of the Navy.
Dr. Roche comes to us from Northrop Grumman. He has quite a list of
notable accomplishments, culminating in his service as corporate vice
president and president, Electronic Sensors and Systems Sector of
Northrop Grumman. I'm convinced that the single most important
experience that prepared him for his positions of great responsibility
was his service as the Democratic Staff Director for this committee,
where he was trained by Senators Scoop Jackson and Sam Nunn.
Mr. Rascon recently retired as the Inspector General of the
Selective Service System. This service should give him great insight
into the responsibilities of the position for which he has been
nominated. I would be remiss if I didn't mention that Mr. Rascon has
been awarded the Medal of Honor for acts of valor as an Army medic in
Vietnam. Mr. Rascon, it is indeed an honor to be here with you today.
Mr. Chairman, we have five well-qualified candidates for important
positions that the President is anxious to fill. I look forward to
hearing from our nominees and acting on their nominations in the near
future. Thank you.
Senator Levin. I just probably shouldn't say anything about
any of these nominees because I have good things to say about
all of them. It is always an honor to be in the presence of
someone who has shown the kind of extraordinary valor that is
reflected in the Medal of Honor.
Mr. Rascon. Thank you very much, sir.
Chairman Warner. I certainly associate myself with those
remarks. I know the Secretary well. He wishes you well this
morning.
Mr. Rascon. Thank you very much.
Chairman Warner. My colleagues, do you have any comments?
Then we will ask our distinguished colleague, the senior
Senator from Maryland, to begin.
STATEMENT OF PAUL S. SARBANES, U.S. SENATOR FROM MARYLAND
Senator Sarbanes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman,
members of the committee. Recognizing the time constraints you
are operating under, to which the Chairman alluded, I'll be
very brief. I have to take a couple of moments to say good
things about Jim Roche. This is an absolutely superb
nomination, and I can't think of anyone better qualified to be
the Secretary of the Air Force.
He has had an incredibly distinguished career, including
more than two decades of service in the United States Navy. He
was even the Democratic staff director of this committee at one
point, so for all the staffs sitting back there at the chairs,
this is what eventually might transpire.
He has done an absolutely superb job at Northrop Grumman.
He has actually received a Ph.D. in management from the Harvard
Business School. He has put a lot of those practices on line in
his corporate work at Northrop Grumman for almost two decades
now and he has done what is recognized in the corporate world
as an outstanding job of leadership.
The people at Northrop Grumman in our State all testified
to the superb example that he sets, and I can't tell you how
pleased we are. We are going to lose him, and we regret that,
lose him in the sense of having him as a leading corporate
citizen in the State, but of course, the Nation will gain
tremendously.
One of the things he does is he takes his business
colleagues around, and instructs them on a lot of military
command, including visiting famous battlefields. Jim's been
quoted as saying the business relevance of studying military
command is clear. No soldier ever lost a battle. Officers lose
battles. No employee ever bankrupted a company. Executives ruin
companies. That is just one example of the kind of innovative
thinking that he has brought to his responsibilities. The Air
Force, the Nation, and the country are going to benefit greatly
from his leadership, and I have just come this morning to
endorse him in a the very strongest terms.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. We also have the other distinguished
Senator from Maryland with us. Senator Mikulski. We welcome
you.
STATEMENT OF BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, U.S. SENATOR FROM MARYLAND
Senator Mikulski. Good morning, Senator Warner, Senator
Levin, and other members of the committee. I am here to
enthusiastically introduce Dr. Jim Roche to the committee, as
well as also introduce Alfred Rascon, who is also a brother
Marylander.
In terms of Dr. Roche's nomination, Senator Sarbanes has
outlined the experience. In knowing Dr. Roche as both a
corporate executive, as well as a real citizen of Maryland
through his civic engagement, I was struck in getting to know
him by his extensive background.
He has great knowledge of the military. He has combat
experience, both in the military and then in his role as a
Senate staffer on both the Intelligence and Armed Services
Committees. That is another kind of combat experience. It will
be great to have someone who understands the role of Congress
and brings great expertise to the position.
What I have noticed, and also in our many conversations, is
that Dr. Roche understands the issues facing today's military,
as one who served and yet at the same time had to provide the
new technologies, the new smart weapons. He understands the
tremendous demands on our military and the changing face of
military families. He has been acknowledged as one of the most
creative intellectuals in the aerospace community by his
colleagues and by industry analysts. Also in terms of his own
community involvement, he has absolutely engaged in not only
helping those left out and left behind by groups like United
Way, but as a mentor, as an involver in higher education to
really look at how we can raise this next generation of young
people to be the most intellectually capable and dedicated to
service.
I asked Dr. Roche a few weeks ago why he was considering
leaving his job as an executive to take this. I said, you are
in charge of your life. You are in charge of your calendar. You
have worked hard all of your life, and you know what he said?
He says you have to have a burning affection for the United
States of America, and for the kids who we ask to go to war,
and I'd like to play a role for them. So we think he will be an
outstanding Secretary of the Air Force and look forward to
introducing him and voting for him.
Also, Alfred Rascon comes to you today as a Congressional
Medal of Honor winner. As a former DEA agent, as a resident of
Maryland who has been active in many ways in the leadership of
our Nation and our country, he is a defender. He is a
protector. He is a fighter. The Selective Service needs to be
re-energized. As the appropriator on the Appropriations
Committee's VA-HUD Subcommittee, I look forward to working with
him to re-energize it. We believe his leadership will rekindle
even a greater sense of what young people need to have as
service to the Nation.
So as the junior Senator from Maryland, I couldn't be
prouder of bringing these two men to your attention.
Chairman Warner. You certainly come through in your
statement. The committee welcomes our two colleagues from
Maryland and thank you for your valuable contributions. I note
the presence of the distinguished senior Senator from the State
of Texas, Mr. Gramm.
STATEMENT OF PHIL GRAMM, U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS
Senator Gramm. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. It's a
great honor for me to be back before the Armed Services
Committee, a committee which I had the privilege to serve on
for 6 years.
I am here to introduce and recommend a Texan, Tom White, to
this committee. Tom is Vice Chairman of Enron Energy Services
and leads a management team that runs the largest retail energy
business in America.
He is a 1967 engineering graduate of the United States
Military Academy. He has a Masters of Science degree in
operations research from the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School. He
attended the War College. He served with distinction in
Vietnam. He retired as a general officer before coming to
Enron, and he has that rare combination of practical experience
in the military and proven leadership in the private sector of
the economy. I think it is fair to say, Mr. Chairman, that Tom
White is one of the most outstanding managers in corporate
America.
I thanked him earlier this morning for being willing to
give up tremendous earning power to come and serve the country,
and I want to commend him to you. He is what we would call in
Texas a top hand. He is the kind of guy you want when you want
something done. I have no doubt in my mind, Mr. Chairman, that
he will do an outstanding job as Secretary of the Army.
He is a person that knows how to manage people and
resources, and when our job is taking the money we have and
building the finest Army we can build with those resources, I
don't have any doubt in my mind that Tom White can do an
outstanding job, and therefore I commend him to you.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator Gramm.
Congressman Bartlett.
STATEMENT OF ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
MARYLAND
Mr. Bartlett. Thank you very much. I have a statement for
the record if that might be entered.
Chairman Warner. Without objection, we will include it.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bartlett follows:]
Prepared Statement by Representative Roscoe Bartlett
Members of the Senate Armed Service Committee, I take great
pleasure in introducing to you President Bush's nominee for Director of
the Selective Service, Alfred Rascon. He is also one of my most honored
and decorated constituents.
Alfred V. Rascon is a Medal of Honor Recipient, who was born in
Chihuahua, Mexico. His parents immigrated to the United States,
settling in Oxnard, California, where Mr. Rascon attended elementary
and high school. His strong desire to give back to our country led
Alfred to enlist in the U.S. Army. Mr. Rascon served our country
faithfully during the Vietnam War, and his heroic actions during his
service there resulted in presentation of this Nation's highest award
for valor, the Medal of Honor. It was belatedly presented to him by
former President Clinton on February 8, 2000.
Mr. Rascon received the Congressional Medal of Honor for his
gallantry during the Vietnam War. He served as a Specialist Four medic
to a reconnaissance platoon in the 173rd Airborne Brigade. On March 16,
1966, Mr. Rascon's platoon came under heavy fire from numerically
superior force while moving to reinforce another battalion.
Disregarding his own safety, Mr. Rascon ran to assist his fellow
soldiers under heavy enemy fire. He was wounded numerous times. Three
separate times, he fell on fellow soldiers using his own body to shield
them from heavy machine gun and grenade attacks. He recovered
ammunition, so that his comrades would not be overrun. Though severely
wounded, he continued to search for other wounded comrades to assist.
He later refused aid for himself or evacuation and continued to provide
assistance to his fellow soldiers until he collapsed.
The paperwork for Mr. Rascon's original recommendation for the
Congressional Medal of Honor was lost in the Pentagon. It was only
recognized recently due to the efforts of members of his platoon, who
testify to this day that they are alive only because of Mr. Rascon's
heroism. I was pleased to assist in remediating this problem and even
more pleased to learn that he has been nominated for Director of the
Selective Service.
From 1983 to the present, Mr. Rascon has served honorably as a
government civil servant. He has worked with Department of Justice,
Drug Enforcement Administration, INTERPOL (U.S. National Central
Bureau), and the Immigration and Naturalization Service. He recently
retired as Inspector General of the Selective Service System,
headquartered in Rosslyn, Virginia. He has received myriad awards and
commendations from U.S. and foreign agencies for his civil and military
service. Alfred Rascon truly embodies the values that make America
great and would be a valuable asset to this administration.
We live in a world today where too many of the role models of our
children commit notorious acts or act totally out of self-interest. It
is men such as Alfred Rascon who show us what role models are supposed
to be. He regarded the lives of others as more important than his own
and acted totally out of his care for then. He did not seek attention
when his paperwork was lost in the Pentagon. Indeed, in no way has he
ever tried to glorify himself or take credit for his actions. His
friends and those whose lives he had saved in Vietnam had to bring to
light the fact that his heroism had gone unrewarded by his country.
We must constantly remind ourselves and educate our children that
we are privileged to live in the greatest and most tree country on
Earth only because of the service and sacrifices of brave individuals,
such as Alfred Rascon. Our country can never truly reward this man or
those like him who have sacrificed so much for us. The only thing we
can do is to never forget them.
We are very fortunate to have a man like Mr. Rascon serving our
country. His service to our country, both in the military and as a
civil servant, has been exemplary. I would like to take this
opportunity to thank him for his service and for his willingness to
continue his service to our Nation.
I would also like to thank the committee and Alfred for allowing me
to introduce him today.
Mr. Bartlett. Thank you very much. Let me just speak
briefly then.
I am really pleased today to be able to introduce to you
Alfred Rascon, who is not only a great American hero, he is
also my constituent. He was born in Mexico, came to this
country with his parents. Before he was a citizen of this
country because he appreciated so much what he found here, he
entered our armed services and served in Vietnam. While there
as a medic, the group he was with was involved in a heavy
firefight, and although he was a medic, he threw his body over
the bodies of several of his comrades to protect them. He went
out and retrieved a gun and ammunition and he probably was
credited with saving many lives, not just by his heroic action
in shielding them with his body, but also retrieving guns and
ammunition so that they had more firepower.
The paperwork for his Medal of Honor was lost. Never once
did he come forward to say ``why wasn't I recognized for
this.'' It was his buddies who came forward years later to make
the statement, ``why wasn't he recognized.'' I am pleased to
have had a part in remedying that inequity and just a couple of
years ago, I attended the Medal of Honor ceremony where he was
given the Medal of Honor and you know, what a great individual
and what an opportunity we have.
Now I am really pleased to introduce him to you as the head
of the Selective Service. He has exemplified all of those
things that our forefathers came here to fight for. We talk
about role models for our kids today. Many of our role models
fail us. Alfred Rascon has not failed us. He is a role model we
can all be proud of and I don't think we could do better for an
individual to head this very important service. Thank you very
much.
Chairman Warner. Congressman Bartlett, thank you for
joining us and for giving us those facts. There is not a person
in this room or anyone watching the proceeding from afar that
isn't humbled and deeply moved by being in the presence of this
distinguished American hero.
Thank you.
We will now proceed to have the opening statements from our
witnesses. Senator Levin and I have reviewed your policy
questions. Senator Levin and I also as a matter of our routine
reviewed the communications from the White House counsel with
regard to your backgrounds, and we find all that material in
order. Any question on that?
Senator Levin. No.
Chairman Warner. Dr. Chu, if you will proceed.
STATEMENT OF DR. DAVID S.C. CHU, NOMINEE TO BE UNDER SECRETARY
OF DEFENSE FOR PERSONNEL AND READINESS
Dr. Chu. Mr. Chairman, I have no statement for the record
but with your permission, I would like to make some brief
openings remarks.
Mr. Chairman, Senator Levin, members of the committee, it
is indeed an honor to appear before you this morning as the
President's nominee for Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness.
I would like to thank the President for nominating me for
this position and Secretary Rumsfeld for his guidance,
confidence, and support. I'd also like to thank this committee
for all it has done over the years for the men and women of our
armed forces. If I am confirmed, I look forward to working with
the committee to meet the many challenges in front of us.
Finally, I'd like to thank my family for its support as I have
pursued earlier and may now again pursue a career in public
service. I am very grateful to them for their affection and
their willingness to support my service. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Dr. Chu. The committee is
privileged this morning to have joining us the distinguished
junior Senator from the State of Texas and I'll be happy to
receive your statement.
STATEMENT OF KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS
Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Chairman Warner. When the
hearing was delayed, I was chairing a meeting of the Aviation
Subcommittee.
Chairman Warner. I recognize that. We are glad you are
here.
Senator Hutchison. I appreciate so much your taking me out
of order so that I can----
Chairman Warner. You are very much in order. The senior
Senator just left the room.
Senator Levin. Your timing is really perfect in the matter.
Senator Hutchison. Since Senator Rockefeller is now in
charge of the Senate Aviation Subcommittee, I need to return
fast. No telling what's going to come out of our subcommittee
today. Seriously, I am so pleased to be here for my friend,
Gordon England, who has been nominated for Secretary of the
Navy. He and his wife Dottie have been long-time friends of
mine in Texas.
But more important than that, he is the most qualified
person to serve in this position and in the Pentagon because of
his long-time experience and expertise in engineering and just
the equipment that we are going to need as we go into the next
century.
I first came to know him when he headed General Dynamics
and later Lockheed, where the world's best tactical fighter is
made, the F-16. That program, of course, has been a model for
Air Force procurement. I am confident that he will bring the
same leadership to the Navy. After Gordon left Lockheed, he
became Executive Vice President of General Dynamics
Corporation, responsible for information systems and
international sales.
During his career, which began as an engineer on the Gemini
space program, and as an avionics design engineer, he served in
many positions within the industry, including President of
General Dynamics Land Systems, producing land combat vehicles,
and President of its Fort Worth aircraft company and Executive
Vice President of the Combat Systems Group.
Mr. England's wealth of knowledge and experience alone more
than qualifies him for this new responsibility. But more
important even than all of that is his personal commitment to
our strong national security, his vision, his character.
Throughout his career, he has not only been able to overcome
challenges, but to bring a caring and empathetic approach in
dealing with the work force.
During the period of difficult cutbacks in the Fort Worth
defense industry, he helped to create the city's business
assistance center, which helps people start or expand
businesses. I think in the coming years, the Pentagon is going
to have to make hard, tough choices about tactical aviation,
shipbuilding, and the host of modernization and transformation
issues. Here in Congress, it is critical that we have trust and
confidence in the leadership making these calls. Gordon England
is precisely the kind of visionary leader that the Navy needs,
and I am very honored that he has been nominated by the
President and given that confidence and I assure you that he
will serve with distinction.
Chairman Warner. I thank the Senator from Texas very much
for that valuable contribution.
Senator Hutchison. Mr. Chairman, could I just take leave
for 1 minute to mention Tom White. Tom is not a Texan exactly,
but he has chosen God's country for the last 10 years. So I
want to say that he is not technically a Texan.
Senator Levin. He was born in Detroit, by the way, so he
left God's country.
Senator Hutchison. He left God's country as soon as he
could, Senator Levin. But seriously, he will be an outstanding
Secretary of the Army. He is going to be introduced by others
as well as you, Senator Levin. But he has had a wonderful
military career. He graduated from West Point, rose to the rank
of Brigadier General and I can't think of a better person to be
entrusted in the position of Secretary of the Army.
Thank you.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Senator.
Mr. White.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS E. WHITE, JR., NOMINEE TO BE SECRETARY OF
THE ARMY
Mr. White. Chairman Warner, Senator Levin, members of the
Armed Services Committee, I am deeply honored and privileged to
appear before this committee. I am also extremely grateful to
the President and the Secretary of Defense for the confidence
and the trust they have shown in nominating me to serve as the
18th Secretary of the Army.
Mr. Chairman, I sincerely appreciate your very kind
introduction and that of Senator Gramm and Senator Hutchison,
and especially the introduction of my wife, Susan, and our
daughter, Katie, who are here with us today. They, along with
our two sons, Tommy and Chuck, are my supporting foundation as
we contemplate this new phase in our lives.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to any questions you and the
committee have for me concerning this nomination. I ask that my
written opening statement be submitted for the record so that
we might have more time for discussion.
[The prepared statement of Mr. White follows:]
Prepared Statement by Thomas E. White, Jr.
Chairman Warner, Senator Levin, members of the Armed Services
Committee, I am deeply honored and privileged to appear before this
committee. I am also extremely grateful to the President and Secretary
of Defense for the confidence and trust they have shown in me by
nominating me to serve as the 18th Secretary of the Army.
Mr. Chairman, I sincerely appreciate your very kind introduction,
especially the introduction of my wife, Susan, and our daughter, Katie.
They, along with our two sons, Tommy and Chuck, are my supporting
foundation as we contemplate this new phase in our lives.
If confirmed, this will be my first opportunity to serve in the
Pentagon in a position subject to confirmation by this committee. I am
fortunate to have had other valuable experiences in the Army, in the
Pentagon, and in senior leadership positions in industry that will
allow me to bring a thorough knowledge of the Department and an
understanding of best business practices to the very important
responsibilities of the office for which I have been nominated.
During my 23 years of active Army service, which included two tours
in Vietnam, command of the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment in Germany, a
number of assignments on the Army Staff, and finally, duty as the
executive assistant to then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
General Powell, I personally witnessed many changes in the Army.
I saw the Army's low points consistently counterbalanced by the
dedication, courage, and commitment of our soldiers. I saw the Army
right-size and down-size. I saw and participated in the transformation
of our Army from the Vietnam Army to the Cold War Army. Our Army today
is once again an Army in transformation, as it must be, to meet our
important responsibilities for the security of our Nation in the new
century. Seen in the context of the 225-year history of our Army, this
imperative to change is not new.
I would like to add however, that my most enduring lessons over the
years were provided by the individual sacrifices and contributions of
the American men and women I was privileged to lead, in peace and in
war. We have a very serious obligation to all of them--active, reserve,
guard, civilian, and veteran--for they are the foundation of every
capability we pursue. As the President reminded us, peace is earned by
the hard and often dangerous work of our men and women in uniform. The
old adage that people are not ``in the Army,'' they ``are the Army''
has never been more true. Taking care of people is a sacred duty I will
bear if confirmed as Secretary.
During their confirmation hearings, both Secretary Rumsfeld and
Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz eloquently described the changes our world,
our Nation and our military have undergone in the last quarter century.
They also described the President's three national security goals and
the five key supporting objectives of the Department of Defense. I am
fully committed to these goals and objectives and will lead the Army's
efforts to ensure they are integrated with our sister services and
completely accomplished.
I would like to share with this committee the objectives I will
pursue in support of the President and the Secretary of Defense, as we
work together to make the Army's vision a reality.
The first objective is to invest in people. We must attract,
develop and retain America's best and brightest. We must provide for
the quality of life and well being of soldiers, Department of Defense
civilians, veterans, and their families. We must manage personnel
turbulence and improve the predictability and stability in the lives of
soldiers and families. We must expand and develop educational
opportunities to promote the continuous personal and professional
learning required to take maximum advantage of technological advances.
We must continue to make the diversity of our people a competitive
advantage. We must achieve high-quality standards for installations and
housing, through a series of initiatives such as the Army's Residential
Communities Initiative. Finally, we must advance the development of
bold and innovative leaders. In short, there is no more important
investment than our investment in people--it is an imperative.
The second objective is to assure readiness. American forces have
always proven their unfailing ability to adapt to new conditions,
stretch limited resources to sustain operations over extended periods
of time, and always . . . always . . . accomplish their mission. Too
often however, we have paid a high price in human life during the
initial phases of almost every combat operation because we were not
ready for the changes we faced. Today, the pace of change is faster and
conditions more uncertain than ever. Assuring readiness today means a
full commitment to modernizing our equipment and weapons to maintain
the qualitative edge afforded by advances in technology, recapitalizing
the systems we need in the near- and mid-term, fully integrating the
Active and Reserve components, fully manning our combat and support
units, managing the mission cycle of units to improve the operational
and personnel tempo of our people and systems, and improving our
ability to operate in a joint and combined arena. I am committed to
readiness in the broadest sense.
The third objective is to transform the entire Army. Transformation
encompasses every aspect of our Army. It is more than merely divesting
ourselves of obsolete systems and purchasing new ones. It is more than
just an interim armored vehicle, or a beret, or a Future Combat System.
Every aspect of the Army--doctrine, organization, training, leadership,
materiel and equipment, recruiting and advertising, acquisition,
infrastructure, and much more--must all change together in a holistic
manner. The force characteristics we require to maintain strategic
dominance--responsiveness, deployability, agility, versatility,
lethality, survivability, and sustainability--can only be achieved if
we transform the entire Army--and we will.
The final objective is adopting sound business practices. The first
three objectives I mentioned can be accomplished--for a price. But that
price must be affordable. We must share the burden of achieving the
military capabilities America needs and do so in an affordable manner.
To that end I will take a hard look at opportunities for increased
outsourcing and privatization of non-core functions. We owe it to every
American to improve the manner in which we use our resources. We owe it
to every American to give our soldiers the capabilities they need to
fight, win, and live to fight again.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to testify today and
for the committee's consideration of my nomination. Let me close by
saying once again how honored I am to have been nominated by President
Bush for this position. If confirmed, I pledge to do my utmost to
fulfill the trust and confidence placed in me by the President, the
Secretary of Defense, and the men and women of our Army.
Chairman Warner. Your statement and the statements of all
will be admitted in their entirety in today's record.
Mr. White. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Mr. England.
STATEMENT OF GORDON R. ENGLAND, NOMINEE TO BE SECRETARY OF THE
NAVY
Mr. England. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. It
is my honor to be here today to seek confirmation as the 72nd
Secretary of the Navy. I want to thank Senator Hutchison for
being here and for her kind words. I would also like to express
my appreciation to the President and Secretary Rumsfeld for
this opportunity to serve our Nation, our sailors, and our
marines.
I fully support their efforts to build a military more
relevant to the threats and opportunities of the 21st century.
If confirmed, I will work closely with this committee and
Congress in bringing about this transformation and in ensuring
the security of our great country. I thank you for your kind
attention. I do look forward to your questions, and Mr.
Chairman, I do have a prepared statement for the record. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. England follows:]
Prepared Statement by Gordon R. England
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, it's my distinct honor to
appear before you today in seeking confirmation as the 72nd Secretary
of the Navy. I also want to express my appreciation to the President
and to Secretary Rumsfeld for this opportunity to serve our Nation and
our sailors and marines. I fully support the President and the
Secretary of Defense in their efforts to build a military more relevant
to the threats and opportunities of the 21st century. Should I be
confirmed, I look forward to working with this committee and Congress
to bring about this transformation within the Department of the Navy.
If confirmed, I plan to initiate four strategic thrusts in support
of the President's vision. These initiatives center on combat
capability, people, technology, and business practices.
Regarding combat capability, as this committee well knows, the
primary purpose of the Navy and Marine Corps is to deter, train for,
and when necessary, fight and win our Nation's battles. In remaining
faithful to this charge, combat capability which includes readiness,
must be our primary emphasis. If necessary resources will be shifted to
meet this objective. In all our decision-making, we will ask the
question, ``Does this task, program, organization or facility
materially contribute to improving our combat capability?'' Likewise we
will recognize that what has worked in the past may not always succeed
in the future. Therefore, the Department will invest more in technical
and doctrinal experimentation, and in new and different ways of
accomplishing our mission. Our mission will be joint--One Team, One
Fight. Along with our sister services and allies, we will organize,
equip, and train to fight jointly.
People are our most important and valuable resource. While this has
long been widely touted in the naval service, we can do a better job of
practicing what we preach. A ship pier side has absolutely no asset
value to this Nation without a well-trained and highly motivated crew.
Our Nation's investment in carriers, ships, submarines, aircraft, and
other advanced technology systems will be squandered if we do not
aggressively demonstrate our commitment to people. To tackle this, I
will emphasize ``Quality of Service''--achieving a higher quality
workplace as well as a higher quality of life for our sailors, marines,
active duty and Reserve, and civilians and all of their families. The
goal will be to create an environment where our men and women can excel
at their chosen profession, unimpeded by factors that divert their
attention from work and sap their morale. This includes competitive
compensation and quality housing, workplace resources, health care, and
training, with an operational tempo that considers the individual, as
well as family and community. This environment is based on attuned
leadership throughout our command structure that encourages information
to flow freely up and down the organization. and that values the
knowledge and expertise of the total force. Everyone in the Department
of the Navy needs to recognize that while some positions carry a
greater burden, all of our people are equal and important. No one
should be discounted because of rank or years of service. At the end of
the day, our sailors, marines, and civilians should know that their
contribution is important and feel that their work is both stimulating
and rewarding.
The application of advanced technology is central to our Nation's
military strength. Unfortunately, the application of technology in the
military has for a generation lagged its commercial availability,
sometimes by several iterations. This is most pronounced in our
combatsystems, but also includes technology for training testing and
management systems. This lag is inconsistent with the effort led by
President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld to restructure defense for a new
national security environment.
Should I be confirmed, I will focus on several areas to address
this problem. First, the Navy Department needs to draw a technological
advantage from the full spectrum of American businesses and
universities. To gain this broad participation, the unique DOD
acquisition system, with its myriad rules and regulations, needs to be
simplified and streamlined. It must and Will come more into alignment
with commercial practices. The Department will be proactive in
supporting the Under Secretary for Acquisition in implementing these
changes. Second, layers of bureaucratic decision-making, with their
inherent time delays, will be streamlined. Third. ``spiral
development,'' the fielding of available technology with planned
evolution to a final configuration, will further speed the introduction
of new technology into service.
Finally, if confirmed, I will strive to improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of DOD and DoN business practices. While the Navy
Department serves a national purpose with overarching goals well beyond
the commercial objectives of markets and profit, many commercial
business practices are still applicable.
Over the past few years, it appears that the gap between government
and industry business practices has widened, with two negative
consequences: First, inefficient Departmental processes have led to
ineffective results, generally due to unaffordable solutions. Second,
commercial companies have largely deserted the DOD while traditional
defense companies have started to diversify into commercial business.
By improving business practices we should be able to shift more dollars
into combat capability and expand our buying power through increased
competition.
Should I be confirmed, several management techniques will be
implemented to systematically improve business practices. First, we
need an activity based costing system to provide the actual cost of our
activities and programs. Managers will then be able to make informed
decisions before committing valuable resources. Second, we will
implement comprehensive measures and metrics at all levels of the
organization. We will measure what we do and evaluate our performance
against established metrics. Third, our management team will be process
oriented. We will improve processes to improve products, rather than
working on products exclusively.
In summary, my agenda is to substantially improve our combat
capability, enrich the lives of our people, swiftly incorporate
technology across our total operation. and dramatically improve our
business practices. Each of these thrusts is interrelated, so
implementation will be systematic rather than piecemeal. These efforts
will be difficult and challenging and the support of this committee
will be essential and greatly appreciated.
If confirmed, I will work closely with Congress on matters
affecting our Navy and Marine Corps and the security of our great
Nation. Thank you for your kind attention. I look forward to your
questions.
Chairman Warner. Dr. Roche.
STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES G. ROCHE, NOMINEE TO BE SECRETARY OF THE
AIR FORCE
Dr. Roche. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, Senator Levin, distinguished members of the
committee, it is truly an honor and privilege to appear before
you today as the President's nominee to serve as the 20th
Secretary of the Air Force. We are the junior and newest
service. I especially would like to thank Senators Sarbanes and
Mikulski for their kind remarks. They mean a great deal to me.
Senator Sarbanes, you have spent 25 years trying to educate me,
and I hope I can live up to your expectations. I am deeply
grateful for President Bush for nominating me to this post, for
Secretary Rumsfeld for giving me the opportunity to continue to
serve my country in this vital position on his team. I very
much appreciate their support and confidence they placed in me
to lead the United States Air Force as Secretary, if I am
confirmed.
Mr. Chairman, I would also like to thank all who have
helped me in this nomination process, in the office of
Secretary of Defense, in Northrop Grumman, the U.S. Air Force,
and especially my wife, Diane, daughter, Heather, and this
committee especially for expediting my appearance here today. I
owe my appreciation to David Lyles and Les Brownlee. I don't
think I would have been as competent as they have been in
moving something as quickly on your behalf as they have. I very
much appreciate what they did. I look forward to working very
closely with this committee and with these key leaders of your
staff, sir. With your permission then, Mr. Chairman, I would
like to have the remainder of my remarks placed in the record.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Roche follows:]
Prepared Statement by Dr. James G. Roche
Mr. Chairman, Senator Levin, distinguished members of the
committee, it is truly an honor and a privilege to appear before you
today as the President's nominee to serve as the 20th Secretary of the
Air Force I want to thank Senator Mikulski for her kind remarks--they
mean a great deal to me. I am deeply grateful to President Bush for
nominating me to this post, and to Secretary Rumsfeld for giving me the
opportunity to continue to serve my country in this vital position on
his team. I deeply appreciate their support and the confidence they
have placed in me to lead the United States Air Force as its Secretary,
if I am confirmed.
I also would like to thank all who have helped me in the nomination
process, both in OSD and in the U.S. Air Force, and especially this
committee for expediting my appearance for today's hearing.
With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I will make a few opening
remarks and request that my prepared statement be included in the
record.
Mr. Chairman, throughout my 23 years wearing the uniform of the
United States Navy, and in my subsequent years working with the Armed
Services--either on the staff of this committee or the Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence, or as a member of our defense and aerospace
industry--what has impressed me the most about our Nation's Armed
Services is the quality of the individuals who voluntarily serve. For
instance, it strikes me that members of the Air Force team have earned
their world-class reputation because of their commitment to the highest
standards of excellence;
Because they have earned the support and confidence of the people
and the elected representatives of the greatest Nation on earth;
Because they have harnessed the talents and technologies of
America's defense industrial base;
Finally, because they have forged a seamless team among the truly
outstanding enlisted members, officers, civilians, Air National
Guardsmen, and reservists. They, above all, are the reason whyI am so
honored to be nominated to this post, and why I will be committed to
this job with every fiber of my being, if I am fortunate enough to be
confirmed by the Senate.
Mr. Chairman, I am proud of my service in the world's finest
Navy,and I feel fortunate to have had the opportunity to contribute in
some small way to our National security as a business person with the
Northrop Grumman Corporation for the past 17 years. I am especially
honored to have led the extraordinary men and women of Northrop
Grumman's Electronic Sensors and Systems Sector. But I am tremendously
excited at the prospect that, if confirmed, I may be counted as a
member and leader of the U.S. Air Force.
I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Levin and the members of
this committee, for your outstanding support to each of the Armed
Services. I, more than most, realize the critical importance of the
relationship between this committee and our Armed Services. For
instance, every major touchstone in our Nation's proud aerospace legacy
may be linked in some tangible way to a deliberation, or a question
raised, or a decision made by this committee. The relationships between
the Air Force and the members this committee, as well as with your
counterparts in the House of Representatives, are key to its past
successes. Maintaining and building upon these relationships, I
believe, will be the core enablers of our future accomplishments. If
confirmed, I would solicit your counsel and guidance--not just your
support and approval. This, for me, is a matter of ``coming home'' to
this committee, the esteemed members of which--on both sides of the
aisle--taught me so much during my service here.
Secretary Rumsfeld has made it very clear that, despite the
strategic and technological strengths embodied in our Armed Services,
we are in an era in which a sound strategic calculus compels us to
review--and perhaps, to rethink--our defense posture in a changed
security environment. If confirmed as Secretary of the Air Force, I
would expect to be judged against the following four goals that I
proposed for myself to Secretary Rumsfeld:
First, the Air Force, as well as its sister Services, is obliged by
the changed national security environment to fashion, along with our
allies and friends, a deterrence posture that matches those changed
conditions . . . and tomorrow's challenges, however uncertain they may
appear to us. We must continue to renew, or build anew, a force
structure that, when teamed in joint or combined operations, will be
effective in keeping peace and preserving freedom in this century, not
the last one. I look forward to the opportunity to lead the Air Force,
work with the Department of Defense, and solicit your views to adapt
Air Force strategy and force structure for the future. This forward-
looking focus will inspire members of the Air Force with a renewed
sense of their noble calling, enabling airmen to connect with the core
reasons why they put on the uniform each day, come to work, and put
their lives on the line for the security our great Nation.
Second, this committee is well aware that one of the urgent tasks
facing the Air Force leadership is to deepen and enrich the bonds of
trust with the men and women who serve our Nation on the Air Force
team. We must be able to attract and retain the very best individual to
serve--and then take care of them and their families--both military and
civilian. Some very good work has been done--again, with your
tremendous support--to identify and recruit quality people while
maintaining stringent Air Force standards; but we must capitalize on
those efforts now and redouble our efforts on retention and
development. We must foster a culture of career aspiration among Air
Force officers and enlisted personnel--whether they be pilots or
aircrew, space operators or navigators, aircraft maintenance
technicians or para-rescue jumpers. The range of military aerospace
careers is broad and rich with opportunity.
But we often fall short on staying power, on keeping our people
informed, engaged and motivated throughout their careers. I view this
as the Air Force's most critical challenge because, in my experience in
naval command and in business, I have had it proven over and over that
people remain the most important resource of any organization. Force
readiness, sustainability, mission performance--all of these depend on
developing the best composition of quality individuals on the team, and
on motivating each and every member of the service with an unparalleled
esprit de corps.
Our Nation demanded a great deal from Air Force people in the past
decade--and that team responded brilliantly. From global humanitarian
operations to Operation ALLIED FORCE, the citizens of the United States
justifiably can be proud of their Air Force. In the midst of a
transition to a 40-percent smaller force deploying over 3 times as much
as in the previous decade, aerospace leaders have adapted the Air Force
to make it truly expeditionary. This has been a remarkable
accomplishment, and a tremendous contribution to a secure, global
peace. It uniquely situates the Air Force in a position to harness the
economic and technological advantages in this era, in order to preserve
our Nation's leadership in the next.
But in order to get there, we must accelerate our drive to become
more modern and more efficient as an organization. This is the crux of
my third goal: Air Force process, organization, structures--all of
these need to be reexamined in the light of lessons learned and new
realities. It is time to assess whether the sweeping organizational and
process changes implemented in the last decade have produced their
intended results. Considering the current global scene; the Air Force's
transition to a smaller, busier force; and the near completion of its
adaptation to an expeditionary force, I am confident we have much to
gain by identifying and eliminating any inefficiencies that either
remain or have resulted from all of the changes. The Air Force must
also work with its depots to help them become more world-class--in
costs as well as in quality. I would look to identify and bring best
practices from government and industry to bear on our management of the
service. As I stated earlier, I would welcome this committee's views,
if confirmed, on policies, practices, or processes the Air Force should
evaluate that might yield compelling efficiencies and cost savings.
Fourth, I hope to have the opportunity to influence in a
constructive manner the acquisition policies and processes so as to
insure innovation and competitive vibrancy within our essential defense
industrial base over the long haul. Using public dollars effectively
and efficiently, we are obliged to assure the American people, our
forces abroad, and our friends and allies that we will be able to
continue to defend our interests in the decades to come. But this will
require a new focus in Air Force and Department of Defense acquisition
policies and practices. As Secretary Rumsfeld has said, ``Simply
tinkering with the present acquisition system will not provide the
innovation and speed necessary to satisfy future military needs and
take advantage of powerful new technologies.''
Nor does the current acquisition process always provide the
necessary incentives to motivate the defense industry to become more
efficient and deliver the most cost-effective goods and services. Worst
of all, however, is the potential loss of innovation and technological
advancement that might stem from the dramatically shrunken industrial
base.
The Air Force today benefits from innovations and technologies
developed over the years by many, many aerospace companies--some of
them very small. But today, those ``many'' companies have been whittled
down to just a few large, bureaucratic, and in some cases, seemingly
vertically integrated, corporations, pursuing fewer and fewer new
programs. The Air Force must begin a concerted process to find ways to
incentivize and motivate contractors, large and small, to become more
competitive, efficient and innovative, and to take full advantage of
the fast-paced technological and business-process changes occurring in
this century's information-dominated economy.
Mr. Chairman, if confirmed, I look forward to the prospect of an
active, constructive relationship with you and this committee. Along
with guidance from Secretary Rumsfeld, I will need your help, counsel,
and support. I am sincerely honored to have the opportunity to be
considered for this post on one of the most creative, experienced, and
respected teams the world has known--the United States Air Force.
Again, I want to express my appreciation to President Bush and
Secretary Rumsfeld for their confidence and trust in me. I thank you,
Mr. Chairman, Senator Levin, and the members of this committee.
Chairman Warner. Mr. Rascon.
STATEMENT OF ALFRED V. RASCON, NOMINEE TO BE DIRECTOR OF
SELECTIVE SERVICE
Mr. Rascon. Chairman Warner, and other members of this
great committee. I too have an opening statement, but I'll make
it quick and I'll make it short.
Chairman Warner. Take your time. Take all the time you
need.
Mr. Rascon. I am really humbled to be here before all of
you and most of all, in having the privilege to be nominated by
the President for this great position of Director of Selective
Service. Pending Senate confirmation, I look forward to working
with every one of you.
The Selective Service ends up being a system that remains
and should remain in this country for many years to come. Being
a veteran and having been in the face of death and the face of
war, I understand that at times, we may not want a draft, but
it is necessary, and at times it is necessary to maintain the
listing of young men, of young men who will be ready and be
prepared to fight for this country.
As such, sir, I have a prepared statement, and I'll just
leave it for the record.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rascon follows:]
Prepared Statement by Alfred V. Rascon
Chairman Warner, Ranking Member Levin, and members of the
committee:
I am humbled that President Bush has expressed his confidence in me
to become the next Director of Selective Service. Pending Senate
confirmation, I look forward to serving my country once again.
As Director, I would be returning to the Agency from which I
retired just 3 months ago after 38 years of Federal service in the Army
and with several Department of Justice agencies including the DEA, the
INS, and Interpol.
At one time or another, I think most of us have dreamt about being
placed in charge of the organization where we worked. If we worked
there for a while, we appreciate which aspects of the system and
organizational culture are top notch, but we can also identify some
things might be done differently and better. If I am confirmed as
Director, you will be placing me in a fortunate situation. As a
knowledgeable former member of the agency's senior staff, I believe I
am highly qualified to preserve the best aspects of a proud Agency that
has a distinguished 61-year history, while making improvements to
operational efficiency, motivating employees and volunteers, and
boosting morale.
The Selective Service System is a superb Federal agency with
dedicated people doing terrific work, but there is always room for
improvement. I know how the Selective Service System operates. I
understand its importance to national defense readiness as America's
only proven defense manpower insurance for a major crisis. I stand
ready to make any needed improvements to the Agency's structure and
defend its budget and necessary existence as a key component of
national defense readiness. And, because of personal experiences
involving duty, honor, and country in the midst of the horrors of a
past war, I also understand and believe in the role that every young
must play with regard to Selective Service. I will encourage the 2
million men reaching age 18 every year in the U.S. that they must live
up to their patriotic, legal, and civic obligation to help ``provide
for the common defense'' by registering with Selective Service.
With your support, I stand ready to take up the challenges of this
important assignment. I thank you for considering me.
Chairman Warner. The committee traditionally asks all of
our nominees the following questions, and your indication of a
yes or a no or such other comments you wish to make. I'll go
left to right.
Have you adhered to applicable laws and regulations
governing conflict of interest?
Dr. Chu. Yes, sir, I believe I have.
Mr. White. Yes, sir.
Mr. England. Yes, sir.
Dr. Roche. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rascon. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Have you assumed any duties or taken any
actions which would appear to presume the outcome of the
confirmation process?
Dr. Chu. No, sir.
Mr. White. No, sir.
Mr. England. No, sir.
Dr. Roche. No, sir.
Mr. Rascon. No, sir.
Chairman Warner. Will you ensure your staff complies with
deadlines established for requested communications, including
questions for the record in the committee's hearings?
Dr. Chu. Yes, sir.
Mr. White. Yes, sir.
Mr. England. Yes, sir.
Dr. Roche. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rascon. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Will you cooperate in providing witnesses
in response to congressional requests?
Dr. Chu. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. White. Yes, sir.
Mr. England. Yes, sir.
Dr. Roche. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rascon. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Will those witnesses be protected from any
reprisal for their testimony in such appearances or briefings
before Congress?
Dr. Chu. Yes, sir.
Mr. White. Yes, sir.
Mr. England. Yes, sir.
Dr. Roche. Yes, sir. Definitely.
Mr. Rascon. Yes, sir. Absolutely.
Chairman Warner. I'll defer to my colleague, Senator
McCain, for his opening question.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN McCAIN
Senator McCain. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'd like
to congratulate the nominees and express my appreciation for
their willingness to serve. From what I can gather, all these
nominations are noncontroversial but should be expedited as
quickly as possible to help get about the important issues and
challenges that face us in the post-Cold War era.
Mr. England, in February 1996, the United States Navy in a
briefing before this committee said the Secretary of the Navy
supports competition for attack submarines. On April 25, 2001,
this committee was informed by General Dynamics, which said I
want to inform you that General Dynamics has tendered an offer
to acquire Newport News Shipbuilding. It mentions several
points, provides significant savings for the government, both
nuclear shipyards will be retained, and will consider highly
skilled workers as a national security asset. No layoffs are
planned. There is no competition in nuclear shipbuilding nor is
it feasible. What is your view?
Mr. England. Senator, this is a critical issue. It
obviously needs to be examined, but I have not worked in this
area, sir. I have not reviewed these facts, but I would be
happy to do so, if confirmed, and I will indeed, sir, take this
action and get back to you on this subject.
Senator McCain. I remember I said at that time in this
committee that there would be a disappearance of competition in
nuclear submarines. It is a fundamental economic principle as
to how to reduce costs and to provide competition. I would hope
you may be able to subscribe to that. The fact is we are not
going to have competition in nuclear submarines as was patently
obvious as we see this trend continue, which will then increase
the cost to the taxpayers.
I'd like to ask the three nominees for Secretary of the Air
Force, Army, and Navy, beginning with you, Mr. White, do you
believe we still have excess military infrastructure that can
and should be reduced in the military?
Mr. White. Senator, I do, based upon a preliminary review
of the base structure and recent discussions and also
preliminary or previous information that the department has
provided.
Senator McCain. Mr. England.
Mr. England. Yes, sir. I believe all the studies have
indicated since the last BRAC that there is excess
infrastructure. Our approach will be to await the outcome of
the strategic review, see what's required for the new force
going forward, identify if we have excess at that point in
time, and recommend work with this committee in terms of
actions that should be taken.
Senator McCain. Dr. Roche.
Dr. Roche. Senator, I don't know all the details but
certainly my sense from initial briefings are that that there
is excess capacity. Where I come from, it is only the sensible
thing to do if you have asset that is not earning for you, you
close it down, you shut it down, and you get as efficient as
you possibly can.
Senator McCain. Mr. White, do you believe it is the best
interest of the Defense Department to authorize additional
military base closures and realignments to better align our
military base structure to meet the requirements of the post-
Cold War era?
Mr. White. Yes, I do, Senator, subject, as Mr. England has
outlined, to the outcome of the strategic review and decisions
on what the appropriate structure is to support that strategy.
Senator McCain. Mr. England.
Mr. England. I support the statement that Mr. White has
just made, sir.
Senator McCain. Dr. Roche.
Dr. Roche. My sense is I would have to take a look at
things, talk to Secretary Rumsfeld. I know what his views are,
but again, if there is excess capacity, we will find ways to
dispose of the excess capacity. BRAC is the way to do it and
BRAC should be done.
Senator McCain. Mr. England, do you intend to recuse
yourself from decisions that have to do with General Dynamics?
Mr. England. I do for those areas specifically where I have
knowledge, sir. I cannot do this for my whole tenure, of
course.
Senator McCain. Yes, you can, Mr. England.
Mr. England. Well, sir, I mean in areas where I have no
conflict of interest, I would not expect to recuse myself.
Where I do have a conflict, obviously I would, sir. If there is
a conflict with prior knowledge or involvement, then I would
certainly recuse myself. But if there is no conflict, I
certainly would not plan to do that.
Senator McCain. Who makes the suggestion as to that
conflict, Mr. England?
Mr. England. I expect I would at this point, sir, and can
support it. I have agreed to ethically follow the requirements
of the Department of Defense. I would do what was ethical and
proper to do and if it appeared to be inappropriate, then of
course, I would not do it.
Senator McCain. In your view. Mr. England, that is not good
enough. I hope that we can have discussions on exactly what
your recusal will be before your nomination is approved by the
full Senate.
Mr. England. Yes, sir.
Senator McCain. It is a very big corporation. You have been
involved in a lot of issues that affect national defense, and
the American people deserve the elimination of any taint or
appearance that you may be involved in an issue that affects
the future of the corporation of which you were previously
employed, and we apply that standard across the board, Mr.
England, not just in your particular case. I want to tell you,
we need to work with you to exactly define your role in those
decisions affecting General Dynamics before in my view your
nomination is approved by the full Senate.
Mr. England. Senator, I'll be more than pleased to work
with you and your staff. I am pleased to do that, discuss this,
and resolve it with you, sir.
Senator McCain. Mr. White, will you not involve yourself in
any decisions that include your previous employment with Enron?
Mr. White. I don't plan to and we can discuss that more
with you, as Mr. England has suggested.
Senator McCain. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator McCain. I'll make two
observations. One, I forwarded a letter to the Secretary of
Defense late yesterday indicating the need for this, Senator,
and of course, I'll advise all Senators, of the availability of
the earliest possible briefing from the Department of Defense
with regard to both merger bids, one by General Dynamics, the
other the Northrop Grumman for the Newport News Shipbuilding
Company.
It is important for this committee to involve itself in
terms of looking at that impact on our national defense and the
impact, as the Senator said, on the shrinking industrial base
as that relates to competition. So as soon as I am informed of
the Secretary's availability of those briefings, I'll make that
fact known to the committee.
Senator McCain. I thank the Chairman.
Chairman Warner. I would point out that Mr. England, you
have undertaken to do everything required by the Department of
Defense, the OGE, and the committee with regard to your past
affiliation with certain employers.
You have retired from General Dynamics and you will divest
all the stock in General Dynamics, am I correct on that?
Mr. England. Yes, sir, you are correct.
Chairman Warner. You will purchase a security that will
guaranty the ability to pay for a pension?
Mr. England. Yes, sir. That's correct.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much. The Senator from
Georgia.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR MAX CLELAND
Senator Cleland. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. May I
say that I want to thank you and Senator Levin for calling this
important nomination hearing. Given the position of General
Dynamics, it reminded me of Golda Meir's statement that she
only wanted three generals from the United States--General
Electric, General Dynamics, and General Motors. From time to
time, we call on our private assets to help us out and that is
what really matters.
May I say that I'd like to thank Mr. England and Mr. White
and Dr. Roche for coming by to visit with me before the
hearing. I am sorry that time didn't permit me to visit with
Mr. Chu and Mr. Rascon. We look forward to that opportunity in
the near future.
All of you have my support, and I thank you for your
service to our country. The nominations that we consider today
are critical. These nominees are another layer of civilian
control over the military as described by the Constitution. Not
the Atlanta Constitution, the real Constitution.
Dr. Roche, I do thank you very much for yesterday's visit.
I appreciate the discussion we had regarding a bee in my bonnet
about the future of our Air Logistic Centers. You and I agreed
that we need to maintain the capability to sustain our current,
most important weapons systems, especially our future weapons
systems. As you noted, the key to our survival of our ALCs is
the partnership, I want to underscore, that partnership between
the private sector and the public sector. As I really do look
at, shall we say, the total assets of the United States to deal
with national security or defense matters, it is obvious we
have had a massive shrinking of the American military, about a
third since the end of the Cold War and a massive shrinking in
the private sector of power, of our, shall we say defense base.
It does make sense to me then that these two great entities all
focused on defense, public sector and the private sector in
effect learn to work together in partnerships and as Ben
Franklin said, better to hang together than hang separately. So
I do think that the key word in the future for so many aspects
of our defense involves the partnership between the public
sector and the private sector because I don't think either
sector can do it all, and we get the best bang for the buck and
the best value for our military servicemen and for our country
when we work together, so I just thought I would emphasize
that. I think you are on board with that.
Dr. Roche. I am, Senator, very much.
Senator Cleland. Partnership between the private sector and
public sector. However, the public portion of this commitment
must be real. As such, I would like to again outline some of
the commitments that you and I agreed upon yesterday.
One, thank you for your commitment to meet with
representatives of the ALCs, visit the ALCs and meet their
community partners and appropriate congressional delegation
members.
Dr. Roche. Yes.
Senator Cleland. Second, you committed to visit the ALCs
which you visited a number of times, I know you have in the
past, but we would appreciate that one more time. That's
correct?
Dr. Roche. Yes. I'll visit as one of the partners on the
private side, but if confirmed, this time as the leader on the
public side.
Senator Cleland. I think your expertise on coming across
the line and having an understanding of both sides of this
partnership is going to be of great value to the United States.
You committed to provide a strategic plan for the ALCs as you
got into this matter and looked at it from every point of view
that you would want to look at it, is that not correct?
Dr. Roche. Yes, sir. I also committed to try to get at
least a draft to you by the end of this calendar year.
Senator Cleland. Thank you very much. Finally, you
committed to review the Air Force's current strategy, which I
don't agree with, of not building weapons in the ALCs. Actually
putting the new weapons systems from my point of view, in the
ALCs?
Dr. Roche. I committed to it. I don't know what it says.
Senator Cleland. I did notice that we were unfortunately
sending a lot of our older facilities, our older weapons
systems to the ALCs and the newer weapons systems, the ones
that we really rely on when we go to war were not particularly
in that chain. Particularly with the C-17 and the F-22. But
thank you very much for your commitment, and I look forward to
working with you in that regard.
Any thoughts that you have that you would just like to
share about the ALCs? For instance, do you think the Air Force
needs its air logistic centers?
Dr. Roche. Senator, we absolutely agree. In the long run,
the government must have its own facilities, own shipyards, its
own ALCs. There is a whole series of reasons that we discussed
from technology, being able to maintain technical excellence
for companies to move into generations where we have fielded
forces and a partnership that I have had as a business person
at Northrop Grumman with Warner Robins is one I am very proud
of. It has worked very well. I think the issue that we both
agree on that I am going to work with you on is twofold. First,
how do we get the capital investment into the ALCs so they are
ready at the appropriate time. We say we don't know when that
appropriate time is when something is in its early stages, an
airplane has to stay close to the contract, warranty period or
somewhere. Somewhere there has to be a transfer for the long
haul maintenance and upgrades in partnership with the private
sector to the ALCs.
The second issue that I have asked was that we have to find
the careers in the ALCs are something people are proud to do,
to be able to attract sharp young people and keep them. I thank
you personally for your help in the program that the Air Force
has, I just was briefed on in middle Georgia to find some super
young people. Now, it is up to individuals like me to make sure
the career is good enough so we can keep them.
Senator Cleland. Just one more question.
Chairman Warner. Senator, you take your time.
Senator Cleland. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
White, thank you very much for your service to your country.
Would you like to share with us your plan for committing
one true Army out of the three components, active Army, Army
National Reserve, and National Guard?
Mr. White. Well, Senator, if confirmed, the historical
relationship between the active Army and the Reserve component
is a critical one that I intend to promote and sustain.
National Guard units are today deploying side-by-side with
active component people in Kosovo and other places around the
world. The Reserves have been reshaped into a combat service
support force which I completely support. It integrates them
better into the total force and the affiliation between
National Guard divisions and active Army corps I think is a
very positive one, so if confirmed, I intend to spend a lot of
time with the Reserve components promoting that relationship.
Senator Cleland. Thank you very much for your insight. You
just mentioned in my own home State, the close working
relationship between Fort Stewart and the great infantry
division there, and the 48th Brigade. They have both shared
duties back and forth going back and forth to Kuwait and the
Balkans and so forth, and we appreciate your dedication to all
three of those branches of our Army.
Let me just ask one question for all our service secretary
nominees. An article in the newspaper reports that all services
claim the current budget keeps the military on a death spiral
for forced future base closure. I am not a supporter of BRAC,
but I do believe there are a number of things the military can
do to streamline its infrastructure without closing bases
wholesale here in the United States. Two CINCs, General Ralston
and General Schwartz, have testified before this committee
recently that closing a significant number of bases in both
Korea and in Europe would enhance effectiveness, efficiency,
and quality of life.
Also, programs such as the facilities reduction program
that eliminates excess infrastructure on installations without
necessarily closing those installations achieved results
without incurring the costs of BRAC.
Are you, Mr. White, willing to support streamlining
military infrastructure overseas if it is requested, or at
least consider it, if it is requested by the appropriate CINC,
as a way to achieve infrastructure savings before we look to
close bases here in the United States? Any feeling on that?
Mr. White. Senator, I would certainly support the CINCs'
requirement to consider that. The CINCs are our customers, and
we would take a hard look at anything they suggest in regard to
the infrastructure.
Senator Cleland. Thank you very much.
Mr. England.
Mr. England. I think that is appropriate. They are our
customers. We certainly take their recommendations and look at
them in the context of those capabilities. I certainly would
consider that, sir.
Senator Cleland. Thank you very much.
Dr. Roche. Senator, I believe any excess capacity should be
done away with. If it can be done in a sensible way, fine.
Whether it is done overseas first or home first, I don't think
one should follow the other. I think they should look at any
excess capacity and find ways to not ask the taxpayers to be
paying for it. The proper means to do it will be requiring a
great deal of homework.
Senator Cleland. We have a distinguished group of panelists
today, and they have my support. Thank you very much.
Chairman Warner. We thank you, Senator. You make a very
valuable contribution to this committee and you draw on a
wealth of experience. You have served yourself with great
heroism in the United States Army.
I am going to take a few minutes, Chairman's prerogative,
to make an observation or two and then ask a question or so.
First, in my 23 years here in the United States Senate,
coincidentally, my distinguished colleague, Senator Levin and I
came to the Senate together, we have watched many wonderful
people come into the position to which you have been designated
and appointed by the President. I anticipate in due course
there will be confirmation by the Senate. But I'd like to say
that having had the privilege of being in that seat many years
ago, nominated for the position of Secretary of the Navy, and
having the intention at that time of serving 2 years, once I
was there, I recognized what a great challenge and a great
opportunity it was and I spent over 5. So I don't quite know
how long your careers will be but don't set a terminal date at
this point in time. Because once you are in, you will be seated
in the front row of the greatest action that faces this country
and challenge of any of us. You are working with the President
of the United States in the role of Commander in Chief of the
forces of this Nation, and you are working with the Secretary
of Defense.
We convened this hearing in a very friendly atmosphere,
convivial handshake among you. Once you are confirmed, you are
going to have to take the gloves off and fight for your
respective services. When the concept of the Department of
Defense was put together roughly in 1947, three military
departments were established. From that point on, the service
secretary, together with the chief of the service, are
principal advocates of that service. But as I reminisced with
Secretary Rumsfeld this morning, when I was Secretary of the
Navy, he was in the White House and was the top assistant to
the President.
You are expected to take on the Secretary of Defense on
behalf of everybody from the four stars down to the privates
and the sailors and the airmen. Fight hard for resources. Fight
hard for your department, and make your department the best
within the structure of the totality of the Department of
Defense. Dr. Chu has taken a note, and he should, because he is
going to be one of the referees. Very often, you have to work
through him to get to the Secretary. You will have your one-on-
one time with this distinguished Secretary and the Deputy, and
all I have to say is to fight hard for your department.
Now, Mr. England.
Mr. England. Sir.
Chairman Warner. On behalf of the Navy, and I have raised
this issue this morning with the Secretary. We have a declining
number of ships, roughly 315 today. When I sat there 30-plus
years ago, we had over 700. We have come down from some high
limit, and that is a long way.
Yet, several things have not changed. First and foremost,
this Nation is basically an island surrounded by two great
oceans. Second, our concept of defense is one of forward
deployed defense. We can thank God every day that our shores
have not been crossed by an invading force since 1812. But that
is because of the protection the seas have given us. The fact
is that we engage first and deter threat far beyond our shores
in the hopes that whatever may occur can be settled there, if
necessary.
Now, the Navy is the lifeline to convey the ground forces
and to convey the supplies of the forward deployed armed force.
Yet today we have this declining number of ships. The oceans
and the need for forward deployment is still there, although
wisely, I think, this President will lessen it in a prudent way
in consultation with allies.
That is the life line and the link. Also, the economic
strength of this country is dependent on overseas trade and the
protection of the sea to the world, and that responsibility
falls heavily on the United States Navy. Now, do I have your
commitment, and do you give it to the committee and indeed
Congress, to fight hard to see that that level of ships,
whatever it might be, that the President and this Secretary of
Defense determine, is obtained and the necessary requests to
Congress for authorization to build those ships are submitted?
Mr. England. Yes, sir. I can assure you I will work very
closely with the Secretary of Defense in support on his
strategic review. I frankly do not know the exact number of
ships, but it is bothersome that the number has continued to
decline, and that at the current rate, my understanding is that
we will be down to 240 or thereabouts out in 15 or 20 years. It
is an area of great interest to me. It will be one of the very
first topics to look at in the shipbuilding account--how we
fund those accounts, what the right number of ships should be,
and what the right mix of ships should be. So this is one of my
priorities, sir. We will look at this as part of the strategic
review.
I can assure you if we have needs in those areas, we will
definitely come back and seek the advice and counsel and help
of this committee. You have my commitment to work with you in
that regard. The very highest priority of mine is to look at
our shipbuilding accounts, sir.
Chairman Warner. I thank you. Mr. White, with regard to the
Department of the Army, you will find as you go there that the
Army has paid the price. This is not a political statement, but
in the last many years, as a matter of fact, the declining
defense budget started under President Bush, follows our
current position and for 12 to 13 years we had consecutive
declines in the defense budget. That was reversed some 2 years
ago. I commend this committee for its initiatives in reversing
that.
The point is in those years of decline, the Department of
the Army really had no recourse other than to draw down on
their procurement, draw down in many ways on their
infrastructure, whether it is the modern weapons or the
buildings and the barracks which would deteriorate and indeed
in your department. Now, that had to be done to find the funds
with which to engage our forces beyond many fronts, notably,
heavy expenditures involved in Kosovo. The Army also announced
their plan for a transformation. They are recognizing that much
of the doctrine, equipment, and other aspects of the Army have
properly been devoted to the former Soviet Union, the Warsaw
Pact, and the threats in Europe. At the same time, the Army
continues to have very heavy obligations on the Korean
Peninsula.
Now, with the change of the concept of engaging forces and
the diversity of threats, the demise of the Warsaw Pact, and
breakup of the Soviet Union, the Army quite properly decided to
transform from the bottom up. I ask for your commitment to go
in and re-examine what has been done thus far on the concept of
that transformation, and where necessary, put your own
imprimatur on the President and that of the Secretary of
Defense on the success of that transformation. Do you have a
comment?
Mr. White. Sir, I completely agree with you. Within the
context of the national strategy that the Secretary is
developing, we have to make sure the transformation of the Army
conforms with that, and does so in a way that gives us the
smooth transition from where we currently are to where we must
be 10 years from now with the first unit equipped with the new
systems coming along and sustained readiness, so the first step
in my opinion is agree to the national strategy, the security
strategy, and the land power component of that strategy and
then conform the Army's transformation to it, and then get on
to making that vision a reality. You have my commitment that
that will be a top personal interest of mine.
Chairman Warner. I think my colleague, Senator Levin, and
other members of the committee will observe that in the past 2
or 3 years in consultation with previous secretaries of
Defense, we pointed out that the costs of that projected
transformation as originally laid down by the previous
administration, simply did not match other budgetary
considerations. You have to bring into alignment, fight hard
for your share of the budget and some more, but you have to
bring into alignment the projected costs and the budget
allocation being given by the Secretary of Defense.
Mr. White. I will do that, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Dr. Roche, I think you are the first
sailor in history ever to take over the Department of the Air
Force, am I correct?
Dr. Roche. I don't know, Senator. I may be the first dumb
sailor to take over the Department of the Air Force, however.
Chairman Warner. That is a novelty in itself. You have a
heavy responsibility in the following: the aging of the
aircraft. Again, the Secretary this morning pointed out and the
perception that there is no nation that is going to put forward
an aircraft comparable to the F-22, the other models of
procurement now. Heavy decisions have to be made in that area.
I am not suggesting how they are to be made at this point in
time.
In my judgment, it is imperative that the United States of
America maintain the superiority in the sky.
We could not have achieved our successes in very
challenging military operations without air superiority.
Similarly, our submarines have made the seas something the
United States rules.
The F-22 has the capacity, by virtue of its stealthiness,
its super crews, and its advanced weapons and sensors, to
really motivate an opponent never to try to build a plane that
is going to be comparable. It just isn't going to happen.
Presumably, we will build this plane, and we will keep
improving it. It also means that an opponent will recognize for
the first time that we can have stealth aircraft over opposing
territory and be able to attack anything that may be heading
towards our troops and meet those aircraft in the enemy's
territory, not on our territory.
Dr. Roche. That is unique in the history of air warfare,
Senator. I very much believe in that program, but there is an
issue of aging aircraft across the board that is troubling.
Chairman Warner. I am now going to yield to Senator Levin.
My next round of questions is going to relate to quality of
life for the men and women of the armed forces. We cannot hope
to achieve any of those goals without their continued
commitment which this force has had since its very inception.
Senator Levin.
Senator Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This committee has
a relatively new subcommittee, called the Emerging Threats and
Capabilities Subcommittee, which is looking at the new threats
we face following the end of the Cold War, particularly the
terrorist threats both from nations, individuals, and groups.
The subcommittee focuses on the asymmetric threats that we face
both here and abroad. This committee has had many hearings on
this subject. There are hearings being held now in the
Appropriations Committee on the question of how the Federal
Government should be organized to meet the terrorist threat and
what is the proper role of the Department of Defense in that
organization.
As the chairman mentioned, our shores have not been crossed
by an invading force for almost 200 years. But our shores have
been crossed and breached by terrorists, both on the Atlantic,
at the World Trade Center, and in the Pacific with the efforts
of some terrorists to come here. They were caught, thank God,
before they were able to use their terrorist instruments. That
probably had something to do with the events in Seattle which
were scheduled. So we do face real new threats. I would just
hope that as our new service secretaries you would spend some
time focusing on those emerging nontraditional threats. The
ones that are real and the ones that have been used. They are
not just here. Our shores have been breached, overseas against
our forces. The U.S.S. Cole is one of the more recent examples.
Also, recall the terrorist attacks against our embassies that
we had in Africa. I am just wondering whether or not our
nominees have any comment on that and whether you agree that
you are going to need to spend time and resources addressing
these emerging and asymmetric threats that I just described?
Mr. White. Senator, I think it is clearly a matter that
requires time and resources. We intend to do our part, if
confirmed, to deal with that from an Army perspective. I know
Secretary Rumsfeld has discussed this with you in his hearing,
as has Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz and we are all concerned
about it and we will give it the appropriate attention.
Mr. England. Senator Levin, of course, the Navy is already
keenly aware of this issue after the U.S.S. Cole. I understand
that they are taking steps and you have my assurance, if
confirmed, sir, that this will definitely be at the top of the
agenda. This is obviously a threat, not just here in the United
States, but overseas. All of our bases and not just that, but
of course families. This is indeed a serious problem and will
indeed get my attention and it will receive necessary
resources. So if confirmed, we will be working with you, sir.
Dr. Roche. Senator, I know that Secretary Rumsfeld and
Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz have worried about this problem. As
a member of the staff of this committee, I have seared in my
mind that there were members of this committee who warned me of
terrorism. I can tell you exactly where I was when that
explosion occurred. I take this very seriously.
Senator Levin. There is going to be a whole focus on
modernization, transformation, and more traditional challenges
than we had but this is the new great tranche. We are going to
need your attention to this at the same time we are trying to
transform and at the same time we are trying to modernize and
meet the more traditional threats. So, I welcome that
commitment on your part to address the emerging threats and the
terrorist threats that we have seen and already operate against
us.
Dr. Chu, one of the more frequent reasons that have been
given by service members for leaving the service is the large
amount of time away from home that is currently being demanded.
What new initiatives, if any, are you planning if confirmed, to
manage this increased personnel tempo?
Dr. Chu. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate that this is
often cited and, indeed, I think Congress has provided new
legislation on this matter. If confirmed, I look forward to
working on this as a priority issue to understand the optempo
problem and what we might do best to confront it.
Senator Levin. It is been often said that the military
recruits individuals, but retains families. Spouse employment
is a significant issue when it comes to retaining families. I
am wondering what initiatives you are going to take in order to
try to improve the situation for spouses?
Dr. Chu. I agree with you, Senator, that the department can
do a lot better on this front. I think there are two areas that
we can look at more vigorously. One is whether the department
could be of greater assistance, specifically regarding
opportunities in the federal sector and with the Department of
Defense itself. Second, can we harness new technologies
available to provide better information and referral sources to
these individuals?
Senator Levin. Let me ask all of our nominees for service
secretary this question. There have been some discussions in
the press that Secretary Rumsfeld intends to institute a board
of directors-type of approach to manage the services and the
services' major appropriations. I am wondering if each of you
who have been nominated to a service secretary position would
describe your understanding how that board of directors-
approach is going to function?
For instance, is the board of directors going to manage
major acquisition programs? Will the department, do you
believe, be seeking changes in legislation that mandates a
direct reporting change for major acquisition programs from the
service acquisition executives to the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition? What do you understand to be meant by
this board of directors approach and how would it apply to
major acquisition programs? Why don't we start with you, Dr.
Roche?
Dr. Roche. Senator, thank you. The secretaries talked about
having a senior management committee which would consist of the
three of us as you see, plus the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, to be chaired by the Secretary himself and Mr.
Wolfowitz. The point of this is to bring together the business
part of the department, not the operational part. It is a
chance for us to show jointness at the very top, Senator, to
work together where we can work together.
There are times when we need to rationalize our research
and development programs. By virtue of our backgrounds, we have
cross knowledge of the other services. I will be looking to
Gordon for his wisdom on things. He may even ask me a question
now and then.
The point is we would be working together so that when we
have a position, whether it is R&D or something else we go
forward. I see no need for change in legislation. This is the
executives of the department the Secretary is nominating to you
and if we are confirmed, to give us a fixed process to improve
the processes in the building. So for instance, we are looking
at overhead costs of the defense agencies. Can we get that
down? Can we find the best practice in reducing costs and be
more efficient in our own service to have a share of that? Can
we resolve difficulties between the services at our level? We
see just lots of examples whereby the close relationship
continuing that has been fostered by the way we have gone
through Pentagon 101 together, that this is something that is
very good. Yes, we will compete and I wish Senator Warner were
here because there are times Gordon and I have competed against
each other very heavily but we know there are times it is in
the best interests of our country to be able to support each
other to do the right thing.
Mr. England. I think Dr. Roche articulated that very well.
Hopefully with the senior management team we will be able to
examine policies, procedures, and benefits at the top. We need
to be wearing two hats, one as service secretary, one as part
of the senior management council. In my own judgment, we do
this a lot in the business world for the sake of efficiency and
effectiveness. It should be effective as part of managing the
Department of Defense and my view was this was necessary,
frankly, at least for me to consider coming to this position so
that we could indeed look at efficient practices within the
Department of Defense. So again, I would echo what Dr. Roche
said. This should be very effective. It should not require any
change that we know of, at least at this time.
Senator Levin. Mr. White.
Mr. White. I agree with what Mr. Roche and Mr. England have
said. The concept is to have a small body that operates like
the executive committee or the management committee of a
corporation and dealing with things that are truly important,
particularly from a business perspective for the department,
and deal with them in an effective way because this committee
will involve all of us on a personal basis without a great deal
of staff or bureaucracy associated with it, so I am quite
excited about the prospects of it and if confirmed, I look
forward to participating in it.
Senator Levin. My time is up.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you.
Senator Levin. Senator Smith is next.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JAMES M. INHOFE
Senator Inhofe. I think we have arranged I will be next. As
I said at the very beginning of this, Senator Smith and I are
both on another committee. It happens to be a committee that I
chair, the Transportation Committee, at the same time so I will
try to get my questions in and I won't be able to return, if
that is all right.
First of all, Dr. Roche, I'll say to all of you I
appreciate the time you have given me and helping me in
becoming familiar with you. It is the first time I can remember
a team coming in, all of whom know each other and respect each
other and will be working together and also working very
closely with the uniformed services, so I am just real pleased
that all of you are going to be here. We all understand the
difficult issue of depot capability. You and I talked about
this, Dr. Roche, in my office. I have never, I have always
thought that a formula, 50/50, 60/40 is somewhat arbitrary but
nothing better has come along. I understand that while in my
absence Senator Cleland asked if you would be willing to make
some tours around to become familiar, and I want to make sure
that Tinker Air Force base is in that tour.
Dr. Roche. Absolutely, Senator.
Senator Inhofe. With this problem, one of the problems we
have in the ALCs is everyone agrees we have to keep a core
capability in our ALCs and in shop. At the same time, we have
not modernized them to the degree that we have to go. If we are
to have competition, we would have to do modernization before
that can take place. In our new modern platforms, they have
been outsourced and those are the platforms that would be most
dependent on if a war should come along and I'd like to have
your remarks on the record as to your feelings about the future
of the ALCs and how you see it.
Dr. Roche. As I said earlier, Senator, and I thank you for
the question, I believe based on my experience that there will
always have to be naval shipyards and ALCs. That the government
has to have that. We build equipment now that lasts a very long
time. There is a period in the time of life of a system when it
has to be close to its contractor. You are making early
changes. You are in a warranty period. There is a long period
of time of sustained maintenance, sustained overhaul, upgrades,
program improvements, et cetera, that typically have relied on
the government facilities and I think always will. The key is
that this is not us versus them.
My own experience working with Warner Robins and I know the
experience of my firm working with Tinker on the B-2 program
shows examples of where we both can work together for the
betterment of the system. The ALCs will be the long-term
institutions that will in fact be doing the maintenance.
You raised two points, sir, that are quite right. First, we
have to find a way to modernize the capital equipment without
punishing the particular program and loading the costs of that
on to a particular program. I don't know the accounting
processes that are used in the department, and I'll be learning
them, but I think it will be wrong to worry about equipment
becoming more expensive.
The second issue that the ALC faces is exactly what is
faced by the scientific engineering and by people in the
defense industry that we are soon to lose the people who have
the corporate memory of how to do this exquisite work, and we
are talking about very high-tech in a number of cases. We are
going to lose those folks because they are nearing retirement.
We have to find ways to attract young people both the defense
industry and ALCs and to retain them and in the Air Force
itself both civilians and military we have to find ways of
having scientists and engineers who are there who can be part
of this larger process working with the ALCs.
Senator Inhofe. I appreciate that very much. As Chairman of
the Readiness and Management Support Subcommittee, I have been
around and done a lot of hands-on work at the various
installations around the world. I have come to the conclusion
that everything is hemorrhaging, not just one or two things. I
am talking about quality of life, modernization, force
strength, all of the above, but the Chairman mentioned a couple
of things in his questioning that I had in mind that on some of
these systems, there is this euphoric attitude that has always
been out there that somehow, well, maybe we have problems in
the military but what we have is better than anybody else has.
Well, that is not true any more. I was very proud and wanted to
get on record with you that General John Jumper, the first one
to come up and admit that with the SU series coming out of
Russia that some of the people in China at this time, have air-
to-air capabilities that we don't have. So modernization is
going to be necessary. General White certainly in the area of
artillery and rapid fire, we are not number one and we are
inferior in our systems. The system that I hear as I go around
to the Army bases that is most needed and is the crown jewel
right now and that would be the Crusader program. I'd like to
have you share with us your feelings about Crusader.
Mr. White. Senator, as you have mentioned, the Army in my
history has been traditionally outgunned in indirect fire
systems. We never adequately addressed that in the 1970s and
1980s. We have currently fielded a variety of a Howitzer that
was first built in the early 1960s. To the extent that the
strategic review relies upon land power as a critical component
and those decisions have not been made by the Secretary, the
ability to deliver long-range precision munitions from an
effective modernized launcher to me is critical to the
application of land power. So I intend to spend, if confirmed,
a great deal of time examining the Crusader program. It is a
program the Army has funded within its budget lines and made
the sacrifices to do so and it would seem to me that it is
fundamental not only to the existing force but the future of
the transformed force as we go forward.
Senator Inhofe. Well, I appreciate that. I may be making
the same request of you as I did to Dr. Roche to come out and
see some things.
Mr. White. I commit to you that I will personally visit
Fort Sill and observe the side-by-side comparison as I think
Senator Warner and yourself and other members of the committee
have done, if confirmed.
Senator Inhofe. I have asked Chairman Warner if I can take
a little bit longer since I will not be having a second round.
I'll be chairing the other committee. Just real quickly if I
could.
Senator Levin. Let me ask Senator Nelson. He was next.
Senator Inhofe. Just another couple minutes. First of all,
rather than get a long answer here, we may want to ask the
answer to be on the record, but, and that is the issue of
encroachment. Just in this morning's Los Angeles Times it says
after 7 years in the Marine Corps, Sergeant Johnny White of
Newark, New Jersey has a new skill, tortoise spotting. White is
among 30 noncommissioned officers certain to make sure that no
desert tortoises are harmed. I have gone to Fort Bragg, to Camp
LeJeune, and other places. It is a very serious problem. That
is just one form of encroachment. All of your services will be
facing this. The one I would single out, I'd like to get your,
including you, Dr. Chu, your response to the encroachment
problem, what you plan to do about it, including everything
including spectrum.
But what I would like to have just from this meeting here
and perhaps starting with you, Mr. England, one of the serious
encroachment problems we have is in our live ranges around the
world. They are disappearing, and the most critical one right
now for east coast deployment is that of Vieques. We have
looked to see and found that there is no alternative site for
live fire to Vieques which means if we send our troops over
they will be arriving into a battle environment without any
live fire training. I would like to know your feeling about
Vieques and then the others, if there isn't time, to do it on
the record. Because this is not just a Navy issue. If we allow
that to be closed because of public pressure, that is going to
affect every Air Force range, every Army range, even in my
State of Oklahoma, Fort Sill, so if you can respond in terms of
the significance of the range of Vieques in your opinion?
Mr. England. Senator, my background experience is that all
teams scrimmage, whether it is a football team or basketball
team. They all have to scrimmage and if you don't have a chance
to scrimmage as part of practice, you don't do well when it
comes to game time. The discriminator for the United States'
Armed Forces is our training. Our training is superb compared
to other countries so that is very important to us. The ability
to scrimmage before we go into combat is very important, so the
range issue is a critical one for all the services. Vieques is
perhaps the first one that we have really faced in detail, but
this will be an issue that we will have to address across the
Department of Defense with my colleagues. It is one that we
will have high on our agenda. Complex issues are going to have
to be worked, but definitely high on our agenda. It is critical
that we be able to train our forces. Vieques is very important
because today is the only base we have for the United States
Navy and Marine Corps to do combined training.
Senator Inhofe. My time has expired and I thank Senator
Nelson for his patience here. I look forward to working with
all five of you. I think this is a great unified group that is
going to get us out of some of the problems we have right now.
Thank you so much. Senator Nelson.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR BILL NELSON
Senator Bill Nelson. Where will we train if we don't train
in Vieques?
Mr. England. That is the issue, sir. We do indeed need
facilities to train. I have not myself been able to look at any
alternatives. My understanding is that that is a critical issue
today because that is the only base we have to do combined
training before our sailors and marines are deployed overseas.
Senator Bill Nelson. The United States has given its word
with regard to a referendum. The United States being there, and
politically working the ground on what is going to be the
outcome of the November referendum. If the referendum goes
against the United States, we are out, according to our
agreement, so what do we do?
Mr. England. Senator, I am going to have to defer until I
have an opportunity to really get into this. I frankly only
today have a perceptual view of this, but I will indeed put
this on my agenda.
Senator Bill Nelson. That is fair. If you would share with
me your thoughts when you draw that conclusion. I have asked
that question of a lot of active duty United States Navy folks
and I don't get a definitive answer at this point.
Mr. England. Senator, I'll tell you, if and when confirmed,
I will definitely work this with you. This is an important
subject. Again, I have not had the opportunity to work as I
have not been allowed to until confirmed, but if confirmed,
I'll definitely get back with you, sir.
Senator Bill Nelson. Let me plant another seed. There is an
issue of whether or not we will have a nuclear aircraft carrier
stationed in Japan. That, of course, is a sensitive issue from
the military standpoint. They would prefer to have a nuclear
carrier. But if the decision of the administration is not to
replace the carrier that is over there with a nuclear carrier,
the likely conventional carrier is the U.S.S. John F. Kennedy,
which is stationed at this time in Mayport, which is in the
City of Jacksonville. My concern at that point, if it is the
U.S.S. Kennedy that goes to Japan in 2008, that we not have a
Navy policy on the east coast that there is only one port for
carriers, as opposed to keeping the two ports that we have now.
I'd like any of your thoughts on that.
Mr. England. Senator, I am not at all familiar with this
issue, having not heard this issue discussed, so again, I'll
just have to take an action item for you, sir, and get back
with you, if confirmed, sir.
Senator Bill Nelson. OK. Do you want to comment or do you
want to get back later about the deferring of the procurement
of the T-6 training aircraft?
Mr. England. I definitely need to get back with you on
that, sir.
Senator Bill Nelson. Let me ask all the three service
nominees a question that you all can answer. All of you have
very distinguished backgrounds, particularly in aerospace and
defense. As you come to this position of responsibility leading
this portion of the Defense Department, how do you protect
against your conflicts of interest with your former employers?
Why don't we just start with you, Mr. White.
Mr. White. Well, I think first of all, Senator, we are
obligated to follow both the letter and the spirit of the law
in terms of potential conflicts. I totally intend to do that.
Second, I am coming from an energy company, Enron Corporation,
which has a very slight relationship with the Department of the
Army and a very small one with the Defense Department. I will
personally commit to you to avoid any, even appearance of
conflict in terms of any future relationship that Enron might
choose to have with the Department or attempt to have with the
Department.
Mr. England. Senator, my background is General Dynamics,
and of course, I am very active in the defense business. I have
agreed to divest myself of all of my holdings in General
Dynamics, all defense companies, and all companies that do
business with the Department of Defense in order to have a
surety bond against my retirement. I have two retirements:
General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin. Both of those would be
bonded so I would have no reliance on those companies. Where
there is a conflict of interest, I definitely would recuse
myself.
However, General Dynamics is in a lot of businesses and
businesses keep consolidating so over time, you move away from
much of the knowledge regarding what many of those companies
are doing. So where there is an obvious conflict, where there
is an obvious problem, I will recuse myself. But hopefully,
there are many situations where you can deal in the real world
with these companies as time goes on because there are very few
companies left that do defense business in the United States.
So I do not believe you can completely recuse yourself from
everything dealing with your former company. Certainly where
there is an evident conflict, one would recuse oneself, and I
would do that, sir, and sever all economic ties to my previous
employers.
Dr. Roche. Senator, just as when I was the Democratic staff
director of this illustrious committee, I severed all my ties
with the Navy and there were naval officers that noticed that.
We have a mandatory retirement of 65. I am 61. I am too old to
return back to my company. I will have sold all stock, all
interest, I will have severed all ties and I don't see a
situation where I would have to recuse myself under those
circumstances because I will abide by the law and I will do the
job of the Secretary of the Air Force with Secretary Rumsfeld
and under President Bush as ethically as you can imagine.
Senator Levin. Just to add one thing, you also are putting
up a surety bond?
Dr. Roche. Absolutely. Yes.
Senator Levin. Relative to your retirement?
Dr. Roche. Yes, sir.
Senator Levin. Just to complete the record. Thank you.
Senator Carnahan is next. A number of Senators are going to
run over and vote and try to get back in time, but Senator
Carnahan, I think you have the time here.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JEAN CARNAHAN
Senator Carnahan. I would like to thank the distinguished
panel here and thank you for the straightforward manner in
which you have answered the questions that have been presented
to you. Dr. Roche, I'd like to ask you this question. I am
concerned about the age of our long-range bomber fleet. The B-
52 program is halfway through its 80-year life span. The B-2
program is 30 years old. The average age of these aircrafts is
22 years. Can you tell the members of this committee about the
Air Force's plan to sustain our long-range bombing fleet?
Dr. Roche. Senator, first of all, coming from Northrop
Grumman, we are the builders of the B-2 bomber and my part of
the company actually produces the radar for the B-1 bomber and
the electronic warfare on the B-52. Up to this point and not
presuming confirmation, I keep my day job. I don't know what
the Air Force's plan is. I have made sure that they have not
briefed me on anything that might be a competitive situation
but, if I may offer a personal view, ma'am, one is that we use
the word bomber these days really to mean large aircraft.
Smaller aircraft are also bombers. We are talking about
delivering weapons from the sky to the ground but a bomber, or
any airplane that launches a standoff cruise missile, is also a
bomber. The average age is between 22 and 25 years as has been
briefed to me. I believe, given our desires for range and
payload, that we are going to want to have this be a vibrant
arm for the future. That consists of a number of things. It
consists of appropriately putting the weapons on to provide a
multiplier effect for those platforms, so for instance, there
are some exciting proposals in the case of the B-2 bomber to
make it an exquisite bomber dropping extraordinary precise
weapons and carrying lots of them because we can be so precise,
we can go to smaller tonnage.
Similarly, there are proposals to have our B-52s not
penetrate but be just big trucks carrying standoff cruise
missiles. In the long run, we should be starting, in my own
personal opinion, research on an advanced bomber beyond that,
one that can go at high speed, one that can go alone, and one
that is appropriate for the strategy that will come out of
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's review.
Senator Carnahan. Thank you. I was just wondering, too, how
might our aircraft requirements change if the Department of
Defense reassesses the current two major theater war strategy?
Dr. Roche. It depends on the outcome of the review, ma'am.
It is unlikely that we will all of a sudden decide we don't
need air power. Air power is there but I believe that one of
the things that Secretary Rumsfeld is trying to get us to think
through, is what is the basic business of our services, our
departments with regard to the strategy. My own sense is the
Air Force is the business of global reconnaissance and strike.
Strike may be delivering Army troops, but the reconnaissance
part is one that you have seen emphasized by Secretary Rumsfeld
in the recent weeks by concentrating on space and making it the
point that we need space for operations of the Air Force, Army,
and Navy. It is at this level that I see change coming. It is a
change in the emphasis and I think it is long overdue, ma'am.
Senator Carnahan. Mr. England, I understand that the Navy's
F-14 program is over three decades old and the Navy is now
procuring more F-18s to replace the older generation aircraft.
Could you discuss with us your views on the importance of
modernizing the Navy?
Mr. England. Senator, I am not at all familiar with the
plan of replacement. I have not had that insight into the Navy
yet, but certainly support modernization for all of our weapons
systems, surface, subsurface and air, so modernization is
obviously important for the country, for our military. However,
I am not familiar with the specifics of any given program.
Senator Carnahan. How do you feel that the joint strike
fighter will complement the F-18?
Mr. England. Senator, I just have not had the briefings to
have that conversation. I would be happy to have it with you if
confirmed, Senator.
Senator Carnahan. One final question, Mr. White.
Historically the Army has not always been able to meet its
military maintenance and repair requirements. This has caused
diversions from base operations and training funds. Should you
be confirmed, would you consider this issue as the Army draws
up future budget plans?
Mr. White. Senator, I think it is a critical issue to deal
with and I will give it my attention.
Senator Carnahan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Levin. Thank you, Senator Carnahan. Mr. Rascon, on
draft registration, do we need to do it any more or do our all-
volunteer forces seem to be recruiting sufficiently? Our
retention is getting better. Why should we maintain this
registration process which is costly and doesn't serve any
purpose?
Mr. Rascon. Probably the most important thing that we need,
we need a deterrent that is going to be there in case something
does come about. We end up talking about a situation right now
in which this country may face a terrorist threat. It may not.
In 1941, we weren't ready for a war. Korea came about. Vietnam
came about. We ended up with the fact that we had to come back
and get young men ready quickly into the military.
Senator Levin. Regardless of whether divestiture is
required by law, it has been our policy. Total divestiture
rather than recusal because we really want DOD officials to be
free to manage the department.
Now, have each of you complied with that policy first of
all, or are you going to comply with that policy?
Dr. Roche. Yes, sir. All 37,200 stocks, I will not own one
of them. Certainly none of the defense stocks or anybody who
does business with the Defense Department.
Mr. England. Yes, sir.
Dr. Chu. Yes, sir.
Mr. White. Yes, sir.
Senator Levin. Nobody who does business with the Defense
Department?
Mr. White. Regardless of how de minimis that relationship
might be.
Dr. Roche. I will divest my Disney stock.
Senator Levin. You are going to have to figure out any
company that does business with the Federal Government?
Dr. Roche. Yes, sir. It is on the Internet. They have been
informed they will execute that, if I am confirmed.
Mr. White. Makes you worry about a company that is not on
the site.
Senator Levin. Makes me worry about the recusal, frankly,
because if a company does business with the Defense Department,
no matter how little, that isn't on that site, then apparently
we are supposed to know about it even though it is not on the
site.
Dr. Roche. The site is updated periodically and when a
financial advisor or those of us who may choose to buy stock,
we are required to check that site first.
Senator Levin. Is that then the end-all and be-all of that
site? If it is not on that site, you are safe? Is that your
understanding?
Dr. Roche. Yes. We are not going to do anything dumb.
Senator Levin. Is that a commitment?
Dr. Roche. That is a commitment.
Senator Levin. I think there has been some testimony this
morning which is slightly different from what we just heard
from Mr. England particularly. I think you suggested that you
may be recusing yourself relative to matters that General
Dynamics has ongoing with the Defense Department even though
you totally divested yourself in General Dynamics. I would
suggest the following--that this be clarified, that you get us
the answers to that question, particularly you, Mr. England,
given your answers are slightly different, I believe, than the
other nominees. You talk to your ethics officer in the Defense
Department and see precisely what your policy is going to be on
that and that you give us a written answer to that question
within the next 24 hours, if you can. It shouldn't take you
long. I think we do need some clarification from you on that
issue because I think if you did disqualify yourself on any
matter involving General Dynamics, that would then raise a
question about the others who are going to continue or who are
not going to disqualify themselves in matters involving their
former companies because they totally divested themselves of
any interest in those companies.
Mr. England. Sir, I will be pleased to give you a written
statement. First, let me clarify for you. I will divest myself.
I have agreed to this, certainly from every company that does
business with the Department of Defense. I have taken all the
surety bonds. My only comment was since I recently left General
Dynamics, matters that may have been under consideration, that
I was involved with while still with the company, those I would
recuse myself from because I could have a conflict in terms of
knowledge.
Senator Levin. What's the conflict if you no longer have an
interest in the matter? I don't want to disagree with you. I
want you to get some advice from the ethics officer from the
Department of Defense on that issue because that may be a
different standard than others are applying and we are going to
have different standards and that is not going to be helpful.
This is an issue which seems to be done in a way which is
consistent. There is a policy and I would suggest that you
would consult your agency's ethics officer before you are
confirmed to get exactly what your position is, and that you
share this with your colleagues who are here this morning so
that they know exactly what your position is going to be, and
provide a written answer to the committee as to what your
position is going to be on that.
[The information requested by the committee, as well as a
subsequent letter clarifying the committee's position follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Levin. My question for each of you is the
following. Will you consult with your agency's ethics officers,
if confirmed, to determine what circumstances, if any, require
you to recuse yourself from specific decisions of importance to
either or any of your departments?
Mr. White. I will, Senator.
Mr. England. Yes, sir.
Dr. Roche. I already have, Senator, and there is only one.
Senator Levin. My question is will you?
Dr. Roche. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rascon. Yes, sir.
Dr. Chu. Yes, sir.
Senator Levin. In addition to that, we will need your
statement after that consultation prior to confirmation. Share
it with your colleagues here and give it to the committee so we
can all be following a consistent policy here. My colleagues
who were not able to make it back after the vote, I know are on
their way. We are going to recess for a few minutes until one
of my colleagues gets back to continue the hearing.
Congratulations, and again thank you, and thanks to your
families.
[The committee stood in recess.]
STATEMENT OF SENATOR SUSAN COLLINS
Senator Collins. The committee will come to order. I would
note my meteoric rise from least senior member of this
committee to the temporary chair. It gives me a great sense of
power. I want to first welcome all of you here today and give
you my personal thanks for your willingness to serve your
country. I am particularly delighted to see my friend, Mr.
Rascon, here today.
We first met last December on a trip with then Secretary of
Defense Bill Cohen, when we were visiting the troops in Bosnia,
Kosovo, Germany, and Macedonia. His telling of the story of how
he came to be a Medal of Honor recipient so moved the young men
and women who were serving in those very remote outposts. I
know his family is very proud of him, and I am delighted that
he has been nominated for this position. I also want to note
that his son, Alan, is having his birthday today--so this is a
very special day indeed.
Mr. England, I want to follow up on some of the comments
made by the committee's chairman, Senator Warner. I believe
that strong leadership is needed to address the declining naval
shipbuilding rate and our shrinking industrial base. You and I
had an opportunity to discuss this issue briefly in my office,
but the numbers are truly very troubling. The Navy has shrunk
from a fleet of 595 ships in 1987 to approximately 315 today,
while during that same period, deployments have increased by
more than 300 percent. Moreover, the regional CINCs have
repeatedly warned that the fleet is stretched perilously thin
and needs to be increased, by some estimates, to a 360-ship
Navy to meet present mission requirements. Moreover, at the
current low rate of production, the cost per ship is going to
increase and the efficiency of our yards will go down. The
numbers are just as clear as they can be. At the current rate
of investment, our Navy is heading toward a 200-ship fleet,
which by every study that I have seen is alarmingly inadequate.
So I raise this issue publicly with you only to bring to
attention to what I see as a critical need for rebuilding and
recapitalizing the naval fleet. What are your thoughts on the
current rates of production and what are your thoughts on what
we need to do to rebuild the fleet?
Mr. England. Senator, I know the rates are low in the
industrial base. I also understand that is costly. I do know
the number of ships is going down and I heard the number of 240
ships at our current rate. I do not know what the size of the
fleet should be. I have heard the report that the CINCs have
requested 260 ships or thereabouts. So I do not know the
specific number. We will wait for the outcome of the strategic
review, but shipbuilding is high on my agenda.
This is the United States Navy, so ships, of course, are
the foundation of the Navy. I made the comment in your office,
without ships it is like a football team without footballs, so
we definitely do need ships in the Navy. That number, I don't
know the specific number, but it is high on my agenda. It is a
priority. It is an area we will look at very carefully. We will
work with Secretary Rumsfeld to define this but if indeed there
is a need for ships, I will definitely make it a priority to go
work this issue of added ships and working with this committee,
with you, and the chairman to do that. So if confirmed, I will
definitely work with this committee and on this issue.
Senator Collins. Thank you. You mentioned the strategic
review that is currently under way. I have been very concerned
by press reports which suggest that the DD-21 is being targeted
by this review. This is puzzling to me, given that it
incorporates the kinds of leap-ahead technologies that
Secretary Rumsfeld and the President have embraced. I just want
to alert you to the fact that today, along with the majority of
the members of the Seapower Subcommittee, including the chair,
Senator Sessions, and the ranking minority member, Senator
Kennedy, and our majority leader, Senator Trent Lott, that I
have sent a letter to Secretary Rumsfeld raising our concerns
about press reports that the DD-21 is endangered and putting
out what we believe are the very strong reasons for proceeding
on schedule with this very important new weapons system. I know
you have not had a chance to review this issue, but I did want
to alert you to our concerns and to the very strong support
that the DD-21 has in this committee and in this Congress and
Senate. So I just want to put that on your radar screen as
something that I hope you will get back to us on with a very
positive response, very early in your tenure as an outstanding
naval secretary.
Mr. England. Definitely, I will definitely get back with
you. I appreciate the effort, Senator. We will respond as
quickly as possible.
Senator Collins. Let me switch to another issue, Mr.
England. Currently, our P-3 aircraft is an integral part of our
current war plans' patrol and reconnaissance programs, but the
P-3 is getting old. The platform is roughly 25-years-old and
while the aircraft avionics upgrades have kept the plane
relevant and viable in today's threat environment, many believe
the air frame itself is reaching the end of its useful service
life. Now, I am aware that there is an ongoing service life
assessment program that is studying air frame fatigue issues,
and that currently there is an ongoing analysis of alternatives
underway to look at a multi-mission aircraft (MMA) as a follow-
on to the P-3 program. The CINCs rely on the P-3 to perform
their roles and missions every day. I'd like to know what your
thoughts are on the MMA program as a follow-on contender for
the Navy patrol and reconnaissance missions.
Mr. England. Senator, that is definitely an issue I have to
look into, if confirmed, and get back with you. I will get back
with you and confirm it.
Senator Collins. Thank you. Mr. White, all of the services
are currently under review to transform and move the military
force into the 21st century. I understand the transformation
efforts, particularly the Army transformation, are already
under way. But there are obviously still opportunities and
challenges ahead. The Army, in particular, has been criticized
that its current units and systems are not nimble enough to
respond to today's threats. In your judgment, will the current
Army transformation plans yield the kinds of military forces
and changes that we need to remain capable in the 21st century?
Mr. White. Senator, from my brief review of the
transformation plan as it is currently laid out, that is, the
central focus of the plan is to produce at least equivalent
survivability and revalidate with considerably less strategic
weight so that we have a far more agile force. As we shift
strategic emphasis from the European theater where it has been
during the Cold War to the Pacific theater and the distances
stretch and the geography changes, that it is strategic
mobility that will be an essential challenge on the Army to
outline a transformation program so that the Army can arrive at
a first unit equipped in a reasonable time frame at an
affordable price. If confirmed, I'll make that a central effort
to be personally involved in.
Senator Collins. Thank you. I know that my time has expired
and the chairman has returned so I will turn over the gavel. I
do want to say, Dr. Chu, that I do have a question for you that
I am going to submit for the record. It expresses my concern
about reports that 50 percent of DOD's civilian acquisition
work force is going to be eligible to retire in 2005, and that
really concerns me as far as brain drain and loss of expertise
to the Department. So for the record, I am submitting a
question to you that I would appreciate your answering.
Chairman Warner. That is a very important subject, and each
of our nominees should be fully aware of that fact.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Senator Smith.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR BOB SMITH
Senator Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I must also
apologize to the witnesses. A number of us have a simultaneous
hearing going on in another committee with Secretary Mineta and
we have also had a vote. Welcome to the Senate. Get used to it.
Dr. Chu, there was a report, I am not sure of the date, it
may have been yesterday in the Washington Times about four
recently-authorized or expanded peacekeeping missions in Africa
that will account for a huge increase in peacekeeping missions.
Officials estimate the final cost of peacekeeping for the 12-
month period ending June 30 could rise as high as $22.6
billion, compared to the $1.7 billion a year earlier. There was
great controversy in the last administration about these
peacekeeping missions, specifically a lack of budgeting which
ultimately consumed readiness. Are you prepared to deal with
this shortcoming in a straightforward manner so that the
military readiness programs will not suffer?
Dr. Chu. Yes, Senator. If I am confirmed to this position,
I would look forward to exactly that.
Senator Smith. How would you do that or recommend doing
that? Would you do so via a supplemental budget for
peacekeeping or budget for it in the defense budget or transfer
the role of peacekeeping missions to the State Department?
Dr. Chu. Senator, as your question suggests, President Bush
and the current Secretary of Defense have committed themselves
to trying to reduce these burdens, not increase them. That is
obviously the first step. To the extent that the missions are
foreseen, I think it is preferable to build them in the budget.
I recognize the Department has tried from time to time to put
forward the notion of a contingency fund against unforeseen
circumstances of this kind. It has not always gotten a warm
reception to that notion, and I think if a contingency line is
not feasible, then I think the Department needs more promptly
to ask for money in order to deal with it.
Senator Smith. Gentlemen, there is debate about
``peacekeeping'' missions--whether or not they are a legitimate
role for the military. I think this will be a continuing
dialogue as we move forward in the budget process.
Unfortunately, I didn't have the opportunity to sit down and
speak with each of you. The wait accompanying your nominations
has precluded time to talk privately prior to this hearing.
With that in mind, it is not my intent to surprise anyone, but
just get it on your radar screen.
Let me start with you, Mr. White. I have had a long-
standing interest in the Kinetic Energy Anti-Satellite (KE-
ASAT) program. KE-ASAT is a program that we have had under the
Army for a number of years. Not to brag or take the blame, but
I pretty much kept the program alive single-handedly. For the
last 10 years it has been line-item vetoed and reprogrammed. I
am concerned because there is another $40 or $50 million needed
to get three kill vehicles tested. Unfortunately, there are
still problems with that program and I want to bring it to your
attention. General Shinseki has been very cooperative with me
but there are still people in the program who don't believe in
the program and people who do believe in the program who can't
get into the program. That is not good for management of this
program. I am concerned because I have thought about it and
fought for it for so long that I am about ready to recommend a
drastic change. I am ready to say if the Air Force is going to
be the lead agency on space and that is the direction of
reforms, then maybe it is time to move KE-ASAT out of the Army
and put it in the Air Force where someone will believe in the
program. I want you to understand my concern and frustration.
It is the only program that I know of that can incapacitate a
satellite. I know I will be proven right when these kill
vehicles are tested. I feel so strongly about it and the way
that it has been going that if the recommendations seem to fit
and the Army is not going to be supportive of getting this
program back on line, then I would suggest looking at the Air
Force. I apologize for doing this publicly, but I feel so
strongly about this issue.
Mr. White. Senator, if confirmed, if you would give me a
chance to examine the program before you took precipitous
action, I would appreciate that.
Senator Smith. I will do that. Again, I think what the
Secretary was talking about in his press conference, and I
don't want to put words in his mouth, but the idea was that
somehow we need to try to collate things in terms of our space
program. Their oversight is spread all over the Defense
Department, as responsibility for the programs is spread all
over different committees in Congress, but it is an example of
a program that I think has been delayed because of actions
prior to your tenure, obviously.
Mr. England, let me ask you one question. Military-to-
military exchanges are a big controversy now. The Secretary
addressed this issue the other day, briefly saying he was going
to look at exchanges on a case-by-case basis. The information
that I have had on these exchanges over the past several years
has been that the military-to-military exchanges seem to
benefit the Chinese more than they benefit us. They get to see
more than we did. I would ask, when you are confirmed, to take
a good, hard look at these military-to-military exchanges to
see whether or not they are necessary to provide the Chinese
with that kind of access. Given the latest things that have
happened on Hainan Island, I would hope that you would look at
that policy and whether or not they deserve access to our
military installations when they are holding one of our
aircraft hostage, if you will, in their country.
Mr. England. Senator, I will get involved in this subject.
Yes, sir.
Senator Smith. I think it is one way to get their attention
proving we don't tolerate this sort of thing. Could I ask one
more question, Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Warner. Absolutely.
Senator Smith. I know my time has expired, and I apologize
for that. Mr. England, I spoke to your predecessor, Secretary
Danzig, briefly before he left office on the LCDR Michael
Speicher case--the missing Navy pilot, first pilot shot down at
the end of the Persian Gulf War. We can't go into a lot of
detail here in an open session, but I just would ask you to
receive an intelligence briefing on this and make sure that you
are briefed thoroughly. There are some details that are quite
astonishing. Secretary Danzig was so concerned about it that he
recommended, and President Clinton approved, a change in the
status of Commander Speicher from KIA to MIA. An unprecedented
action, based on intelligence that had been revisited. I really
believe that it is something you need to be briefed on. When
you look at the number of issues you are going to have on your
plate as you step in there, this could get lost. But, I believe
it is a very important issue, and I urge you to look at it very
carefully.
Mr. England. I will make sure it does not get lost, sir.
Senator Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Mr. Smith. I appreciate your
coming down from your other hearing. We have been here for 2
consecutive hours. I think it might be advisable if we all
stood for 2 or 3 minutes and as soon as I see you back in your
seats, we will resume the hearing, which I hope will be 2 or 3
minutes. Thank you.
[The committee stood in recess.]
Chairman Warner. The committee will come to order. I'll
start with Mr. Rascon. I feel very strongly that not only has
the President chosen wisely in your nomination, and indeed I
think you had a chance to meet with Colonel Les Brownlee, Staff
Director of the Armed Services Committee, and who was in that
same engagement and wounded 3 days before you. He is a tower of
strength on this committee. He has been here for many years. I
hope he stays many more. But any way, the Selective Service
System is essential. We always have to be reminded that the
draft in World War II was approved by one vote from one single
member, one vote that enabled that draft to be put in place
just on the eve of Pearl Harbor. Anyway, the oceans have given
us a certain amount of protection and time with which to
prepare for engagements. We had it in World War II fortunately,
but now with modern communication, modern transportation,
spread of terrorism, we may not have the luxury of that time,
so should a major crisis befall our Nation, we would have to
turn immediately to the Selective Service System to provide men
and women to come forward to serve in uniform. So, you have a
very important function.
Mr. Rascon. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. This committee takes seriously its
oversight of your organization and we know that you will have
access to me and members of our committee and our staff
whenever you deem it necessary.
Mr. Rascon. Thank you very much.
Chairman Warner. Now, you served as Inspector General of
that system. Do you have some recommendations in your mind now
that you are likely to bring about in the system, and also,
would that require legislation?
Mr. Rascon. If confirmed, the best thing about becoming a
director will be the fact that I have been there before. I
served there for 5 years and I ended up making observations. It
is an agency that is well-equipped to do what it has to do, but
there is always room for improvement. I think the most critical
thing we have right now is with young men who have to come back
and register. We end up with an 88 percentile of individuals
registered for the Selective Service. We would hope that we
would have it up to at least 90 percent. We find that those
individuals who do not register do it with good cause and
sometimes we end up with young individuals that are not aware
of the fact that that is mandatory for them to do, and once
they find out hey, let's do it, and it is really simple. The
sad thing about it is that most of the time, these young men
are not aware of the fact that they have an obligation to
register. I think it is going to be important for us to come
back and look at where the weak points are or we have to come
back and focus, what state, what county, and make sure that we
get the word out to these young men that they have a mandate to
register for the Selective Service. I think by doing that, we
should be able to come back and facilitate the need to come
back and have at least a 90 percentile of individuals
registering for the Selective Service once again, sir.
Chairman Warner. As these service secretaries will be able
to advise you hopefully after they are confirmed in their jobs,
their challenge to meet the special skills requirements of the
respective services is one of the biggest problems they have.
We have enjoyed, certainly up until 6 months ago, an
extraordinary growth in high-tech industry. Hopefully, that
will return because it is on the cutting edge of America. But
we are short frequently because of the growth of the civilian
sector of high-tech in our military services for individuals
who were trained in high-tech. They are given a number of
offers when they have to make that critical decision. Do they
go on for another 4 years or do they go out with their families
and believe me, let me tell you, the decision to stay in the
military is made around the dinner table at night. When I was
in uniform sometimes a sergeant made the decision, but that is
gone long ago. You may have to have congressional mandates for
special skills. It is interesting, I love military history. My
father served in World War I as a doctor in the trenches,
wounded and highly decorated. I am just so highly proud of his
service to the United States. But he was in the United States
Army Reserve. The United States Army Reserve was created
shortly after the turn of the century for one purpose, and that
was to have a cadre of doctors to meet the requirements of this
country we faced with a war. Indeed, it did happen in 1917.
That is our situation in that war. So you have to be prepared.
Have you given some thought to that? That is not going to be an
easy one.
Mr. Rascon. I have, sir, personally, because I have worked
at the Selective Service and have been exposed to the
intelligence community where I was an Army officer, there is a
viable threat sometimes that we might not be aware of. I think
that is one of the things that is hitting us right now in the
head is the fact that if something happens, we have to be ready
for anything and any emergencies. We end up with individuals
who might be drafted, but again they end up with one common
skill. We have to be able to come back and mandate through
Congress to have a specialty, such as doctors and nurses, ready
to come and be on board in case of a national emergency. If it
is mandated, that is something that we will be able to come
back and have ready to go, but to me, I think it is very
important.
Chairman Warner. You will, subject to confirmation, shortly
make public what you are going to do along those lines, because
I think advanced knowledge to the young men and women that if
there is a serious problem, because of their skills, they could
be among the first to be drafted. Am I not correct?
Mr. Rascon. That's correct, sir. That is why it is
important that we talk to each other as when I was in the
infantry school: cooperate and graduate. I think that is very
important.
Chairman Warner. That still works.
Mr. Rascon. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. Now Dr. Chu, in your written responses to
the committee's questions, do you agree the Selective Service
Board should review substantiated relevant information of an
adverse nature which could affect the judgment of those having
to make the decision on those very important boards and be a
part of the deliberative process.
Dr. Chu. Yes, sir.
Mr. White. Yes, sir.
Mr. England. Yes, sir.
Dr. Roche. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rascon. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. The service secretary plays a very key
role in the selection boards and there is nothing really--I
wouldn't say nothing, but it is vital to the career of the
professional military that those boards be viewed and in actual
practice are conducted in a manner to give the maximum degree
of objectivity and fairness. Because they, together with their
families, that made commitments of periods of time of service,
accepted the hardships associated with that service, indeed the
risk associated with it, the separation from family, and there
is nothing more exciting that comes along than a promotion this
side of the ocean, so take that responsibility as one of your
greatest and most important and bear in mind the need to have
that fairness, objectivity, and that they have comfort in that.
Success in recruiting requires our most creative and bold
thinking. What ideas do each of you have towards improving our
recruiting? Dr. Chu.
Dr. Chu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My own take on it is that
we in the department need to be in tune with what is appealing
to the younger generation, which may not always be the same
things that appeal to the older. Maintaining a close finger on
that pulse is essential to having a successful campaign.
Chairman Warner. Mr. White.
Mr. White. Senator, the Army has launched a new campaign,
the ``An Army of One'' campaign. I look forward, if confirmed,
to getting into the details of that.
Chairman Warner. I wouldn't accept it at this moment. I
don't know where you are going with this testimony. But the
other one worked pretty well. So I want you to do some top-to-
bottom analysis in your department, if confirmed.
Mr. White. Senator, I intend to. I was there when ``Be All
You Can Be'' had tremendous success. The ``An Army of One'' has
now kicked off, as you have seen. The message is what you call
nontraditional. It leads from an older person's perspective.
Chairman Warner. I wouldn't take that subject right now for
yes, sir, brought up in my absence, we are ruling out any
discussion on that.
Mr. White. I will review it, Senator, in great detail
because it is so important to the service.
Chairman Warner. Good. I thank you.
Mr. England. Senator, it is not just recruiting in the Navy
and Marines. What we have is quality of service, which is
quality of life and quality of workplace. It is recognizing the
individual, the family, the optempo, all those things go
together in making an enlisted career, officer career, or even
a civilian career with the Navy or Marine Corps. It is going to
be one of my very top goals, as I stated in a letter to you,
sir. I think this is very important. The pilots are leaving at
certain times and it is not just due to the airlines. I am not
sure exactly what it is but it is happening in enlisted ranks
as well, and it is of concern to me. I know it is of concern to
the Chief of Naval Operations as well.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much. If you don't succeed,
take a look at the man at the end of the table. You don't want
to go to that unless it is absolutely essential.
Dr. Roche. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. You see that.
Dr. Roche. Yes, sir. I have been thinking about your point
about doctors.
Chairman Warner. Yes, sir. We understand each other. Last
week, Mr. England, this committee had a very good and thorough
hearing on the subject of the V-22 program that was established
by Secretary Cohen. That was a panel that came before this
committee after the second fatal tragic mishap of a downed
aircraft in an 8-month time span. The panel recommended the
program be restructured but that it proceed. I can tell you at
this point in time, I think we have to try and move in that
way. Now further, what has to be done with Congress and indeed
the Secretary of Defense and his staff. But at this time,
speaking only for myself, I think it is essential that that
program go forward.
That airplane is not only essential for the Marine Corps
and for Special Operations Forces, but in my judgment, it is
especially for the country in two aspects. I was a member of
the committee that conducted the investigation on the efforts
of our Nation to rescue the embassy hostages in Iran. That
operation was carefully thought through and planned in many
ways, but the nail of the shoe of the horse was lost, but the
shoe of the horse became lame, and you know that old joke,
don't you. Small technical things occurred, some unforeseen
weather conditions occurred, but those old helicopters were all
we had to go in there, and this aircraft can be used first as a
deterrent, and then if necessary, as an action by our military
and our enlisted rescue people who are deep inside hostile
boundaries, that get in and get out, and again, in this
troubled world which we lead and rising terrorism, it is an
asset for the United States.
Second, there is a long history in our country of the
United States military having forged their research and
development on new types of aircraft that after they have
become operational, those aircraft have been picked up and
adapted by private civil areas, private sector, and developed
into some of our major transport today, and other types of
aircraft. If we can prove this technology to be safe and it can
be utilized eventually by the civilian community, not only in
this country, but there is no other technology quite like it in
the world, then we have done not only a great service to our
military and to our Nation's ability to perform rescue
operations and other types of military operations, but we have
enhanced the abilities of our civilian aviation perhaps to get
a stronger position in the airplane market of a new type of
dynamic aircraft, so this precision has many ramifications.
Work has to be done.
I think it best at this point in time, not to press you. I
just wondered if you might have views that coincide with mine.
If not, you can wait until you are confirmed and then you will
be back.
Mr. England. Senator, just one comment, sir. My only
background and experience, of course, is in military aviation,
so here is an area where I believe I can bring my own expertise
and management experience to bear and I will do that very
quickly. When confirmed, I will definitely get involved in the
program because I believe I can personally help the program and
will do so and look forward to it, sir.
Chairman Warner. Good. I thank you. Dr. Chu, again, in a
wide range of subjects that I covered and two other Members of
Congress who were with me in meeting with the Secretary this
morning, he is gravely concerned, as he should be, about the
Defense Health Program. It is underfunded in the current year
by approximately $1.4 billion. We had a lengthy discussion
about the 2001 supplemental budget and the Secretary is
committed to that. The President is now committed to it. You
have to work with the OMB to move that forward expeditiously.
But a part of that has to be adjusting the existing
deficiencies in the military health system. If we don't,
military health care services could be curtailed as early as
late this summer. I just want to receive your acknowledgment
that you are aware of that and that you will put your highest
priority on addressing that issue very quickly.
Dr. Chu. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. I thank you. Dr. Chu, in your advance
policy questions you expressed your knowledge of and support
for the Defense Health Program, but we have to also look at the
important legislation that this committee put through last year
with regard to the retirees, and in no sense should that
legislation not be fully and timely implemented. Do I have your
assurance, Dr. Chu?
Dr. Chu. Absolutely, sir.
Mr. White. Yes, sir.
Mr. England. Yes, sir.
Dr. Roche. You have my support, sir.
Chairman Warner. I know you have an interest in two
directions. We have to have a little levity in the system
somewhere.
Mr. England, try to listen to me. This is a tough subject
but particularly it hits your budget planning and that is in
shipbuilding, we have a concept titled advanced appropriations.
We have had throughout my career in your department and here in
the Senate all kinds of things to apply to the effort to try
and not have a full funding impact on the budget. For example,
our carriers and our individuals. When you lay the carrier and
suddenly your budget has to have that item and it is several
billion dollars when we know full well that from keel to launch
is a number of years. So Congress is working with the executive
branch to see how we can alleviate some of these problems when
it comes to budgeting, but not in any way getting around the
fundamental reasons for the initial adoption and the full
funding concept. So in a little bit of a garbled question, I am
telling you that you have to work for this committee and the
Appropriations Committee on innovative ideas as to how to fund
these very significant programs and do it in a manner that
gives them certainty the programs will be carried forward and
that your respective departments, I say to each of you, fully
recognize the obligation to carry those programs. Is that
understood among you?
Mr. England. Senator, if confirmed, I am generally
committed to working with you.
Chairman Warner. Dr. Chu is taking some notes because he
will be working on that pretty closely. I think we have now
covered those questions that I feel are important, for this
committee, and eventually, the full Senate, to fully and
carefully review these very important nominations. This
extraordinary group of individuals that are before us today and
their past accomplishments and their potential to serve their
country today in these very important positions in these
critical times and this world is regrettably becoming more and
more a dangerous place. I wish you well. I sort of envy you. I
have been asked many times of a 36-year career in public office
what is the best job, and Mr. England, it is yours.
Mr. England. I have some big footsteps to follow.
Chairman Warner. During the most intense part of the
Vietnam War, and I carry it with me to this day the memory of
those periods, the happiness and the not so happiness. Good
luck to you and your families.
Mr. England. I am looking forward to it, thank you, sir.
Chairman Warner. The committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:37 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[Prepared questions submitted to Dr. David S.C. Chu by
Chairman Warner prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
May 4, 2001.
The Hon. John Warner,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Enclosed herewith are the answers to the advance
questions the Senate Armed Services Committee asked me to complete.
Sincerely,
David S.C. Chu.
cc: The Hon. Carl Levin
Ranking Minority Member.
______
Questions and Responses
defense reforms
Question. More than a decade has passed since the enactment of the
Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and
the Special Operations reforms.
Do you support full implementation of these defense reforms?
Answer. Yes.
Question. What is your view of the extent to which these defense
reforms have been implemented?
Answer. Significant progress has been made, and I believe the
Department has largely embraced the spirit of the act.
Question. What do you consider to be the most important aspects of
these defense reforms?
Answer. Reaffirmation and clarification of civilian control, and
strengthening the role of the Commanders in Chief of the Unified
Commands.
Question. The goals of Congress in enacting these defense reforms,
as reflected in section 3 of the Goldwater-Nichols Department of
Defense Reorganization Act, can be summarized as strengthening civilian
control; improving military advice; placing clear responsibility on the
combatant commanders for the accomplishment of their missions; ensuring
the authority of the combatant commanders is commensurate with their
responsibility; increasing attention to the formulation of strategy and
to contingency planning; providing for more efficient use of defense
resources; and enhancing the effectiveness of military operations and
improving the management and administration of the Department of
Defense.
Do you agree with these goals?
Answer. Yes.
duties
Question. Section 136 of Title 10, United States Code, provides
that the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness,
subject to the authority, direction, and control of the Secretary of
Defense, shall perform such duties and exercise such powers as the
Secretary of Defense may prescribe in the areas of military readiness,
total force management, military and civilian personnel requirements,
military and civilian personnel training, military and civilian family
matters, exchange, commissary and nonappropriated fund activities,
personnel requirements for weapons support, National Guard and Reserve
components, and health affairs. As Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness, you would be a top leader and manager within
the Department of Defense.
Assuming you are confirmed, what duties do you expect that
Secretary Rumsfeld will prescribe for you?
Answer. I would expect the Secretary of Defense to look to
Personnel and Readiness for stewardship of the human resources of the
Department, and to serve as a principal advisor on and advocate for
readiness issues.
Question. In carrying out these duties, what would be your
relationship with the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force
Management Policy, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health
Affairs, and the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs?
Answer. If confirmed, I would hope to work with these officers as a
team, to carry out the responsibilities for which the Secretary might
hold us responsible, each providing expertise and leadership in his or
her area of responsibility.
Question. What would be your relationship with the Assistant
Secretaries for Manpower and Reserve Affairs in the Army and Navy and
the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Manpower, Reserve Affairs,
Installations, and Environment?
Answer. If confirmed, I would hope that I could look to these
officers as my service partners in carrying out the human resource
obligations of the Department at large, most especially ensuring that
DOD attracts, motivates, and retains the quality people it needs.
officer management issues
Question. As the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness, you would have significant responsibilities with regard to
officer management policies, the promotion system, and recommending
officers for nomination to positions of authority and responsibility.
Do you believe the current Department of Defense procedures and
practices for reviewing the records of officers pending nomination by
the President are sufficient to ensure the Secretary of Defense and the
President can make informed decisions?
Answer. Yes. The Department of Defense views officer appointment
actions as matters of the utmost importance. As a result, the
procedures and practices regarding the review of officer nomination
packages are designed to ensure that the Department thoroughly vets all
officer records prior to forwarding their names for consideration by
the President.
Question. Are these procedures and practices fair and just to the
officers involved?
Answer. Yes. The Department's procedures and practices are designed
to provide safeguards against unauthorized influence, ensure
consistency of board practices, and provide for the active involvement
of civilian officials in the process. There are numerous avenues
available for redress if any officer feels that he or she has been
treated unfairly by the promotion or nomination process.
senior officers
Question. What is your opinion of the military's policy of rotating
some of its three- and four-star general and flag officers out of joint
duty assignments prior to the completion of 2 years, the general rule
established in section 664 (a) of Title 10, United States Code?
Answer. As I understand it, the Department of Defense does not have
a policy that forces rotation of three- and four-star general and flag
officers prior to completion of 2 years in a joint assignment. I want
to assure you that I am fully committed to supporting the fundamental
tenets of the Goldwater-Nichols Act and to ensuring that our military
career management policies and practices meet the requirements of law.
If confirmed, I would be pleased to examine whether actual DOD
practices diverge from either what Congress mandated or DOD's own
policies.
Question. We consider promotions to general and flag officer ranks
as identifying military officers for very senior positions that should
be filled only by officers with the very highest moral and ethical
values. We are frequently asked to confirm the promotion of officers
who have substantiated allegations of misconduct that have not been
considered by the boards that selected these officers for promotion. At
the same time, the services inform us that they have many highly-
qualified officers for each available general and flag officer billet.
What steps will you take to ensure that only the most highly-
qualified officers are nominated for promotion to general and flag
officer rank?
Answer. I believe that DOD's processes should ensure most careful
review of the nomination packages of all officers recommended for
appointment to general and flag grades at the highest levels of the
military and civilian leadership of the department. Nomination packages
that include adverse or alleged adverse information should be intensely
scrutinized to ensure the officer is qualified to assume the
responsibilities of the highest grade and to perform the duties of the
position he or she will fill.
At the same time, I believe we must simultaneously guard against
the significant downside of being a ``zero mistakes organization.''
Moreover, many of these men and women have already filled positions of
significant responsibility in which they have been called upon to make
unpopular decisions. We owe them protection from the effects of
frivolous accusations. If confirmed, I will endeavor to ensure that the
committee is apprised of adverse information, advise the committee when
alleged adverse information becomes known, and ensure that processes
enable our best qualified officers to be nominated to general and flag
officer grades.
readiness responsibilities
Question. Section 136 of Title 10, United States Code, gives the
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness certain
responsibilities for military readiness. However, some important issues
that affect military readiness, such as logistics and materiel
readiness, have been placed under the jurisdiction of the Under
Secretary for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. Furthermore, the
secretaries of the military services have the Title 10 responsibility
for most readiness issues including training, supplying, and
maintaining the military forces.
If confirmed, where would the readiness responsibilities of these
other officials end, and where would your readiness responsibilities
begin?
Answer. While Title 10, United States Code, is very clear regarding
the responsibilities of the service secretaries for providing ready
forces to our unified commanders in chief, it is equally as clear in
defining the role of the Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness.
If I am confirmed as the principal advisor to the Secretary for
readiness issues, it would be my job to maintain a comprehensive
understanding of all of the components that define the readiness of the
Department of Defense to execute any assigned mission, from stabilizing
presence to high intensity conflict. I would use the products of our
readiness assessment and reporting processes and my oversight
responsibility over readiness issues in the budget development and
execution processes to ensure our forces remain ready.
Question. What specific readiness issues would you and your
subordinates be assigned?
Answer. If confirmed as the Under Secretary for Personnel and
Readiness, I would be the principal advisor to the Secretary regarding
the readiness of the Department of Defense and I would ensure that our
senior civilian and military leaders not only remain apprised of the
readiness issues confronting the Department, but also ensure that
critical readiness and capabilities shortfalls continue to be addressed
by the Department's budgeting and execution processes.
Question. Would you recommend any changes to the current
organization to more effectively align some of these responsibilities?
Answer. While making such recommendations at this time would be
premature, if confirmed, I would certainly consider recommending
prudent refinements to the Department's readiness oversight and
management processes as their necessity becomes clear.
cinc identified readiness deficiencies
Question. Over the last several years, the Quarterly Readiness
Reports that your office prepares for Congress have outlined a number
of CINC-identified readiness-related deficiencies. Many of these are
listed as Category I deficiencies which entail significant warfighting
risk to execution of the National Military Strategy. Although these
deficiencies have been reported for the past several years, they have
not, as yet, been effectively addressed. This has raised concerns that
the requirements of the warfighting CINCs are not being incorporated
into the military services' budgets and the Department's acquisition
process.
If confirmed, what actions would you take to ensure that the
administration, and the military services in particular, provide the
necessary resources to address CINC-identified readiness deficiencies?
Answer. Each Category I deficiency should be addressed in the
building and review of the service programs, and in their execution
plans. As I understand it, the Department is actively engaged in
addressing both the long-term ``capability shortfalls'' as well as
traditional service readiness issues.
If confirmed as the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness, I would ensure via the Senior Readiness Oversight Council
that our senior civilian and military leaders not only remain apprised
of the readiness issues confronting the Department, but also that
critical readiness and capabilities shortfalls continue to be addressed
by the Department's budgeting process. The Joint Monthly Readiness
Review gives a continuing vehicle for assessing deficiencies. If
confirmed, I will ensure that P&R remains firmly embedded in this
deficiency review process.
readiness of army units in the balkans
Question. Twice in the past 2 years newspaper articles have alleged
that Army divisions were ``unprepared'' or ``unfit''. All these cases
involved divisions which had a brigade in the Balkans and the rest of
the division back at their home station. In each case the troops in the
Balkans were doing an excellent job at the tasks they were actually
assigned to at the time, but the division as a whole would not have
been able to get to a major theater war somewhere else as quickly as
they otherwise would have.
When General Clark, the Commander-in-Chief who was using the forces
in the Balkans, was asked about this issue at a hearing with this
committee last year he said the two divisions reported lower readiness
``because of the peculiarity of the Army reporting requirement . . .
They were not ready to do something; they were already doing it.'' He
went on to say that ``this anomaly will be corrected.'' Since that time
the Army has modified its deployment plans so that units engaged in
real world missions in the Balkans will not be counted on so early in
our war plans.
In your view, do these situations represent a readiness problem, a
flaw in the readiness reporting system, or a communication problem?
Answer. In my judgment, the readiness reporting system should be
structured to capture the ability of our forces to execute major
theater war responsibilities. That could lead to the seemingly
anomalous situation of a unit performing well in a smaller contingency
at the same time that its ability to carry out elements of major war
responsibilities is eroding. It may be necessary for DOD to review how
it might better structure the readiness reporting system to capture
this reality.
Question. Is it accurate to say a unit that is doing the job you
told it to do and doing it well is not ready?
Answer. It may be accurate to say that each unit has been fully and
properly trained, manned, and equipped to conduct its deployed
missions--and that it has in fact conducted them superbly. At the same
time it may also be accurate to say that the training proficiency of a
unit for combat missions (e.g., deep attack operations, assault of an
objective with fire, and maneuver) may be degraded by an inability to
actively train in these tasks over an extended time.
Question. Should our readiness ratings reflect both a unit's
capability to do the missions it is actually performing, in addition to
its capability to perform the most demanding tasks it may be assigned
under the National Military Strategy?
Answer. This may be the solution. I was pleased to learn that the
Department established a readiness indicator for small-scale
contingencies last year. As I understand it, this new readiness-
reporting enhancement requires units to report on both their currently
deployed mission as well as the missions that the unit was originally
designed to undertake.
operating tempo
Question. The services have been very concerned in recent years
about the impact of the pace of operations, or ``OPTEMPO,'' on the
quality of life of our people in uniform and specifically on their
willingness to reenlist.
What steps do you plan to take to address the services' optempo
concerns?
Answer. I believe it is widely agreed that the high-tempo level of
our service members is potentially detrimental to their quality of life
and affects their retention decisions.
If confirmed, I would look forward to making this issue a priority
concern, starting with the implementation of Congress' provision on the
matter. I believe this will require improved, more timely reporting
systems with which to track accurately the nature and extent of the
problem. It may also require a better link to DOD's survey efforts, in
order to improve our understanding of how optempo affects retention and
other personnel behaviors.
improvements to readiness reporting system
Question. Do you believe the current readiness reporting systems
can or should be modified to reflect a unit's ability to perform
effectively with the other forces it may need to work with under a
unified commander (``joint readiness''), or to predict its readiness
(``future readiness'') in addition to reflecting its current state of
readiness?
Answer. Although I believe DOD's current system is an effective
tool, improvements need to be made, of which these are excellent
examples.
Question. What steps would you take to address concerns that our
current readiness reporting system does not provide this information?
Answer. As I understand it, the congressionally-mandated
independent study is expected to offer significant recommendations for
improvement. If confirmed, I would look forward to reviewing these
recommendations with a critical eye for making meaningful changes that
will allow the Department to have a readiness system that reports on
the capability of the armed forces to carry out the full range of
requirements as indicated by the National Security Strategy. Such a
review should pay particular attention to recommendations on improving
sustainability reports and reporting by Mission Essential Tasks.
anthrax vaccine immunization program
Question. DOD considers the biological agent anthrax to be the
greatest biological weapon threat to our military force because it is
highly lethal, easy to produce in large quantities, and remains viable
over long periods of time. The anthrax vaccination program has been
curtailed because of limited quantities of FDA-approved vaccine.
If confirmed, and if additional FDA-approved vaccine becomes
available, do you plan to reimplement and continue the Anthrax
Vaccination Immunization Policy?
Answer. It is my understanding that, because of constrained supply,
the Department has presently slowed the program. It is also my
understanding that current plans call for a return to a phased
implementation approach to the program once an adequate supply is again
available. I have also been advised that Secretary Rumsfeld will
receive a full briefing on the program and will make a decision on its
continuation and execution at that time. If confirmed as the Under
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, I would keep myself
apprised of the program so that I could provide the Secretary with an
honest and forthright appraisal of the program's effect on personnel
and readiness issues.
Question. How do you believe the Department should respond to
service members who refuse to take the vaccine when required to do so?
Answer. Military personnel are required to take many vaccines. Some
are given to all military personnel, while others are for certain
occupational groups or geographic assignments. For the affected
category of personnel at risk, none of these vaccines is optional or
voluntary under current policy.
Service members who refuse to take the vaccine disobey a lawful
order and are subject to administrative or disciplinary actions. In
these instances, local military commanders apply the principles in the
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and the guidance in the Manual
for Courts-Martial and Service regulations that apply to other cases
involving a refusal to obey a lawful order. This permits a local
commander, with no influence from superior officers, to consider each
case on its own merits. At the same time, I am sensitive to the
widespread suspicion about this vaccine specifically, and about medical
force protection generally. If confirmed, I would see it as an urgent
task to regain the confidence of service members and their families
that the administration of vaccines is in their own best interest.
homosexual conduct policy
Question. The current Department of Defense Homosexual Conduct
Policy went into effect in February 1994 after months of congressional
hearings and debate resulting in the enactment of a federal statute.
Although there have been some changes in how this policy has been
implemented, the basic policy has not been changed.
Do you believe that the current policy is effective?
Answer. In general, yes.
Question. If confirmed, do you plan to make any changes to the
basic policy or its implementation? If so, what changes will you
propose?
Answer. Consistent with the Secretary's previous statement, and
with what President Bush said during the campaign, I understand that
there are no plans to recommend changes to either current law or
policy.
Question. A DOD working group of senior military and civilian
representatives from each of the military services recently proposed an
action plan to address the problem of harassment based on perceived
sexual orientation and other issues raised by the Inspector General.
The review resulted in a 13-point action plan to eliminate all forms of
harassment. The Department announced that it would issue a Department-
wide directive on this subject.
Do you support the 13-point action plan issued by the Secretary's
working group?
Answer. I have not yet had a chance to review the proposed plan but
would look forward to doing so, if confirmed.
Question. Will you ensure that the Department issues and enforces
an appropriate directive to implement and enforce the action plan?
Answer. Harassment in any form is inconsistent with military values
and should be handled quickly and effectively by military leaders. If
confirmed, I will review the working group's findings and recommend
appropriate actions.
montgomery gi bill
Question. Almost all new service members enroll in and contribute
to the Montgomery GI Bill. Only about half use their benefits, and many
do not use all of their entitlement. Many of these soldiers, sailors,
airmen, and marines say they would like to stay in the service, but
feel they have to leave so that they can provide for the education of
their spouses and children. Some of these service members would stay in
the service if they could transfer all or a part of their unused
entitlement to GI Bill benefits to family members in return for a
service commitment. Service secretaries could use this retention tool
selectively, just as they use reenlistment bonuses.
If confirmed, will you give serious consideration to how the
Department of Defense could use the transfer of unused GI Bill benefits
to family members as a retention tool and provide your thoughts on how
we best do this?
Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure that we fully explore MGIB
transferability as a potential contributor to better retention and
improved quality of life.
department of defense educational activity
Question. President Bush has acknowledged that ``soldiers enlist,
but families reenlist.'' The Department of Defense Education Activity
(DODEA) schools are a key element of the quality of life for our
service members and their families.
What role will the DODEA schools play in the administration's
effort to improve quality of life for military families?
Answer. Indeed, children's education and success in school are a
top priority for military families and for President Bush. If
confirmed, I would look forward to examining how DODEA schools
contribute to military quality of life.
Question. The current pay structure for DODEA teachers was
established in 1959.
Will you review this pay structure to determine whether it is still
adequate and propose changes determined appropriate by your review?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I would review the pay structure for
DODEA teachers in both domestic and overseas schools and make
appropriate recommendations to the Secretary of Defense.
gender integrated training
Question. Basic training, which may be the single most important
phase of an individual's life in the military, is structured and
defined differently by each service. Men training for direct ground
combat positions in the Army and Marine Corps train in all-male units.
Men and women training to serve in positions that are open to women in
the Army, Navy, and Air Force train in gender-integrated units. Men and
women in the Marine Corps are segregated at boot camp, then integrated
during subsequent training.
Do you believe the current DOD policy of allowing each of the
services to establish its own policy for gender integration in basic
training is effective?
Answer. Each service develops and executes a basic training program
to meet its unique mission requirements. In my judgment, service
policies with respect to gender integrated training should reflect
those requirements.
Question. If confirmed, will you propose changes to the DOD or
service policies? If so, what changes will you propose?
Answer. The services conduct basic training for one purpose: to
produce physically fit, trained, and disciplined soldiers, sailors,
airmen, and marines. Changes would be needed if the services cannot
meet that goal.
concurrent receipt
Question. Military retirees with disabilities incurred during their
military service are eligible to receive military retired pay from the
Department of Defense and veterans' disability compensation from the
Department of Veterans' Affairs. However, current law requires that
military retired pay be reduced by the amount of the veterans'
benefits. Military retirement pay and disability compensation were
earned and awarded for different purposes. Military retirees earned
their retirement by dedicating 20 or more years of service to our
Nation's defense. Disability compensation is awarded to compensate
veterans for injuries incurred in the line of duty.
If confirmed, would you support a change in the law to permit
disabled military retirees to receive their full retired pay as well as
their disability compensation?
Answer. If confirmed I would look closely at that issue, if
Congress has not already acted on it, and would look forward to working
closely with the committee on this important topic.
conversion of military positions to civilian positions
Question. Whenever Defense organizations undergo staffing changes,
a review is conducted to determine which positions are ``military
essential'' and which positions can be converted to civilian positions.
However, there is no systematic process to review positions in
organizations not experiencing such a change to determine whether
military positions should be converted to civilian positions. In 1997,
GAO, using DOD and service guidance, determined that 14 percent of
active duty officer positions were candidates for military to civilian
conversion.
If confirmed, will you initiate a review of military positions to
determine whether they are truly ``military essential'' and identify
those that can be converted to civilian positions?
Answer. The Department of Defense has undergone a number of changes
since the 1997 GAO review. My understanding is that the Department has
conducted a Department-wide review of every military and civilian
position with a goal of streamlining the workforce through competition.
The Department is using that review as a tool to develop A-76
competition plans and to ensure that both military and civilian
essentiality guidelines are applied uniformly throughout the
components. If confirmed, I would continue to implement Department
policy that mandates a review of military/civilian essentiality.
retention
Question. Both Congress and the Department of Defense are fully
committed to supporting initiatives that improve our military members'
quality of life to influence them to stay in the military. The
initiatives include increased compensation and improved housing for
families and single personnel. Although these initiatives may increase
overall retention, they may not affect retaining those individuals with
high demand technical skills. This retention challenge will increase as
we train our personnel to support the digitization and automation of
our armed forces.
What additional initiatives, other than speciality pay, should the
Department consider to increase retention of these highly trained
personnel?
Answer. While pay and compensation are critical, retaining a
service member and his or her family also depends on high job
satisfaction, quality of family life, and quality of service
conditions. Controlling personnel tempo, or time away from home, should
remain a top priority.
Question. In your personal opinion, what is the greatest challenge
that must be overcome in regard to retaining mid-grade noncommissioned
officers and mid-grade officers?
Answer. DOD recruits a high quality force, provides first class
education and training with associated hands-on experience, and places
the challenges of leadership and accountability on its people at a very
young age. These are talented and seasoned people and civilian
employers, who offer high salaries and a more predictable family life,
know this and aggressively recruit them.
I believe we can increase the likelihood of retaining these people
in today's strong economy by enhancing job satisfaction--which includes
the off-duty as well as the duty environment. High job satisfaction
translates to compensation equity, concern for the welfare of families,
increased confidence in skills and equipment, and sufficient resources
to man and train a world class fighting force.
civilian personnel
Question. The aging of the DOD workforce, combined with constrained
hiring during the past several years, has created a significant skill
imbalance within the Department.
If additional funding to permit additional hiring is not available,
what policies, in your view, must the Department implement to
revitalize its workforce?
Answer. I believe this is a serious issue facing the Department
and, if confirmed, I intend to conduct a review of all aspects of
civilian workforce management. This should include the need for some
flexibility in hiring and pay systems.
reserve component deployment
Question. There is substantial anecdotal evidence that members of
the Reserve and Guard are tiring of extended deployments, and meeting
increased resistance to such deployments from spouses and civilian
employers. The Air Force has instituted a program to put some
predictability into deployment cycles.
In your opinion, is this a serious problem?
Answer. I do not yet know enough to judge the seriousness of the
problem, but if confirmed, I would welcome the opportunity to evaluate
it.
Question. What initiatives would you propose to address employers'
concerns?
Answer. If confirmed, I will meet with employers to better
understand their concerns so that the Department can craft policies to
address the concerns explicitly. I understand that the Federal
Government is the largest single employer of guardsmen and reservists.
Therefore, I would work with all Federal agencies to ensure that the
Federal Government leads by example. The Deputy Secretary of Defense
has taken the first step in this initiative by his recent approval of
Defense implementation of an Office of Personnel Management policy
encouraging all Federal agencies to pay the employee share of health
premiums for Reserve component members serving in support of
contingency operations.
Question. Do you believe the Air Force program has succeeded in its
intent?
Answer. I understand the Air Force's Aerospace Expeditionary Force
(AEF) program is potentially helpful, but it's too early to provide a
definitive answer.
senior executive service development and training
Question. What are your personal views on the adequacy of training
programs for members of the Senior Executive Service in the Department
of Defense?
What initiatives would you propose to enhance this training?
Answer. Although I understand some training is provided, I believe
DOD can substantially improve the training provided to its Senior
Executives and those preparing themselves for the SES. If confirmed, I
would look forward to reviewing existing training and see where
improvements can be made.
medical benefit as component of compensation package
Question. The military medical benefit has varied over time
depending on geographic location, beneficiary category, and available
funding. This has caused great confusion and concern for Department of
Defense military beneficiaries. A medical benefit is a significant
component of a total compensation package. As Under Secretary for
Personnel and Readiness, responsibility for this vast program would be
under your purview.
If confirmed, how do you envision approaching the totality of the
compensation package and the specific medical benefit in that context?
Answer. Providing comprehensive health care benefits is an
important part of any compensation package, whether it be for a
military service member, or a Federal civilian employee, and health
care has always been a critical component of quality of life for active
duty families. With passage of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Congress extended the TRICARE
benefit to our 65-and-over military beneficiaries. The Department's
commitment is to provide or arrange for these benefits, demonstrating
its long-term commitment to comprehensive health care benefits for all
eligible beneficiaries. It is essential for the Department to honor
this commitment if it is to compete successfully for the best talent in
American society. Were I confirmed as Under Secretary for Personnel and
Readiness, working with this committee, I would look forward to taking
a results-based approach to both the medical benefit and the total
compensation package.
defense health program shortfall
Question. As you are well aware from your previous tenure, the
Defense medical budget has and continues to experience significant
annual shortfalls. The combination of what had been a vague benefit for
retirees, a declining medical infrastructure, advances in technology,
and a growing retiree population all contributed to substantial
difficulty in budgeting adequately for this program.
Now that Congress has clarified its intent with regard to older
retirees' entitlement to health care, what steps do you plan to take to
ensure appropriate funding levels for the Defense Health Program?
Answer. If confirmed, I am committed to advocating for appropriate
funding of the health care program. I believe this starts with an
improved ability to forecast future costs and carries all the way
through to monitoring the actual execution of the program.
organization of the office of the assistant secretary of defense for
health affairs
Question. Since at least the 1940s, there has been ongoing
discussion of appropriate oversight of the military health care system.
From time to time, proposals are evaluated which would consolidate the
capabilities of the military departments' medical activities. In fact,
in response to DOD review of medical support, funding, and oversight,
the Defense Health Program was created in the early 1990s and
subsequently a Defense Field Activity, the TRICARE Management Activity,
was created to oversee, from a joint perspective, operations of the
military health care system. Congress has directed review of a joint
military medical command and is awaiting a Department report on such a
proposal.
What are your views on an appropriate oversight structure for the
military health care program?
Answer. RAND reviewed this issue for the Department in support of
its response to Congress and recommended that reorganization of the
current TRICARE regional structure and empowerment of the lead agent
should be the first course of action. I tend to agree with this
approach. If confirmed, I would look forward to examining what further
steps might be productive, especially as DOD gains experience with
Tricare for Life.
future of managed care support contracts
Question. The TRICARE Management Activity manages the contracting
process whereby the Department has contracted with five major health
care suppliers to provide regional contract support to augment the
capabilities of the military health care system. These are billion
dollar contracts that have experienced significant growth due to a
number of factors which include changing requirements from the
Department of Defense and congressional direction. As these contracts
come to their termination points, the Department is considering new
approaches to acquisition of health care services.
What are your views on the future of purchased health care and what
approach do you believe holds the most promise?
Answer. The Department is currently reviewing the options for
developing the next generation of health care contracts. I understand
that numerous studies have been undertaken and a number of outside
consultants and experts have been used to identify various contract
options. The health care industry has evolved significantly since the
early 1990s when the current contract model was developed. If
confirmed, I would look forward to helping develop a contract model
that is responsive to local health care delivery requirements,
recognizes the capability of empowered regional management, and takes
advantage of current and emerging business practices for activities
like claims processing. It may turn out DOD will need some additional
statutory language to write effective contracts of this type, and, if
confirmed, I would look forward to working with this committee on that
issue should such prove to be the case.
major challenges
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges confronting
the next Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness?
Answer. Recruiting and retaining high quality men and women in the
right skills to meet mission requirements and to ensure our Nation's
military force is able to fulfill our national security requirements.
Meeting the readiness challenges in transforming U.S. military forces
to a 21st century model.
Question. If confirmed, what plans do you have for addressing these
challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, I would plan to focus on those factors with
the greatest influence in producing needed results. I would hope to
establish processes, in the best public administration tradition, that
permit realizing the desired results as a routine, well-considered
business practice, rather than as emergent, ``crash'' objectives. Among
other elements, that may require stronger and more responsive
information systems than now exist.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, when asked, to give your personal views,
even if those views differ from the administration in power?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as the Under Secretary of Defense
for Personnel and Readiness?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings and
other communications of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Strom Thurmond
1. Senator Thurmond. In a recent press account, General Shelton
said force quality must remain a top priority. He believes military pay
is still 10 percent behind private sector wages and argues for a hefty
increase soon. How would you rate the need for a significant pay
increase, when compared to other competing priorities?
Dr. Chu. The Department is taking a hard look at the structure and
levels of military pay in comparison with private sector pay for those
with similar levels of education. Analysis conducted by the 9th
Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation (QRMC) indicates that pay
for mid-grade non-commissioned officers is clearly behind competing pay
in the private sector, and targeted raises under consideration for
January 2002 are appropriate to begin addressing this problem.
2. Senator Thurmond. There are many individuals in the Department
of Defense who believe that the quickest way to achieve savings is to
convert civilian-filled government positions to contractor-operated
functions. In my judgment, these savings are in most instances
illusionary.
What reporting system does the Department have to capture the data
necessary to quantify these savings?
Dr. Chu. The system that tracks competition initiatives is the
Department of Defense Commercial Activities Management Information
System (CAMIS). The system tracks costs for each performance period
bid. The Department is currently developing enhancements to this
system.
3. Senator Thurmond. Based on your service in the Department of
Defense during the 1980s as the Director of Program Analysis and
Evaluation, what changes have you seen in the relationship between
Congress and the Department of Defense in the last 10 years? How will
these changes impact your relationship with this committee and
Congress?
Dr. Chu. I, of course, am just beginning to develop my
relationships with Congress in my new role as the Under Secretary of
Defense for Personnel and Readiness. However, my initial impression is
that Congress remains as interested and involved in the details of the
budget and the implementation of the policies within the Department of
Defense as I remember, but the Department is less cohesive in its
responses. I look forward to improving our responses, and working
closely with this committee, and the other oversight committees, to
recognize the nobility of service to the Nation, to develop a new
``social compact'' with service members and their families, and to
develop a human resources strategy that will provide objectives and
guidelines for recruiting, training, motivating, and retaining the
military and civilian workforce needed to meet the challenges of the
21st century.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Susan Collins
4. Senator Collins. The Acquisition 2005 Task Force Report,
``Shaping the Civilian Acquisition Workforce of the Future,''
highlights that the Department is on the verge of a crisis of a
retirement-driven brain drain. According to this report, more than 50
percent of DOD's civilian acquisition workforce will be eligible to
retire by 2005, requiring a surge in recruiting at all levels. What
plans do you have to ensure that we are recruiting and retaining new
talent to step up into these senior leadership positions, as people
retire in the near and mid-terms?
Dr. Chu. We share the Senator's concern and sense of urgency. We
indeed project losses approaching 50 percent in some key acquisition
occupations primarily due to retirement over the next 5 to 6 years.
Overall, we project that 39 percent of the September 1999 civilian
acquisition workforce will not be in DOD in 2005.
The cornerstone of our efforts must be strategic workforce
planning. Such planning will be a focus of the Quadrennial Defense
Review and the process leading up to the submission of the President's
Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2003.
We will also be looking at the ability of the civilian personnel
system to recruit and appoint the numbers and quality of personnel we
need.
At the same time, we will be exploring how best to use the
authorities Congress has already given us, and what new authorities we
might need. To assist us in the process, RAND developed a workforce
projection model and a framework for Defense Components to create
workforce shaping plans.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mark Dayton
5. Senator Dayton. Presently, DODEA serves approximately 100,000
military students, and public schools serve approximately 500,000
military students. What do you see as the new Educational Opportunities
Directorate's (EOD) role in serving these 500,000 students and do you
support the EOD and its role?
Dr. Chu. The Educational Opportunities Directorate (EOD) was
specifically formed to identify and address problems that military
dependent students and their families experience when they relocate due
to the reassignment of the military sponsor. Most military dependents,
for instance, attend four or five different schools during their years
of K-12 schooling. Through the new directorate, we expect to increase
communication between public and DOD schools and among military
families, military services, and community organizations. We will
identify best practices, formulate model policies, and develop
strategies to address issues. We will make State and district education
leaders aware of the need to deal with issues that are not unique to
military dependent students, but that affect many children in a society
as mobile as ours has become.
Though the EOD was established to deal with the transition issues
of K-12 military dependent students, the Directorate has become a body
for dealing with many other educational issues and programs. These
include off-duty voluntary education for military personnel, Impact
Aid, Troops-to-Teachers, special needs and medically-related services,
and transition of military personnel to civilian occupations.
6. Senator Dayton. Federal funding from the Department of Education
to support public schools serving military students is called Impact
Aid. In the past, Congress has authorized and appropriated DOD funds to
assist school systems receiving Impact Aid funds. From what I have
learned from the superintendents of these schools, DOD funding has been
critical in assisting them with building construction and renovations,
computer purchases, etc. Can you assure this committee and Congress
that DOD will continue to support our initiative to assist public
schools educating our military's children?
Dr. Chu. The Department understands the issue of financially
assisting public schools that enroll military dependent students. Of
course, the Defense Department will expeditiously distribute any funds
appropriated to it specifically for assisting public schools.
7. Senator Dayton. I have been advised that when the Federal
Government privatizes housing on Federal property, the payment to the
contractor by the Federal Government appears on the leave earnings
statement (LES) as a payment to the individual, despite the fact that
payment is never reported on the individual's W-2 statement. School
districts look at the LES for verification of eligibility for the
Federal Free and Reduced Lunch program. School superintendents further
advise me that, because of this, the children of a military family in
privatized housing on Federal property would lose their Free and
Reduced Lunch eligibility. Thus, this loss seems to me to be an
unintended consequence of privatization. What do you see as the remedy
to this?
Dr. Chu. This does appear to be an unintended consequence of our
housing privatization efforts and the Department is looking into this
issue, but it may require a change of the law to correct it.
8. Senator Dayton. Currently, we have several incentive pay options
that can benefit the service member who is deployed unaccompanied
overseas. These include hardship tour, hazardous duty, and combat zone
pay, among others. I have spoken to commanders in the field as well as
CINCs appearing before this committee. Many of them are concerned that
our service members are not being compensated well enough, particularly
for some hardship tours. What is your feeling about our commanders'
concerns, and how would you recommend improving the overall
compensation ``packages'' for our service members?
Dr. Chu. The Department is examining whether the current incentive
package provided to members is adequate to attract needed volunteers
for unaccompanied assignments or even some accompanied assignments
overseas. This includes a multi-dimensional effort, comprising of a
review by the Secretary's comprehensive study of Quality-of-Life, and
by a joint working group co-chaired by P&R and the Joint Staff, to
develop incentives to motivate volunteers for difficult-to-staff
overseas locations. As required in the Fiscal Year 2001 National
Defense Authorization Act, a report on incentives for overseas
assignments, as well as affordable recommendations to resolve the
problem, will be provided to Congress this fall.
9. Senator Dayton. The impact of the pace of operations, or
``OPTEMPO,'' on the quality of life of our service members is a major
concern. Do you know if the services have established a credible system
in ``tracking and recording the number of days'' a service member is
deployed, and has the system caused some unnecessary burden with the
CINCs?
Dr. Chu. In accordance with the Fiscal Year 2000 National Defense
Authorization Act (Section 923), the services have developed systems to
track and report deployed days information on service members. We
conducted an independent verification and validation of the early
implementation of these systems; our results revealed that the data
collection was incomplete. We have relied extensively on our current
data systems to capture and report data at a pace and a level of detail
well beyond current systems' capabilities. We implemented the perstempo
system within current staffing levels and budgets. Creating and
supporting this system has proven to be labor-intensive and time-
consuming.
With respect to the impact of the perstempo system on the CINCs,
some report these additional tracking and reporting requirements are
``burdensome'' to the extent they must be met with existing budgets and
staffing levels. In addition, we know that a number of units may need
to deploy some of their members in excess of the 400-day threshold at
which the services must start paying their members $100 per day.
______
[The nomination reference of Dr. David S.C. Chu follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
April 30, 2001.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Dr. David S.C. Chu, of the District of Columbia, to be Under
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, vice Bernard Daniel
Rostker.
______
[The biographical sketch of Dr. David S.C. Chu, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Dr. David S.C. Chu
Dr. Chu is currently the Vice President responsible for RAND's Army
Research Division and Director of the Arroyo Center. Previously, he was
Director of RAND's Washington Office and Associate Chairman of RAND's
Research Staff.
Dr. Chu is a member of the Army Science Board. He served in the
Department of Defense as Assistant Secretary and Director for Program
Analysis and Evaluation (1981-1993). Earlier, Dr. Chu was the Assistant
Director of the Congressional Budget Office for National Security and
International Affairs (1978-1981).
Dr. Chu was an economist with RAND from 1970 to 1978, and served in
the U.S. Army from 1968-1970.
Dr. Chu was educated at Yale University, receiving his BA in
Economics and Mathematics, and his Ph.D. in Economics. He has been
awarded the Department of Defense Medal for Distinguished Public
Service with Silver Palm and the National Public Service Award of the
National Academy of Public Administration, of which he is a Fellow, and
on whose Board he serves as Chairman.
______
[The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
form that details the biographical, financial and other
information of the nominee. The form executed by Dr. David S.C.
Chu in connection with his nomination follows:]
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Room SR-228
Washington, DC 20510-6050
(202) 224-3871
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation
of your answer applies.
Part A--Biographical Information
Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.
1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
David S.C. Chu.
2. Position to which nominated:
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness.
3. Date of nomination:
April 30, 2001.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
5. Date and place of birth:
May 28, 1944; New York City, NY.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Laura Tosi.
7. Names and ages of children:
Carolyn, 16; Jonathan, 12.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received and date degree granted.
AB Davis High School, 1958-61, Diploma; Yale University, 1961-64,
BA Economics and Mathematics, 1964; Yale University, 1964-68, MA,
Economics, 1965; Yale University, M. Phil, Economics, 1967; Yale
University, Ph.D., Economics, 1972.
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
Vice President, Army Research Div., RAND and Director, Arroyo
Center, June 1998-Present.
Director, Washington Office, and Associate Chairman of the Research
Staff, RAND, March 1996-June 1998.
Director, Washington Research Department, RAND, January 1994-March
1996.
Senior Fellow, RAND, January 1993-January 1994.
Assistant Secretary of Defense (Program Analysis and Evaluation)
July 1988-January 1993, and Director, Program Analysis and Evaluation,
Office of the Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense, May 1981-
July 1988.
10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative,
honorary or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State,
or local governments, other than those listed above.
Member, Army Science Board.
Member, Task Force on Defense Reform.
Member, Defense Science Board Task on DOD Acquisition Policies and
their Effect on the Health and Competitiveness of the U.S. Defense
Industry.
Member, Defense Science Board Task Force on Military Personnel
Information Management.
Member, Naval War College Advisory Board.
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
Vice President, Army Research Division, RAND.
Chairman, Board of Directors, National Academy of Public
Administration.
Member, Board of Trustees, National Presbyterian School.
Member, Advisory Council, Defense Systems Management College Alumni
Association.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
Member, American Economic Association.
13. Political affiliations and activities:
(a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or
any public office for which you have been a candidate.
None.
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5
years.
None.
(c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $100 or more for the past 5 years.
Bush-Cheney Recount $100.00.
DC Republican Committee $125.00.
Bush for President $150.00.
Republican Senatorial Inner Circle $150.00.
14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals, and any other special
recognitions for outstanding service or achievements.
Phi Beta Kappa.
Honorary Woodrow Wilson Fellow.
National Science Foundation Fellow.
Foreign Area Fellowship Program Fellow.
Army Commendation Medal, Bronze Star.
Elmer B. Staats Award, National Capital Area Chapter, American
Society for Public Administration, 1986.
Department of Defense Medal for Distinguished Public Service, 1987;
Bronze Palm, 1988; Silver Palm, 1993.
National Public Service Award, American Society of Public
Administration, 1990.
Vance R. Wanner Memorial Award of the Military Operations Research
Society, 1993.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
16. Speeches: Provide the committee with two copies of any formal
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have
copies of and are on topics relevant to the position for which you have
been nominated.
None (speeches delivered from outlines).
17. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree,
if confirmed, to respond to requests to appear and testify before any
duly constituted committee of the Senate?
Yes.
______
[The nominee responded to the questions in Parts B-F of the
committee questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set
forth in the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to
Parts B-F are contained in the committee's executive files.]
------
Signature and Date
I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate,
and complete.
Dr. David S.C. Chu.
This 10th day of May, 2001.
[The nomination of Dr. David S.C. Chu was reported to the
Senate by Senator John Warner on May 21, 2001, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on May 26, 2001.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to Thomas E. White, Jr., by
Chairman Warner prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
May 9, 2001.
The Hon. John Warner,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Enclosed herewith are the answers to the advance
questions the Senate Armed Services Committee asked me to complete.
Sincerely,
Thomas E. White, Jr.
cc: The Hon. Carl Levin,
Ranking Minority Member.
______
Questions and Responses
defense reforms
Question. More than 10 years have passed since the enactment of the
Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and
the Special Operations reforms. From your close association with
defense issues, you have had an opportunity to observe the
implementation and impact of those reforms.
Do you support full implementation of these defense reforms?
Answer. Yes, I fully support the Department of Defense
Reorganization Act of 1986 and related Special Operations initiatives
for defense reform.
Question. What is your view of the extent to which these defense
reforms have been implemented?
Answer. From what I have learned to date, these defense reforms
have been implemented and have achieved the desired results. Having
said that, I believe it is important, and consistent with the intent of
the reform legislation, that the Army continues to assess and modify
its operations and internal procedures to meet the challenges of a
dynamic security environment.
Question. What do you consider to be the most important aspects of
these defense reforms?
Answer. The most important aspects of these reforms were
strengthening civilian control, streamlining the operational chain of
command, improving the efficiency in the use of defense resources,
improving the military advice provided to the National Command
Authorities, clarifying authority for combatant commanders, and
enhancing the effectiveness of military operations.
Question. The goals of Congress in enacting these defense reforms,
as reflected in section 3 of the Goldwater-Nichols Department of
Defense Reorganization Act, can be summarized as strengthening civilian
control; improving military advice; placing a clear responsibility on
the combatant commanders for the accomplishment of their missions;
ensuring the authority of the combatant commanders is commensurate with
their responsibility; increasing attention to the formulation of
strategy and to contingency planning; providing for more efficient use
of defense resources; and enhancing the effectiveness of military
operations and improving the management and administration of the
Department of Defense.
Do you agree with these goals?
Answer. Yes, I fully support the congressional goals reflected in
the Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and other related
defense reform legislation.
duties
Question. Section 3013 of Title 10, United States Code, describes
the duties of the Secretary of the Army.
Assuming you are confirmed, do you expect that Secretary Rumsfeld
will prescribe additional duties for you?
Answer. I anticipate that the Secretary of Defense will prescribe
specific duties for me that will support his responsibility to ensure
that the Department of Defense successfully accomplishes the many
demanding and varied missions entrusted to it. If confirmed, I will
carry out these additional duties to the best of my ability.
Question. If so, what do you expect those additional duties will
be?
Answer. If confirmed, I will communicate directly and openly with
the Secretary of Defense regarding the Army's capabilities to
accomplish those functions that are most appropriately delegated to it.
Question. What duties and responsibilities do you plan to assign to
the Under Secretary of the Army?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review the current assignment of
functions, responsibilities, and duties within the Army Secretariat and
determine the capacities in which the Under Secretary can most
appropriately support my efforts to ensure that the Department of the
Army is efficiently administered in accordance with the policies
promulgated by the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
Question. In carrying out your duties, how will you work with the
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs; the
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations and Environment; the
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Financial Management; the Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology; the
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works; and the General
Counsel?
Answer. If confirmed, I will establish and maintain close,
professional relationships with each of the Assistant Secretaries and
the General Counsel. I will encourage direct and open communication
among these officials and will foster an environment of cooperative
teamwork within the Secretariat and with the Army staff.
weapons of mass destruction--civil support teams (wmd-cst)
Question. The January 31, 2001, Department of Defense Inspector
General audit report titled Management of National Guard Weapons of
Mass Destruction--Civil Support Teams is extremely critical of the
management of the WMD-CST program.
If confirmed, do you intend to play an active role in getting that
program back on course?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I am committed to ensuring that the
teams are properly manned, equipped, trained, and prepared to
accomplish all mission requirements.
quality of life program initiative
Question. The Army is planning on consolidating all of its
``quality of life'' programs under one single program. The service is
making this change with the expectation that quality of life programs
would become a more visible and integral part of the yearly funding
request.
Do you believe that such a plan is important to the success of the
Army's quality of life program?
Answer. Absolutely. First, we must ensure that we are maximizing
the impact of available resources. Second, we need to do a better job
of articulating the linkage between readiness and well-being as well as
our resource requirements in this vital area.
readiness
Question. Over the last few years we have seen increasing evidence
that the readiness of the U.S. armed forces has begun to deteriorate as
a result of the over-commitment of an under-resourced military. The
Joint Chiefs have testified that the military services will require a
$48 to $58 billion funding increase if the Department is to restore
readiness and modernize for the future.
What do you view as the major readiness challenges that would have
to be addressed and, if confirmed, how would you approach these issues?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review the requirements and available
resources and to ensure that the Army is trained and ready to execute
strategies for today and the future.
environment
Question. The Senior Readiness Oversight Committee is currently
reviewing a group of readiness challenges it has characterized as
``encroachment'' issues. These include environmental constraints on
military training ranges, local community efforts to obtain military
property, airspace restrictions to accommodate civilian airlines,
transfer of radio frequency spectrum from the Department of Defense to
the wireless communications industry, and many others. Unless these
issues are effectively addressed, our military forces will find it
increasingly difficult to train and operate at home and abroad.
In your opinion, how serious are these problems to the Army?
Answer. In my opinion, these problems are very serious. If
confirmed, I will work with this committee, other services, and OSD to
develop sound strategies for dealing with each of these problems.
Question. If confirmed, what actions would you propose to ensure
these issues do not prevent your service from effectively training and
operating both at home and abroad?
Answer. My strategy is to comply with environmental laws, work for
measures to integrate range management with our defense mission and
environmental obligations, and continue to seek a balanced application
of environmental statutes affecting training.
Question. The Department of Defense makes it a practice to request
funding only for those environmental compliance areas that are already
out of compliance and subject to an enforcement action, and those that
will be out of compliance before the next budget cycle.
Would you agree that continuing funding for this type of
environmental cleanup is critical to maintaining a positive
relationship with local regulatory authorities and the communities
around our military bases?
Answer. Yes, I agree. I will work to ensure that the Army remains
committed to complying with Federal, State, and local regulations and
laws.
Question. Do you believe that the Department of Defense should be
exempt from the application of the environmental laws?
Answer. No. However, I believe we need a better dialog between
Federal, State, and local law and rulemakers and the Army. Other than
times of national emergency, the Army should have no special
exemptions. What we do want is more opportunity to explain impacts on
our mission before the Federal, State, or local law or regulations are
enacted.
Question. Do you support the basic principle of the Federal
Facilities Act and other laws that federal facilities, including DOD
facilities, should be subject to the same standards as comparably
situated civilian facilities?
Answer. Yes, I do. The American public expects the Department of
Defense, the Army, and all federal agencies to meet the same standards
as civilian facilities.
Question. The Department of Defense faces a bill for the clean-up
of unexploded ordnance (UXO) that is at least in the tens of billions
of dollars, and could well be in the hundreds of billions of dollars.
At current funding levels, it has been estimated that it would take the
military services several thousand years to remediate UXO problems on a
DOD-wide basis.
What do you believe would be an acceptable time period for cleaning
up unexploded ordnance problems throughout the Department of Defense?
Answer. It is impossible to generalize regarding issues of public
safety. If confirmed, I will ensure the Army complies with the law.
Question. Do you believe that increased investment in UXO
remediation technologies would be likely to produce more effective and
efficient remediation processes and substantially reduce the
Department's long-term clean-up liability and the time required to
complete such clean-up?
Answer. If confirmed, I welcome the opportunity to look into this
difficult and critical issue as well.
commercial versus military requirements for frequency spectrum
Question. The Federal Government is currently conducting a series
of studies to determine a band of frequencies that can be used for the
operation of third generation wireless communications devices. As a
part of this overall effort, the Department of Defense is conducting a
study to determine the cost and operational impact that would result if
the military services were to surrender the use of the 1755-1850 MHz
band of frequencies on which they currently operate their equipment. As
the Department of Defense's information requirements increase with the
advances taking place in weapon system technology, the Department's
requirements for frequency access will also increase. However, the
commercial sector is also experiencing increased requirements for
frequency spectrum to meet the demands of the American consumers.
Spectrum is a finite resource and we have to ensure it is utilized in
the most efficient and beneficial manner possible.
If confirmed, what actions would you take to review your service's
total spectrum requirements and ensure that new systems are designed to
ensure efficient spectrum utilization by the Department of Defense?
Answer. If confirmed, I will continue to support and encourage the
research, development, and acquisition of systems that efficiently use
the radio frequency spectrum in compliance with national spectrum
policy.
Question. If confirmed, what actions would you take if the study
currently being conducted within the Department of Defense determines
that there will be a significant cost and operational impact if the
military services surrender the 1755-1850 MHz band of frequencies?
Answer. If confirmed, I will familiarize myself with the results of
the study and provide my assessment of its impact on Army warfighting
capability to the office of the Secretary of Defense. I also look
forward to working with the committee to address these challenges.
acquisition reform
Question. Secretary Rumsfeld testified at his confirmation hearing
that the cycle time for major acquisition programs conducted over the
past several decades averages between 8 and 9 years. Others have stated
that the cycle time may be as long as 15 to 20 years. The Secretary
stated that this cycle time is not sufficiently responsive to urgent
new challenges and rapidly emerging technological developments.
What are your thoughts on specific steps that can be taken to
reduce the cycle time for major acquisition programs?
Answer. If confirmed, I will look at methods to reduce cycle time.
I look forward to working with the committee on this issue.
Question. Do you see a need for any changes to the existing
acquisition structure and/or acquisition chain of command?
Answer. The Army acquisition structure currently complies with the
Goldwater-Nichols Act. If confirmed, I will carefully review this area,
and recommend any changes that may be warranted.
acquisition workforce
Question. There has been considerable pressure to reduce
acquisition organizations on the basis of absolute numbers. DOD has
reduced its acquisition workforce approximately 50 percent, from the
end of fiscal year 1990 to the end of fiscal year 1999, while the
workload has remained essentially constant, and even increased by some
measures.
Are you concerned that reductions to the acquisition workforce will
have a negative effect on program management, and if so, how do you
plan to address this problem?
Answer. Yes, I am concerned. If confirmed, I will look into this
important issue.
Question. As the DOD continues to emphasize contracting out and
competitive sourcing, the skills, training, and experience of the
acquisition workforce will be critical in effectively managing these
contracts. In addition, the Department's Acquisition Workforce 2005
Task Force has reported that DOD will be faced with a significant
demographic challenge as 50 percent of the remaining acquisition
workforce will be eligible to retire in the next 5 years.
Do you believe the current acquisition workforce has the quality
and training to not only adapt to new acquisition reforms, but to the
increased workload and responsibility from managing privatization
efforts?
Answer. The acquisition workforce has done a phenomenal job of
stepping up to the workload driven by increased outsourcing and
privatization efforts. If confirmed, I will diligently work to get our
people the training to ensure they are able to work smarter not just
harder.
base realignment and closure
Question. Over the past several years, various departmental
witnesses have testified that there is excess defense infrastructure
and requested Congress to authorize another round of base closures.
Do you believe that we have excess defense facilities and, if so,
where does this excess capacity exist?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I will look for excess capacity and make
recommendations to consolidate or combine functions.
service stovepipes
Question. One of the principal criticisms of the Department of
Defense is that the military services continue to pursue their
individual systems--from logistics to data management--which increases
costs and hinders interoperability. Although there have been efforts to
remove these service stovepipes in the past, they continue to exist.
If confirmed, what actions would you take to eliminate service-
unique systems where systems could be developed to serve all of the
services?
Answer. If confirmed, I will fully support interoperability among
the services.
outsourcing of commercial activities
Question. Do you believe that outsourcing of non-core activities
can yield substantial savings for the Department of Defense?
Answer. There are functions that can and should be performed by the
private sector due to their expertise and technical capabilities.
Question. Do you agree that public-private competition is an
essential precursor to any outsourcing effort in the Department of
Defense?
Answer. Yes.
military family housing
Question. In response to a continuing shortfall in funding for
family housing construction and repair, the Department proposed the
Military Housing Privatization Initiative as one part of their program
to upgrade all military housing to standard by 2010. Although Congress
enacted this authority in the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1996, the services have not made the anticipated progress
in the privatization effort.
What are your views on the role of military family housing in
recruiting and retention?
Answer. I think that adequate housing for soldiers and families is
an important quality of life issue for soldiers. Maintaining and
sustaining safe, attractive, and convenient housing for our soldiers
and their families is one of the Army's continuing challenges.
Question. Do you support the goal of upgrading all military family
housing in your service to established standards by 2010?
Answer. Yes.
army modernization
Question. Continued high operations tempo and inadequate
modernization funding are taking a toll on the Army. Without sufficient
modernization, the Nation could find itself putting soldiers in
``harm's way'' without the tools they need to perform their mission and
ensure their own safety.
If confirmed, how would you go about establishing the level of
procurement and R&D funding required to sufficiently modernize our
legacy force, field and operate an interim force, and develop an
objective force over the next 5 years?
Answer. If confirmed, I will support balanced modernization,
seeking to develop and field combat-capable units through an
appropriate mix of selective fielding of new equipment, rebuilding and
upgrading existing equipment, and preserving needed elements of current
equipment.
defense laboratories
Question. Congress has authorized the Department to give laboratory
directors direct hiring authority to enable them to compete for
scientific and engineering talent. To date, the Department has been
reluctant to use this authority.
Do you support giving the Department's laboratory directors the
authority to make direct hires without having to go through an 18-month
review process?
Answer. Yes. I don't know the details but, if confirmed, I will
look into the process.
army transformation
Question. This committee has commended General Shinseki for his
bold initiative to fundamentally change the Army to be better able to
respond to future threats. While there is widespread support for the
long-term transformation of the Army, there are significant concerns
about the near-term initiative to field an interim force designed to
meet what are described as ``critical'' operational shortfalls. Despite
assertions that Interim Brigade Combat Teams are a ``full spectrum''
force, to many these forces appear to be largely designed for
peacekeeping activities and Army descriptions confirm that these forces
are ``optimized'' for peacekeeping. A recent Army information paper
notes, ``Funding for transformation, while greatly increased, remains
far short of validated requirements. Achieving Secretary of Defense
guidance for the Army transformation while maintaining readiness and
sustaining people programs cannot be accomplished without additional
resources.'' Finally, ``without new funds, the Army cannot maintain
readiness and achieve the transformation.''
How can the Army justify a proposed multi-billion dollar investment
in an ``interim'' force with such looming modernization challenges for
both the legacy force and future objective force?
Answer. It is my understanding that the interim force fills a near-
term capabilities gap that the Army must address in order to maintain
readiness.
Question. How would you prioritize funding requirements between
legacy force shortfalls (necessary to meet the national military
strategy today), objective force requirements, and interim force
requirements?
Answer. All three legs of the transformation are important and
interdependent. However, if we are to transform, we must first maintain
our focus on the S&T necessary to develop the objective force. The
legacy force guarantees our near-term readiness and gives us the luxury
of being able to transform. Finally, the interim force enables us to
bridge a capabilities gap that exists today and has existed for the
past decade.
Question. Do you see any options for achieving an interim
operational capability less expensively through organizational,
doctrinal, or tactical changes?
Answer. No, the operational gap we face stems from having two types
of forces: light infantry that is deployable but not survivable enough,
and heavy forces that are lethal and survivable but not deployable
enough. We need this interim force to bridge the gap in operational
capabilities, and that means providing lethal, survivable, and
deployable platforms to our lighter forces.
Question. Do you agree with the assessment of the previous
Secretary of the Army that Army transformation cannot be achieved
without increasing the Army's share of the defense budget?
Answer. Secretary Rumsfeld is currently in the process of
conducting strategic defense reviews. I wholeheartedly support his
efforts and I look forward to assisting him in this process. That will
shape the national security and military strategies and desired
military capabilities.
Question. Do you believe that the Army has shortchanged future
readiness to fund near-term readiness requirements?
Answer. One of the main benefits of Secretary Rumsfeld's reviews
will be to address the trade-offs between current operations and long-
term investments to ensure we do not jeopardize our future defense
capabilities.
Question. Section 113 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2001 requires the Secretary of the Army to conduct a
comparative evaluation of interim armored vehicles selected for the
fielding of interim brigade combat teams with equipment already in the
Army inventory.
Will you comply with the spirit and intent of this law to carry out
a side-by-side comparative operational evaluation of units similarly
organized, trained, and equipped, other than for the differences in
medium armored vehicles?
Answer. Yes.
protected communications
Question. Section 1034, Title 10, United States Code, prohibits
taking retaliatory personnel action against a member of the armed
forces as reprisal for making a protected communication. By definition,
protected communications include communications to certain individuals
and organizations outside of the chain of command. We continue to see a
lack of understanding in the senior military leadership of the policy
that it is appropriate and necessary to protect service members who
report misconduct to appropriate authorities outside of the chain of
command.
Do you support prohibiting retaliatory personnel actions for making
protected communications?
Answer. Yes.
Question. If confirmed, what actions would you take to ensure that
senior military leaders understand the need to protect service members
who report misconduct to appropriate authorities within or outside the
chain of command?
Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure that Army personnel fully
understand the scope and application of the Whistleblower Act.
Educating senior leaders on the need to protect service members from
reprisal is one of my top priorities. I will utilize my Inspectors
General to conduct teaching and training, thus preventing acts of
reprisal. I will ensure that the Army workforce is educated on the law.
officer promotion system
Question. We consider promotions to general and flag officer ranks
as identifying military officers for very senior positions that should
be filled only by officers with the very highest moral and ethical
values. We are frequently asked to confirm the promotion of officers
who have substantiated allegations of misconduct that have not been
considered by the boards that selected these officers for promotion. At
the same time, the services inform us that they have many highly
qualified officers for each available general and flag officer billet.
What steps would you take to ensure that only the most highly
qualified officers are nominated for promotion to general and flag
officer rank?
Answer. I understand, and share, your concern. If confirmed, I will
continue to ensure that the Army nominates only those officers who
display the highest values and warrant promotion to the general officer
ranks.
investment in infrastructure
Question. Witnesses appearing before the committee in recent years
have testified that the military services under-invest in their
facilities compared to private industry standards. Decades of under-
investment in our installations have led to increasing backlogs of
facility maintenance needs, created substandard living and working
conditions, and made it harder to take advantage of new technologies
that could increase productivity.
Based on your private sector experience, do you believe the
Department of the Army is investing enough in its infrastructure?
Answer. Based on the existing condition of the Army's aging
facilities, it is apparent that not enough is invested in its
infrastructure. Facilities continue to degrade each year and without
additional real property maintenance resources there is the need to
replace major components rather that repair existing ones and this will
be more expensive.
Question. How does the Army's investment in its infrastructure
compare to what you are used to in the private sector?
Answer. The private sector is driven by a profit incentive and a
return on investment to its corporate shareholders for publicly traded
companies. While the momentum may differ, there are analogies and
common techniques that can be applied.
Question. What steps would you plan to take to address this issue?
Answer. If confirmed, I support RPM as one of the top priorities
for additional funding, continuing to reduce the Army's RPM requirement
by demolishing excess facilities, and privatizing utility systems, and
continuing to explore opportunities for partnerships with the private
sector.
civilian control of the military
Question. Press reports indicate that increasing civilian control
of the military services will be a priority of this administration.
What changes would you recommend to Secretary Rumsfeld to make in
your duties and responsibilities or those of the Under Secretary or
Assistant Secretaries in your department?
Answer. If confirmed, I will look at duties and responsibilities
and make any recommendations which may be warranted.
Question. Section 3014(c) of Title 10 requires that the Office of
the Secretary of the Army have sole responsibility for Acquisition,
Auditing, Comptroller (including Financial Management), Information
Management, Inspector General, Legislative Affairs, and Public Affairs.
If confirmed, would you review each of these functional areas to
ensure that the Army is in compliance with the statutory requirement?
Answer. Yes.
Question. The services have traditionally had a uniformed flag rank
officer rather than the Assistant Secretary for Financial Management
supervise their budget office. Do you intend to follow this arrangement
or do you plan to increase civilian control over your service's budget
decisions?
Answer. If confirmed, I intend to retain a general officer to
supervise the budget office, and I will continue to exercise civilian
control through the Assistant Secretary for Financial Management and
Comptroller. I believe civilian control of the Army is well-understood
and acknowledged, and I value the blend of experience and skills in an
organization with both military and civilian professionals.
Question. The service secretaries have traditionally delegated
management of readiness to the uniformed services. What role do you
intend to play in readiness issues?
Answer. I believe the Secretary of the Army has a very real and
active role in providing for the readiness across the service. I am
very aware of the wide range of issues affecting readiness in the Army
to include unit readiness status, infrastructure requirements,
strategic mobility, the ongoing transformation effort, quality of life
issues for our soldiers and families, and the impacts of funding
levels. I anticipate working closely with the uniformed leadership to
address these challenges in the current political and economic
environment, particularly as changes in our national military strategy
may evolve and impact the Army.
civilian workforce
Question. What steps would you plan to take to bring new people
with the desired skills into our civilian workforce as more and more of
the current workforce is becoming retirement eligible?
Answer. If confirmed, I will examine all civilian workforce
planning and shaping initiatives to help us cope with an aging
workforce and tight labor markets.
major challenges
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges confronting
the next Secretary of the Army?
Answer. I believe the major challenge the next Secretary of the
Army will face is change. The challenges the Army faces are similar to
those of the other services as we collectively readjust our
organizations to the threats our country faces. I see the next
Secretary of the Army's charge as one to manage and maintain the
momentum of changes that will assure our Army's preeminence in the 21st
century to deter threats and defend our national security interest and
do it within the joint community.
Question. If confirmed, what plans do you have for addressing these
challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, I think the Army must attract, develop, and
retain America's best and brightest, while providing for their quality
of life and well-being. The Army must assure readiness, while
transforming itself into an Army capable of dominance along the full
spectrum of military operations in the 21st century.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, when asked, to give your personal views,
even if those views differ from the administration in power?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as the Secretary of the Army?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings and
other communications of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Strom Thurmond
excess facilities
1. Senator Thurmond. Although the four previous base closure rounds
have closed or realigned over 90 major and 200 minor military
installations, the Department indicates that there is still excess
capacity. The immediate reaction to this excess is that we must have
additional base closures to eliminate the excess. I am not convinced
that base closure is the only solution. I believe we should use this
capacity to our advantage. We can work with the private sector to use
this property on a dual-use basis and at the same time retain the
facility for future surge capacity.
What are your views on the potential of leasing excess facilities
to the private sector?
Mr. White. I believe that, under the right economic circumstances,
there is a great potential for the dual-use of some of our excess
capacity. It depends largely on the attractiveness of the individual
military properties for private sector use and the willingness of the
private sector to invest in those properties. We are aggressively
pursuing new opportunities under the guidance of the oversight
committees. Our goal is to reduce maintenance and repair requirements
while retaining long-term access to our properties.
However, dual-use cannot solve the Army's excess capacity problem.
In addition to leasing, excess capacity offers an opportunity to
achieve economies in installation operations and in improved business
processes through realignment of activities. To realize the benefits of
significant realignment actions requires Base Realignment and Closure
(BRAC) authorization. BRAC provides a practical means for significant
restructuring and restationing of Army forces not possible otherwise.
Past BRAC consolidation created new synergies in training such as the
Maneuver Support Center at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. BRAC also
allows for recapitalization of Army assets by making possible the
construction of state-of-the-art facilities at gaining installations
and enhancing the synergy achieved through consolidation of training,
research and development, cross-service activities, etc.
ac/rc relationship
2. Senator Thurmond. Although the relationship between the active
Army and its Reserve components has improved, it is still a strained
relationship. Unfortunately, in the past the civilian leadership of the
Army has not taken a proactive role in resolving this festering
problem. If confirmed as the Secretary of the Army, what actions will
you take toward improving the relationship between the active and
Reserve components of our Army?
Mr. White. I am strongly committed to the full integration of the
Active and Reserve components. General Shinseki and I will make full
use of such vehicles as the Army Reserve Forces Policy Committee and
the Reserve Component Coordination Council to identify and eliminate
existing or potential barriers to integration. We will also continue to
develop initiatives to solidify the separate components.
I look forward to working with you and Congress to put programs and
policies in place that will further meld the unique strengths of the
Army's Active and Reserve components.
job satisfaction
3. Senator Thurmond. Last summer a report based on polling and
focus groups with more than 3,000 commissioned Army officers revealed
deep frustration with their senior leaders and peacekeeping
assignments. More than two-thirds of the officers in a survey sample
agreed with the statement, ``I see no possibility for continued job
satisfaction in the Army.''
Although the Chief of Staff, General Shinseki, has taken action to
resolve some issues, there is a continuing concern within the ranks.
As a former troop commander, are you concerned about the results of
this survey? How do you plan to address the issue, if confirmed?
Mr. White. I am deeply concerned about the morale and job
satisfaction of our officers. Over the past year, the Army has
intensively studied the causes behind increased attrition. A task force
completed work on the issue last year and developed several
recommendations. The following initiatives are intended to directly
address junior officer attrition and morale:
1. Improve strategic communications with the field through
the use of universal email accounts and a central website for
officer business;
2. Implement a system to measure and track personnel tempo
(perstempo) and consider perstempo when making assignment
decisions;
3. Expand assignment options following the Captains Career
Course (CCC);
4. Develop increased opportunities for advanced education;
and
5. For CCC graduates being assigned to short-tour areas,
guarantee follow-on assignments to tactical units where they
can satisfy branch qualification requirements.
The good news is that captain retention has improved and the
continuation rate appears to have normalized somewhat over the
preceding 2 years. However, we still need to retain 350 more captains
of the approximately 2,100 that separate annually. The Army has made
progress this year, with 184 fewer losses to date than projected.
Clearly, it is too early to declare success, but the attrition
situation indicates we are making progress in improving the standing of
the Army in comparison to other employment opportunities.
The Army will remain focused on this important issue and seek to
maintain the positive momentum achieved thus far.
sustainment, restoration, and modernization
4. Senator Thurmond. According to the General Accounting Office, by
1992 the military had accumulated an estimated $8.9 billion in deferred
maintenance. By 1998 that had grown to $14.6 billion. It now exceeds
$16.0 billion and is growing. Last year in his testimony before
Congress, the GAO's Neil Curtain said, ``There really is a risk of
losing the value of those (military) facilities. Real property
maintenance is in disarray.'' I would like your views on the priority
you will be placing on installation readiness and eliminating this
backlog in maintenance and repair.
Mr. White. The Army's $17.8 billion sustainment, restoration, and
modernization (SRM) backlog is a top challenge, and we are treating it
as such. The backlog will continue to grow if SRM sustainment funding
is less than 100 percent of the requirement. However, to improve SRM
funding requires 10 years of a top-line increase to overall Army
funding because of the interplay between funding for operational tempo
and SRM. We have restricted migration from optempo to pay other bills,
and so we are seeking to improve SRM funding over the Future Years
Defense Plan. Additional funding would be used to fund annual
sustainment at 100 percent, begin restoration of failing facilities
that will reduce existing backlog, and modernize facilities to meet the
new standards. This is one of the Army's highest priorities.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Rick Santorum
landpower
5. Senator Santorum. Recent press reports about the ongoing
strategic reviews in the Department of Defense initiated by Secretary
Rumsfeld have suggested that the Army will not play the prominent role
it played as a component of our national military strategy in the past.
In fact, some reports have suggested that a significant reduction in
land forces will result after the results of these reviews are made
public.
What are your views of the role of landpower for future national
security challenges? Do you believe we can afford to significantly
reduce our ground forces and still be able to respond to the wide range
of defense challenges facing our Nation? What role do you intend to
play in overseeing change within the Department for the Nation's
premier land force?
Mr. White. Let me first begin by saying that it is critical that
our security strategy remain grounded in the pursuit of our enduring
global national interests and responsibilities. To protect and advance
those interests, and fulfill our responsibilities, the armed forces
must be able to deter potential challengers, reassure friends and
allies, compel adversaries who seek to do us harm, and support civil
authorities at home and abroad. While we must be selective and focused
in how and where we employ our armed forces, we should expect the
National Command Authorities will employ force, particularly the Army,
in a manner consistent with the interests at stake.
Our global interests and responsibilities, as well as two centuries
of experience, show a clear need for land forces to remain at the core
of future joint operations. To protect and advance those interests,
land forces provide a broad array of capabilities for meeting the
diverse security challenges our Nation now faces. Their flexibility and
adaptability provide the National Command Authorities with a wide range
of military options to meet these diverse challenges. By their very
presence, land forces communicate the strongest signal of America's
strategic intentions and commitments. Through peacetime military
engagement, security assistance, and combined exercises with foreign
security forces, U.S. land forces cement alliances, coalitions, and
strategic partnerships. The ability of land forces to conduct forcible
entry--by air and sea--coupled with their unique capability to sustain
ground campaigns are central aspects in the deterrent value of the
joint force. When deterrence fails, landpower is the decisive component
of conventional forces. The nature of conflict and war is enduring.
Land forces compel adversaries to cease hostile or destabilizing
action. While dominance of sea, air, space, and the electro-magnetic
spectrum are key enablers, land dominance alone brings hostilities to a
decisive conclusion by establishing and maintaining favorable security
conditions that allow for more comprehensive and enduring solutions to
complex crises. Furthermore, land forces provide the broad range of
capabilities required to support civil authorities at home and abroad,
whether responding to natural disaster, providing missile defense, or
mitigating the consequences of an attack on the homeland. Finally, in
addition to the obvious direct role in our national security, land
forces contribute to our national well-being and that of our friends
and allies by providing a secure and stable environment that is
essential for economic growth and prosperity. Given our national
interests, the range of defense challenges we face now and could
realistically face in the coming decades, I do not believe we can
afford to significantly reduce our ground strength; however, we can
transform it to better meet these challenges.
The Army is nearly 2 years into a comprehensive transformation to
become more agile and responsive across the full spectrum of military
operations. This transformation is driven by both changes in the
strategic and operational environments, as well as the promise afforded
by advanced technology. I intend to make sure that Army transformation
fully supports our national military strategy and gets the share of the
Defense resources needed to ensure the U.S. Army remains the best in
the world. This will be my top priority.
modernization financing
6. Senator Santorum. Your credentials for the position are
impressive and we have high hopes for you as the next Secretary of the
Army. Your success as a former Army general officer and your most
recent success in the business world put you in a unique position to
contribute toward our national defense. This committee has had a number
of concerns about Army modernization over the last couple of years due
to inadequate resources for force modernization which has resulted in
inadequate modernization plans.
In business, I would assume that you would not tolerate a business
plan that could not possibly be supported by the best case projections
of revenues. Additionally, if a subordinate came to you with an
inadequately resourced business plan and told you that he was going to
pursue two additional goals that would also require extensive
resources, I suspect you would send him back to the drawing board to
restructure the plan to more adequately reflect available, or
projected, resources. We appear to have a similar situation with the
Army today.
How do you intend to address the clear imbalances between resources
and modernization plans in the Army today?
Mr. White. Over the past 2 years, the Army's investment strategy
reflects a paradigm shift from resourcing legacy capabilities to
resourcing the transformation to the objective force. The Army has
already made tradeoffs, killing or restructuring 18 programs in the
last 16 months, and investing over $9 billion in interim and objective
force capabilities. In collaboration with the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency, the Army is aggressively funding the science and
technology efforts leading to the design and development of our Future
Combat System. We have also funded the system design and development of
more mature systems, such as Comanche. Additionally, we have focused
our enhancements of the legacy force by identifying and prioritizing
those systems that have applicability to the objective force, such as
tactical unmanned aerial vehicles.
Ultimately, Army transformation is about capabilities, not
resources. For those systems that are crucial to today's readiness, but
will not transition to the objective force, we will only invest the
amount necessary to modernize and selectively upgrade. For example, in
our ground maneuver systems, we will only upgrade the number of Abrams
tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles that are needed for the
Counterattack Corps. The remainder of the force will have less
modernized systems, depending on priorities. The same logic has been
applied to our aviation fleet. We will upgrade fewer Apaches to the AH-
64D Longbow model, while the remainder of the fleet will retain
recapitalized AH-64As with reliability improvements. The Army has
adopted this strategy of selective recapitalization to generate the
investment capital necessary to field objective force formations
beginning in fiscal year 2010, while retaining the ability to fight and
win on any battlefield, against any adversary, throughout the period of
transformation.
grizzly requirement
7. Senator Santorum. Is the requirement for an in-stride, complex-
obstacle breaching capability still valid, even though the Army failed
to fund the Grizzly program last year? Without Grizzly how will the
requirement for the counter offensive force be met?
Mr. White. Yes, the requirement for an in-stride, complex obstacle
breaching capability as offered by the Grizzly is still valid. However,
due to funding constraints associated with transformation, the Grizzly
program remains unfunded and is one of our unfunded priorities for
legacy systems. Without Grizzly, the Army will be forced to continue
its current time-consuming breaching technique that requires a
coordinated operation of equipment and soldiers exposed to hostile
fire.
8. Senator Santorum. Last year Congress approved $15 million for
the continued development of the Grizzly program. We understand this
money has not yet been released to the Army and, therefore, not
available for the Grizzly program. The Army is currently considering
related transformation and budgetary prioritization issues. In
recognition of last year's highly successful test results, would you
agree this fiscal year 2001 Grizzly money should be obtained so the
development of this program can continue until a final decision has
been made?
Mr. White. Despite last year's successful tests, the Army decided
to terminate the program based on an assessment of affordability and
acceptance of operational risk against higher transformation
priorities. Because the Army will not fund Grizzly to support
transformation, it would not be useful to obtain the $15 million in
fiscal year 2001 to support the program. In addition, the $15 million
would pay less than 40 percent of the requirement for fiscal year 2001.
The unfinanced requirement for Grizzly this year is $40 million.
It should be noted, however, that the Army still has a valid
requirement for a breacher with in-stride, complex obstacle breaching
capability.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Wayne Allard
chemical demilitarization program
9. Senator Allard. The Army is busy cleaning up the Rocky Mountain
Arsenal in Colorado. An example of their efforts was the great job of
disposing of Sarin gas bomblets they came across during the clean-up.
Unfortunately, the Army expects to find more bomblets.
Will you ensure that the Army continues to take the steps necessary
to ensure they find and dispose of all these munitions? What
technologies is the Army researching and developing for the destruction
of unexploded ordinances such as those at the Arsenal?
Mr. White. The Army has prepared a plan for clearing the debris
pile at Rocky Mountain Arsenal, which the State of Colorado has
approved. The Army is currently executing this plan and expects to
complete this work by mid-July 2001. The Army is continuing to test the
Explosive Destruction System (EDS) and has temporarily returned it to
Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, to complete operational testing,
which is scheduled to end in mid-July 2001. The EDS will remain
available for the disposal of future bomblet finds at Rocky Mountain
Arsenal. While refining the EDS, the Army is also researching several
other technologies for the destruction of unexploded ordnance including
plasma arc, gas phase chemical reduction, super critical water
oxidation, a cerium intermediary process, wet air oxidation, persulfate
oxidation, catalytic transfer hydrogenation, and a variety of blast
chamber technologies.
10. Senator Allard. Will you continue to support all efforts to
properly and quickly dispose of the chemical weapons at the Pueblo Army
Depot?
Mr. White. Yes. The Army's efforts will continue to focus on
disposing of the stockpile at Pueblo Army Depot as quickly as possible,
while ensuring that all safety and environmental compliance
requirements are fully met. I believe that we have an obligation to
eliminate the public risk caused by the continued storage of the
chemical weapons as quickly as possible at Pueblo Army Depot and the
other stockpile storage sites. The way to accomplish this is to ensure
adequate funding, utilize the most effective and proven technologies
available today, and move forward with all preparations in an
aggressive and systematic manner.
11. Senator Allard. What are the consequences of not achieving the
2007 Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) deadline, both internationally
and programmatically?
Mr. White. First, let me state that I will in no way pursue a
treaty deadline if the pursuit of that deadline means putting people at
a higher risk. That said, the Army remains deeply committed to
fulfilling the requirements outlined by the CWC to destroy the chemical
stockpile by April 29, 2007. In fact, the U.S. is well ahead in
complying with the next intermediate deadline--destruction of 20
percent of the agent tonnage at entry into force of the treaty, by
April 29, 2002. This milestone should be reached within the next 2
months.
As the Department has indicated in the past, the longer the
stockpile remains in storage, the greater the risk of a catastrophic
event (tornado, earthquake, aircraft crashing into an igloo, etc.)
occurring at any given site. So, from a programmatic perspective,
destruction of the chemical stockpile as early as possible has been,
and continues to be, a major thrust of the chemical demilitarization
effort, CWC timetables notwithstanding.
With regard to international consequences, Article XIII of the CWC
states that the Conference of States Parties has the authority to take
necessary measures to ensure compliance with this convention and to
redress and remedy any situation, which contravenes the provisions of
this convention. These measures include sanctions consistent with
international law. It should be noted that there are provisions for a
CWC signatory to seek a 5-year extension to the April 2007 deadline.
The Department will continue to strive to meet its requirements in a
manner compliant with international agreements while ensuring safety to
the demilitarization workers, the communities near the disposal
facilities, and the environment.
cavalry regiments
12. Senator Allard. Armored cavalry regiments are a highly
important and capable part of our force structure, particularly as the
Army transforms to a more lighter and lethal force. Can you give me
your thoughts on the need to maintain cavalry regiments, such as the
3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment at Fort Carson?
Mr. White. Cavalry regiments play a critical role in fulfilling the
Army's current and future ability to execute the national military
strategy and meeting Commander in Chief (CINC) requirements.
Armored cavalry regiments (ACRs), both Active and Reserve
component, are among a select few Army forces which are dual-
apportioned for regional contingency planning for both major theater
wars, a function of their importance to the CINCs.
The ACR is specifically designed, with regard to force structure
and capabilities, to perform certain doctrinal tasks that are not
typically assigned to a heavy division maneuver brigade. Doctrinally,
the ACR operates as part of a joint task force or corps to which it is
assigned. It is the corps commander's ``eyes and ears.''
Currently there are four corps in the Army, but only three
deployable cavalry regiments to support them. The 2nd Light Cavalry
Regiment is aligned with XVIII Corps, the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment
is aligned with III Corps (the Counter Attack Corps), and the 278th
Armored Cavalry Regiment, Tennessee Army National Guard, may operate
with both I Corps and V Corps.
As part of the Army's transformation, the U.S. Army Training and
Doctrine Command is examining the ability of interim forces to perform
traditional cavalry missions as well as requirements for an interim
cavalry regiment within the transforming Army.
space commission recommendations
13. Senator Allard. Secretary Rumsfeld announced his
recommendations regarding our military space organization as encouraged
by the Space and National Reconnaissance Office Commissions. Please
comment on the importance of outer space and space activities to the
national security and economic well-being of the United States, as well
as our allies and friends. Do you foresee any need for legislative
changes to accomplish these recommendations? Please comment on the
Secretary's recommendations specifically as it relates to your service.
Mr. White. As the Secretary of Defense outlined in his press
conference on May 8, 2001, the Nation's operations in space have made
us both dependent and vulnerable. The Space Commission was undertaken
to ensure that the management and organization of our national security
space program reflects the importance of space to the Nation. The focus
of the Space Commission recommendations centers on the organization and
management of space activities, which affect the Air Force. The Air
Force and the National Reconnaissance Office have established
approximately 14 integrated product teams (IPT) to examine the major
topics outlined in the Space Commission Report. These include executive
agency, space acquisition executive, requirements, technology, major
force program, and the realignment of Air Force headquarters and field
commands. Although these efforts are in the initial phase, the Army is
an active member of the IPTs to ensure that the Army's equities are
adequately addressed. The Army believes that space is an inherently
joint environment in which Army space operations will significantly
improve its ability to conduct decisive and sustained ground operations
in support of national security strategy objectives. As we continue our
examinations, we will be better able to determine specific impacts to
the Army.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Jim Bunning
chemical demilitarization program
14. Senator Bunning. At a recent Senate Defense Appropriations
Subcommittee hearing which reviewed the Chemical Demilitarization
Program, testimony was given which called into question the Army's
ability to meet cost and schedule goals. This begs the question of
whether they are having equal difficulty meeting important safety
requirements.
Are you prepared to use the influence of your office to ensure that
this program is run in the safest and most transparent manner possible?
Mr. White. I agree that the Army has experienced challenges in
meeting its cost and schedule goals; however, the portion of this
growth has come from the commitment to meeting important safety and
environmental protection requirements. Since the start of this program,
the Army has seen a number of changes in both safety and environmental
protection regulations and laws. The commitment has been and will
always be to meet all safety and environmental regulations and laws.
This commitment continues to create pressure on costs and schedules.
I recognize the importance of eliminating public risk caused by
continued storage as quickly as possible by destroying the stockpile. I
believe the Army is utilizing the most effective and proven methods to
destroy the stockpile and our goal is to continue to destroy the
stockpile in a way that is safe and protective of the public, the
workers, and the environment as quickly as possible. I will ensure that
all decisions to be made that impact the local communities are clearly
and openly communicated, and that public input is consistently sought.
15. Senator Bunning. What steps would you take if you became aware
that officials from the Chemical Demilitarization Program were
intentionally providing misleading information to Congress and the
public?
Mr. White. First, let me say that I will not tolerate such behavior
from any of the staff under my direction. If evidence of intentional
misleading were brought to my attention, I would take the appropriate
legal action consistent with Army and Department of Defense policy.
16. Senator Bunning. I am deeply concerned for the safety of the
55,000 people who live near the chemical weapons stockpile in the Blue
Grass Army Depot. Their lives would be seriously endangered if anything
went wrong during this destruction process.
If confirmed, what steps will you take to ensure that this program
is run in the safest manner possible?
Mr. White. I recognize and understand your concern. Safety will
continue to be our highest priority in performing this mission. There
are three measures I will take to ensure that the destruction process
is operated as safely as possible. First, I will insist that any
facility built at Blue Grass be of the highest quality of design and
construction. Second, the facility will be fully tested and the workers
will be trained to the highest standards before any operations begin.
Finally, after the first two steps are accomplished, I will ensure that
the operations of the facility are continuously reviewed to ensure
safety and environmental standards are met for the life of the
facility.
17. Senator Bunning. Do you consider incineration to be the most
modern technology available for the destruction of chemical weapons?
Mr. White. I believe that there are a number of ways to destroy the
chemical weapons; however, I also believe that we need to utilize
technologies that are proven and safe, can handle the diversity of
munitions in our stockpile, and can do it in a timely manner.
Presently, incineration has been shown that it can meet these
requirements. Utilizing incineration, the Army has destroyed over
14,238,000 pounds of chemical agent, which equates to over 22.6 percent
of the United States stockpile destroyed. Incineration is also
extremely effective in destroying chemical agents at better than a
99.999 percent destruction and removal efficiency. The Army will
continue to evaluate alternative technologies, but continues to support
incineration as the safest and most effective way to destroy the full
spectrum of munitions and agents at our stockpiles that have multiple
munition types. If and when other technology solutions are developed
that are shown to be as safe and can be implemented at the same or
lower cost as incineration, the Army will definitely consider the use
of alternative technologies.
18. Senator Bunning. What are your alternate plans if the community
near Blue Grass objects to incineration as the method to destroy the
chemical weapons?
Mr. White. The public has several opportunities to become involved
at Blue Grass during the technology selection process. Currently, an
environmental impact statement (EIS) is being prepared. This EIS will
look at the impact to the environment caused by the disposal
technologies, including incineration. A public meeting was held in
January with the purpose of gathering comments from the general public.
Before the EIS is completed in May 2002, the public will have two more
opportunities to provide comments and concerns. The preliminary draft
is due to be competed this fall and will be available for public review
and comment at that time. The public will be able to review and comment
on the final draft that is due this coming winter.
In addition, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act requires
that the Army submit a permit application. Prior to submitting the
application, the Army will hold a public meeting. The permit
application details the process and will be available for public review
and comment. The Clean Air Act also requires a permit application that
the public can review and comment upon. In addition, the Army operates
an extensive public outreach and information program within the
community.
All of these public involvement avenues will be used to support the
selection of the most appropriate technology for Blue Grass. No matter
which technology is chosen, I will ensure that the Army continues to
work with the local community to address their concerns and inform and
involve them meaningfully in the disposal program.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mark Dayton
crusader technologies
19. Senator Dayton. As I see it, the Army has made a significant
investment in state-of-the-art, 21st century technologies in the
Crusader program. Those technologies, when demonstrated in Crusader,
will place the Army well on its way to achieving its transformation
goals and realizing its future combat platform, the Future Combat
System. If you don't complete Crusader, how will the Army attempt to
mature those technologies, demonstrate their combat utility, and
maintain your aggressive transformation time line?
Mr. White. Crusader is a vital technology carrier for our
transformation and future combat systems. In fact, it is the only
system currently in development with over two dozen new technologies
being integrated onboard a single ground combat platform for the first
time. As the Army moves toward fielding Crusader, we will continue to
develop, refine, and validate the doctrine and tactics that rely on
cockpit automation, robotics, and information exploitation, in lieu of
soldier-performed tasks that will also be applied in our future combat
systems. In addition to developing the integrated crew cockpit, robotic
munitions handling, projectile tracking radar, advanced composites,
light metal fabrication techniques, and various protection and
susceptibility reduction technologies, Crusader will prove out many of
the sophisticated modeling, simulation, design, and integration
processes that will provide the foundation for these future combat
systems.
Absent Crusader, many of the advanced technologies and processes
currently being developed by Crusader with application to our future
combat systems will have to be developed by the individual systems or
supported in the technology base. This defers the risks and transfers
the burden for maturation of these technologies and processes from
Crusader to the technology base and future systems. Additionally, this
increases the resources required by the technology base and future
combat systems to meet our transformation timeline.
20. Senator Dayton. It would appear that the Army has narrowly
characterized Crusader as a legacy force system, destined to support
your one remaining mechanized corps. Yet, when we look at what the Army
is proposing in its transformation, I see that the dependence upon
long-range, precision strike capabilities growing, not diminishing for
your interim brigade combat teams and your objective force. Your light,
mobile platforms will want to avoid direct fire exchanges and destroy
enemy systems long before they engage. Isn't that what Crusader is
designed to do? With its improved strategic deployability, wouldn't the
Army want to augment these new formations with small numbers of rapidly
deployable Crusaders? So why isn't Crusader identified among your
transformation systems, like Comanche?
Mr. White. Crusader is specifically designed to meet the
requirements of our transforming Army. Crusader is the cannon artillery
that our legacy force's counterattack corps requires to accomplish its
mission during the transformation. When added to the Abrams M1A2 System
Enhancement Program tank, Bradley A3 fighting vehicle, M270A1 missile
launcher, and Apache Longbow, Crusader completes the array of combat
systems required for the counterattack corps to gain and maintain
combat overmatch against potential foes during the transformation.
Crusader's long-range precision fires, survivability, and lethality
make it a candidate for augmenting our interim force based on mission
requirements. Additionally, while Crusader is not a part of our
objective force, it could potentially fight with or in support of this
future force from the initial fielding of the future combat systems in
2008 through approximately 2030 according to our current projections.
As the Army begins to field the objective force, the Crusaders will
cascade and replace the Paladin howitzers and field artillery
ammunition support vehicles, fielded today in the corps artillery
units.
______
[The nomination reference of Thomas E. White, Jr.,
follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
May 1, 2001.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Thomas E. White, Jr., of Texas, to be Secretary of the Army, vice
Louis Caldera.
______
[The biographical sketch of Thomas E. White, Jr., which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Thomas E. White, Jr.
Thomas E. White, Jr., is Vice Chairman of Enron Energy Services,
the Enron Corp. subsidiary responsible for providing energy outsource
solutions to commercial and industrial customers throughout the United
States. He is also a member of Enron's Executive Committee.
Mr. White is responsible for the delivery component of energy
management services, which include commodity management; purchasing,
maintaining, and operating energy assets; developing and implementing
energy information services; capital management; and facilities
management. Enron is one of the world's leading electricity, natural
gas, and communications companies. With revenues of $101 billion in
2000, Enron markets electricity and natural gas, delivers physical
commodities, and financial and risk management services to customers
around the world. Fortune magazine has named Enron ``America's Most
Innovative Company'' for 6 consecutive years.
Mr. White joined Enron Corp. in 1990 as Vice President of
Operations for Enron Power Corp., a subsidiary of Enron, after a 23-
year career in the United States Army. In 1991 he was named Chairman
and CEO of Enron Power Corp. During his tenure, Enron Power Corp.
completed the world's largest natural gas fired co-generation plant at
Teesside in the United Kingdom in 1993.
From 1993 to 1998, Mr. White was Chairman and CEO of Enron
Operations Corp. Mr. White's duties included the operation of some
44,000 miles of natural gas pipelines, including the largest integrated
system in the United States. In addition, he had management
responsibility for the operation of 26 plants, including 18 in the
United States and 8 in foreign countries stretching from Argentina to
the Philippines. Mr. White also was responsible for Enron Engineering
and Construction Company, which managed an extensive construction
portfolio with domestic and international projects.
Mr. White retired as a Brigadier General from the United States
Army in July 1990. Highlights of his military service include:
Two years of service in combat operations in Vietnam.
Extensive command experience, culminating in command
of the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment of V Corps in U.S. Army
Europe, which included responsibility for 6,000 soldiers,
10,000 family members, and four different major installations.
High-level staff assignments included service on
several special task forces chartered by the Chief of Staff of
the United States Army. Those task forces addressed critical
defense issues including development of the M1 Abrams Tank,
formulation of operational doctrine for large units, and the
development of an Armor/Anti-Armor program budgeted at $2
billion per year.
Served as Executive Assistant to the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Military decorations and awards include the
Distinguished Service Medal, Silver Star, and Legion of Merit
(with 3 Oak Leaf Clusters).
Mr. White holds a bachelor's degree in engineering from the United
States Military Academy and a master's degree in operations research
from the Naval Post Graduate School in Monterey, California.
Mr. White has been married to his wife Susan for 31 years. They
have two sons and a daughter. Mr. White was born in Detroit, Michigan,
on December 14, 1943.
______
[The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
form that details the biographical, financial, and other
information of the nominee. The form executed by Thomas E.
White, Jr., in connection with his nomination follows:]
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Room SR-228
Washington, DC 20510-6050
(202) 224-3871
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation
of your answer applies.
Part A--Biographical Information
Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.
1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
Thomas Eugene White, Jr.
2. Position to which nominated:
Secretary of the Army.
3. Date of nomination:
May 1, 2001.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
5. Date and place of birth:
December 14, 1943; Detroit, Michigan.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Susan Elizabeth Adams White.
7. Names and ages of children:
Thomas E. White III, 30; Charles F. White, 26; Kathleen H. White,
24.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received and date degree granted.
High School: Cass Technical High School, Detroit, Michigan, 1957-
1961; graduated with diploma, June 1961.
College: Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, 1961-1963; No
degree.
United States Military Academy, West Point, NY, 1963-1967; BS/
Engineering, June 1967.
Graduate: United States Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA,
1973-1974; MS/Operations Research 1974.
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
March 1991-June 1993--Chairman/CEO Enron Power Corp., Houston, TX.
June 1993-Dec. 1996--Chairman/CEO Enron Operations Corp., Houston,
TX.
Jan. 1997-Apr. 1998--Chairman/CEO Enron Ventures Corp., Houston,
TX.
Apr. 1998-present--Vice Chairman/CEO Enron Energy Services,
Houston, TX.
10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative,
honorary, or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State,
or local governments, other than those listed above.
None.
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
Enron Energy Services and other Enron subsidiaries--Vice Chairman,
Officer, Director.
Catalytica Energy Systems, Inc.--Director.
Greater Houston Area Chapter American Red Cross--Vice Chairman.
T.E. White Family Limited Partnership--General Partner.
DLJ Private Equity Partners Fund II--Limited Partner.
WSW 1996 Exchange Fund, LP--Limited Partner.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
Jewish-Institute for National Security Affairs--Member.
Business Executives for National Security--Member.
Greater Houston Area Chapter American Red Cross--Vice Chairman.
Association of the United States Army--Member.
Blackhorse Association--Member.
11th Armored Cavalry Regiment Veterans of Vietnam and Cambodia--
Member.
Association of Graduates United States Military Academy--Member.
Woodlands, Texas Country Club--Member.
Naples National Golf Club, Naples, FL--Member.
Maroon Creek Country Club, Aspen, CO--Member.
Aspen Mountain Club, Aspen, CO--Member.
Caribou Club, Aspen, CO--Member.
13. Political affiliations and activities:
(a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or
any public office for which you have been a candidate.
None.
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5
years.
Member--Republican Party.
(c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $100 or more for the past 5 years.
1996--Enron Political Action Committee--$1,800
1996--Bob Dole for President Campaign--$2,000
1997--Enron Political Action Committee--$1,800
1998--Enron Political Action Committee--$1,800
1999--Enron Political Action Committee--$2,000
2000--George W. Bush for President Campaign--$2,000
2000--Enron Political Action Committee--$2,000
14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals, and any other special
recognitions for outstanding service or achievements.
Military Medals (Army)
Army Distingnished Service Medal
Grand Merit Cross of the Federal Republic of Germany
Silver Star
Legon of Merit (4)
Distinguished Flying Cross
Bronze Star w/``V'' Device (4)
Meritorious Service Medal
Air Medals w/``V'' Device
Army Commendation Medal w/``V'' Device (3)
Army Achievement Medal
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
None.
16. Speeches: Provide the committee with two copies of any formal
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have
copies of and are on topics relevant to the position for which you have
been nominated.
None.
17. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree,
if confirmed, to respond to requests to appear and testify before any
duly constituted committee of the Senate?
Yes.
______
[The nominee responded to Parts B-F of the committee
questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set forth in
the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to Parts B-F
are contained in the committee's executive files.]
------
Signature and Date
I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate,
and complete.
Thomas E. White, Jr.
This 21st day of March, 2001.
[The nomination of Thomas E. White, Jr., was reported to
the Senate by Senator John Warner on May 21, 2001, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on May 24, 2001.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to Gordon R. England by
Chairman Warner prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
May 9, 2001.
The Hon. John Warner,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Enclosed herewith are the answers to the advance
questions the Senate Armed Services Committee asked me to complete.
Sincerely,
Gordon R. England.
cc: The Hon. Carl Levin
Ranking Minority Member.
______
Questions and Responses
defense reforms
Question. More than a decade has passed since the enactment of the
Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and
the Special Operations reforms. From your close association with
defense issues, you have had an opportunity to observe the
implementation and impact of those reforms.
Do you support full implementation of these defense reforms?
Answer. I am committed to the complete and effective implementation
of these reforms.
Question. What is your view of the extent to which these defense
reforms have been implemented?
Answer. I believe these reforms have been accepted and implemented
and that they have clarified the responsibilities and authorities of
the Secretary of Defense, the secretaries of the military departments,
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. The
effectiveness of our joint warfighting forces has improved as a result
of these reforms.
Question. What do you consider to be the most important aspects of
these defense reforms?
Answer. In my view, the most significant value of these reforms has
been to strengthen joint warfighting. Our military is stronger and more
lethal because our services can work better together. If confirmed, I
will maintain and extend the Navy's commitment to the principles of
joint warfare including interoperability and joint doctrine.
Question. The goals of Congress in enacting these defense reforms,
as reflected in section 3 of the Goldwater-Nichols Department of
Defense Reorganization Act, can be summarized as strengthening civilian
control; improving military advice; placing clear responsibility on the
combatant commanders for the accomplishment of their missions; ensuring
the authority of the combatant commanders is commensurate with their
responsibility; increasing attention to the formulation of strategy and
to contingency planning; providing for more efficient use of defense
resources; and enhancing the effectiveness of military operations and
improving the management and administration of the Department of
Defense.
Do you agree with these goals?
Answer. Yes.
duties
Question. Section 5013 of Title 10, United States Code, describes
the duties of the Secretary of the Navy.
Assuming you are confirmed, do you expect that Secretary Rumsfeld
will prescribe additional duties for you?
Answer. The Secretary's Management Committee consisting of the
Deputy Secretary of Defense, three service secretaries, and Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics has
been discussed as an operating model for the Department of Defense. If
implemented by the Secretary of Defense, this would constitute new
assignment for the service secretaries. As of this point in time, I am
not aware of any other additional duties.
Question. If so, what do you expect those additional duties will
be?
Answer. I am not aware of any such additional duties, except for
the Secretary's Management Committee.
Question. What duties and responsibilities do you plan to assign to
the Under Secretary of the Navy?
Answer. The Under Secretary of the Navy is to keep the Department
on track and focused on the stated top priorities, keeping me informed
of any impediments to success. I expect the Under Secretary of the Navy
to monitor and maintain the priorities I have set for the Department
and take the lead on any item in need of special attention.
Question. In carrying out your duties, how will you work with the
Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Manpower and Reserve Affairs; the
Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Installations and Environment; the
Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Financial Management and
Comptroller of the Navy; the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for
Research, Development, and Acquisition; and the General Counsel?
Answer. If confirmed, I intend to work closely and directly with
the Assistant Secretaries of the Navy and the General Counsel to ensure
the Department maintains a clear focus on the priorities set forth by
the Secretary of Defense and myself consistent with the appropriate
laws and Title 10 of the U.S. Code. My plan is to encourage teamwork
within the Department of the Navy; therefore we will have a number of
integrated product teams, both within civilian leadership and between
civilian leadership and their military counterparts.
science and technology
Question. The Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1999 established the goal of increasing the budget for the
Defense Science and Technology program by at least 2 percent over
inflation for each of the fiscal years 2000 to 2008. This goal was not
met in the fiscal year 2000 nor in the fiscal year 2001 budget
requests. In President-Elect Bush's speech at the Citadel he spoke of
his support for a strong and stable technology base.
Do you believe that a substantial increase in the Department's S&T
budget is needed?
Answer. Science and technology is important. If confirmed, I will
review to ensure the Department and nation's needs are met.
Question. The defense laboratories are facing a future of continued
reductions in research and support personnel. This trend, if unchecked,
could result in a loss of ``critical mass'' in research efforts across
a number of areas critical to future programs. This situation is
further complicated by the fact that in the current economy, the
Department is vying with industry for the best and the brightest high
tech personnel, but is unable to compete on salary and quality of work.
Finally, the process for hiring can take up to 18 months as opposed to
direct hiring in industry.
If confirmed, how would you intend to attract and retain scientists
and engineers for your laboratories?
Answer. This is a matter that requires my review and attention.
Question. Congress has authorized the Department to give laboratory
directors direct hiring authority to enable them to compete for
scientific and engineering talent. To date, the Department has been
reluctant to use this authority.
Do you support giving the Department's laboratory directors the
authority to make direct hires without having to go through an 18-month
review process?
Answer. The Department is in the process of developing a waiver
process to implement the authority for direct hiring that Congress
provided under Section 245 of the Fiscal Year 2000 Defense
Authorization Act. I support this authority and believe it will improve
the workforce and the efficiency of DOD laboratories. At the same time,
we need to examine the total laboratory structure within the DON, DOD,
and DOE to maximize efficiency and effectiveness of these resources.
acquisition reform
Question. Secretary Rumsfeld testified at his confirmation hearing
that the cycle time for major acquisition programs conducted over the
past several decades averages between 8 and 9 years. Others have stated
that the cycle time may be as long as 15 to 20 years. The Secretary
stated that this cycle time is not sufficiently responsive to urgent
new challenges and rapidly emerging technological developments.
What are your thoughts on specific steps that can be taken to
reduce the cycle time for major acquisition programs?
Answer. I would implement ``spiral acquisition.'' By doing so, we
can employ technology faster, at less risk, and less cost than current
acquisition approaches.
Question. Do you see a need for any changes to the existing
acquisition structure and/or acquisition chain of command?
Answer. Based on the long timelines and costs of current
acquisitions, it would certainly appear that changes to the current
acquisition structure may be necessary. If confirmed, I will become
familiar with the current acquisition structure and the chain of
command, and propose changes if appropriate.
acquisition workforce
Question. There has been considerable pressure to reduce
acquisition organizations on the basis of absolute numbers. DOD has
reduced its acquisition workforce approximately 50 percent, from the
end of fiscal year 1990 to the end of fiscal year 1999, while the
workload has remained essentially constant, and even increased by some
measures.
Are you concerned that reductions to the acquisition workforce will
have a negative effect on program management, and if so, how do you
plan to address this problem?
Answer. Perhaps. While on the surface this appears to be a growing
problem, this may not be as severe if we modify our acquisition
processes. This subject will be examined as acquisition reforms are
implemented in DOD.
Question. As the DOD continues to emphasize contracting out and
competitive sourcing, the skills, training, and experience of the
acquisition workforce will be critical in effectively managing these
contracts. In addition, the Department's Acquisition Workforce 2005
Task Force has reported that DOD will be faced with a significant
demographic challenge as 50 percent of the remaining acquisition
workforce will be eligible to retire in the next 5 years.
Do you believe the current acquisition workforce has the quality
and training to not only adapt to new acquisition reforms, but to the
increased workload and responsibility from managing privatization
efforts?
Answer. While the current acquisition workforce is made up of high
quality and well-trained personnel, the Department will need to
continue to examine needs in this area. If confirmed, I will seek to
increase the emphasis on creating a continuous learning environment for
the acquisition workforce, to seek out and introduce best commercial
practices, and to streamline our recruiting and hiring practices in
order to be competitive with industry in attracting new talent.
readiness
Question. Over the last few years we have seen increasing evidence
that the readiness of the U.S. armed forces has begun to deteriorate as
a result of the over-commitment of an under-resourced military. The
Joint Chiefs have testified that the military services will require a
$48 to $58 billion funding increase if the Department is to restore
readiness and modernize for the future. The former Secretary of the Air
Force recently stated that an increase of $100 billion would be
required each year.
What do you view as the major readiness challenges that will have
to be addressed and, if confirmed, how will you approach these issues?
Answer. If confirmed, the priority of this office will be to
increase the combat capability which includes readiness of the Navy and
Marine Corps and the interoperability of this capability with the other
services and allies. I will work with the Chief of Naval Operations and
Commandant of the Marine Corps to understand their perspective and
efforts in providing sailors and marines with the tools necessary to
accomplish their mission.
cinc-identified readiness deficiencies
Question. The latest Quarterly Readiness Report to Congress
identified numerous CINC-identified readiness-related deficiencies.
Many of these are listed as Category I deficiencies which entail
significant warfighting risk to execution of the national military
strategy. Most of the specific deficiencies have been reported for the
past several years and have not as yet been effectively addressed.
If confirmed, what actions will you take to ensure that the Navy
provides the necessary resources to address these CINC-identified
readiness deficiencies?
Answer. Navy has worked to mitigate CINC readiness deficiencies. If
confirmed, I would continue that effort.
environment
Question. The Senior Readiness Oversight Committee is currently
reviewing a group of readiness challenges it has characterized as
``encroachment'' issues. These include environmental constraints on
military training ranges, local community efforts to obtain military
property, airspace restrictions to accommodate civilian airlines,
transfer of radio frequency spectrum from the Department of Defense to
the wireless communications industry, and many others. Unless these
issues are effectively addressed, our military forces will find it
increasingly difficult to train and operate at home and abroad.
In your opinion, how serious are these problems for the Navy?
Answer. Encroachment is a problem that grows more serious each day.
The commanders have been trying to accommodate encroachment pressures
by altering their training plans and procedures. While many of these
individual accommodations may not appear serious, the cumulative effect
could diminish readiness in the form of a fighting force less prepared
than it should be. The effects of encroachment are most often seen as
decreased days for training, restrictions on the location and timing
for training, and limitations on the types of training.
Question. If confirmed, what actions will you propose to ensure
that these issues do not prevent your service from effectively training
and operating both at home and abroad?
Answer. The Department of Defense and the military services are
working with other federal agencies to identify and resolve as many
encroachment issues as possible. If confirmed, I will continue this
effort.
Question. The Department of Defense makes it a practice to request
funding only for those environmental compliance areas that are already
out of compliance and subject to an enforcement action, and those that
will be out of compliance before the next budget cycle.
Would you agree that continuing funding for this type of
environmental cleanup is critical to maintaining a positive
relationship with local regulatory authorities and the communities
around our military bases?
Answer. Yes, in many respects, the Department of the Navy is just
like any other big business and must give priority to complying with
environmental legal requirements. It is vital that the Navy and Marine
Corps comply with environmental protection requirements and budget
appropriately. If confirmed, I also will look for opportunities to be
proactive rather than reactive. For example, achieving compliance
through pollution prevention is the preferred method of business.
Question. Do you believe that the Department of Defense should be
exempt from the application of the environmental laws?
Answer. In general, no. Most of the activities of the Navy and
Marine Corps, particularly those associated with operating
installations, can and must comply with environmental laws like the
private sector. However, application of some environmental laws and
regulations to militarily unique training actions should be examined
and may require some regulatory accommodations to ensure national
security.
Question. Do you support the basic principle of the Federal
Facilities Act and other laws that federal facilities, including DOD
facilities, should be subject to the same standards as comparably
situated civilian facilities?
Answer. In general, I support the principle that DOD facilities
should be subject to the same standards as comparably situated civilian
facilities. However, there are circumstances where environmental
regulations must be tailored to accommodate the unique military mission
or special circumstances related to military training while still
protecting the environment. A good example is the Military Munitions
Rule whereby excess military munitions were recognized as a special
type of waste that should not be regulated like civilian wastes under
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
Question. The Department of Defense faces a bill for the clean-up
of unexploded ordnance (UXO) that is at least in the tens of billions
of dollars, and could well be in the hundreds of billions of dollars.
At current funding levels, it has been estimated that it would take the
military services several thousand years to remediate UXO problems on a
DOD-wide basis.
What do you believe would be an acceptable time period for cleaning
up unexploded ordnance problems throughout the Department of Defense?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the other services and the
Secretary of Defense, in consultation with Congress, to solve this
critical question.
Question. Do you believe that increased investment in UXO
remediation technologies would be likely to produce more effective and
efficient remediation processes and substantially reduce the
Department's long-term clean-up liability (and the time required to
complete such clean-up)?
Answer. If confirmed, I welcome the opportunity to look into this
difficult and critical issue as well.
Question. How would you address the prospect of reducing the cost
to the Department of environmental compliance?
Answer. As private industry and the Department of Defense have
found, the preferred method for cost reduction is through pollution
prevention. If confirmed, I will examine various ways to ensure
environmental compliance while reducing costs.
Question. Maritime resource protection laws, executive orders, and
interpretations of Federal and State environmental regulations have
affected the conduct of maritime operations, and Navy test and training
activities.
If confirmed as Secretary of the Navy, what measures would you take
to preserve fleet operations and training exercises under the current
regulatory and statutory framework?
Answer. I am not yet familiar with the various laws and regulations
involving environmental compliance. If confirmed, I will acquaint
myself with these laws and take action as appropriate.
vieques
Question. Over the past 2 years, naval forces deploying from the
East Coast of the United States have been prevented from conducting
live-fire training on the Navy's training range on Vieques, Puerto
Rico, which has had a degraded impact on the readiness of these forces
to execute their wartime missions. An agreement was reached in 2000,
and legislation passed to implement that agreement, that provided for
the return of the western portion of the island, economic aid, and a
restoration of live-fire training. Unfortunately, the current Governor
of Puerto Rico does not appear to be abiding by the terms of this
agreement and has stated that she wants the Navy to cease operations
immediately.
Do you agree with the Chief of Naval Operations and the Commandant
of the Marine Corps that Vieques is essential to the readiness of East
Coast naval forces?
Answer. Yes. The Island of Vieques provides an unequalled
environment for training and evaluation of Navy and Marine Corps
personnel and equipment in land, sea, air, and amphibious warfare. This
combined arms training and evaluation is an essential step in attaining
sufficient pre-deployment levels of readiness.
Question. If confirmed, what actions would you take to ensure that
the Navy and Marine Corps receive necessary live-fire training on
Vieques?
Answer. Under the terms of the Fiscal Year 2001 National Defense
Authorization Act, the Department of the Navy will only resume live-
fire training on Vieques if a majority of the registered voters in
Vieques endorse our continued use of the range at a referendum
scheduled for 6 November 2001. Until then, I support the continued
training at Vieques with non-explosive ordnance in accordance with the
Act and the agreement reached in January 2000 between the President and
the Governor of Puerto Rico.
Question. Do you support the agreement the Navy reached with
Governor Rossello regarding Vieques?
Answer. It is my understanding the Navy supports the agreement. I
personally have not had sufficient briefings to have a position.
Question. If confirmed, do you intend to continue to comply with
that agreement or will you seek to negotiate a new agreement or pursue
a different course of action?
Answer. If confirmed, resolution of this issue will be a high
priority. I will obtain additional information in order to understand
all aspects of this situation.
outsourcing of commercial activities
Question. Over the past several years the Department of Defense has
increased its reliance upon the private sector to perform certain
activities including equipment maintenance and facility operations.
Some have supported this effort, believing that outsourcing will yield
significant savings that can be used to modernize the military.
Do you believe that the military services need to retain a core
capability to perform certain activities such as equipment maintenance,
and what approach would you take to allocate workloads between the
public and private sector?
Answer. If confirmed, I will strive to ensure that military core
capabilities are retained, as necessary, to achieve the proper balance
between public and private sector support.
Question. Do you believe that outsourcing can yield substantial
savings for the Department of Defense?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with my staff and welcome the
opportunity to work with this committee to evaluate the effectiveness
of this outsourcing.
Question. Do you agree that public-private competition is an
essential precursor to any outsourcing effort in the Department of
Defense?
Answer. If confirmed, I welcome the opportunity to work with my
staff and the committee to evaluate the issue of public-private
competition and whether it generates significantly greater savings.
commercial vs. military requirements for frequency spectrum
Question. The Federal Government is currently conducting a series
of studies to determine a band of frequencies that can be used for the
operation of third generation wireless communications devices. As a
part of this overall effort, the Department of Defense is conducting a
study to determine the cost and operational impact that would result if
the military services were to surrender the use of the 1755-1850 MHz
band of frequencies on which they currently operate their equipment. As
the Department of Defense's information requirements increase with the
advances taking place in weapon system technology, the Department's
requirements for frequency access will also increase. However, the
commercial sector is also experiencing increased requirements for
frequency spectrum to meet the demands of the American consumers.
Spectrum is a finite resource and we have to ensure it is utilized in
the most efficient and beneficial manner possible.
If confirmed, what actions would you take to review your service's
total spectrum requirements and ensure that new systems are designed to
ensure efficient spectrum utilization by the Department of Defense?
Answer. It is evident that the military does have bona fide
requirements for spectrum utilization. Without unique military
bandwidth, the whole effort for integrated command, control, and
intelligence across the services will be jeopardized. If confirmed, I
will work with the other services and DOD to address this issues.
Question. If confirmed, what actions would you take if the study
currently being conducted within the Department of Defense determines
that there will be a significant cost and operational impact if the
military services surrender the 1755-1850 MHz band of frequencies?
Answer. If confirmed, I will need to be thoroughly briefed on the
study to fully appreciate its findings.
base realignment and closure
Question. Over the past several years, various departmental
officials have testified that there is excess defense infrastructure
and have requested Congress to authorize another round of base closure.
Do you believe that we have excess defense facilities and, if so,
where does this excess capacity exist?
Answer. Any discussion of where there may be excess capacity must
await the completion of the Secretary of Defense Strategic Review,
which will identify a vision of how we must reshape the Department of
Defense to best meet the threats of today and tomorrow to our Nation.
Implementing this new defense vision will likely involve a shift in the
focus and priorities of the military departments, including its
supporting shore establishment.
service stovepipes
Question. One of the principal criticisms of the Department of
Defense is that the military services continue to pursue their
individual systems--from logistics to data management--which increases
costs and hinders interoperability. Although there have been efforts to
remove these service stovepipes in the past, they continue to exist.
If confirmed, what actions will you take to eliminate service
unique systems where systems could be developed to serve all of the
services?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the other service
secretaries to ensure a high degree of interoperability between our
systems.
military family housing
Question. In response to a continuing shortfall in funding for
family housing construction and repair, the Department proposed the
Military Housing Privatization Initiative as one part of their program
to upgrade all military housing to standard by 2010. Although Congress
enacted this authority in the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1996, the services have not made the anticipated progress
in the privatization effort.
What role, if any, do you believe military family housing has in
recruiting and retention?
Answer. Our sailors and marines need to know that their families
are safely and comfortably housed while they are deployed and serving
our Nation. As such, to the extent that we can improve the quality of
life of our members, such improvements should contribute to overall
satisfaction and, ultimately, positively affect recruiting and
retention.
Question. Do you support the goal for upgrading all military family
housing in your service to established standards by 2010?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Would you support providing the necessary resources to
achieve this goal?
Answer. Yes
modernization
Question. Do you believe that the Navy and the Marine Corps have
been provided sufficient resources to maintain current readiness,
recapitalize, and modernize to the level needed?
Answer. I have not had an opportunity to review the resources, and,
if confirmed, I will provide more firm input after I have had time to
better understand the issues.
Question. If not, what would be the effect of continuing current
funding levels and what steps do you plan to take to avoid these
problems?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely within Department of the
Navy, and with SECDEF staff and Congress, to better determine and fund
current and future requirements. At the same time, I expect to improve
the efficiency of business practices within DON to free up additional
funds for modernization and maintenance.
capabilities delivered at fleet introduction
Question. The Navy's newest tactical aircraft, the F/A-18E/F, may
be scheduled for its first deployment in advance of receiving some of
the subsystems that were originally scheduled to be a part of the
aircraft package.
Do you believe that it is appropriate to send new systems to
deploying forces, where the systems' capabilities fall short of what
had been planned for delivery at the time of initial operational
capability?
Answer. Although not familiar with the specifics of the F/A-18E/F,
the concept is consistent with a ``spiral development'' approach, where
systems are deployed to the field that provide significant benefit over
existing systems but continue to evolve to meet final operational
capability.
joint strike fighter
Question. The Navy's first stealthy, carrier-launched tactical
aircraft will be the Joint Strike Fighter.
Do you believe that the Navy will be able to afford this program on
the current schedule in light of the many other needs for
recapitalization?
Answer. The naval service has a stated requirement for the Joint
Strike Fighter. My understanding is that JSF research, development,
test, and evaluation is fully funded throughout the FYDP, however, the
outcome of this program may be influenced by the outcome of the
Secretary of Defense strategic reviews.
marine corps enlisted retention
Question. The retention of quality young privates and sergeants is
important to the Marine Corps. This service has exceeded its retention
goals so far this year.
What will your direction be to the Marine Corps to ensure that this
positive trend continues?
Answer. If confirmed, I will encourage the Marine Corps to build
upon success. Young marines thrive on challenge and a sense of
adventure. Retaining quality marines is critical to the Corps'
readiness. If confirmed, I will encourage the Marine Corps to pursue
those quality of life issues and the challenging training regimen that
has been so successful.
naval gun fire support
Question. Do you concur with the Navy and Marine Corps operational
requirement for the Navy to provide fire support from the sea to the
Marine Corps, the Army, or other expeditionary forces?
Answer. Yes, I do concur. From both the Navy and Marine Corps
perspectives, Operational Maneuver From the Sea (OMFTS) concepts have
placed an increasing emphasis on the need for capable Naval Surface
Fire Support (NSFS) assets. I realize that sea-based NSFS will be
required to support joint operations, and integrate with expeditionary
forces (whether Marine, Army, or other) operating over an extended
littoral battlespace.
navy support of marine corps requirements
Question. The Commandant of the Marine Corps and the Chief of Naval
Operations sometimes have differing views on how to implement key
operational concepts, such as logistics from the sea. For instance, the
Commandant may want to minimize his footprint ashore, which would
require additional ships. Concurrently, the CNO may be struggling to
find the resources to operate and recapitalize the present force
structure and may not have the resources to support the Commandant's
path to operating in the future.
How would you intend to arbitrate such differences of opinion
between the Navy and the Marine Corps?
Answer. I am of the opinion that the Navy and Marine Corps form a
unique operational team, serving a vital role in the defense of the
nation and our interests. If confirmed, I intend to have both the Chief
of Naval Operations and the Commandant of the Marine Corps as partners
with me in demonstrating that we are ``One team, one fight.'' I will
encourage coordination and teamwork, ensuring that we work together at
all levels.
protected communications
Question. Section 1034, Title 10, United States Code, prohibits
taking retaliatory personnel action against a member of the armed
forces as reprisal for making a protected communication. By definition,
protected communications include communications to certain individuals
and organizations outside of the chain of command. We continue to see a
lack of understanding in the senior military leadership of the policy
that it is appropriate and necessary to protect service members who
report misconduct to appropriate authorities outside of the chain of
command.
Do you support prohibiting retaliatory personnel actions for making
protected communications?
Answer. Yes.
Question. If confirmed, what actions would you take to ensure that
senior military leaders understand the need to protect service members
who report misconduct to appropriate authorities within or outside the
chain of command?
Answer. If confirmed, I will be vigilant in ensuring that military
members whose actions are protected by the Act are not subject to
illegal reprisals or retaliation. I also understand that the current
Department of the Navy practice is to brief the requirements of the Act
to all prospective commanding officers and executive officers, and
address the requirements of the Act in the curriculum of eight separate
courses of instruction for Navy and Marine Corps personnel. If
confirmed, I will ensure that this emphasis on the Act in formal Navy
training courses will continue.
officer promotion system
Question. We consider promotions to general and flag officer ranks
as identifying military officers for very senior positions that should
be filled only by officers with the very highest moral and ethical
values. We are frequently asked to confirm the promotion of officers
who have substantiated allegations of misconduct that have not been
considered by the boards that selected these officers for promotion. At
the same time, the services inform us that they have many highly
qualified officers for each available general and flag officer billet.
What steps will you take to ensure that only the most highly
qualified officers are nominated for promotion to general and flag
officer rank?
Answer. The strength of our Navy rests on the moral and ethical
foundation of its leaders. If confirmed, I will place great value and
emphasis on integrity as I instruct selection boards in their duties.
I will expect and require high integrity and true commitment to
Navy core values of honor, courage, and commitment. While some errors
in performance are experiences that can be learned from and contribute
to the strength and growth of an officer, faults relating to lack of
integrity will be of great concern and will be intensely scrutinized in
determining if that officer is qualified for promotion.
investment in infrastructure
Question. Witnesses appearing before the committee in recent years
have testified that the military services under-invest in their
facilities compared to private industry standards. Decades of under-
investment in our installations have led to increasing backlogs of
facility maintenance needs, created substandard living and working
conditions, and made it harder to take advantage of new technologies
that could increase productivity.
Based on your private sector experience, do you believe the
Department of the Navy is investing enough in its infrastructure?
Answer. I recognize that it has been a difficult challenge for the
Department of the Navy to sufficiently invest in its infrastructure. My
understanding is that independent studies have shown that the
Department of the Navy's infrastructure investment is below industry
levels. One approach to ensuring sufficient investment in
infrastructure is to be sure that the Department has no excess
infrastructure to be maintained.
Question. How does the Navy's investment in its infrastructure
compare to what you are used to in the private sector?
Answer. The private sector depreciates its assets based on useful
life. This would appear to be reasonable criteria for the Department of
the Navy. As such, the investment account should equal the depreciation
for each year unless more efficient processes are implemented.
Question. What steps would you plan to take to address this issue?
Answer. Upon completion of the strategic review, if confirmed, I
will work with the Secretary of Defense to resource the required
infrastructure to support the new national military strategy. The
Department will need to apply commercial methods and industry practices
to match facility requirements with our Navy and Marine Corps ``product
lines'' and resource our infrastructure accordingly.
civilian control of the military
Question. Press reports indicate that increasing civilian control
of the military services will be a priority of this administration.
What changes would you recommend to Secretary Rumsfeld to make in
your duties and responsibilities or those of the Under Secretary or
assistant secretaries in your department?
Answer. None at this time.
Question. Section 5014(c) of Title 10 requires that the Office of
the Secretary of the Navy have sole responsibility for Acquisition,
Auditing, Comptroller (including Financial Management), Information
Management, Inspector General, Legislative Affairs, and Public Affairs.
If confirmed, would you review each of these functional areas to
ensure that the Navy is in compliance with the statutory requirement?
Answer. Yes.
Question. The services have traditionally had a uniformed flag rank
officer rather than the Assistant Secretary for Financial Management
supervise their budget office.
Do you intend to follow this arrangement or do you plan to increase
civilian control over your service's budget decisions?
Answer. The Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Financial
Management has the authority and responsibility for budget matters for
the Department of the Navy.
Question. The service secretaries have traditionally delegated
management of readiness to the uniformed services.
What role do you intend to play in readiness issues?
Answer. I intend to play an active role, closely working with the
naval services on this vitally important issue.
civilian workforce
Question. What steps would you plan to take to bring new people
with the desired skills into our civilian workforce as more and more of
the current workforce is becoming retirement eligible?
Answer. I believe renewal of the civilian workforce must be a
primary objective if we are to meet future readiness requirements
across the total force. If confirmed, I will support current
initiatives to standardize and professionalize the recruitment efforts
of Navy and Marine Corps commands; work with DOD on legislative and
regulatory changes to streamline the employment and workforce
restructuring processes; and support efforts to build strong career
program alliances across the Department.
major challenges
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges confronting
the next Secretary of the Navy?
Answer. I believe that the greatest challenges currently facing the
Department are:
Combat Capability--The primary purpose of the Navy and
Marine Corps is to deter, train for, and when necessary, fight
and win our Nation's battles and wars. To remain faithful to
this charge, combat capability, which includes readiness, must
be our primary emphasis. If necessary, resources will be
shifted to meet this objective.
People--Our most valuable resource. I will emphasize
``quality of service''--achieving a quality workplace as well
as a quality of life for our sailors, marines, civilians, and
their families. Our thrust will be to create an environment of
excellence.
Technology and Interoperability--Application of
advanced technology is the foundation of our Nation's military
strength. Unfortunately, the application of technology has
almost always lagged the availability of technology, sometimes
by several generations.
Efficiency--Application of more effective management
techniques to systematically improve the efficiency of the
Department.
Question. If confirmed, what plans do you have for addressing these
challenges?
Answer. My written statement to the committee includes my initial
steps to address these challenges. If confirmed, these steps will be
promptly initiated.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, when asked, to give your personal views,
even if those views differ from the administration in power?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as the Secretary of the Navy?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings, and
other communications of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions submitted by Senator Strom Thurmond
1. Senator Thurmond. According to the General Accounting Office, by
1992 the military had accumulated an estimated $8.9 billion in deferred
maintenance. By 1998 that had grown to $14.6 billion. It now exceeds
$16.0 billion and is growing. Last year in his testimony before
Congress, the GAO's Neil Curtain said, ``there really is a risk of
losing the value of those (military) facilities. Real property
maintenance is in disarray.''
I would like your views on the priority you will be placing on
installation readiness and eliminating this backlog in maintenance and
repair.
Mr. England. I agree with the recent DOD Inspector General
assessment that the backlog of maintenance and repair is one of the top
ten management challenges facing the Department of Defense. It is
imperative that we fully sustain our facility inventory and halt the
slide in installation readiness.
2. Senator Thurmond. According to your biography, as a member of
the Defense Science Board, you were a principal contributor to the
section 912c Report to Congress with broad recommendations for defense
reform.
Based on that experience, what management reforms do you consider
the most important to improve the operation of the Department of
Defense?
Mr. England. As noted in the Section 912c Report to Congress, there
are significant cost and personnel savings to be realized through
acquisition reform. Better integration of our research and development
organizations with industry, and the use of innovative performance-
based contracting practices and outsourcing initiatives offer the
potential for increased efficiencies in streamlining both cost burdens
and workforce requirements. I believe that we may benefit from further
review and use of these methods and processes in other areas of our
operations, such as medical activities and personnel activities.
3. Senator Thurmond. For a number of years, the prevailing ethic in
the military has been that you better not make a mistake because a
single error of any significance can blight your career. Your
predecessor, Secretary Danzig, said that, ``this is really hurting us
and we have to stop doing this.''
How do you feel about the ``zero defect mentality?''
Mr. England. The zero defect mentality not only is an impediment to
the effective and accurate flow of communication to all levels of a
command, it also perpetuates an atmosphere of micromanagement that is
detrimental to retention. It is all too human to make mistakes as one
develops in any profession. The leadership challenge is to be sure that
individuals and commands learn from the mistake and take responsibility
for their actions. It is important, however, to clearly distinguish
between poor judgment or recklessness and an honest mistake.
Accountability of persons in leadership positions for actions taken, or
not taken, must be enforced and where necessary, disciplinary actions
taken. Yet when honest mistakes or decisions with less than optimal
information were made, the result need be examined in a non-emotional
setting. This serves to not only clearly determine what happened and
why, but also ultimately to educate others.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Rick Santorum
4. Senator Santorum. The Joint Strike Fighter is approaching a
major decision point, with a source selection and entry into
engineering and manufacturing development (EMD). Do you feel the
program can receive the stable funding required for it to meet its
goals in light of other programs competing for limited resources, e.g.
F-22 in the case of the Air Force and FA-18E/F in the case of the Navy?
Mr. England. The Secretary of Defense is currently conducting a
comprehensive strategic review of the Department's near- and long-term
requirements. The results from that review will be incorporated into
the Quadrennial Defense Review to provide the appropriate
prioritization of our programs to meet those requirements. The
allocation of Department resources will be based on that
prioritization.
5. Senator Santorum. A constituent company, Erie Forge & Steel,
Inc., plays an important role in producing propeller shafts for the
U.S. Navy. Figures provided by the Navy note that Erie Forge & Steel
delivered approximately 80 percent of the finished propulsion shafts
used by the Navy. Erie Forge and Steel is one of only two manufacturers
in the United States capable of totally manufacturing (cradle to grave)
shafts for Trident submarines.
The Navy notes that while some contractors can produce rough
forging and others can perform the machining, only Erie Forge & Steel,
on the east coast, and Jorgensen Forge, on the west coast, are capable
of performing the total work package. The Navy notes that the most
critical process for shaft section production is the finish machining
process, which accounts for 60 percent of the work required to
manufacture a shaft section.
Regrettably, Erie Forge & Steel is not immune from the dislocation
and economic pressures that are impacting our domestic steel producing
industry. Erie Forge & Steel has applied for a loan as part of the
Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Act of 1999, in response to unfair
dumping of foreign steel. Clearly, it would not be in the best national
security interests of this country if the Navy were to lose the
capabilities provided by Erie Forge & Steel.
Do I have your assurance that you will look into the situation that
is impacting Erie Forge & Steel and report back to me on how the Navy
might work with the company to get through this period of financial
difficulty?
Mr. England. The Navy will be conducting an in-depth analysis this
year regarding the capacities and capabilities of Erie Forge, Lehigh
Heavy Forge, Jorgensen, and other companies to gain a better
understanding of the impact on the industrial base due to the possible
loss of Erie Forge & Steel capacity for Navy propulsion shafting. The
Navy's findings will be forwarded to you as they become available.
6. Senator Santorum. A new Pentagon report to Congress on the state
of the U.S. naval ship propeller industry says that while the U.S.
Navy's future requirement for ship propellers could be met by a
government-owned foundry, not enough Navy work would remain to support
the private-sector industrial base.
Naval shipbuilding projections confirm the government cannot
provide enough work to sustain the two U.S. facilities capable of
casting large ship and submarine propellers, indicating the domestic
propeller industrial base is too fragile to risk losing Navy
procurement dollars to overseas competitors.
The report defines the U.S. ship propeller industrial base as
comprised of two firms: the Naval Foundry and Propeller Center,
Philadelphia, a Navy-owned facility capable of meeting the Navy
propeller requirement during the next 6 years; and Rolls-Royce Naval
Marine Inc., Walpole, Massachusetts, which has a foundry in Pascagoula,
Mississippi.
Do you agree with me that the Naval Foundry and Propeller Center at
Philadelphia is a national asset? What steps or actions do you believe
must be taken by the Navy to ensure the viability of our American ship
propeller industrial base, particularly the Naval Foundry and Propeller
Center in Philadelphia?
Mr. England. Naval Foundry and Propeller Center is an important
asset to the Navy's shipbuilding program. The Navy can continue to
direct sufficient work to the Center to maintain their minimum
sustaining rate. Although they are primarily a submarine propulsor
manufacturer, the Navy is prepared to direct surface ship work to the
Center as done with AOE 6 propellers in the early 1990s. The viability
of the American ship propeller base is primarily affected by ship
construction build rates. An increased build rate will provide
stabilizing influences on the propeller industrial base.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Wayne Allard
7. Senator Allard. Secretary Rumsfeld announced his recommendations
regarding our military space organization as encouraged by the Space
and NRO Commissions. Please comment on the Secretary's recommendations
specifically as it relates to your service.
Mr. England. The Department of the Navy concurs with the Space
Commission conclusions and Secretary Rumsfeld's recommendations. We
look forward to continuing our active role in implementing those
recommendations to better enable joint land, air, and maritime
warfighting use of space and space assets. The Navy, like our sister
services, relies heavily upon the use of space for combat operations.
Naval combat operations are critically dependent upon space for precise
navigation; satellite communications; time critical intelligence,
surveillance and reconnaissance, targeting and weaponeering; and
meteorology and oceanography. Therefore, for the naval service, the
final measure of the new national security space organization's worth
will be its ability to balance and fulfill our warfighting requirements
properly.
We intend to work closely with all of the stakeholders and the
Office of the Secretary of Defense to clearly define the new
organization's policy, requirements, and acquisition processes. We see
significant opportunities in this new organization to improve the use
of space and space assets. We are fully committed and ready to
participate by providing the necessary Navy and Marine Corps expertise.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Jeff Sessions
8. Senator Sessions. Secretary Rumsfeld has indicated that he is
interested in using advanced technologies (already on the shelf) to
dramatically increase the capability and performance of existing
weapons systems like Harpoon.
It is my understanding that the Navy has supported the development
of a Harpoon upgrade for export. It seems to me that this kind of
technology upgrade might make sense for the Navy. Do you have any views
on this matter? If not, would you look into this matter, and then get
back to me?
Mr. England. The Navy entered into an innovative cooperative
agreement with Boeing to oversee and support development and test of
the Harpoon upgrades. Foreign military sales of the Harpoon upgrades
will commence this year. The decision to retrofit U.S. Navy Harpoon
systems with these upgrades will be contingent upon prioritized
operational requirements and availability of resources to meet those
priorities.
______
[The nomination reference of Gordon R. England follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
April 30, 2001.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Gordon R. England, of Texas, to be Secretary of the Navy, vice
Richard Danzig.
______
[The biographical sketch of Gordon R. England, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Gordon R. England
Mr. England served as Executive Vice President of General Dynamics
Corporation from 1997 until 2001 and was responsible for two major
sectors of the corporation: Information Systems and International.
Previously he had served as Executive Vice President of the Combat
Systems Group, President of General Dynamics Fort Worth Aircraft
Company and before that he served as President of General Dynamics Land
Systems Company producing land combat vehicles.
Mr. England began his career with Honeywell Corporation working as
an engineer on the Gemini space program before joining General Dynamics
in 1966 as an avionics design engineer in the Fort Worth aircraft
division. He also worked as a program manager with Litton Industries on
the Navy's E-2C Hawkeye aircraft.
Following various engineering and management positions with GD Fort
Worth, Mr. England became President of GD Land Systems company. Shortly
afterwards he returned to Fort Worth as President of that division and
as Executive Vice President of the corporation in 1991. He served in
these roles until 1993 when Lockheed Martin purchased the Fort Worth
division, after which he continued to serve as President of Lockheed's
aircraft company from 1993 to 1995.
Mr. England established a mergers and acquisitions consulting firm
following his retirement from Lockheed Martin in 1995 and operated that
business until his selection as Executive Vice President of General
Dynamics in 1997.
A native of Baltimore, he graduated from the University of Maryland
in 1961 with a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering. In 1975 he
earned a master's degree in business administration from the M.J.
Neeley School of Business at Texas Christian University. He is a member
of the following honorary societies: Beta Gamma Sigma (business),
Omicron Delta Kappa (leadership), and Eta Kappa Nu (Engineering).
Mr. England has served as a member of the Defense Science Board and
as Vice Chairman of the National Research Council Committee on the
Future of the U.S. Aerospace Industry. He has also been actively
involved in a variety of civic and charitable organizations, including
Goodwill International where he served as Vice Chairman of the Board of
Directors, the USO's board of governors, and as a member of the board
of visitors at TCU and other universities.
He has received numerous professional and service awards from many
organizations, including the Boy Scouts of America, National Defense
Industrial Association, and the National Management Association. He was
selected as an IEEE Centennial awardee and is a member of the Aviation
Heritage Hall of Fame.
______
[The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
form that details the biographical, financial, and other
information of the nominee. The form executed by Gordon R.
England in connection with his nomination follows:]
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Room SR-228
Washington, DC 20510-6050
(202) 224-3871
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation
of your answer applies.
Part A--Biographical Information
Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.
1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
Gordon Richard England.
2. Position to which nominated:
Secretary of the Navy.
3. Date of nomination:
May 1, 2001.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
5. Date and place of birth:
September 15, 1937; Baltimore, Maryland.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Dorothy Hennlein England.
7. Names and ages of children:
Gordon England, Jr., 38; Margaret K. Rankin, 35; Marisa C. Walpert,
28.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
Mount St. Joseph High School, Baltimore, Maryland, Diploma--June
1955.
University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, BSEE (Electrical
Engineering)--June 1961.
Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, Texas, MBA--May 1975.
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
Vice President, R&D, General Dynamics Land Systems, Sterling
Heights, Michigan, July 1986 to December 1990.
President and General Manager, General Dynamics Land Systems,
Sterling Heights, Michigan, January 1991 to July 1991.
President and General Manager, General Dynamics Fort Worth Company,
July 1991 to March 1993.
President, Lockheed Fort Worth Company, March 1993 to March 1995.
Self employed, GRE Consultants, Inc., Fort Worth, Texas, March 1995
to March 1997.
Executive Vice President, General Dynamics Corporation, Falls
Church, Virginia, March 1997 to March 2001.
10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative,
honorary, or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State,
or local governments, other than those listed above.
Benbrook Texas City Council and mayor pro tem, 1982-1986, no party
affiliation.
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
General Dynamics Corporation, Officer & Executive Vice President.
GMM Investments, Ltd. (family partnership), General Partner.
Boeing Company, Consultant.
Texas Christian University, Member of Board of Visitors, Neeley
School of Business.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
United Service Organization (USO), Member of Board.
National Defense Industrial Association, Member of Board.
Goodwill Industries of Fort Worth, Member of Board.
National Research Council, Vice Chairman of Study on the Future of
U.S. Aerospace Infrastructure.
13. Political affiliations and activities:
(a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or
any public office for which you have been a candidate.
None.
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5
years.
None.
(c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $100 or more for the past 5 years.
GD PAC contributions (withheld from paycheck)
1997--$2,600
1998--$2,600
1999--$2,600
2000--$2,600
2001--$1,000
Personal Contributions
2000--Johnson for Congress 2000--$1,000
2000--Texas Freedom Fund--$1,000
2000--Friends of Max Cleland--$1,000
2000--Tiahrt for Congress--$1,000
2000--Re-election Campaign of Cong. Chet Edwards--$1,000
2000--Common Sense, Common Solutions PAC--$500
2000--Lazio 2000--$2,000
2000--RNC Victory 2000--$2,000
2000--Texas Freedom Fund PAC, Inc.--$1,000
2000--Kay Granger Campaign Fund--$1,000
2000--Kay Granger Campaign Fund--$1,000 (by Dorothy H. England)
1999--Texas Freedom Pac--$1,000
1999--Murtha for Congress--$1,000
1999--Kay Granger for Congress--$1,000
1999--Joe Barton for Congress--$1,000
1999--Kay Granger Campaign Fund--$500
1999--Re-election Campaign of Cong. Todd Tiahrt--$1,000
1998--Snowe for U.S. Senate--$1,000
1998--Leahy for U.S. Senate--$1,000
1998--Carol Keaton Rylander Campaign (Texas)--$500
1998--Leahy for U.S. Senate--$1,000
1998--Governor Bush Committee--$500
1998--Murtha for Congress--$500
1998--6th District Republican Association--$1,000
1998--National Republic Congressional Committee Operation
Breakout--$10,000
1997--Shelby for U.S. Senate--$1,000
1997--Kennedy for U.S. Senate--$500
1997--Governor Bush Committee--$1,000
1997--Joe Barton for Congress--$2,000
1997--Kay Granger for Congress--$2,000
1997--Kay Granger Campaign--$2,000
1996--Friends of Ed Harrison--$1,000
1996--Re-Elect Sheriff Williams--$250
1996--RNC--Victory 1996--$1,000
1996--Republican National Committee--$1,000
1996--Gramm 1996 Senate Re-Election Campaign--$1,000
1996--Kay Bailey Hutchison for Senate Committee--$4,000
1996--Norman Robbins for School Board--$500
1996--Kay Granger for Congress--$1,000
1996--Campaign to Elect Elaine Klos--$100
1996--Democratic National Party--$500
1996--Kay Granger for Congress--$1,000
1996--Wendy Davis for City Council--$500
1996--Norman Robbins for School Board--$500
1996--Joe Barton for Congress--$1,000
1996--Joe Barton for Congress--$1,000
1996--David Williams for Sheriff--$250
14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals, and any other special
recognitions for outstanding service or achievements.
Silver Knight of Management Award, National Management Association.
Silver Beaver Award, Boy Scouts of America.
Silver Award, National Defense Industrial Association.
Selected to Aviation Heritage Hall of Fame.
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineering Centennial
Awardee.
Member, Beta Gamma Sigma (business).
Member, Omicron Delta Kappa (leadership).
Member, Eta Kappa Nu (engineering).
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
None.
16. Speeches: Provide the committee with two copies of any formal
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have
copies of and are on topics relevant to the position for which you have
been nominated.
None.
17. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree,
if confirmed, to respond to requests to appear and testify before any
duly constituted committee of the Senate?
Yes.
______
[The nominee responded to Parts B-F of the committee
questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set forth in
the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to Parts B-F
are contained in the committee's executive files.]
------
Signature and Date
I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate,
and complete.
Gordon R. England.
This 30th day of April, 2001.
[The nomination of Gordon R. England was reported to the
Senate by Senator John Warner on May 21, 2001, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on May 22, 2001.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to Dr. James G. Roche by
Chairman Warner prior to hearing with answers supplied follow:]
May 9, 2001.
The Hon. John Warner,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Enclosed herewith are the answers to the advance
questions the Senate Armed Services Committee asked me to complete.
Sincerely,
James G. Roche.
cc: The Hon. Carl Levin
Ranking Minority Member.
______
Questions and Responses
defense reforms
Question. More than 10 years have passed since the enactment of the
Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and
the Special Operations reforms. From your close association with
defense issues, you have had an opportunity to observe the
implementation and impact of those reforms.
Do you support full implementation of these defense reforms?
What is your view of the extent to which these defense reforms have
been implemented?
What do you consider to be the most important aspects of these
defense reforms?
The goals of Congress in enacting these defense reforms, as
reflected in section 3 of the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense
Reorganization Act, can be summarized as strengthening civilian
control; improving military advice; placing a clear responsibility on
the combatant commanders for the accomplishment of their missions;
ensuring the authority of the combatant commanders is commensurate with
their responsibility; increasing attention to the formulation of
strategy and to contingency planning; providing for more efficient use
of defense resources; and enhancing the effectiveness of military
operations and improving the management and administration of the
Department of Defense.
Do you agree with these goals?
Answer. Yes, I support full implementation of the Goldwater-Nichols
reforms and agree with its goals. The enactment of Goldwater-Nichols
significantly improved the organization of the Department of Defense,
focused our joint warfighting capabilities, enhanced the military
advice received by the Secretary of Defense, and increased the
integration of service capabilities.
duties
Question. Section 8013 of Title 10, United States Code, outlines
the duties of the Secretary of the Air Force, subject to the authority,
direction, and control of the Secretary of Defense.
Assuming you are confirmed, what duties do you expect that
Secretary Rumsfeld will prescribe for you?
Answer. Subject to the authority, direction, and control of the
Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Air Force, pursuant to 10
U.S.C. Section 8013, is responsible for and has the authority necessary
to conduct all affairs of the Department of the Air Force. These
functions include organizing, supplying, equipping, training,
maintaining, and administering. If confirmed as Secretary of the Air
Force, I would expect the Secretary of Defense to assign me duties
consistent with these responsibilities.
Question. What duties and responsibilities do you plan to assign to
the Under Secretary of the Air Force?
Answer. As stated above, the Secretary of the Air Force is
responsible for and has the authority necessary to conduct all affairs
of the Department of the Air Force. If confirmed, the Under Secretary
will partner with me to execute these responsibilities. Beyond a focus
on space activities as has been designated by the Secretary of Defense,
the duties of the Under Secretary are expected to evolve to maximize
the capabilities of the leadership team. If confirmed, I will be
pleased to keep you informed in this area.
Question. In carrying out your duties, how will you work with the
Assistant Secretary of Air Force for Manpower, Reserve Affairs,
Installations, and Environment; the Assistant Secretary of the Air
Force for Financial Management and Comptroller; the Assistant Secretary
of the Air Force for Acquisition; the Assistant Secretary of the Air
Force for Space; and the General Counsel?
Answer. If confirmed, Under Secretary of the Air Force, the General
Counsel, the Assistant Secretaries of the Air Force, along with the Air
Force Chief of Staff, will form the nucleus of my leadership team. I
will foster a close working relationship with them on matters within
their areas of responsibility in order to more effectively manage the
Department of the Air Force.
science and technology
Question. The Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1999 established the goal of increasing the budget for the
Department of Defense Science and Technology program by at least 2
percent over inflation for each of the fiscal years 2000 to 2008. The
Air Force has been criticized for shrinking its science and technology
program, rather than expanding it. In President-Elect Bush's speech at
the Citadel, he spoke of his support for a strong and stable technology
base.
Do you believe that a substantial increase in the Air Force's
science and technology budget is needed?
Answer. There is always more that can be done to exploit the rapid
advance of technology to enable our forces to more effectively and
safely conduct operations. However, as with all investments, the S&T
program needs must be balanced with the systems acquisition
requirements and the operational and maintenance demands within the Air
Force topline funding allocation. This process of balancing priorities
is a continuing effort among the Air Force senior leadership.
Question. Congress has authorized the Department to give laboratory
directors direct hiring authority to enable them to compete for
scientific and engineering talent. To date, the Department has been
reluctant to use this authority.
Do you support giving the Department's laboratory directors the
authority to make direct hires without having to go through an 18-month
review process?
Answer. I support flexibility in both hiring and compensation that
will allow the Department of Defense to attract and retain highly
skilled scientists and engineers who can meet the dynamic technological
challenges of the 21st century. Such flexibility is needed to help
level the playing field with private industry. Although I have not had
the opportunity to look at specific hiring authorities in detail, if
confirmed, I will certainly focus on the challenges the Air Force
faces.
privatization
Question. With the encouragement of Congress, the Department of
Defense is fully engaged in the privatization of many of its support
functions. Among the most significant privatization efforts are
military family housing and utility systems, although there are
hundreds of other examples.
What in your judgment are the risks and benefits of the
privatization initiatives?
Answer. Clearly our objective should be to provide quality housing
for our hard working men and women in uniform and their families.
Quality of life is important to all of our airmen and is an essential
element required to maintain the high caliber of personnel needed to
operate our high tech Air Force. If confirmed, I will welcome the
opportunity to look at this to ensure we provide quality housing for
our men and women in uniform and their families.
Question. In your judgment, is there a point when privatization
will affect readiness?
Answer. If confirmed, I will make this particular issue a priority.
I certainly welcome the opportunity to work with the committee to
maintain an open dialogue to address this issue.
outsourcing of commercial activities
Question. Do you believe that outsourcing of non-core activities
can yield substantial savings for the Department of Defense?
Answer. I understand there are numerous studies on the
effectiveness of outsourcing. If confirmed, I will work with my staff
and welcome the opportunity to work with this committee to evaluate the
effectiveness of outsourcing.
Question. Do you agree that public-private competition is an
essential precursor to any outsourcing effort in the Department of
Defense?
Answer. If confirmed, I welcome the opportunity to work with my
staff and this committee to evaluate the issue of public-private
competition and whether it does generate significantly greater savings.
protected communications
Question. Section 1034, Title 10, United States Code, prohibits
taking retaliatory personnel action against a member of the armed
forces as reprisal for making a protected communication. By definition,
protected communications include communications to certain individuals
and organizations outside of the chain of command. We continue to see a
lack of understanding in the senior military leadership of the policy
that it is appropriate and necessary to protect service members who
report misconduct to appropriate authorities outside the chain of
command.
Do you support prohibiting retaliatory personnel actions for making
protected communications?
Answer. Most definitely, I wholeheartedly support prohibiting any
such actions.
Question. If confirmed, what actions will you take to ensure that
senior military leaders understand the need to protect service members
who report misconduct to appropriate authorities within or outside the
chain of command?
Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure that the Air Force Inspector
General, who works directly for the Secretary of the Air Force,
continues to personally brief every Air Force course for new general
officers, new wing commanders, and new group commanders, emphasizing
the need for these leadership groups to constantly and consistently
enforce the Whistleblowers' Protection Act, a key tenet in the
department's inspector general process.
officer promotion system
Question. In the previous decade, the Air Force had serious
problems with its officer promotion system, some of which are the
subject of ongoing litigation.
Are you familiar with these problems? Do you believe any changes
are needed in the Air Force officer promotion system?
Answer. No, I have no detailed understanding of these particular
issues. However, if confirmed, I will work with my staff and this
committee to review the existing promotion processes and make
improvements, when required.
Question. We consider promotions to general and flag officer ranks
as identifying military officers for very senior positions that should
be filled only by officers with the very highest moral and ethical
values. We are frequently asked to confirm the promotion of officers
who have substantiated allegation of misconduct that have not been
considered by the boards that selected these officers for promotion. At
the same time, the services inform us that they have many highly
qualified officers for each available general and flag officer billet.
What steps will you take to ensure that only the most highly
qualified officers are nominated for promotion to general and flag
officer rank?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work this particular issue hard. I
will ensure my staff maintains an open dialogue with this committee on
these critical general officers matters.
modernization
Question. Operational support costs for existing aircraft platforms
continue to rise as mission capable rates have declined. As this has
happened, funds have been moved from research and development and new
procurement to operation and maintenance to meet current readiness
requirements.
Absent changes in the force structure, unless there is an infusion
of funding above what is expected, how can the Air Force afford its
planned tactical aircraft modernization program?
Answer. The Secretary of Defense has an ongoing strategic review of
key modernization programs within the Department. If confirmed, I
welcome the opportunity to work with this committee to discuss the
results of the review and its impact on the existing Air Force tactical
aircraft programs.
precision weapons
Question. There has been an increasing dependence on standoff
precision weaponry over the past decade. Operation Allied Force caused
us to expend sizeable portions of the inventories of some of these
weapons.
Do you think the Air Force has an executable, affordable plan to
acquire the weaponry required to support the national military
strategy?
Answer. I understand the Air Force does. However, if I am
confirmed, the current Air Force plan will be reviewed in light of the
Secretary of Defense's strategic review.
space
Question. If the Air Force becomes the Executive Agent for the
Department of Defense for Space, how will you ensure that each of the
military services' unique requirements are met, in addition to shared
requirements?
Answer. As DOD's Executive Agent for Space, the Air Force will
continue to work closely with our sister services and Joint Staff to
ensure unique and shared requirements are addressed. I believe
consolidating management of the Department's overall space program will
facilitate an improved response to requirements and affordability.
Question. Do you believe the Air Force should have veto or approval
authority over the space budget of a sister service?
Answer. I don't expect the Air Force to have or exercise that kind
of authority over another service's space budget. However, a key intent
of the Space Commission's recommendation to consolidate space
organization and management is to bring greater accountability and
transparency to military space programs. In that regard, if confirmed,
I and the Under Secretary of the Air Force will work closely with the
Department and our service counterparts to ensure space acquisition
planning, programming and budgeting activities are closely linked.
Question. Do you support creation of an Under Secretary of the Air
Force for Space?
Answer. I support the Secretary of Defense's announcement that the
Under Secretary of the Air Force be dual-hatted as the Air Force
Acquisition Executive for Space and as the Director of the NRO.
strategic systems
Question. Do you support the prompt retirement of the peacekeeper
ICBM?
Answer. Commensurate with the outcome of the Secretary of Defense's
strategic review, if confirmed, I look forward to working with the
committee as well as the Department on this issue.
Question. What are your views on the Air Force requirement for
long-range bombers?
Answer. The Air Force is committed to sustaining and modernizing
our long-range strike capabilities to meet our current and future
wartime commitments. Bombers have inherent strengths of range, payload
(standoff, precision and non-precision), flexibility, and
responsiveness that bring vital capabilities required in virtually all
combat environments. Subject to the outcome of the ongoing strategic
review, and if confirmed, I commit to a thorough analysis of this
mission area.
intelligence systems
Question. Will you ensure that the Air Force works closely with the
intelligence community and the United States Strategic Command to
ensure that intelligence sensors, such as the V-sensor on GPS and SABRS
on SBIRS, are included on Air Force satellites?
Answer. The Air Force's close and continuing cooperation with the
Intelligence Community and U.S. Strategic Command is essential. If
confirmed, I will work with these mission partners, and others as
appropriate, to balance performance, cost, and schedule factors when
evaluating Air Force satellites as hosts for intelligence sensors.
acquisition reform
Question. Secretary Rumsfeld testified at his confirmation hearing
that the cycle time for major acquisition programs conducted over the
past several decades averages between 8 and 9 years. Others have stated
that the cycle time may be as long as 15 to 20 years. The Secretary
stated that this cycle time is not sufficiently responsive to urgent
new challenges and rapidly emerging technological developments.
What are your thoughts on specific steps that can be taken to
reduce the cycle time for major acquisition programs?
Answer. It is my understanding the Air Force is currently
implementing recommendations resulting from the Air Force Cycle Time
Reduction Program. Key among the focus areas is the ability to rapidly
select and approve development and fielding of demonstrated
technologies.
Question. Do you see a need for any changes to the existing
acquisition structure and/or acquisition chain of command?
Answer. If confirmed, I will closely work with my service
secretary's colleagues and the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition to address the variety of issues that impact our
acquisition structure and acquisition chain of command.
acquisition workforce
Question. There has been considerable pressure to reduce
acquisition organizations on the basis of absolute numbers. DOD has
reduced its acquisition workforce approximately 50 percent, from the
end of fiscal year 1990 to the end of fiscal year 1999, while the
workload has remained essentially constant, and even increased by some
measures.
Are you concerned that reductions to the acquisition workforce will
have a negative effect on program management, and if so, how do you
plan to address this problem?
Answer. It is my understanding the Air Force is proactively
working, in conjunction with OSD, to minimize the impact of the
reductions on our acquisition mission. If confirmed, I'll conduct a
complete bottom-up review of the Air Force acquisition workforce to
identify the right skills and employee mix (active duty military,
civilian, Air National Guard, Reserve, and contractor) required to meet
the needs of the warfighters.
Question. As the DOD continues to emphasize contracting out and
competitive sourcing, the skills, training, and experience of the
acquisition workforce will be critical in effectively managing these
contracts. In addition, the Department's Acquisition Workforce 2005
Task Force has reported that DOD will be faced with a significant
demographic challenge, as 50 percent of the remaining acquisition
workforce will be eligible to retire in the next 5 years.
Do you believe the current acquisition workforce has the quality
and training to not only adapt to new acquisition reforms, but also
respond successfully to the increased workload and responsibility from
managing privatization efforts?
Answer. The acquisition workforce has done a phenomenal job of
stepping up to the workload driven by increased outsourcing and
privatization efforts. If confirmed, I will diligently work to get our
people the training to ensure they are able to work smarter, not just
harder.
service stovepipe
Question. One of the principal criticisms of the Department of
Defense is that the military services continue to pursue their
individual systems--from logistics to data management--which increases
costs and hinders interoperability. Although there have been efforts to
remove these service stovepipes in the past, they continue to exist.
If confirmed, what actions will you take to eliminate service
unique systems where systems could be developed to serve all of the
services?
Answer. Pending the outcome of the Secretary of Defense's strategic
review and if confirmed, I will enthusiastically work with my service
secretary colleagues, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
as well as the Department and this committee to address this critical
issue and enhance and maximize interoperability.
air force retention
Question. Last year, the Air Force experienced retention problems.
It was the only service that missed its enlisted retention goals in the
1st, 2nd, and 3rd term retention categories.
What do you consider to be the most critical factor causing Air
Force retention problems?
Answer. I strongly believe that the great men and women of the
United States Air Force are our most valuable resource. If confirmed, I
pledge to the committee that this will be one of my highest priorities.
There are many reasons our people choose to leave the service. I commit
to making the Air Force an even better place to work and live so we may
retain the people who want to serve our Nation. I look forward to
working with this committee on this issue.
Question. If confirmed, what would you do to ensure that fiscal
year 2001 retention goals are attained?
Answer. The approach to the retention problem has to be balanced,
since the issue is not driven by one factor. I understand that while
service to the Nation is the primary reason people join the Air Force
and the primary reason they stay, there are many factors that affect
their decisions to leave. Once again, if confirmed, I pledge to this
committee that one of my highest priorities will be the magnificent men
and women of the United States Air Force.
end strength
Question. In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2001, the end strength of the Air Force was established at 357,000. The
committee has since learned that the Air Force may have little chance
of achieving this end strength.
If confirmed, what steps will you take to ensure that the Air Force
achieves its fiscal year 2001 end strength?
Answer. I understand the Air Force has implemented many initiatives
to address recruiting and retention. Included in these are more
recruiters, paid advertising, increased and targeted bonuses, etc. I'm
aware this committee has been very helpful in addressing solutions to
aid the end strength issue and, if confirmed, I look forward to working
with this committee in finding further answers to this problem.
environment
Question. The Senior Readiness Oversight Committee is currently
reviewing a group of readiness challenges it has characterized as
``encroachment'' issues. These include environmental constraints on
military training ranges, local community efforts to obtain military
property, airspace restrictions to accommodate civilian airlines,
transfer of radio frequency spectrum from the Department of Defense to
the wireless communications industry, and many others. Unless these
issues are effectively addressed, our military forces will find it
increasingly difficult to train and operate at home and abroad.
In your opinion, how serious are these problems to the Air Force?
Answer. I understand base, training range, and spectrum
encroachment issues are a serious challenge to sustaining mission
readiness. I expect there are increasing challenges not only with our
current level of operations, but also with the beddown of new weapon
systems or realignments. If confirmed, I will make this a priority in
working within the Department and with this committee to ensure
required access.
Question. If confirmed, what actions would you propose to ensure
these issues do not prevent your service from effectively training and
operating both at home and abroad?
Answer. I believe there must be a balance between test, training,
and readiness requirements and responsible stewardship. If confirmed, I
will foster the development and maintenance of partnerships with our
sister services, civilian government agencies, tribal governments, and
other stakeholders that serve to address areas of mutual interest in
order to sustain our required access to ranges and airspace.
Question. Commercial air traffic is expected to increase 6 percent
annually and military airspace use will also increase with the next
generation of high performance weapon systems. As a result of the
pressures associated with commercial air traffic congestion, noise, and
environmental concerns, the acquisition and use of special use airspace
has evolved into a challenging endeavor for all of the military
departments.
How would you meet such challenges to ensure the acquisition and
use of critical airspace for military training?
Answer. I understand that the senior members of the DOD Policy
Board on Federal Aviation along with the Department of Transportation/
FAA are currently determining a plan for effective joint FAA-DOD
interaction. If confirmed, I will ensure this open dialogue continues.
Question. The Department of Defense makes it a practice to request
funding only for those environmental compliance areas that are already
out of compliance and subject to an enforcement action, and those that
will be out of compliance before the next budget cycle.
Would you agree that continuing funding for this type of
environmental cleanup is critical to maintaining a positive
relationship with local regulatory authorities and the communities
around our military bases?
Answer. Yes, I believe we need to maintain positive, productive
relationships and comply with current agreements.
Question. Do you believe that the Department of Defense should be
exempt from the application of the environmental laws?
Answer. No.
Question. Do you support the basic principle of the Federal
Facilities Act and other laws that Federal facilities, including DOD
facilities, should be subject to the same standards as comparably
situated civilian facilities?
Answer. Yes.
Question. The Department of Defense faces a bill for the clean-up
of unexploded ordnance (UXO) that is at least in the tens of billions
of dollars, and could be well be in to the hundreds of billions of
dollars. At current funding levels, it has been estimated that it would
take the military services several thousand years to remediate UXO
problems on a DOD-wide basis.
What do you believe would be an acceptable time period for cleaning
up unexploded ordnance problems throughout the Department of Defense?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work within the Department and with
the Air Force Major Commands to address this critical issue.
Question. Do you believe that increased investment in UXO
remediation technologies would be likely to produce more effective and
efficient remediation processes and substantially reduce the
Department's long-term clean-up liability (and the time required to
complete such cleanup)?
Answer. If confirmed, I welcome the opportunity to look into this
difficult and critical issue.
commercial versus military requirements for frequency spectrum
Question. The Federal Government is currently conducting a series
of studies to determine a band of frequencies that can be used for the
operation of third generation wireless communications devices. As a
part of this overall effort, the Department of Defense is conducting a
study to determine the cost and operational impact that would result if
the military services were to surrender the use of the 1755-1850 MHz
band of frequencies on which they currently operate their equipment. As
the Department of Defense's information requirements increase with the
advances taking place in weapon system technology, the Department's
requirement for frequency access will also increase. However, the
commercial sector is also experiencing increased requirements for
frequency spectrum to meet the demands of the American consumers.
Spectrum is a finite resource and we have to ensure it is utilized in
the most efficient and beneficial manner possible.
If confirmed, what actions would you take to review your service's
total spectrum requirements and ensure that new systems are designed to
ensure efficient spectrum utilization by the Department of Defense?
Answer. If confirmed, I will encourage the research, development,
and acquisition of systems that efficiently use the radio frequency
spectrum in support of national security. I will work within the
Department to address national spectrum use standards for both
government and private industry.
Question. If confirmed, what actions would you take if the study
currently being conducted within the Department of Defense determines
that there will be a significant cost and operational impact if the
military services surrender the 1755-1850 MHz band of frequencies?
Answer. If confirmed, I will familiarize myself with the results of
the study and provide my assessment of its impact on Air Force
warfighting capability to the office of the Secretary of Defense. I
also look forward to working with the committee to address these
challenges.
base realignment and closure
Question. Over the past several years, various departmental
witnesses have testified that there is excess defense infrastructure
and requested Congress to authorize another round of base closure.
Do you believe that we have excess defense facilities and, if so,
where does this excess capacity exist?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to working within the
Department and with this committee to address the recommendations of
the Secretary of Defense's strategic review as they relate to force
sizing and force beddown options.
investment in infrastructure
Question. Witnesses appearing before the committee in recent years
have testified that the military services under-invest in their
facilities compared to private industry standards. Decades of under-
investment in our installations have led to increasing backlogs of
facility maintenance needs, created substandard living and working
conditions, and made it harder to take advantage of new technologies
that could increase productivity.
Based on your private sector experience, do you believe the
Department of the Air Force is investing enough in its infrastructure?
How does the Air Force's investments in its infrastructure compare to
what you are used to in the private sector? What steps would you plan
to take to address this issue?
Answer. I believe it will be necessary to re-evaluate our funding
levels once the Secretary of Defense's strategic review is complete and
we understand our force structure needs and the basing network
required. If confirmed, I welcome the opportunity to address this
issue.
civilian control of the military
Question. Press reports indicate that increasing civilian control
of the military services will be a priority of this administration.
What changes do you and Secretary Rumsfeld plan to make in your
duties and responsibilities or those of the Under Secretary or
assistant secretaries in your department?
Answer. If confirmed, I expect to meet with Secretary Rumsfeld to
discuss his expectations for my participation as a member of his
management team. Based on this guidance, I will make changes in the
duties and responsibilities of the Under Secretary and assistant
secretaries, if needed.
Question. Section 8014(c) of Title 10 requires that the Office of
the Secretary of the Air Force have sole responsibility for
Acquisition, Auditing, Comptroller (including Financial Management),
Information Management, Inspector General, Legislative Affairs, and
Public Affairs.
If confirmed, will you review each of these functional areas to
ensure that the Air Force is in compliance with the statutory
requirement?
Answer. Yes.
Question. The services have traditionally had a uniformed flag rank
officer rather than the Assistant Secretary of Financial Management run
their budget office. Do you intend to follow this arrangement or do you
plan to increase civilian control over your service's budget decisions?
Answer. If confirmed, I will carefully review the current
arrangement and its effectiveness.
Question. The service secretaries have traditionally delegated
management of readiness to the uniformed services. What role do you
intend to play in readiness issues?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Air Force Chief
of Staff and the Air Force Major Commands to review the readiness of
our forces. I would expect to be fully involved in any readiness issues
faced by the Air Force.
civilian workforce
Question. What steps would you plan to take to bring new people
with the desired skills into our civilian workforce as more and more of
the current workforce is becoming retirement eligible?
Answer. If confirmed, I will support initiatives to address this
critical issue. I particularly welcome any and all suggestions on how
to provide needed responsiveness and agility in managing our civilian
workforce. I also look forward to working with Congress on these
challenges.
major challenges
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges confronting
the next Secretary of the Air Force?
Answer. If confirmed as the next Secretary of the Air Force, I have
four major priorities. First, in accordance with Secretary Rumsfeld's
security review, the Air Force needs to evaluate and build the most
appropriate aerospace strategy for today's national security
environment. Second, the Air Force must do better at retaining Air
Force people, both uniformed and civilian. Third, the Air Force must
find better ways to organize, while improving the effectiveness and
efficiency of its processes. This includes bringing the best practices
found within both the government and industry to bear in its own
business dealings. Finally, the Air Force must pay special attention to
the shrinking military-industrial base and evaluate ways to improve its
current acquisition processes to ensure innovative future capabilities
for the Nation.
Question. If confirmed, what plans do you have for addressing these
challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, I plan on working closely with Congress,
Secretary Rumsfeld, and the other service secretaries to
comprehensively address these challenges, develop definitive goals, and
measure our progress towards solving them.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that the committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, when asked, to give your personal views,
even if those views differ from the administration in power?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities, as the Secretary of the Air
Force?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings and
other communication of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Strom Thurmond
affordable re-capitalization
1. Senator Thurmond. According to a January 2001 article, the Air
Force wants to spend an additional $8 billion per year for 11 years to
rebuild its rapidly aging fleet of fighters, tankers, airlifters, and
reconnaissance/intelligence-gathering aircraft at a rate of 150-170 per
year. Do you believe $8 billion per year for aircraft is affordable,
when the Air Force, as well as the other services, has critical
shortfalls in real property maintenance and training funds?
Dr. Roche. It is my understanding that many of the Air Force's
readiness concerns are attributed to the aging aircraft fleet. It seems
reasonable that the costs of maintaining older aircraft will continue
to increase. At some point, it may be cheaper to replace the aging
aircraft than to modernize them. If confirmed, evaluating the proper
balance between all the competing priorities in a constrained budget
will be one of my top priorities.
role of unmanned combat air vehicles
2. Senator Thurmond. As the Air Force is looking into the future
and the replacement of its aging aircraft fleet, what role do you see
for ``unmanned combat air vehicles?''
Dr. Roche. I agree with the President's point that we must look to
new and future technologies, and leverage their capabilities. Our
recent warfare successes in Kosovo and Iraq are building an expectation
of minimizing both friendly and adversary casualties in warfare.
Unmanned combat air vehicles with precision strike capability would
seem to be the technological response to meet these two requirements.
However, I think we must also consider new capabilities and
technologies against historical precedence. If I am confirmed, I will
carefully evaluate how the unmanned combat air vehicle fits into the
Air Force and our national security strategy.
reforming operations of department of defense
3. Senator Thurmond. According to press accounts, the panels
appointed by Secretary Rumsfeld to review our national security
strategy and the operations of the Department of Defense are developing
a wealth of recommendations. Based upon your long association with the
Department of Defense, what in your personal view is the highest
priority reform you would propose to improve the operation of the
Department of Defense?
Dr. Roche. If confirmed as the next Secretary of the Air Force, I
believe the most important reformation of the Department of Defense is
to work jointly with the Secretary of Defense and the other service
secretaries on all issues important to our national interests. Joint
operations are a critical facet of our military structure, for history
confirms that military action requires both strategic and operational
unity of effort. To me this means unity of operations in air, space,
and information warfare--as well as on land and in the sea. As the
Secretary of the Air Force, I also believe it is my charge to represent
the best interests of the Air Force in all decision matters, but
wholeheartedly support the final decisions made by the President and
Secretary of Defense.
leasing of excess facilities
4. Senator Thurmond. Although the four previous base closure rounds
have closed or realigned over 90 major and 200 minor military
installations, the Department indicates that there is still excess
capacity. The immediate reaction to this excess is that we must have
additional base closures to eliminate the excess. I am not convinced
that base closure is the only solution. I believe we should use this
capacity to our advantage. We can work with the private sector to use
this property on a dual-use basis and at the same time retain the
facility for future surge capacity.
What are your views on the potential of leasing excess facilities
to the private sector?
Dr. Roche. I am concerned that excess infrastructure and facilities
take crucial dollars away from people, readiness, and modernization
programs. In business, we normally divest capital that does not
contribute to the goals and profit of our operation. With this in mind,
if I am confirmed, I will look toward balancing the need to preserve
facilities for future requirements with all the costs and options to
accomplish this.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Rick Santorum
f-22 testing progress
5. Senator Santorum. Last year, Congress allowed a 1\1/2\ percent
``cushion'' above the F-22 cap for engineering, manufacturing, and
development, if it was required to ensure adequate test content in the
program. The committee has received a letter from the former Director
of Operational Test and Evaluation stating that these additional funds
would be required for testing of the F-22.
What is your impression of the progress being made by the F-22 in
testing? Specifically, is testing proceeding at a rate adequate to
ensure the aircraft will be adequately tested, while coming in under
the caps?
Dr. Roche. I believe the F-22 attributes of speed, stealth, super-
cruise, and precision targeting provide a generational leap in military
capability, and the procurement of this platform will remain unrivaled
for many years to come. However, cost overruns and test inefficiencies
concern me greatly. If confirmed as Secretary of the Air Force, one of
my major priorities, working with the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition and the other service secretaries, will be to improve the
effectiveness and efficiency of the acquisition and test processes.
joint strike fighter funding
6. Senator Santorum. The Joint Strike Fighter is approaching a
major decision point, with a source selection and entry into
engineering and manufacturing development (EMD). Do you feel the
program can receive the stable funding required for it to meet its
goals in light of other programs competing for limited resources, e.g.
F-22 in the case of the Air Force and FA-18E/F in the case of the Navy?
Dr. Roche. If confirmed, I will diligently evaluate how to balance
the modernization needs of the Air Force with its other budgetary
requirements in order to meet the resulting guidance from the Secretary
of Defense's strategic review.
national education center for women in business
7. Senator Santorum. Congress appropriated $4 million in fiscal
year 2000, and another $4 million in fiscal year 2001, for the Air
Force's Manufacturing Technical Assistance Pilot Program (MTAPP),
whereby $2 million each year was to fund MTAPP work at the National
Education Center for Women in Business (NECWB) at Seton Hill College.
To date, only 5 percent of the $4 million that Congress, by law,
directed to fund the NECWB's important work has actually reached this
center. What steps will you take to ensure that these dollars fund the
NECWB in a timely and efficient manner?
Dr. Roche. In fiscal year 2000, the Air Force spent over $1.2
million in Pennsylvania to comply with the express intent of Congress
that $2 million be utilized to expand the MTAPP in that State. The
entire amount was not obligated in fiscal year 2000 due to the late
arrival of program funding, which shortened the performance period, and
significant delays involving the prime contractor's effort to match
Seton Hill College's capabilities as a subcontractor to the contract
statement of work.
Fiscal year 2002 funds were received even later than previous years
and this is the final execution year of the pilot program contract;
therefore, period of performance for fiscal year 2002 funds is
extremely truncated. However, we are hopeful that Seton Hill College
will be able to make a valuable contribution to the MTAPP program. An
on-line training reference guide was to be offered to Seton Hill as a
subcontract through the MTAPP prime contractor, Mid.Tec., in fiscal
year 2002. We are hopeful that Seton Hill will submit a cost-effective
proposal on the subcontract effort.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Wayne Allard
military space organization
8. Senator Allard. Secretary Rumsfeld announced his recommendations
regarding our military space organization as encouraged by the Space
and NRO Commissions.
Please comment on the importance of outer space and space
activities to our national security and economic well-being of the
United States, as well as our allies and friends. Do you foresee any
need for legislative changes to accomplish these recommendations?
Dr. Roche. I want to thank this esteemed committee for all of their
support to this Nation's military space programs--they have become, in
my mind, one of the foundational aspects of the aerospace superiority
our Nation enjoys. I have reviewed the Space and NRO Commissions'
recommendations and I agree that the future of our aerospace
superiority depends in large part on how well we can respond to and
implement those recommendations. If confirmed, I will work to implement
those recommendations that pertain to the Air Force.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Susan Collins
budget priorities
9. Senator Collins. I think many Members of this committee are
struggling with trying to understand not only the details, but also the
broad outline of the defense strategy that is being developed in the
Pentagon under Secretary Rumsfeld as part of this ongoing strategic
review. Obviously, the broad strategy will eventually include some
details on individual systems. It seems, however, that the top
priorities for Secretary Rumsfeld are generally intelligence gathering,
space, and missile defense.
This concerns me very much. While those may be correct and
valuable, I am concerned that focusing on too narrow a picture will
allow other, equally important and equally broad priorities to get left
behind. If you are confirmed, what do you envision your budget
priorities for the Air Force to be--not Secretary Rumsfeld's--but
yours? How do you intend to voice those priorities in an administration
where important budget decisions are being made right now?
Dr. Roche. If I am confirmed as Secretary of the Air Force, one of
my first priorities will be to delve deeply into and participate in the
defense review processes begun by Secretary Rumsfeld. It goes without
saying that the world environment has changed dramatically in the last
12 years, and the entire defense establishment has yet to appropriately
respond and adapt to this new environment. I look forward to the
opportunity to help shape our Nation's defense strategy for the future.
modernization--budget priorities
10. Senator Collins. I am especially concerned for the
modernization of our tactical air fleets and strategic airlift
programs--programs like the F-22, the Joint Strike Fighter, and the C-
17. What is your view of these programs as budget priorities in this
new defense strategy?
Dr. Roche. The outcome of Secretary Rumsfeld's defense reviews and
their corresponding new strategy may affect the roles,
responsibilities, and requirements of our Nation's Air Force. If
confirmed as Secretary of the Air Force, I will work with Secretary
Rumsfeld to achieve the best balance between the competing priorities
necessary to fulfill the new defense strategy.
______
[The nomination reference of Dr. James G. Roche follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
May 7, 2001.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Dr. James G. Roche, of Maryland, to be Secretary of the Air Force,
vice F. Whitten Peters.
______
[The biographical sketch of Dr. James G. Roche, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Dr. James G. Roche
Dr. James G. Roche has served as Corporate Vice President and
President, Electronic Sensors and Systems Sector of Northrop Grumman
Corporation from 1996 to present. He was the Corporate Vice President
and General Manager of the Electronics Sensors and Systems Division
(the former Westinghouse Electronics Systems Group) from March 1996.
The current sector, established in 1998, combines all the electronics
businesses of the Northrop Grumman Corporation.
Dr. Roche has previously served as the Corporate Vice President and
Chief Advanced Development, Planning, and Public Affairs Officer
responsible for the company's Advanced Technology and Development
Center, Business Strategy Group, the Washington Analysis Center, State
Relations and Public Affairs Department. He led the transition team
responsible for merging the Northrop, Grumman, and Vought Corporations,
as well as the integration of the Westinghouse defense business.
Formerly, he was the Assistant to the Chairman, President, and Chief
Executive Officer. Before July 1989, he was the Vice President and
Director of the Northrop Analysis Center in Washington DC.
He served 23 years in the U.S. Navy, retiring in the rank of
captain in 1983. While in the Navy, he held several positions, to
include Principal Deputy Director of the State Department's Policy
Planning Staff; Senior Professional Staff Member of the U.S. Senate
Select Committee on Intelligence; and Assistant Director for the
Defense Department's Office of Net Assessment. He commanded the U.S.S.
Buchanan, a guided missile destroyer, and is a winner of the Arleigh
Burke Fleet Trophy for the most improved combat unit in the Pacific.
Before joining Northrop Grumman, he was the Democratic Staff Director
of the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee.
A native of New York, he graduated from the Illinois Institute of
Technology in 1960 with a bachelor's degree in language, literature,
and philosophy. In 1966 he earned a Master of Science degree in
operations research from the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey,
Calif. In 1972 he earned a doctorate degree in business administration
from the Harvard Graduate School of Business Administration, Cambridge,
Mass.
Dr. Roche has served as a member of the Secretary of Defense's
Policy Board and is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. He
was the President of the Board of the World Affairs Council of
Washington, DC, and he is on the Board of Visitors of the University of
Maryland.
Dr. Roche has been awarded various campaign ribbons and military
medals to include the Legion of Merit.
______
[The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
form that details the biographical, financial, and other
information of the nominee. The form executed by Dr. James G.
Roche in connection with his nomination follows:]
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Room SR-228
Washington, DC 20510-6050
(202) 224-3871
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation
of your answer applies.
Part A--Biographical Information
Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.
1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
James Gerard Roche.
2. Position to which nominated:
Secretary of the Air Force.
3. Date of nomination:
May 7, 2001.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
5. Date and place of birth:
16 December 1939; Brooklyn, New York.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Diane Mikula.
7. Names and ages of children:
Heather Anne Roche, 32.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
St. Anthony's High School, 1952-1956.
Loyola University, September 1956 to June 1957.
Illinois Institute of Technology, September 1957 to June 1960. BS
in June 1960.
Naval Postgraduate School, March 1964 to October 1966. MS in
October 1966.
Harvard Business School, June 1968 to June 1972. DBA in June 1972.
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
Corporate Vice President and Assistant to the Chairman, President,
and Chief Executive Officer of Northrop Corporation, 1991.
Corporate Vice President and Chief Advanced Development, Planning,
and Public Affairs Officer, Northrop Corporation, 1993.
Corporate Vice President and General Manager, Electronic Sensors
and Systems Division, Northrop Grumman Corporation, 1996.
Corporate Vice President and President, Electronic Sensors and
Systems Sector, Northrop Grumman Corporation, 1998.
10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative,
honorary or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State,
or local governments, other than those listed above.
Career U.S. Navy, 1960-1983.
OSD, Office of Net Assessment, 1975-1979.
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Professional Staff Member,
1979-1981.
Department of State, Principal Deputy Director, Policy Planning
Staff, 1981-1983.
Senate Committee on Armed Services, Staff Director for the
Minority, 1983-1984.
Consultant to OSD, Office of Net Assessment, without compensation,
1985-Present.
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
Chairman of the Board, Center for Strategic and Budgetary
Assessment.
Member of the Board of Trustees and Government Relations Committee,
College Park Foundation, University of Maryland.
Member of the Board of Visitors and Governors, St. John's College.
Member of the Board of Trustees, Naval Institute Foundation.
Member of the Board of Trustees, Maryland Historical Society.
Member of the Board of Directors, Historic Annapolis Foundation.
Member of the Board of Advisors, Washington Institute for Near East
Studies.
Member of the Board of Visitors for U.S. JFCOM of the Rand
Corporation.
Member of the Donors Forum on International Affairs.
Member, Board of Advisors, Center for Security Policy.
Member of the Executive Advisory Council, Friends of the Jewish
Chapel, U.S. Naval Academy.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
Aerospace Industries Association.
Association of U.S. Army.
American Helicopter Society.
International Institute for Strategic Studies.
Conquistadores del Cielo.
Council on Foreign Relations.
National Aeronautics Association.
Naval Surface Warfare Association.
Naval Submarine Association.
American-Israeli Public Affairs Commission.
Fleet Reserve Association.
13. Political affiliations and activities:
(a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or
any public office for which you have been a candidate.
None.
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5
years.
None.
(c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $100 or more for the past 5 years.
Northrop Grumman Political Action Committee, $1,000, 2000.
Howard Berman, ``Berman for Congress,'' $300, 1999.
Parris Glendening, ``Glendening for Governor'' $2,000, 1998.
Howard Berman, ``Berman for Congress'' $500, 1998.
14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals, and any other special
recognitions for outstanding service or achievements.
Various military medals, including Legion of Merit.
Governor's Arts Award, State of Maryland, 2000.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
Opinion Essay, Defense Daily International, June 9, 2000. ``The
Anticipated Odeen Report and Competition in the Defense Industry.''
Article, with Barry Watts, The Journal of Strategic Studies, June
1991, Frank Cass, London. ``Choosing Analytic Measures.''
Chapter, Staying the Course: Henry M. Jackson and National
Security, 1987, University of Washington Press. ``Jackson: Foreign
Affairs Generalist.''
Earlier works on Net Assessment with Barry Watts and George
Pickett.
16. Speeches: Provide the committee with two copies of any formal
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have
copies of and are on topics relevant to the position for which you have
been nominated.
Israeli Air Force 50th Anniversary Conference in Tel Aviv, June
1998. ``Tactical Air Sensors: Some Thoughts on the Future.''
Lockheed Martin Israel Conference 2000, Ft. Worth, Texas, May 2000.
``U.S.-Israeli Industrial Cooperation.''
17. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree,
if confirmed, to respond to requests to appear and testify before any
duly constituted committee of the Senate?
Yes.
______
[The nominee responded to Parts B-F of the committee
questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set forth in
the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to Parts B-F
are contained in the committee's executive files.]
------
Signature and Date
I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate,
and complete.
James G. Roche.
This 7th day of May, 2001.
[The nomination of Dr. James G. Roche was reported to the
Senate by Senator John Warner on May 21, 2001, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on May 24, 2001.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to Alfred V. Rascon by
Chairman Warner prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
------
Questions and Responses
duties
Question. If confirmed as the Director of Selective Service, what
would you view as your principal responsibilities and duties?
Answer. The principal responsibilities of the Director are noted in
the Military Selective Service Act: to be ready to provide both trained
and untrained manpower to the Armed Forces in the number and time
frames requested by the Department of Defense, and to be prepared to
manage an Alternative Service Program for those men classified as
conscientious objectors. This charter implies that Selective Service be
organized, staffed, and trained to perform these tasks.
relationships
Question. The mission of the Selective Service System (SSS) is to
provide needed manpower to the Defense Department in time of national
emergency.
What will your relationship be to the Secretary of Defense, the
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, and the
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force Management Policy?
Answer. It is clear that the chief customer of the Selective
Service ``product'' is the Department of Defense. As is the case today,
Selective Service receives its guidance on the numbers of conscripts
that may be required in a crisis, as well as the desired time frames
from the manpower planners at the Department of Defense. The Agency's
primary contact within DOD is with the Assistant Secretary for Force
Management Policy in the Office of the Under Secretary for Personnel
and Readiness. We work very closely with the Military Entrance
Processing Command, which also comes under this structure and, in fact,
share a Joint Computer Center at Great Lakes, Illinois. As necessary,
there is also direct liaison with the Office of the Secretary of
Defense regarding SSS policy issues. Over many years, these
relationships have worked well and I will ensure that they continue.
Question. What will your relationship be to the assistant
secretaries for manpower in the military services; the uniformed
personnel chiefs of the military services; and the manpower officials
in the Joint Staff?
Answer. As an independent civilian agency, Selective Service's
principal interface with DOD is the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
Joint and service manpower officials express their needs up their chain
to OSD. This said, Selective Service has historically responded to the
services on service-unique issues. For example, the SSS has been
assisting individual service recruiting efforts by placing rotational
recruiting messages for the Active and Reserve components on
registration acknowledgment cards mailed to more than 38,000 men each
week. As Director, I will meet with the service secretaries as
necessary. The services support the SSS by placing 450 National Guard
and Reserve officers in Selective Service assignments and assisting
with the registration of young men.
major challenges
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges confronting
the next Director of the Selective Service System?
Answer. There are four: getting the registration message out to the
public; moving the registration compliance rate back into the 90
percent range from the current level of 88 percent; maintaining
readiness to conduct a fair and equitable draft; and defending the
system against challenges to its survival from those who believe that
our Nation no longer needs the SSS.
Question. If confirmed, what plans do you have for addressing these
challenges?
Answer. To heighten awareness of the registration requirement among
men 18 through 26 years old, I would focus more mass mailings to
targeted shortfall areas, augmented with public service advertising.
This would expand the reach and frequency of the registration message.
In support of this approach, I would add momentum and sustainability by
encouraging more states to link driver's licenses and permits to the
federal registration requirement. Finally, I would conduct a top to
bottom review of all mobilization programs to determine the exact costs
for readiness and whether the proper level of readiness has been
achieved. Selective Service needs only to be as ready and capable as is
necessary to fulfill its responsibilities. With the foregoing
accomplished, justification for survival of the agency and its missions
would be self-evident.
most serious problems
Question. What do you consider to be the most serious problems in
the performance of the functions of the Selective Service System?
Answer. I believe they are two: eroding public awareness of the
federal registration requirement and a no-growth budget.
Question. What management actions and time lines would you
establish to address these problems?
Answer. One of my first actions would be to spend 90 to 120 days
assessing the structure and organization of the system. Given the
sizeable agency investment in information technology over several
years, Selective Service need not be organized and operating as it was
coming out of deep standby in 1980. Through a smarter realignment of
programs and people, and capitalizing upon automation already in place
throughout the agency, the resources should be available for
reprogramming in sync with my priorities. I realize that Selective
Service is not a growth industry, so any re-direction or new priorities
must be accomplished within existing resources.
proposals for change
Question. In recent years arguments have been made, based on the
cost of Selective Service and the manpower requirements of the armed
forces, that the Selective Service System should be dismantled.
Legislation has been introduced in the 107th Congress that would
suspend the registration requirement and the activities of civilian
local boards and require the Director of Selective Service to report
regarding the development of a viable standby registration program for
use only during national emergencies. If confirmed, how would you
respond to these proposals?
Answer. Similar legislation has been introduced and debated
periodically over the last several years. Each and every time, both the
administration and Congress have decided that it was in the country's
best interests to continue Selective Service and the registration of
young men. The SSS remains an important national security asset. I
believe that this support by each administration and every Congress
over 20 years is proof positive that those knowledgeable of military
manpower issues appreciate that the agency is America's only proven,
time-tested mechanism to expand our armed forces during a crisis.
Maintaining the capability to conduct a fair and equitable draft costs
very little and just makes good sense.
performance of the selective service system
Question. How accurate is the address information of Selective
Service registrants in the prime induction group?
Answer. It is highly accurate because Selective Service employs the
same program as the U.S. Postal Service--the National Change of Address
System. In addition, this program is supplemented with changes provided
by the registrant himself from our acknowledgment mailing to him at his
residence, through changes a registrant mails using a card at any post
office, from changes he provides by telephone, and with address updates
he supplies on the internet.
Question. What steps is the Selective Service System taking to
ensure the accuracy of this address information?
Answer. As stated before, Selective Service uses the same system
that the U.S. Postal Service employs--the National Change of Address
System--to track changes in addresses. There is no more comprehensive
or accurate system available. The agency is primarily concerned with
having accurate addresses for men reaching age 20, because these men
would be the first to be called in a future draft. Every December, a
tape file of young men who will turn 20 in the coming year, including
those with undeliverable addresses, is sent to a vendor licensed by the
Postal Service. The records of registrants are matched against the
National Change of Address data base which contains all change of
address notices filed at post offices in the U.S. by the public during
the prior 36 months. As matches against the file are processed, address
updates are applied to the SSS data base. This program confirms the
accuracy of more than two million registrant records annually, thereby
ensuring that prime draft eligible men can be reached in the event of a
national emergency.
Question. At this time, how long would it take the military
services' training base to be in a position to accept and begin
training significant numbers of registrants?
Answer. The Department of Defense has told us that the training
base would be expanded in time to absorb draftees at 193 days after
notification to SSS to activate the draft.
Question. What are your views on the military requirement for
continued registration?
Answer. I, together with the leadership responsible for national
security policy, believe that retaining peacetime registration is a low
cost, unintrusive insurance policy to deal with circumstances we might
not fully foresee or have planned for. Plus it is a cost-effective
deterrent and reminder to potential aggressors of America's proven
military potential and national resolve. Registration is working. Our
experience demonstrates that there is no resistance to registering. If
a young man is aware of this legal requirement, he will comply. Our
challenge is to get the awareness of the requirement out to where young
men are especially if they are out of the mainstream. Registration is
not only a hedge against underestimating the number of men needed to
fight a future war, it is the last remaining link between society-at-
large and the all-volunteer military.
Question. What would be the effect of suspension of registration on
the organization, staffing, and budget of the Selective Service System?
Answer. The GAO looked at options to the current registration
program in 1997 and determined that were registration to be terminated,
there would be a reduction in authorized and assigned civilian and
military personnel within the SSS by about one-third. The associated
dollars would be about $8.2 million, or about one-third of the current
agency budget. The GAO made no recommendations for change.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Absolutely. I see it as a matter of integrity and principle
that the agency head be the facilitator between Selective Service and
Congress in an ongoing dialogue. I've mentioned public awareness of the
registration requirement, but the other type of awareness is agency
awareness by the oversight committees. This can only be achieved if I
am responsive, and I intend to be responsive.
Question. Do you agree, when asked, to give your personal views,
even if those views differ from the administration in power?
Answer. If the committee desires the personal views of Al Rascon,
it just has to ask.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as the Director, Selective
Service System?
Answer. If confirmed, I envision my job as Director to be the lead
in the exchange of information between the committee and Selective
Service. Selective Service is a public agency doing the public's
business. It can only retain its programmatic credibility if what it
does is open to public view-and this means Congress.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings and
other communications of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. I assure you that I and Selective Service will continue to
be forthright and responsive in any communications to or from a
committee.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Strom Thurmond
1. Senator Thurmond. Unfortunately there are many of our citizens,
including some in Congress, who believe that the Selective Service has
outlived its usefulness. Other than registration for the draft, how
does the Selective Service contribute to national security,
specifically the all volunteer force?
Mr. Rascon. Selective Service is the only proven, time-tested
mechanism to expand our armed forces during crisis. The President and
Congress know that it is a low cost, unintrusive insurance policy to
deal with circumstances we might not fully foresee or have planned for.
Plus it is a most cost-effective deterrent and reminder to potential
aggressors of America's proven military potential. But the immediate
aid to the all volunteer force is our joint Selective Service/Defense
Department mailing. Because we contact about 2 million young men each
year to provide them with their Selective Service Number, we have
redesigned our official registration acknowledgment card to allow
inclusion of a joint service recruiting piece which has a return
postcard for further information. Defense likes this assistance because
its message goes to 70,000 military age men every 2 weeks--to accurate
addresses in a vehicle which must be opened by the young man. Each
postcard received by Defense is a timely ``lead'' for its recruiter.
2. Senator Thurmond. What would be the impact of placing the
Selective Service into ``deep standby'' and suspending the registration
program?
Mr. Rascon. There would be several negative impacts. First, the
ability of the United States to conduct a fair and equitable draft
would be compromised for at least one year while a complete registrant
database is being created from scratch. Second, there are no guarantees
that trained personnel and time-proven policies and procedures would be
available when needed. Third, any reconstitution of Selective Service
would take precious time as the Nation cobbled together an operating
organization from practically nothing. Finally, whatever is the
resulting agency it might not pass constitutional muster--exactly at
the moment when it is needed most. Consequently, the cost-effective
insurance policy which Selective Service represents remains relevant
today and into the future.
______
[The nomination reference of Alfred V. Rascon follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
April 30, 2001.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Alfred V. Rascon, of California, to be Director of Selective
Service, vice Gil Coronado, resigned.
______
[The biographical sketch of Alfred V. Rascon, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Alfred V. Rascon
Alfred V. Rascon is a Medal of Honor Recipient, who was born in
Mexico, immigrating to the United States as a young boy with his
parents, settling in Southern California. In 1963, out of high school,
wanting to give something back to this country, he joined the Army at
17 years of age. In May 1965, as an Army paratrooper he deployed with
the 173d Airborne Brigade to South Vietnam. During his tour of duty in
Vietnam, he was seriously wounded for the second time in March 1966,
during Operation ``Silver City.'' Because of his heroic actions on 16
March, he was presented of this Nation's highest award for valor, the
Medal of Honor, belatedly given to him by President Clinton on 8
February 2000.
In 1966, due to his combat injuries, he was honorably discharge
from the Army. From the fall of 1966 to August 1969, he worked and
attended college full-time. In 1967, he became a U.S. naturalized
citizen. He rejoined the Army and graduated from the Army's Infantry
Officers Candidate School, Fort Benning, Georgia in February 1970,
commissioned as a Second Lieutenant of Infantry. From 1970 through
1976, he served in a number of combat arms assignments, both in the
United States and overseas, including a second tour in South Vietnam as
a military advisor. Because of previous combat-related injuries in
Vietnam, he was honorably discharged from active duty. However, in late
1976, because of his previous assignments as a foreign military liaison
officer, he accepted a position as a U.S. Army military liaison officer
in the Republic of Panama, serving until 1984.
From 1984 until his retirement from federal service in January
2001, he served honorably with the Department of Justice's Drug
Enforcement Administration, INTERPOL (U.S. National Central Bureau),
and the Immigration and Naturalization Service. He recently retired as
Inspector General of the Selective Service System, headquartered in
Rosslyn, Virginia. He has myriad awards and commendations from U.S. and
foreign agencies for his civil and military service.
As a U.S. naturalized citizen of this country, he has been honored
by the Washington, DC ``American Immigration Lawyers Association and
Foundation'' for his past contributions in the military. Washington's
CATO Institute honored Mr. Rascon in its publication titled: ``In
Defense of Nation: The Contributions of Immigrants.'' He was named one
of the 200 most influential Hispanics in America by Hispanic Magazine.
FOX Family Channel featured him in its premier showing of ``Courage''
featuring heroes from all walks of life.
He is a ``Distinguished Member of the 503d Infantry Regiment,'' a
Department of the Army initiative preserving and enhancing Army
traditions through inspirational role models of present and past
members of the Regiment. He is an inductee in the Army's Officer
Candidate School Hall of Fame.
He is married to the former Carol Lee Richardson, and has two
children. He holds degrees in Management and Liberal Studies.
______
[The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
form that details the biographical, financial, and other
information of the nominee. The form executed by Alfred V.
Rascon in connection with his nomination follows:]
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Room SR-228
Washington, DC 20510-6050
(202) 224-3871
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation
of your answer applies.
Part A--Biographical Information
Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.
1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
Alfred Rascon, Alfred V. Rascon, Alfredo V. Rascon and Alfredo
Rascon-Velazquez.
2. Position to which nominated:
Director, Selective Service System.
3. Date of nomination:
April 30, 2001.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
5. Date and place of birth:
September 10, 1945; Chihuahua, Mexico.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Carol Richardson-Rascon (nee Richardson).
7. Names and ages of children:
Amanda V. Rascon, age 13; Alan V. Rascon, age 10.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
Bachelor of Science in Liberal Arts, Excelsior (Regents) College,
University of New York (June 2001) and Bachelor of Science, Management,
California Coast University (June 1985), California.
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
1995 to January 2001, Inspector General, Selective Service System,
National Headquarters, Arlington, Virginia.
1990 to 1995, Senior Special Agent, U.S. Department of Justice,
Immigration and Naturalization Service, Headquarters, Washington, DC.
10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative,
honorary or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State,
or local governments, other than those listed above.
Intelligence Operations Specialst, U.S. Drug Enforcement
Administration; Supervisory Intelligence Research Analyst, Drug
Financial Terrorist Section, INTERPOL, U.S. Central Bureau, Washington,
DC.; Intelligence Liaison Officer to Republic of Panama Military; 1976
to 1984; U.S. Army Intelligence Officer from 1970 to 1976.
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
None.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
Life member Congressional Medal of Honor Society; Distinguished
member of the 503d Infantry Regiment; Life member: Society of the 173d
Airborne Brigade; 82nd Airborne Association; VFW; American Legion:
Vietnam Veterans of America; 187 Airborne Battle Group.
13. Political affiliations and activities:
(a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or
any public office for which you have been a candidate.
None.
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5
years.
None.
(c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $100 or more for the past 5 years.
None.
14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals and any other special recognitions
for outstanding service or achievements.
Military: Congressional Medal of Honor, Bronze Star with cluster,
Air Medal, Purple Heart with cluster, Good Conduct Medal, Master
Parachutists' Badge, Combat Medal Badge plus other U.S. military
commendations. Republic of Vietnam: Gallantry Cross with Palm,
Gallantry Cross with Silver Star, Honor Medal and Staff Service Medal.
Honorary member of the 503 Infantry Regiment. 1997 American Immigration
Lawyers and American Immigration Law Foundation Immigrant Achievement
Award for outstanding contributions to our Nation. 2000 Soldier of the
Year award, Veterans of Foreign Wars. Numerous other civic and national
awards for military service.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
None.
16. Speeches: Provide the committee with two copies of any formal
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have
copies of and are on topics relevant to the position for which you have
been nominated.
None.
17. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree,
if confirmed, to respond to requests to appear and testify before any
duly constituted committee of the Senate?
Yes.
______
[The nominee responded to Parts B-F of the committee
questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set forth in
the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to Parts B-F
are contained in the committee's executive files.]
------
Signature and Date
I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate,
and complete.
Alfred V. Rascon.
This 8th day of May, 2001.
[The nomination of Alfred V. Rascon was reported to the
Senate by Senator John Warner on May 21, 2001, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on May 22, 2001.]
NOMINATIONS OF DOUGLAS JAY FEITH TO BE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR
POLICY; DR. JACK DYER CROUCH II TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
FOR INTERNATIONAL SECURITY POLICY; AND PETER W. RODMAN TO BE ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR INTERNATIONAL SECURITY AFFAIRS
----------
TUESDAY, JUNE 5, 2001
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:35 a.m. in room
SD-106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator John Warner
(chairman) presiding.
Committee members present: Senators Warner, Inhofe,
Santorum, Roberts, Allard, Sessions, Levin, Kennedy, Cleland,
Reed, Akaka, Bill Nelson, E. Benjamin Nelson, and Carnahan.
Other Senators present: Senators Specter and Bond.
Committee staff members present: Romie L. Brownlee, staff
director; Judith A. Ansley, deputy staff director; Anita R.
Raiford, deputy chief clerk; and Scott W. Stucky, general
counsel.
Professional staff members present: Charles W. Alsup,
Edward H. Edens IV, Brian R. Green, Mary Alice A. Hayward,
Ambrose R. Hock, George W. Lauffer, Patricia L. Lewis, Joseph
T. Sixeas, Cord A. Sterling, and Richard F. Walsh.
Minority staff members present: David S. Lyles, staff
director for the minority; Madelyn R. Creedon, minority
counsel; Richard D. DeBobes, minority counsel; Peter K. Levine,
minority counsel; Evelyn N. Farkas, professional staff member;
and Richard W. Fieldhouse, professional staff member.
Staff assistants present: Beth Ann Barozie, Kristi M.
Freddo, and Michele A. Traficante.
Committee members' assistants present: John A. Bonsell,
assistant to Senator Inhofe; George M. Bernier III, assistant
to Senator Santorum; Robert Alan McCurry, assistant to Senator
Roberts; Douglas Flanders, assistant to Senator Allard; James
P. Dohoney, Jr., assistant to Senator Hutchinson; David Young,
assistant to Senator Bunning; Menda S. Fife and Sharon L.
Waxman, assistants to Senator Kennedy; Frederick M. Downey,
assistant to Senator Lieberman; Andrew Vanlandingham, assistant
to Senator Cleland; Elizabeth King, assistant to Senator Reed;
Davelyn Noelani Kalipi and Richard Kessler, assistants to
Senator Akaka; Peter A. Contostavlos, assistant to Senator Bill
Nelson; Eric Pierce, assistant to Senator Ben Nelson; Neal
Orringer, assistant to Senator Carnahan; and Brady King,
assistant to Senator Dayton.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN WARNER, CHAIRMAN
Chairman Warner. The hearing will come to order. Thank you.
The committee meets today to receive testimony and have the
opportunity to place questions to our distinguished panel of
nominees. We have before us this morning the nominees who will
play a vital role in the policy of the Office of the Secretary
of Defense, assuming Senate confirmation. This is an excellent,
well-experienced team assembled by Secretary Rumsfeld, and I
commend him.
Douglas Jay Feith has been nominated to be Under Secretary
of Defense for Policy. Dr. Jack Dyer Crouch II, has been
nominated to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for
International Security Policy, Peter W. Rodman has been
nominated to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for
International Security Affairs. We welcome our nominees and
their families.
Mr. Feith, will you kindly introduce your family to the
commitee this morning?
STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS JAY FEITH, NOMINEE TO BE UNDER SECRETARY
OF DEFENSE FOR POLICY
Mr. Feith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am accompanied today
by my father, Doug Feith; my brother, Donald Feith; and my
children, Daniel, David, and Dafna. Unfortunately, my wife
could not be here this morning. We also have a 5-year-old,
Dore, who mercifully decided not to come.
Chairman Warner. We understand that, but she is here in
spirit, because these positions--having had the privilege of
serving in the Department myself--the families are very key to
your daily operations. Their support is essential, as is their
understanding for the long hours involved. It is difficult on
the families.
Dr. Crouch, we welcome you. We know you are a long way from
Southwest Missouri State University, where your family is at
this present time, and again we thank you for your willingness
to serve our Nation in this important position.
Now, Mr. Rodman, I understand that your wife is here. Would
you be kind enough to introduce your family to the committee?
STATEMENT OF PETER W. RODMAN, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY
OF DEFENSE FOR INTERNATIONAL SECURITY AFFAIRS
Mr. Rodman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have my
wife, Veronique Rodman; my daughter, Theodora; and my son,
Nicholas.
Chairman Warner. We welcome you today.
Mr. Feith, if confirmed, you will be returning for a second
tour at the Department of Defense. You served as Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Negotiations Policy in 1984,
and as such were responsible for policy related to various arms
control negotiations, including those on conventional force
reductions, chemical and biological weapons, nuclear testing,
and nuclear nonproliferation issues. Prior to that, you served
on the staff of the National Security Council under President
Ronald Reagan and, of course, you have had a distinguished
career as a counselor. We congratulate you on the President's
selection.
Mr. Feith. Thank you.
Chairman Warner. Dr. Crouch, if confirmed, you will also be
returning to the Department of Defense. From 1990 to 1992, you
served as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for
International Security Policy. Prior to that service, you
worked for the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, and
you were an advisor to the U.S. delegation on nuclear space
talks with the Soviet Union. You are currently Associate
Professor of Defense and Strategic Studies at Southwest
Missouri State University in Springfield, Missouri.
Mr. Rodman, if confirmed, you will also bring a wealth of
experience and accomplishments to the Pentagon. You were a
close advisor to Dr. Kissinger on the staff of the National
Security Council from 1972 to 1977, and Director of the
Department of State's policy planning staff from 1984 to 1986
under Secretary Schultz. You then served as Special Assistant
to Presidents Reagan and Bush for National Security Affairs,
and as counselor to the National Security Council. That is a
very distinguished career.
It is a pleasure to have such qualified nominees before
this committee. I believe each of you will excel in the
positions to which you have been nominated, if confirmed by the
Senate. We welcome you and your families.
Before we hear from the nominees, Senator Levin has some
remarks.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN
Senator Levin. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I join you in
welcoming our witnesses to the committee this morning. I also
want to thank their families for being here since, as you point
out, family support is essential in each of these positions
where people serve our Nation.
America's foreign and national security policy have always
benefitted when leaders from different parties have worked
together across the political aisle. This committee has a long
tradition of bipartisanship, and when the legislative and
executive branches work in a cooperative manner, we make our
military stronger and we make our Nation more secure.
I have reviewed the records of our nominees. I have a
number of concerns about some of the positions which some of
them have taken, particularly in their public writings. I look
forward to exploring those positions with them this morning. It
seems to me that some of the positions are not even consistent
with the administration's positions in a number of areas, and I
particularly want to explore those areas as well.
So, Mr. Chairman, we are moving on these nominations. As
our chairman, I believe you have pressed this committee and the
Senate to expeditiously address these nominations at hearings,
to then bring those nominations, which have been approved by
this committee in an extraordinarily expeditious fashion, to
the floor. I think that bodes well indeed, and I think
everybody is grateful for your leadership in this.
Chairman Warner. Senator Levin, I thank you for your
comments. We have as a team, and as a committee, acted as
quickly as we could on these nominees.
Senator Specter, will you kindly proceed with respect to
your nominee?
STATEMENT OF HON. ARLEN SPECTER, U.S. SENATOR FROM PENNSYLVANIA
Senator Specter. Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It
is a pleasure and a privilege to appear before this
distinguished committee. I am interested to note at this early
hour, just a few minutes after convening, so many members of
the committee are here. That is a tribute to the committee.
I am here for the purpose of introducing Douglas J. Feith,
a man whom I have known since he was a youngster through
association with his father, Doug Feith, who I have known for
30 years or more.
Just a word about Douglas Feith's family background. Doug
Feith came to the United States from Eastern Europe, where he
survived the Holocaust, one of nine children. His older sister
went to Israel in 1933 and was spared. Doug Feith was a member
of Menachim Begin's Youth Group, and avoided the fate of some 6
million Jews who were killed in the Holocaust, and came to the
United States and has been a Philadelphian for many years. I
have known him and noted his community activities and his very
solid citizenship. He has produced a very wonderful family, a
great American story, 10 grandchildren, and his son, Douglas
Feith, is now up for a very important position.
Douglas Feith brings an outstanding academic and
professional background to this position. He received his
bachelor's degree magna cum laude from Harvard in 1975 and a
law degree, again magna cum laude, from Georgetown University
Law Center, and has been characterized among those who know him
as a brilliant academician.
He has extensive experience in the field, having served in
1981 and 1982 on the staff of the National Security Council as
a Middle East Specialist. Then from 1982 to 1984 he was Special
Counsel to the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Richard Perle,
and in 1984 he was appointed Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Negotiations.
He is a real intellectual, with very extensive practical
experience. His writings have appeared on international law and
foreign defense policy in some of the country's leading
publications. He is currently the managing partner of the law
firm of Feith & Zell, which he founded in 1986, so he brings a
very rich background to this very important position. I am
pleased to be here for a few moments this morning to commend
him to you and urge his confirmation.
Chairman Warner. Senator, we welcome you before this
committee, and we thank you for your observations about our
attendance; we are a strong committee. We thank you for this
very interesting biographical sketch that you have given of the
entire family. Indeed, it is a family that has greatly
contributed to our country and shall continue to do so.
Now, one of our valued committee members, Senator Santorum,
would also like to speak.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICK SANTORUM
Senator Santorum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do not want to
repeat all of the comments of my senior colleague. That is one
of the things about being a junior Senator, you just get to say
``me too'' a lot. Senator Specter has done a marvelous job in
detailing Doug and his terrific family and their great
contributions to Southeastern Pennsylvania, and Doug's
contributions here to the Washington, DC, area since he has
been located here after his years of Government service. I want
to mention, too, that he was awarded the highest civilian award
within the Department of Defense, the Distinguished Public
Service Medal.
This is a man who has great integrity, great intellect, and
a great passion to serve this country. I know he will do an
outstanding job with the Department of Defense, and it is an
honor to be able to be here to introduce you to the committee,
Doug. Thank you for being here.
[The prepared statement of Senator Santorum follows:]
Prepared Statement by Senator Rick Santorum
Chairman Warner, and members of the committee, I am pleased to have
the opportunity this morning to introduce Douglas Jay Feith.
Mr. Feith appears before us today as President Bush's nominee for
the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy.
A native of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Mr. Feith has a long and
proud history of public service to this country. In 1981, he served on
the staff of the National Security Council as a Middle East specialist,
working primarily on Arab-Israeli, Persian Gulf and energy security
issues. From 1982 to 1984, he was Special Counsel to Assistant
Secretary of Defense Richard Perle.
In 1984, Mr. Feith was appointed Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Negotiations Policy. In that position, he was responsible
for policy for various arms control negotiations, including those on
conventional forces, Confidence and Security Building Measures in
Europe, chemical and biological weapons, nuclear testing, nuclear non-
proliferation issues and East-West political relations. For his
dedicated service, Douglas Feith was awarded the Department of
Defense's highest civilian award, the Distinguished Public Service
Medal.
The recipient of an A.B. degree magna cum laude from Harvard
College and a J.D. degree magna cum laude from the Georgetown
University Law Center, Douglas Feith has published extensively on
matters of international law and on foreign and defense policy. His
writings have appeared in the New York Times, the Washington Post, The
Wall Street Journal, the New Republic and elsewhere.
Currently, Douglas Feith is the Managing Attorney of the law firm
Feith & Zell, P.C. of Washington, D.C., which he founded in 1986. In
addition, Mr. Feith now serves as the President of the Charles E. Smith
Jewish Day school, a K-12 school with 1,400 students.
I believe Mr. Feith's 20-plus years of professional experience and
public service to this Nation leave him well suited to the demanding
tasks which he will face in the coming years, including providing the
Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense with advice on the formation
of policies to address 21st century threats.
With that, Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to offer a
few words on behalf of Mr. Feith, and I urge the committee to give his
nomination every due consideration.
Mr. Feith. Thank you, Senator.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Senator Santorum, and
again your comments and observations are of great value to the
committee.
Senator Bond, I understand that you join us this morning
for purposes of your endorsement of one of the candidates.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER ``KIT'' BOND, U.S. SENATOR FROM
MISSOURI
Senator Bond. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I
thank the committee for this opportunity. It is a pleasure to
appear before you and to see so many members of the committee
here.
My pleasure this morning is to present and commend to you
the nomination of my good friend, J.D. Crouch II, who is a
Ph.D. and a fellow Missourian. He received his doctoral degree
in international relations from the University of Southern
California. He has published numerous articles on such topics
as ballistic missile defense, the ABM Treaty, nuclear testing,
and U.S.-European relations.
As the chairman noted, from 1984 to 1986 he worked as
Assistant Director for Strategic Programs of the U.S. Control
and Disarmament Agency, and was an advisor to the U.S.
delegation on nuclear and space arms talks with the former
Soviet Union. He is no stranger to the longer-tenured members
and staff of this committee, having served from 1986 to 1990 as
military legislative assistant to Senator Malcolm Wallop and
staff designee to this committee.
After that, from 1990 to 1992, he was Principal Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security
Policy in the first Bush administration. He currently is
Associate Professor of Defense and Strategic Studies at
Southwest Missouri's State University, and I would say he has
been a valuable advisor informally to me on defense matters.
I also want to point out in addition to his outstanding
Government service, his academic background and his publication
of numerous articles. He has very solid grounding in the real
world. He serves as a Reserve deputy sheriff in Christian
County, Missouri, a member of the multi-county special response
team, and lives in Nixa, Missouri, home of the world-famous
Nixa Succor Day Fish Fry. Should any of you wish to be further
advised on it, he is, I understand, an expert on succor-
digging, which is a very important sport in Southwest Missouri,
and he has that additional background.
I do believe his experience, both in academia and
Government, well-qualify him for this position, and it is my
hearty recommendation that the committee act favorably on his
nomination.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Senator. That insight
into the candidate and also your endorsement is of great value
to the committee. We thank you very much.
Senator Carnahan, we understand you would like to make a
few comments.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JEAN CARNAHAN
Senator Carnahan. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to welcome this distinguished panel today. It is
especially rewarding to have with us today a nominee from the
State of Missouri for the position of Assistant Secretary of
Defense for International Security Policy. This position has a
wide range of responsibilities, ranging from developing
regional defense policies to overseeing international security
cooperation.
With such a wide variety of duties, we are fortunate to
have a nominee with such a diverse background. Dr. Crouch hails
from, as Senator Bond pointed out, the great Town of Nixa, but
he is also well-known in Washington and in the security policy
debate. Not only did he serve as Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary for International Security Policy (ISP) in the
previous Bush administration, but he has worked on arms control
and defense policy in Congress and the executive branch.
What is truly extraordinary is Dr. Crouch's accomplishments
outside of the beltway, miles away in his beautiful mountain
valley Town of Nixa. Dr. Crouch devotes 20 hours a month to
Christian County as a reserve sheriff, he is a full-time
graduate professor at Southwest Missouri State, he is cofounder
of a groundbreaking Internet company, and has helped raise his
two kids along with his wife, Kristin.
I was truly impressed to learn that last year he saved a
man's life by pulling him from a burning car wreck and treating
him for shock until medics arrived, and for his valiant heroics
he earned the honor of reserve deputy of the year. I am glad to
see that the President has honored Missouri in selecting Dr.
Crouch for this crucial post in the administration.
I know that this hearing will serve as a meaningful hearing
for discussing the views of Dr. Crouch and the other panelists
before this committee, and I will look forward to hearing the
testimony and thank the chairman for allowing me the privilege
of introducing my fellow Missourian.
Chairman Warner. You are a very valued member of this
committee, and that was an extremely well-spoken and forceful
endorsement of this distinguished nominee.
Senator Carnahan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. We thank you very much.
At this time, I insert for the record the opening statement
of Senator Strom Thurmond.
[The prepared statement of Senator Thurmond follows:]
Prepared Statement by Senator Strom Thurmond
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Feith, Dr. Crouch, Mr. Rodman, congratulations to each of you
on your nomination. The fact that you are appearing before this
committee this morning speaks highly of your credentials and the faith
that both the President and Secretary Rumsfeld have in your ability to
take on the challenges of the office for which they have nominated you.
I wish you success and urge you to keep an open dialogue with this
committee.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. The committee, in accordance with its
procedure, has asked a series of policy questions of each of
our nominees. Their responses to those questions will be placed
in the record at the appropriate location without objection.
I have also, together with my distinguished Ranking Member,
examined a series of documents forwarded as a matter of routine
from the White House counsel, and we likewise find those to be
in order.
Now I shall ask questions which were propounded by this
committee to each of the nominees. Have you assumed any duties
or undertaken any actions which would appear to presume the
outcome of the confirmation process?
Dr. Crouch. No, sir.
Mr. Rodman. No, sir.
Mr. Feith. No, sir.
Chairman Warner. Will you ensure your staff complies with
deadlines established for requested communications, including
questions for the record in the hearings?
Dr. Crouch. Yes, sir.
Mr. Feith. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rodman. Yes.
Chairman Warner. Will you cooperate in providing witnesses
and briefers in response to congressional requests?
Dr. Crouch. Yes, sir.
Mr. Feith. Yes.
Mr. Rodman. Yes.
Chairman Warner. Will those witnesses be protected from any
possible reprisals for their testimony or briefings to the
Congress of the United States?
Dr. Crouch. Yes, sir.
Mr. Feith. Yes.
Mr. Rodman. Yes.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much.
I must depart to join our Majority Leader. We have some
matters we have to address today. I hope to return before this
hearing is concluded, but in my absence, my distinguished
colleague from Oklahoma will preside, together with the Ranking
Member. We will now open this series of nominations with Mr.
Feith. Will you start off? Thank you very much.
Mr. Feith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, Senator Levin, and other members of the Armed
Services Committee, given the size of the panel and the
shortness of time, I would like to dispense with any formal
opening statement. I would like to say, however, that I am
honored to appear before you, and I thank President George W.
Bush for nominating me and the Secretary of Defense, Donald
Rumsfeld, for supporting me for the position of Under Secretary
of Defense for Policy.
To serve our country in such a capacity is an exhilarating
and gratifying prospect. If confirmed, I will work to help keep
the United States strong and at peace with healthy ties to our
allies and friends abroad. I would also like to express my
thanks to Senator Specter and Senator Santorum for their
kindness in introducing me. I look forward to the committee's
questions. Thank you.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Feith.
Dr. Crouch.
Dr. Crouch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Levin, members
of the Senate Armed Services Committee, distinguished
colleagues, and honored guests. I, too, will be extremely
brief. I know the committee is interested in getting to
questions. I want to state that it is quite a pleasure and an
honor to be before this committee seeking confirmation for the
position of Assistant Secretary of Defense for International
Security Policy.
Among my fondest memories of Government were the 4 years I
spent here, working for the United States Senate and supporting
Senator Wallop on this committee. While a great many things
have changed in the world since those days, the bipartisan
spirit in which this committee works towards the advancement of
the national security of the United States remains. If
confirmed, I look forward to working closely with the committee
and its staff towards those shared goals.
I would also like to thank both Senator Carnahan and
Senator Bond for their very gracious introduction of me this
morning. I would like to express my gratitude and my
appreciation to the President and Secretary Rumsfeld for the
confidence they have shown in me in making this nomination.
If confirmed, I will return to public service from private
life eager to tackle the challenges and issues that confront
the Department of Defense, this committee, and the Nation.
There is much to do, and we must all work together to get it
done.
Finally, I would like to thank my many friends, and
especially my family--my wife, Kristin, my daughter, Lara, and
my son, Jake--who could not be here today, for the support and
encouragement that they have given me in seeking this
opportunity.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to answering
the committee's questions.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Dr. Crouch.
Mr. Rodman.
Mr. Rodman. Thank you. In the same spirit, I want to thank
Chairman Warner, Senator Levin, and all the members of this
committee for your courtesy to us all this morning. I am deeply
honored that President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld have chosen
to nominate me for what is one of the most exciting jobs, I
think, in the U.S. Government. If I am confirmed in that
position, I look forward to working with this committee in the
spirit that was expressed earlier by Chairman Warner and
Senator Levin, the spirit of bipartisanship.
There are some issues so vital to our Nation that we cannot
be effective in meeting those challenges unless Congress and
the President are working together, and the parties are working
together, so I look forward, if I am confirmed, to working with
this committee to meet the challenges that lie ahead of us all.
Thank you very much.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Rodman.
I would ask members of the committee to try to hold their
remarks and their questions to 6 minutes, so perhaps we can get
another round in, but I am not sure we will be able to do that.
We will start with Senator Levin.
Senator Levin. Mr. Chairman, thank you. First, Mr. Feith,
let me ask you about a memorandum of January 1999. This is what
you wrote relative to the Antiballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty's
existence. Quote, following the extinction of the Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics, the Antiballistic Missile Treaty of
1972 did not become a treaty between the United States and the
Russian Federation. Rather, as a bilateral nondispositive
treaty, the ABM Treaty of 1972 between the United States and
the USSR ceased to exist, close quote.
Now, is it your opinion that the ABM Treaty has ceased to
exist, that it is not in force, and that neither the United
States nor Russia have any obligation under it or are bound by
it?
Mr. Feith. Senator Levin, I stand by the legal analysis
that you cited. President Bush has made it clear that this
administration is going to continue to adhere--is adhering to
the terms of the ABM Treaty. He has also stated that in order
to create the missile defenses that he is intent on creating to
protect the United States and our troops abroad and our allies
and friends, we are at some point going to have to move beyond
the constraints of the ABM Treaty.
The decision on when the United States would do that, and
how it would be done, and after consultations with whom, those
issues remain open, and the decisions will be made by the
President, and I will be pleased to support the President's
policy.
Senator Levin. Does it remain your opinion, however, that
the ABM Treaty no longer exists? Is that your opinion?
Mr. Feith. As I said, the analysis that I wrote, I believed
and I think it is correct, but the United States can continue
to adhere to the terms of the ABM Treaty, as the President has
said he is doing.
Senator Levin. Is it also, then, your opinion that all
other bilateral, nondispositive treaties between the USSR and
the United States no longer exist?
Mr. Feith. Under the doctrine that was cited in that
lengthy legal memorandum to which you have referred, that would
apply to the bilateral, nondispositive agreements. It
specifically applies to those agreements that were approved by
the Senate.
In other words, nothing prevents the executive branch from
making with Russia the agreements that the executive branch
made with the Soviet Union, and just continuing those
agreements. The essence of what I was saying in that legal
memorandum is that if the United States wants to remake an
agreement with the Russian Federation that we had with the
Soviet Union, the United States Government can do that, but the
Senate has a very important role in treaty-making, and an
agreement like that can be made with the Russian Federation
only if the Senate has given its advice and consent to
ratification.
Senator Levin. I want to just go through a number of
bilateral, nondispositive agreements with you that were made
when the Soviet Union existed and ask you whether or not, then,
they no longer exist, as you just testified, in the absence of
their being reentered into by this current or by a subsequent
administration to the collapse of the Soviet Union.
An agreement relating to the privileges and immunities of
all members of our embassies and their families that was
entered into in 1978, did that cease to exist when the Soviet
Union ceased to exist, in the absence of it being remade
between a subsequent American administration and Russia?
Mr. Feith. Senator, that treaty does not appear on the
rather short list of treaties that it is my understanding were
fitted within those terms, in other words, bilateral,
nondispositive agreements that were approved by the Senate.
Senator Levin. If there was an agreement made by the
executive branch which was nondispositive, as you phrased it,
and bilateral, you just said that that agreement would have to
be remade, and what I am saying is, if there was not a
subsequent treaty or agreement after the collapse of the Soviet
Union, is it then not your position that, in the absence of
that agreement being reentered into, that it no longer exists?
Mr. Feith. This question that you are raising about the
succession of those agreements is often handled by informal
processes between the Government, and the decision of the
executive branch to maintain those agreements is often
considered effective in maintaining them.
Senator Levin. In the absence of such an explicit decision,
have those agreements all lapsed?
Mr. Feith. I think the position that the United States
Government has taken was to continue agreements that it could
continue with Russia, and so I believe that the executive
agreements, as opposed to the treaties that received Senate
approval, in most cases I would suppose--I am not an expert on
the long list of those agreements, but I believe that the
general position is that they continued, by choice of the
executive branch.
Senator Levin. So that in summary, then, the treaties, in
your opinion, have all lapsed if they are bilateral,
nondispositive treaties.
Mr. Feith. That is what this 250-year-old doctrine says.
Senator Levin. That is your current legal opinion?
Mr. Feith. That is the legal opinion that I wrote. I think
it is worth noting that if I am confirmed, Senator, for this
position, I will be providing policy advice and not legal
advice to the Secretary of Defense. But the legal memorandum
cited a venerable legal doctrine that says that such bilateral
agreements lapse by operation of law when one of the two
parties becomes extinct.
Senator Levin. It is a simple question. Does that remain
your current opinion?
Mr. Feith. Yes. I stand by the analysis that I wrote.
Senator Levin. My time is up. Thank you.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Levin.
Mr. Feith, why don't you just take a few moments here and
outline your past experience in negotiating and implementing
arms control agreements.
Mr. Feith. Mr. Chairman, I think that arms control
agreements can and do serve our national interests. Each
proposed treaty or unilateral action in this field, I believe,
needs to be evaluated to determine whether its net effect is
positive. The kinds of considerations for a proposed treaty or
agreement that I think are relevant is whether it serves the
national interest, whether its goal is in the national
interest, whether its terms will accomplish its purpose,
whether it is verifiable, how likely is it that we will be able
to enforce its compliance if the treaty is violated, and if
there are collateral benefits of the treaty even if other
parties violate it.
In the work that I did in the Government, I helped bring
into being some arms control agreements, in particular the
missile technology control regime and the Stockholm agreement
on what was called confidence and security-building measures in
Europe. It was essentially about notification of military
exercises.
I also played a role in the Dayton peace negotiations. I
think there are a number of arms control agreements that have
well-served the national interest, and there are others that I
have been critical of. I think that this is something that has
to be handled in a nonideological, pragmatic fashion, weighing
the merits of each case.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Feith.
Recently, a new word has appeared in a characterization.
The Bush administration has been called unilaterialist, because
it has expressed a concern about some treaties such as the
Kyoto Treaty and the ABM Treaty that are supported by some of
our adversaries as well as some of our allies. Whereas I
believe we should work with our allies and other countries to
gain their support, I do not believe we should allow them to
keep American families at risk as new threats emerge.
How should we approach these countries to gain their
support in modifying existing arms control agreements where
necessary, and what action should we take if such support
cannot be achieved?
Mr. Feith. Mr. Chairman, I believe that an important
element of our strength as a Nation is the set of
relationships, the set of treaty ties we have with allies and
other ties that we have with our friends abroad. If confirmed,
I would devote myself to keeping those relationships healthy
through consultations and cooperation.
Unilateralism, or isolationism, in my view, would not serve
us well as a national security policy. What President Bush has
said is that he will always act in a way that he believes
serves the U.S. national interest even if he believes that
other countries prefer that he acts differently, and I think
that is sensible. I do not, in fact, see how any President
could declare otherwise. But that does not mean that the Bush
administration is unilateralist. It does not mean that the
administration prefers to act alone. In my view, I think it is
clear that this administration values our alliances, and
appreciates the importance of creating as broad a base as
possible of support for U.S. policies.
Senator Inhofe. I am going to read some quotes that go back
to 1995, and I could have started earlier, but because of the
constrictions of time it is not possible, and the CIA reports
the weapon proliferation threat of 1995 is at least 20
countries--this is 1995. At least 20 countries, nearly half of
them in the Middle East and South Asia, already have or may be
developing weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile
delivery systems. Five countries, North Korea, Iran, Iraq,
Libya, and Syria, pose the greatest threat because of the grave
nature of their weapons of mass destruction programs. All five
already have or are developing ballistic missiles that could
threaten the United States.
Three years later, this is General Chuck Horner, who was
the Director of the Desert Storm Air Command, quote: we need
missile defenses now. Every day we delay deployment encourages
our potential enemies to develop or acquire long-range
missiles. I know first-hand that a ballistic missile is an
ultimate form of terror. We could not stop them during
Operation Desert Storm, and we cannot stop them now, end quote.
In 1998, when we had the commission that I think had
probably the nine greatest, most qualified experts in this
field, they said the United States might well have little or no
warning before operational deployment. This reflects the
reality of an environment in which there may be little or no
warning.
Then, when General Welch was before our committee, Senator
Levin, he was asked some questions, and he talked about the
deterrence that we have and how this has changed in recent
times. He said we had confidence in deterrence in the past
because we understood those that we were deterring. We had high
confidence that we knew what they valued, and we had high
confidence that we knew how to hold that at risk, and I have to
tell you, I have no such confidence regarding the kind of
threats we face today. I simply do not know what deters those
particular kinds of threats.
Henry Kissinger, who was the architect of the ABM Treaty, I
can remember not too long ago he made the statement that it is
nuts to make a virtue out of our vulnerability.
In light of all of these experts, in the last 7 years,
talking about the nature of the threat that is out there, about
the fact that we have to develop as soon as we can possibly
develop and deploy a national missile defense system, can any
of the three of you think of any reason we should not proceed
with that deployment? Why don't you each respond.
Dr. Crouch. I believe that the President has made it clear
that he believes that missile defense is going to be an
important component of our overall defense strategy in dealing
with the kinds of emerging threats that you have well outlined,
Senator, and if confirmed, I would strongly support the
administration's efforts to do that, and so I absolutely think
it is vital.
I think one of the interesting paradigm shifts, if you
will, that we are in from the Cold War to this period is that
we are now in a position where we may have to determine whether
other countries may be deploying ballistic missiles and weapons
of mass destruction that will deter the use of American
military capability, and the key aspect, a key example of that,
it seems to me, was the Operation Desert Storm situation. What
would have happened if Saddam Hussein had had a weapon of mass
destruction, particularly a nuclear weapon, on top of those
missiles?
Senator Inhofe. My time has expired, and I would only
comment that he made it very clear after that was over, he
said, if we had waited 10 years to go into Kuwait, America
would not have come in. We would have had the ability to deploy
such a missile.
Just a real quick response, the other two.
Mr. Feith. I agree with what Dr. Crouch just said, and I do
think it is wise that the President has resolved to create
missile defenses.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you.
Senator Kennedy.
Senator Kennedy. Thank you. Mr. Feith, you are familiar
with what Secretary of State James Baker said--was he incorrect
in January 1992, when shortly after the collapse of the Soviet
Union he said, ``I made the point to President Yeltsin that the
United States remains committed to the ABM. We expect the
States of the Commonwealth to abide by all the international
treaties and obligations that were entered into by the former
Soviet Union, including the ABM Treaty.''
Mr. Feith. Senator, I think that that was an expression of
a desire to maintain a number of the----
Senator Kennedy. Let me state it again. I am asking you
whether it is correct that he said, ``I made the point to
President Yeltsin the United States remains committed to the
ABM. We expect the States of the Commonwealth to abide by all
the international treaties and obligations that were entered
into by the former Soviet Union, including the ABM Treaty.''
Now, was he making a mistake or not, when he made that
statement?
Mr. Feith. No.
Senator Kennedy. So it was not an incorrect statement for
him to make?
Mr. Feith. I think it is correct as far as it goes.
Senator Kennedy. Well, I think it goes--that is fine. That
is good, with regard to the ABM Treaty.
Now, Mr. Feith, on the issues of Plan Colombia, concerns
have been raised about the collusion between the Colombian
armed forces and the illegal paramilitaries. Given the
significant funding our country is providing to the armed
forces, what goals do you think are achievable in Colombia?
Mr. Feith. Senator, the focus of the Defense Department's
activities in support of Plan Colombia is assisting the
Colombian forces in dealing with their counterdrug work. This
is a very difficult activity. It is performed by the Defense
Department pursuant to statute, and there is a great
sensitivity to keeping the focus on what the law would have the
Department focus on, which is the counterdrug activity, and not
to be drawn into entry into the civil war in Colombia.
Senator Kennedy. Do you believe American interests in
Colombia are worth putting the armed forces personnel at risk?
Mr. Feith. As I said, this is a judgment that is made as a
matter of law. Congress has legislated that we are going to
assist----
Senator Kennedy. I am trying to find out what your views
are. What are your views on that issue? Do you think it is
worth putting the personnel at risk, and then, I am going to
ask you what about the civilians? Do you think they are? We
ought to be able to find out what your views are on this Plan
Colombia.
Mr. Feith. Senator, there is a national interest in dealing
with the very serious drug problem. Weighing the different
factors requires a mastery of the facts of the case that I do
not yet have. If confirmed, I would be in a position to have an
independent evaluation of that. I do know that this is an
obligation, and I do know the Department of Defense is
fulfilling the statutory requirement.
Senator Kennedy. Mr. Crouch, in your 1995 article in the
Journal, ``Comparative Strategy,'' you criticized the Clinton
administration's policy in North Korea's nuclear weapons
program and proposed the following steps:
Strengthen U.S. forces stationed in South
Korea, in recognition of the threat, to bolster U.S.
deterrent;
Redeploy American nuclear weapons to South
Korea to demonstrate our nuclear commitment to a U.S.
ally and maintain the means at hand to respond to a
North Korean attack;
Begin immediate plans with South Korea and
Japan to develop and deploy a missile defense adequate
to the task of dealing with long-range nuclear-armed
missiles;
Set a firm date for destruction of North
Korea's nuclear complex and its long-range missile
production facilities;
Absent positive, visible steps by the North
Korean regime towards this end, authorize destruction
of as much of this complex as possible by U.S. and
allied air power.
Would not this be dangerously provocative to a nation that
already fears aggression from the United States and South
Korea?
Dr. Crouch. I remain concerned about the situation in
Korea, Senator, but I believe that the international situation
has changed greatly since 1994. At that time, I am sure that
the committee will remember that tensions on the Korean
peninsula were running very high. There was a considerable
uncertainty about the stability of the North----
Senator Kennedy. Well, you do not support that, then,
today?
Dr. Crouch. No. Today, I do not believe that those actions
would be necessary, because I believe the international
environment has changed substantially.
Senator Kennedy. Mr. Feith, you stated that investment in
the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR), the Nunn-Lugar program
and other U.S. proliferation programs, should not become a
means by which Russia frees the resources to finance its
military modernization program. Is there any evidence to show
that Russia is doing this? Are you advocating elimination of
the program?
Mr. Feith. No, on the contrary, Senator, I support the
program. I think that the destruction of the weapons of the
former Soviet Union is in the U.S. national interest. I think
that it is important that the Defense Department select wisely
the particular programs that we are going to fund with the
moneys appropriated by Congress, and that we make sure that we
manage them well, but I strongly support the program in
principle, and I think that there is much good that comes from
it.
Senator Kennedy. Mr. Feith, do you have any reaction, then,
to the fact that the administration cut $140 million from the
Department's funding of the CTR program? Do you think it was
wise to cut that money in their budget proposals?
Mr. Feith. I may be in error, but I do not believe that the
Defense Department funding was cut.
Senator Kennedy. I believe it is the Energy Department. The
Energy Department cut the program by $140 million. I understand
that you generally support the program, is that correct?
Mr. Feith. Yes, I do, sir.
Senator Kennedy. Dr. Crouch, do you as well?
Dr. Crouch. Absolutely, sir.
Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Kennedy.
Senator Allard.
Senator Allard. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I want to state
briefly that I do not think that we can argue with the academic
or professional qualifications of these three men to hold these
respective positions, Doug Feith for Under Secretary of Defense
for Policy, J.D. Crouch for Assistant Secretary of Defense for
International Security Policy, and Peter Rodman for Assistant
Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs. I want
to thank each nominee for taking the time to drop by my office
and visit with me personally, and as a result of those
conversations, I think that they bring a lot to those positions
and they will be a credit to the administration.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for holding these
hearings, and I look forward to getting them into their jobs as
soon as possible, as well as moving the three nominees that we
will be hearing from on Thursday.
Having said that, Dr. Crouch, the administration is
contemplating many changes in regards to the export controls,
and Congress has the Export Administration Act (EAA) on its
plate at this time. Could you give me your views on export
controls, and what changes do we need to the system, and then
your views on the administration's changes on the EAA, if
possible?
Dr. Crouch. This is an area, Senator, that I expect I am
going to need to do some study, if confirmed. It is not an area
that I have spent a great deal of time studying, but I would
say the following things. One is, I think that export controls
are an essential aspect of our national security. I strongly
support export controls. I also believe that we can do a better
job in making export controls a facet of our
counterproliferation policy, but I believe that it is going to
take both the Department working with this committee and other
relevant committees in the Senate to do that.
My understanding of the legislation--and I am again not an
expert on that legislation, but my understanding of the
legislation referred to is that the administration supports
that legislation in its current form, and from what I
understand of it, I certainly support it in its current form as
well.
Senator Allard. Mr. Feith, there is some discussion, I
believe, as to whether they would move national space policy,
particularly the issue referring to commercial use in space,
perhaps, to your area. Do you have any insight on that that you
can share with the committee?
Mr. Feith. Senator, the range of export control issues, as
I understand it, is currently under review, and one aspect of
that review would be looking at these commercial space issues,
but they are not being, as I understand it, singled out. There
is a comprehensive review underway.
Senator Allard. Do you have any thoughts that you would
like to share with the committee in that regard?
Mr. Feith. My general thoughts on export controls are in
line with those of Dr. Crouch. The problem has become much
harder lately than it was in the days when I was first exposed
to the field, almost 20 years ago during the Reagan
administration.
During the Cold War, many of the leading technologies were
military technologies, and they were distinctly military. Now,
many highly militarily relevant technologies are dual-use, and
many of the most advanced technologies are in the commercial
sphere rather than the military sphere, and so many militarily
significant technologies are very widespread. It makes the
problem of export controls substantially more difficult than it
was once upon a time.
I know that if I am confirmed, we are going to have a lot
of very hard thinking to do about the best ways to improve the
export control system. It is a very difficult problem, but it
is worth a lot of mental effort, because ultimately controlling
the spread of dangerous technologies is a high priority, in my
view, a national security interest of the country.
Senator Allard. Mr. Feith, I would like to hear you talk a
little bit about your feelings about the advantages of a
strategic relationship in which both the United States and
Russia reduce their nuclear arsenals, not as a result of
negotiated agreements, but as a matter of unilateral policy.
Mr. Feith. Senator, the President has said that the United
States is going to make offensive nuclear force reductions. The
administration, as I understand it, is developing the concept
of a framework, a new framework of relationships, a new
framework for the relationship with Russia. The President
alluded to this in his National Defense University speech.
The exact nature of that framework, and whether it includes
agreements or parallel actions or unilateral actions, or a
combination thereof, is something that is being developed, as I
understand it now, within the administration in--that is one of
the subjects that has been the subject of consultations with
our allies that high-level administration officials recently
conducted. Secretary Rumsfeld is in Europe right now, and I am
confident that when he goes to the NATO defense ministerial he
will be discussing that subject there.
I think it is too early to say exactly what the context
will be for those reductions, but the President has made it
clear that he does not want to retain a larger offensive
nuclear force than the United States needs, and wants to
address this subject, together with missile defense issues, in
a cooperative spirit with Russia.
Senator Allard. You support the President in that?
Mr. Feith. I strongly support that.
Senator Allard. Mr. Chairman, I see my time has expired.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Allard.
Senator Cleland.
Senator Cleland. Thank you very much. Thank you, gentlemen,
for being on the panel today.
Mr. Feith, were you ever in the American military?
Mr. Feith. No, sir.
Senator Cleland. You expect to be the Under Secretary of
Defense for Policy, but were never in the American military?
Mr. Feith. If confirmed, yes, sir.
Senator Cleland. I understand that you have written
extensively about war and peace. In an article in 1988 in the
Washington Times, you said, ``If international law is a bad
joke, if treaties can be violated profitably and with impunity,
then arms control too becomes a joke, with the laugh being on
States that comply with treaty obligations.'' Do you still
think that treaties are a joke?
Mr. Feith. Senator, I was saying that they should not be a
joke. I was saying that I take treaties, I take international
law very seriously.
I have devoted a large part of my career to studying the
subject and thinking about it, and I am a strong advocate of
the United States complying with its treaty obligations,
entering into treaty obligations with the greatest seriousness
of mind, because we will and we do, and we should comply with
our treaty obligations. I was highlighting the fact that
unfortunately many treaties, excellent treaties, treaties that
would be a fine thing if they achieved their intended purpose,
are violated by other countries, and that it is incumbent on
the United States to do whatever we can to enforce compliance
with those treaties, lest they become a joke. I was making an
argument for taking international law and arms control
agreements seriously. I was not at all mocking them. I was
saying it is important that nobody mock them.
Senator Cleland. In 1988 you authored an article in which
you criticized the effort of President Reagan to put together
the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty with Russia. That treaty
passed the Senate by 93 to 5. Did you support that treaty at
the time?
Mr. Feith. Yes, I did, Senator.
Senator Cleland. Let me ask you this. The Chemical Weapons
Convention, you wrote in 1994 in the New Republic, ``The
Chemical Weapons Convention is a bad treaty, one that will
likely increase the risk of chemical warfare around the
world.'' Do you still believe that?
Mr. Feith. Senator, I opposed ratification of the Chemical
Weapons Convention because I did not think it would achieve its
purpose. Its purpose is one that I strongly supported. I
testified twice before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
on the treaty and said that I strongly supported the purposes
of the treaty. I would be delighted if chemical weapons were
abolished from the world.
There was a serious debate, and reasonable people were on
both sides of that debate, over the question of whether the
Chemical Weapons Convention would achieve the result that I
believe both sides of the debate favored, which was the
elimination of chemical weapons from the world. I had doubts
about the treaty's effectiveness, but the treaty is now the law
of the land and, if confirmed, I would work to make that treaty
as effective as it can be, because I think that the goal of it
is entirely admirable.
Senator Cleland. That treaty was negotiated by President
Bush.
Is it your opinion that the ABM Treaty has collapsed, or is
no longer valid?
Mr. Feith. Senator, I have written with a colleague of mine
a lengthy legal memorandum citing a very longstanding 250-year-
old doctrine of international law that says that two-party
treaties lapse automatically when one of the two parties
becomes extinct. The President, however, has said that the
United States is complying with the terms of the ABM Treaty. I
am happy to support that policy. He has also noted that at some
point we are going to be moving beyond the constraints of the
ABM Treaty, and he will be making the decision as to the when
and how.
Senator Cleland. With all due respect, if we do not get a
handle on nuclear weapons, we will all be extinct.
May I say that you are not hired as the lawyer for the DOD,
you are hired for policy. Again, to follow up on Senator
Kennedy's question, was Secretary of State Baker right or wrong
when he said, ``I made the point to President Yeltsin that the
United States remains committed to the ABM Treaty.'' Do you
think we should be still committed to the ABM Treaty, or not?
Mr. Feith. Secretary Baker said that we were committed, and
we, as a country, have complied with the terms of the ABM
Treaty, and continue to do so to this day.
Senator Cleland. Regarding the Middle East, you not only
opposed the 1993 and subsequent Oslo Accords between Israel and
the PLO, but you also suggested that Israel should repudiate or
abrogate the Oslo Accords. Is that your view?
Mr. Feith. Senator, that is not quite what I wrote. What I
was saying about the Oslo Accords is that the goal of the Oslo
Accords is excellent. If there can be a consensual solution of
the Arab-Israeli conflict, that will be a major accomplishment,
highly desirable. It would serve the interests of the
Palestinians, the Israelis, the United States. The concerns
that I expressed about the Oslo process had to do with
systematic violations of the Accords that unfortunately neither
Israel nor the United States were ever able to remedy, and the
failure to remedy those violations created an extremely serious
problem, and unfortunately now we are living with some of the
consequences of that.
Senator Cleland. In terms of Iraq, do you still favor a
strategy of supporting the Iraqi opposition, including
protection by the United States Air Force and necessary U.S.
ground troops? Do you think we ought to go into Iraq with
United States ground troops?
Mr. Feith. The United States policy on Iraq, Senator, is
now being looked at. The United States has a strong interest,
which I know is shared widely on this committee and throughout
Congress, in facilitating as best we can the liberation of
Iraq. The exact means that are most appropriate at the moment
are the subject of review right now.
Senator Cleland. That is the most disturbing answer of all.
As somebody who was committed to a ground force effort in
Vietnam with no particular strategy for winning and no
particular exit strategy, your answer disturbs me greatly.
Mr. Chairman, my time is up.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Cleland.
Senator Roberts.
Senator Roberts. Mr. Chairman, I would like to pick up on
several topics raised by the distinguished Senator from
Massachusetts, and I am sorry that he has left the hearing. I
want to talk about the $100.4 million reduction in the budget
on the CTR programs, the IPP programs, the NCI programs, the
ISTC programs. That is an explosion of acronyms. Those are all
the programs that we have under the Department of Energy (DOE)
and the Department of Defense (DOD).
I want to point out that we have $400 million in the
pipeline at the Department of Energy, and we have $500 million
at the Department of Defense for the CTR programs. We spent
about $1.1 billion last time. That comes under the jurisdiction
of the Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee, of which
I am Chairman, at least until 5 p.m. tonight, but there is
bipartisan support for these programs by Senator Lugar, Senator
Domenici, and Senator Kennedy, and Senator Levin has been
outstanding in his support.
We tried to work out a compromise with the House, but we
made it contingent--and I am going to ask all three of you what
you think about this--on greater transparency in regards to
these programs with the Russians, access, and we are working on
that, it has been a long, slow road, but we are getting a
little better access, greater Russian cooperation, and internal
management reform.
One of the problems with these programs is that internal
management has been pretty sad. There is another GAO report out
in regards to the DOE programs, and we were concerned about a
year ago when we found out 70 percent of the money stayed right
here in the Department of Energy, as opposed to actually being
used in Russia.
I think it is certainly a very positive program, but a
program that needs dramatic improvement. I understand the
National Security Council is undergoing a review. Any comments,
Doug, in regards to the whole proposition? You are for this,
but I would assume you are also in favor of transparency,
access, greater Russian cooperation, internal management
reform, and that at least some of the support of this money
should be contingent on those requisite things.
Mr. Feith. Senator, each of those points sounds sensible.
Senator Roberts. Well, thank you. I appreciate that.
[Laughter.]
Senator Kennedy also brought up the question in regards to
Colombia. I got a little mixed up in terms of his question and
your answer. Statutory permission, statutory authority. I think
we have the statutory authority, and nobody wants to be in the
midst of a civil war, and nobody wants to risk our troops.
Senator Cleland has just referred to that. It is one thing to
have a cause to fight for. It is another thing to have a cause
to fight and die for.
But let me say that we are making some progress, it seems
to me, with the drug war and stability in the hemisphere.
General Wilhelm, who is the former four-star Marine down there
in the Southern Command, pointed out that down there, there are
31 nations, 360 million people, average age 14.
Now, again on the Emerging Threats and Capabilities
Subcommittee we have that jurisdiction, and we look at the
vital national interests involved here, drugs, immigration,
energy, and trade, all four. As a matter of fact, I think it
probably rates a higher priority than the Balkans, and I am not
going to ask you to get into that. If anybody does not think it
does not affect the pump price in Boston or Topeka in terms of
energy, take a look at Hector Chavez, who could be the next
Fidel Castro in regards to Venezuela. Do not hold me to that if
I am ever going to be confirmed for anything, gentlemen. I
appreciate that. [Laughter.]
But at any rate, could you comment on that in terms of our
strategic national interest, and Doug, you can start off, if
you would like. I do not want to risk anybody down there in
terms of a civil war, but I think in terms of Colombia and
stability of the region, it is very important, is that not
right?
Mr. Feith. Senator, I agree with you that the stability of
the whole Andean region, the whole northern part of South
America, is an important U.S. national security interest.
One of the reasons that we are in the relatively happy
strategic position that the United States now finds itself in
after the Cold War is that we have peace in the hemisphere, and
on our borders, and making sure that our neighbors remain
peaceful and reasonably stable is a very important interest of
ours. I think that the items you cited, drugs, immigration,
trade, energy, all are important factors that have to be
properly weighed in making our policy towards that region.
Senator Roberts. I am going to ask Peter, too. Peter,
regards from Bob Ellsworth, our former Member of Congress, NATO
Ambassador, Assistant Secretary of Defense, Foreign Policy
Advisor de luxe and guru. He called me yesterday and said,
treat Peter Rodman with all due respect, he is the best, and I
agree. Now, with that introduction, what about the Southern
Hemisphere.
Mr. Rodman. Well, thank you, Senator, for including me in
the hearing also. [Laughter.]
I am grateful. Well, maybe I should not be grateful.
Senator Roberts. Just be careful of what you ask for.
Mr. Rodman. Yes, be careful what you ask for. That is
exactly what I thought. [Laughter.]
No, I am happy to answer that question, and I also want to
compliment you and Senator Cleland. I am familiar in a general
way with the colloquy which you both engaged in a year ago on
the broad question of our national interest, and obviously the
Western Hemisphere is an area where we have an enormous
national interest and always have, so there is no question that
Colombia is one of the biggest, one of the most daunting issues
on the agenda. I have to say, if I am confirmed in this
position, this will be one of the tough issues that I will have
to address, and I am not an expert on Latin America, so I will
need to educate myself.
What I have learned as I have tried to read up on this is a
lot of questions that we have not faced squarely. Clearly we
have an interest in the counterdrug operation, but we also have
a broader interest in our relations with these countries, which
are now mostly democracies, and in supporting these democratic
friends against the challenges they face in the political and
security dimension.
But how you disentangle these, or how you keep them
together, or whatever, this is an issue I certainly do not have
the answer for, because, as has been said, none of us wants to
get into a war. The word counterinsurgency scares the hell out
of everybody, but we do have an interest in the security, the
viability, the strength of a democratic country like Colombia,
and unfortunately it has become in part a responsibility of the
Department of Defense. All I can say is, I do not have the
answers yet, Senator, but I thank you for your kind words, and
I know that this is something that has to be at the top of
ISA's agenda.
Senator Roberts. Mr. Chairman, my time has expired. Let me
ask, are we going to have another round? I have an absolutely
important question on NATO and a brilliant question in regards
to emerging threats and terrorism.
Senator Inhofe. We will do our best, Senator Roberts. Thank
you.
Senator Roberts. I feel a compelling need for another
round, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. All right.
Senator Reed.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Feith, let me go back to the issue of the Intermediate
Nuclear Force Treaty. You criticize it very severely, and I
believe, from looking at your comments, that one of the
critical issues is verification, the ability to verify whether
the Soviets could, would, in fact, cheat on the treaty, and yet
you say today that you support the treaty. Am I led to believe,
then, that you would support a treaty that is not absolutely
verifiable?
Mr. Feith. Senator, the evaluation of an arms control
agreement is a net assessment, and one weighs the pluses
against the minuses. Regarding the INF Treaty, I participated,
at the time that the treaty was published, in a study group of
five or six people that did an article-by-article review of the
INF Treaty that was published by the American Enterprise
Institute.
We said in that review that some of us support the treaty,
some of us oppose it, but we wanted to just do an analysis and
publish what we thought the treaty said, and analyze elements
of it, its meaning, identify problems with it, and one of the
members of that study group was Richard Perle, who then
testified in front of Congress in favor of the treaty, so the
study group had people of varying opinions.
I believe that the Senate acted wisely in approving
ratification of that treaty, and I think that the treaty has
contributed, has been a net benefit to U.S. national security,
despite the fact that there were elements of it that were not
as strong as other elements.
Senator Reed. I raise the question because in the context
of our recent debate on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, one
position that was advanced by many opponents was the fact that
they could not be absolutely verified, that there was a certain
merit, of course, to having a treaty, but it could not be
absolutely verified.
First of all, let me ask for the record, what was your
position on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and what was the
reason, if you opposed it, that you opposed it?
Mr. Feith. Senator, I opposed ratification of the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, for the reasons that Secretary
Rumsfeld has highlighted: that there were serious verification
problems with it, that the verification problems were
significant, that there were issues of the military
significance of explosions that could not be effectively
detected, monitored.
Also, there were serious questions about whether we could
maintain a safe and reliable and effective nuclear deterrent in
the absence of testing, and Secretary Rumsfeld has highlighted
those as problems. I think that again the Senate acted wisely
in withholding its support for ratification of the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
Senator Reed. In that light, would you recommend the
departure from the current moratorium on testing, and
engagement in testing of nuclear weapons by the United States?
Mr. Feith. No, Senator. At the moment, the Bush
administration is maintaining that moratorium, and I am happy
to support that policy.
Senator Reed. Dr. Crouch, the same question. Would you
recommend a departure from the moratorium on testing, and
engagement in testing nuclear weapons?
Dr. Crouch. I think you may know, Senator, that I am on
record, having supported nuclear testing in the past, I believe
that nuclear testing has played a vital role in maintaining the
security and safety of our nuclear weapons.
However, there is a review going on right now of not just
the issue of testing, but our entire nuclear infrastructure,
stockpile and the like, and in the context of that review I
think this issue is going to be taken up.
I support the President's position today, which is that we
will maintain the moratorium on nuclear testing. I think one of
the issues, if I were confirmed, that I would have to be very
involved in is looking at the question, for example, of what
are the alternatives to testing. How effective would a
stockpile stewardship program be in maintaining the
infrastructure and the ability to test, for example.
One of the things that the Secretary highlighted that I
think is very important is, how do you maintain the personnel,
that is to say, the people who know how to do these things, in
an age where the number of nuclear weapons, obviously, as the
President said, are going to go down. It seems to me that in
some respects, that as we bring that stockpile down, which I
support consistent with our national security goals, we rely
more and more on fewer numbers and fewer types of weapons. It
is essential that those weapons be safe, we understand their
effects, we understand their reliability. It is an issue that I
am going to have to take very seriously and will take very
seriously, if confirmed. I will look at it. I would not rule it
out at this point, but I do not think I could say yes,
positively, at this point, I am going to recommend that.
Senator Reed. I believe that you have seriously considered
this issue before, when you came to a much more definitive
conclusion that you would urge testing, but I thank you for
your answer, Doctor. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Feith. Mr. Rodman, I am sorry. [Laughter.]
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Reed.
Senator Sessions.
Senator Sessions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank
each of you for your service to your country over the years,
and the fact that you have written and been engaged in matters
of important public policy over the years should be something
we are thankful for, that you have been able and willing to
sign your name to articles, to engage in some of the most
important issues facing our country. As the years go by, not
everything I have ever written I am pleased with, and I am sure
the same will be true for you.
Dr. Crouch, how many years ago did you write this legal
opinion about the existence of the Soviet Union?
Mr. Feith. I think, Senator, it was I who wrote that.
Senator Sessions. Mr. Feith, excuse me, yes. How many years
ago was that?
Mr. Feith. I believe it was published in 1999.
Senator Sessions. Regardless, my thinking is simply this--I
did not think it would be that many years ago, but I guess my
thought is simply this. You were writing a legal opinion about
a matter that is, I think, undisputed. No good lawyer could
come out with a different opinion on this.
Somebody may think we ought to continue this treaty, but I
am not at all of the belief that you could rationally conclude
that we are bound to a treaty with a dead empire that is, in
fact, extinct, that is so totally different, Russia today,
smaller, a friendly power, a democracy compared to the Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics that threatened the world and
democracy for 50 years. So to me I think you did the right
thing on your legal opinion and should not be criticized for
it.
We have been talking some about unilateralism, and I know
members of the world community, whoever they are, express
concern that the United States is acting unilaterally. I
remember, I was at a North Atlantic Assembly meeting with
delegates from other parliaments around the world, and met with
a member of the House of Lords.
He suggested we should not be involved in the Balkans
without a vote of the United Nations, and I responded to him,
sir, if the United Kingdom were in serious trouble, would you
prefer that the decision be made on whether or not to deploy
the United States military to defend the United Kingdom by the
United Nations or by the United States? He acknowledged that
was a valid consideration.
I am concerned that in recent years we have felt an almost
politically correct need to subordinate our national interest
to world bodies that may not be always rational in their
conclusions. I think it is important that we maintain our
ability to utilize the power that the American people sacrifice
to create, so that we can use it in our just national interest,
in the interests of the world.
Mr. Rodman, you have been ignored on this. How do you feel
about this unilateralism theory?
Mr. Rodman. Senator, I share your broad sentiment. The
President and Congress, particularly the Senate, share vital
constitutional responsibilities for the national interests of
the United States which they cannot delegate to anyone else.
I also want to say that I agree with some things Doug said
a few moments ago, particularly in the area of treaties, but
the main point is, even though we are predominant, we benefit
from working with others. This President, in fact, not only in
this campaign, but more recently, has put enormous emphasis on
the importance of working with allies, working with others,
sharing responsibility if we can with others, so we benefit
from that, but in the last analysis, particularly where vital
issues of national security are concerned, we cannot delegate
the decision to others, and the United Nations again can be a
useful supplement to our policy.
It is a way of engaging other countries on issues where we
want to cooperate, and we want others to join, but there will
always be decisions, cases where we have our own decision, and
others may disagree, but we have to try to persuade and so
forth. But there will be cases where we will do things that
others will not agree with. We try to minimize it, but we
cannot delegate our sovereign responsibility.
Senator Sessions. Mr. Feith and Dr. Crouch, would you agree
that ultimately the use of American power is the responsibility
of the Government of the United States, and that we ought not
to subordinate our ability to utilize our power, except through
the treaty-making power, to other groups around the world?
Mr. Feith. Senator, I think that your citing of the treaty-
making power is an important point, because it highlights the
wisdom of the Founding Fathers in making decisions of that
importance about using force, key issues of national defense
and national sovereignty, subject to the cooperative process of
the Senate's advice and consent on treaties. I certainly agree
with you that the Senate has an extremely important role to
play in deciding whether it is in the national interest for us
to bind ourselves to other countries on matters of that
importance.
Dr. Crouch. Yes, Senator, I share the views that have been
articulated by my colleagues here. I think that the issue of
unilateralism is one that this President has done a very good
job of demonstrating that he is committed to working with
allies.
He has been very engaged so far, and the administration, in
my view, has been very engaged so far in consultations across a
wide range of issues, not just on specific topics. I think that
it seems to me if I can add one thought here, is that we are
not just another country. We have a leadership role to play,
and that does not mean that we run around telling other
countries what to do. I do not think that this administration
has done that, or certainly would do that. It certainly would
not be any guidance that I would provide. I think that we must
exercise that leadership role, and I would not want that called
unilateralism. I would rather it be called leadership.
Senator Sessions. Well said. I agree with that. I think it
is exceedingly important that we work with our allies and
friends around the world, but at the same time, we need to know
and the world needs to know that we are capable of making our
own critical, independent decision if need be. One former
Clinton administration official who testified here wrote that
we talk about a post-world war strategy. He said when we talk
about a post-world war strategy, it is an admission we have not
developed one yet.
I think it is a challenge that each of you will have to
think clearly about the myriad of problems, this different
world we are in, this post-Soviet world, and to help us develop
a policy that all parties, all people in this country can unite
behind, and that will preserve and protect and defend the great
freedoms of this United States, and promote peace throughout
the world and economic prosperity.
I am excited about your nominations. I think it is going to
be a refreshing change in the Defense Department. You have
great opportunities to make some historic progress. I wish you
the best, and assure you I will do my best to help you.
Senator Inhofe. Should we interpret that as that you are
going to vote in support?
Senator Sessions. You certainly can, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. Senator Nelson.
Senator Ben Nelson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Feith, one could have concluded from many of your
writings in your legal memorandum that you do not think very
much of arms agreements or treaties, and some people have
suggested that maybe some of your views may even get nearly off
the chart. I would not suggest that confirmation conversion
here, but there does seem to be a shift in your thoughts about
the arguments. The bright line of opinion seems to pale a
little bit under examination. I will be anxious to know what
your policy advice will be to the White House, if you are
confirmed.
Perhaps Senator Roberts will be long remembered for the
Roberts Rule which he introduced today, and that is--always
have a disclaimer associated with any writings in case you come
before this committee or any other committee for confirmation.
What I would like to do is ask a little bit more about Plan
Colombia. I know that you said that you have not had the
opportunity to get into it to any great extent, but in terms of
policy--and I am not trying to set this up because it could be
any or all of the above--is it a civil war, is it a drug war,
is it nation-building, is it being the world policeman, is it
any or all of those, or is it something else--civil war, drug
war, nation-building, or being the world policeman?
Mr. Feith. Senator, I think that the problem in Colombia is
all of the above, and probably a few more things you could
list.
Senator Ben Nelson. Is it appropriate for us to be in any
of those roles, or all of those roles?
Mr. Feith. As I understand it, Senator, our role right now
is focused on the counterdrug activities of the Colombian armed
forces. It is difficult to draw very neat lines between these
different areas you have highlighted. It is quite clear that if
we enhance the capabilities of the Colombian forces to deal in
their counterdrug operations, then necessarily you are
enhancing their capabilities overall, which ultimately redounds
to the benefit of the Government in dealing with the
insurgency.
So it is not a subject that lends itself to neat
compartmentalization, but I think that the focus of the DOD
efforts, as I understand the situation, is appropriate. I mean,
it is within the bounds of the law, and the broader points that
were made earlier by Peter Rodman and others about the general
importance of stability in our hemisphere are an important
element of our analysis of that issue.
Senator Ben Nelson. Mr. Rodman, not to leave you out, would
you respond to that, too, please?
Mr. Rodman. I share the sentiment. We have decided as a
country to emphasize the counternarcotics effort. That is what
two administrations and Congress have decided, but I think
inescapably we also have a stake in Colombia as a longstanding
democracy and a friend, and I would not call it nation-
building. I think that phrase brings to mind more ambitious
things that we may not in other parts of the world want to
attempt.
I think we do have a stake, and we should not shy away from
saying it, a stake in helping Colombia, which is a friend, to
survive. It happens to be under assault of extremists of both
the right and the left, and we have chosen not to engage--we
have not chosen to get into the civil war, but I think
inescapably, as Doug said, as we offer any help we give them we
are hoping that they will be intact as a State.
Now, you mentioned world policeman. I do not think that
applies. I think that the Western Hemisphere, if we do not have
a vital interest in the Western Hemisphere, then you know, we
do not have a vital interest anywhere. This is a friendly
country, a pivotal country that we have a stake in, and I think
obviously as a country we are being very careful and cautious,
and I do not have any answers about what we should do, but I
think there are good reasons why we are involved there.
Senator Ben Nelson. Would that apply to the Balkans, or
Haiti, or Somalia?
Mr. Rodman. Every case is different, and I have different
opinions about different issues, and on the Balkans, I support
what the President has said. We are engaged there, and we and
our allies need to make collective decisions one way or
another.
Haiti is something in the past. I had some doubts about it
when it happened, but it is not on the current agenda.
I think we have to be selective. I think this is the
President's philosophy, and it is shared by many others. We
cannot get engaged everywhere. We need to look at where our
national interests are at stake, and it is something that the
President and Congress, one hopes, will share in deciding as a
country what we do.
Senator Ben Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Nelson.
Senator Akaka.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Feith, thank you for your time, and for visiting and
sharing some of your thoughts with me. I was interested in your
asymmetric threat statements. In answers to advance questions
you submitted to the committee regarding asymmetric threats to
the United States and appropriate responses, you mentioned a
range of asymmetric threats, including terrorism and threats
against our space and information systems. You state that in
light of these threats, including biological weapons and
conventional attacks, the administration's response is, and I
quote, the development and deployment of missile defenses,
unquote. How does this policy protect us against attacks on our
information systems or against a biological weapon delivered by
terrorists?
Mr. Feith. Senator, this issue of asymmetric threats, or
emerging threats, is one that I know that members of this
committee, Senator Levin in particular, have been assiduous in
highlighting, and it is an enormously important question, and
it is of great value that this committee is focused on it as it
is.
The topic covers a range of threats, as you mentioned. An
element of it is the threat of the use on American territory of
weapons of mass destruction, and there are, of course, various
means by which those weapons could be delivered. One of them,
which is the vulnerability that the missile defense program
will attempt to defeat, is the danger of missile attack, but it
is clear that that is not the only means by which that threat
can be posed against U.S. territory.
Senator Akaka. You have mentioned also that missile defense
is not a threat to China, rather, it is intended to defend
against a newly emerging ballistic missile threat resulting
from proliferation, and also against unauthorized launches.
Could you please clarify the statement, and what you mean by
that, and what is the administration's point of view of any
threat posed by China. Are you concerned about Chinese military
modernization, and if so, what type of threat do you see it
posing to us, and what should our response be?
Mr. Feith. Senator, I am not sure that I heard the whole
beginning of your question. As far as the issue of Chinese
military modernization, this is a serious issue, a serious
challenge for the United States. The Chinese have had a
military modernization program underway for years, an important
element of which is modernization of their offensive nuclear
forces. This is something that is of concern.
I think President Bush captured well the complexity of our
national security view of China when he said, we have different
values, yet common interests in the world. We agree on the
importance of trade. We want the citizens of both countries to
enjoy the benefits of peace, so we need to work together on
global security problems such as preventing the spread of
weapons of mass destruction. He said, I will always stand
squarely for American interests and American values, and those
will no doubt sometimes cause disagreements with China, yet I
will approach our differences in a spirit of respect.
I support the President's views on our relationship with
China, and I think that the Defense Department has an important
responsibility in protecting U.S. interests in Asia, helping to
deter and defend against threats, including the threats that
derive from the Chinese military modernization program that you
have referred to.
Our challenge is to help shape a security environment in
which stability in Asia can be maintained as China continues to
emerge as a power in the region. That emergence is fairly
inevitable, and we have to accommodate, we have to modify and
continually review our response to it--there is no way to
prevent China from getting bigger and stronger--but we have to
do so in such a way that we can preserve our interests and
those of our friends and allies in the area.
Senator Akaka. Part of my question was whether our missile
defense, whether it is a threat to China, and ask that you
clarify the statement. With all that has been said about our
missile defense, I was concerned about whether it really makes
a difference, and why our missile defense is not a threat to
China.
Mr. Feith. Senator, the President has stated that the
purpose of our creating missile defenses against a limited
threat, and he emphasized the word limited, is to address the
problem of the proliferation of missile capabilities to rogue
countries, and to deal with the problem of unauthorized or
accidental launches. The missile defense concept that the
President has been propounding is not directed, he has said,
against Russia or China.
Senator Akaka. Let me ask you this, could you tell me which
arms control treaties you support which cannot be completely
verified?
Mr. Feith. Senator, I personally do not use the term
completely verified. It is just not the way I have analyzed
arms control agreements. I think that there are issues of
verification that fit into the broader assessment, net
assessment of arms control agreements that one does in
evaluating whether they are a net plus from the point of view
of U.S. national security policy. There are agreements where
the verification regime--or there are proposals, sometimes, for
agreements where the verification regime would not allow the
United States, for example, to detect even militarily
significant violations of the agreement. If that were the case,
I would say that is highly problematic, and I would tend to
oppose an agreement of that kind.
If you ask, what arms control agreements I support, there
are various arms control agreements. I mentioned that the INF
Treaty, the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty, is an agreement
that I support, START I, START II. I think that the approach to
chemical weapons arms control embodied in the Geneva protocol,
which bans the use of chemical weapons, is a sensible, useful,
good approach.
If you ask, are all of those agreements absolutely
verifiable, the answer is, there may be violations to a greater
or lesser degree of some of them or of aspects of them where we
would not know for sure that they have occurred, but that does
not mean that they are not of net benefit to the United States.
I think we need to evaluate the issue of verification when
we look at arms control agreements, and I know that this is
something that the Senate does, and does with great
seriousness, and it is an important function of the Senate in
the treaty-making process.
Those issues of verification have to be evaluated as an
element of the overall assessment of what the treaty sets out
to accomplish.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator, very much. Gentlemen,
I am sorry I had to leave, but I am delighted to come back and
conclude these matters here with you this morning.
I would like to go back to the ABM Treaty. I was not
present during all of the colloquy, but I would like to give
you my own views. I have had some familiarity with this treaty
for many years. I was in the Department of Defense as Secretary
of the Navy at the time the work-up documents were made,
preparatory to the meeting in May in Moscow when President
Nixon and President Brezhnev executed that treaty. I happened
to have had the privilege of being in Moscow at that time.
I was there for the Incidents at Sea Agreement, an integral
part of the group that worked on it, and I have been supportive
of the ABM concept, but I think our President, President Bush,
has very correctly, very properly enunciated his goals with
regard to the limited threat that faces this Nation from the
rogue missile or the accidental or unintentional firing.
Now, people tend to say, oh, well, it could never happen,
but regrettably the world has watched two tragic events where
the most highly skilled officers were in charge of two
submarines. One, the first, the loss of the Russian submarine
with all hands, apparently because of some accidental situation
occurring aboard that vessel, full details of which we do not
have, but we know enough that it was clearly an accident. We
have reason to believe that that vessel did have nuclear
weapons aboard, but we saw an accident happen.
We saw a second accident happen with a submarine of our
own, commanded by what we had every reason to believe was a
highly skilled naval officer, but an accident happened.
So anyone who says that accidents cannot happen, I point to
these two incidents to show that they can happen, and therefore
I think our President is absolutely right in taking the
initiative to prepare this country to do whatever we can to
destroy an incoming missile, whether it be from a rogue nation
or an accident.
Now, in that context, I draw your attention to the National
Missile Defense Act of 1999, adopted here in the Senate and the
House, now the law of the land signed by the President. My
first question to you is, as I look at the actions taken by
President Bush, I see of intention, in any way, other than to
follow that law. Do you agree with that, Mr. Feith?
Mr. Feith. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Thank you. Anyone else at the table, Mr.
Rodman?
Mr. Rodman. I certainly agree.
Chairman Warner. I would like to go back to the treaty
itself. It is clear to this Senator that the President has
every right to, within the current framework of the treaty, to
initiate research and development programs on systems that
previous presidents for whatever reason decided not to
initiate. Do we agree on that?
Mr. Feith. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. That if the research and development is
permitted, it would give this Nation some better understanding
on the feasibility or nonfeasibility of different types of
approaches to the defense against ballistic missiles, do you
agree with that?
Mr. Feith. Yes. That is my understanding, too, Senator.
Chairman Warner. It is my hope that the President, under
his leadership, with the current President of Russia, can work
out some framework, as President Bush said, either by way of
amendments, or a new framework by which to take further steps
beyond the research and development phase on new systems. Am I
not correct in that?
Mr. Feith. Yes. I know, Mr. Chairman, that there is a great
interest in exploring cooperative arrangements with the
Russians.
Chairman Warner. I think he has made progress in sending
the teams forth throughout the world on this issue, and that
you see a better understanding of other nations, not just of to
the threat to the United States, but indeed the threat to
Russia. Russia is within a perimeter of firings from other
nations that gives them almost a greater vulnerability than the
United States to some systems.
So I am hopeful that eventually this can be worked out,
that a new framework can be established so that the research
and development on certain new concepts can be carried into the
testing and, if necessary, into the deployment phase, so I
think we have a clear understanding on that.
Now, Mr. Rodman, on the question of NATO, I think NATO has
been the most extraordinary military pact in the history of
mankind, and we have to do everything we can to keep that pact
and to make it work as it has these many years to deter
aggression and, if necessary, then to combat aggression. It
deterred for some half-century. Then, of course, when the
aggression occurred in the Balkans, it was employed, 19
nations, to successfully bring about the fighting in that
conflict.
But I tell you, whether you know it or not, I opposed the
enlargement of NATO in years past, and I intend to, not
arbitrarily, look very carefully at any future proposals to
enlarge NATO. I feel that we have to make what is in place
work, and to work, and work better, before we proceed to
further enlarge it.
I think all the Nations have to be given an opportunity to
properly fund their participatory obligations to NATO, and then
to train what they have in place, to integrate their forces so
that, indeed, they can be viewed as a strong initiative to
strengthen NATO.
I would be interested in your views on the subject of
further enlargement. That subject will be brought up next year.
Mr. Rodman. As you say, that is one of the important issues
on our agenda the next few years, and I was an advocate of
enlargement in the first go-around, and the President--I think
the executive branch and the Senate are only at the beginning,
I think, of the process, and I do not think the President has
made any decisions that I am aware of about exactly who we will
advocate.
Chairman Warner. I agree.
Mr. Rodman. I assume there will be consultation with
Congress, but I do want to say that I also want to defer to my
colleague, J. D. Crouch, because I think if my understanding is
that Secretary Rumsfeld may be rearranging some of the
responsibilities in the policy office, so that area, while I
have a strong interest in it, the NATO issues may move to the
Office of International Security Policy. I am happy to answer
questions that you have.
Chairman Warner. I just make really more of an observation,
and a personal one, that I think we have to make what is in
place work, and work very well, before we begin to add other
nations. That is my view.
Mr. Rodman. I hope the executive, and the President, and
the Senate, this committee, work closely as this policy
evolves.
Chairman Warner. All right. Mr. Feith, I hope that you
commit to the extent you can on behalf of the Secretary of
Defense to involve Congress, particularly those committees that
have an integral responsibility in the question of security
affairs, as we proceed with this NATO enlargement issue.
Dr. Crouch, your views.
Dr. Crouch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it is
essential that we work with this committee. I have to say that
I had left public life when the first NATO expansion occurred,
and I began a skeptic, but I have come to believe that this was
a wise choice.
Chairman Warner. You mean the past round of enlargement?
Dr. Crouch. Yes, the past round of enlargement, but I
mention that because I want you to know that I do not come to
this with a preset set of ideas about what we should or should
not do. I think that I would underscore one point, and that is
that NATO has been a very effective alliance, so that a
principal question for me beyond the general question of, is
this in the National security interests of the United States,
is will NATO retain its capacity for collective action? If
bringing states in weakens that capacity, I, myself, I think,
would not be supportive of that move, and I do not think the
Secretary or the President would as well.
Chairman Warner. Those are the correct criteria by which to
view this subject and, indeed, I approach it with an open mind.
Dr. Crouch. I hope to work closely with the committee on
that, if confirmed, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. I also believe that Russia has strong
feelings on this issue, and if I were to prioritize the issues
before this Nation at the present time, I would put the
reconciliation of the differing viewpoints on ABM as the top
priority. Perhaps the ABM Treaty, if it is worked properly,
which I am optimistic that the President can achieve, then we
can move on to other issues.
Would you care to comment, Mr. Feith, on the reallocation
of responsibilities?
Mr. Feith. Mr. Chairman, I think what Peter Rodman was
referring to is that I believe the Secretary's current thinking
is that the International Security Policy Office will have
responsibility as a geographical matter for Europe and Eurasia
more generally.
Chairman Warner. Would you undertake, and/or the Secretary,
to advise the Senate as quickly as you can if there is a
reallocation of responsibility?
Mr. Feith. Absolutely, as soon as the thinking
crystallizes.
Chairman Warner. Now, to the question of the Balkans, and
the policies of this administration with regard to the current
level of deployments and the future level of deployments. There
has been some publicity to the effect that maybe the views of
Secretary Rumsfeld could be at variance with the views of
Secretary Powell.
I think Secretary Powell has to look at it from the
standpoint, again, of NATO, first and foremost, and the
question of the relationships with the NATO countries. Let
there be no perception that we are less than a full partner in
NATO and its missions, and the fulfillment, and the conclusion
of those missions.
On the other hand, Secretary Rumsfeld is concerned that
much of the costs of that operation prior to the last fiscal
year were borne by the military services, which negatively
impacted on procurement and readiness and modernization.
Would you care to comment on what you perceive is the
current policy with regard to that withdrawal?
Mr. Feith. My understanding is that some of the remarks
that Secretary Rumsfeld has made about the issue of United
States deployment in the Balkans, in particular in the Bosnian
deployment and the Kosovo deployment, have given rise to some
misunderstandings. As I understand it, the Secretary values the
missions.
Chairman Warner. I would suggest you add a name to
``Secretary.'' We are talking about two now.
Mr. Feith. Secretary Rumsfeld. I think he and Secretary
Powell share an evaluation of the missions as important.
Secretary Rumsfeld has been, as I understand it, emphasizing
that the United States should configure its participation in
those missions in the best, most efficient fashion, and that
the missions have evolved over time.
For example, in Bosnia the initial mission was more
military. The current mission includes an important element of
civil implementation, and the Secretary has raised the question
of whether we are appropriately configured to do the mission as
it exists right now. This has been, I think, interpreted,
misinterpreted, as somehow devaluing the mission or wanting to
pull U.S. forces out unilaterally.
Secretary Rumsfeld has been, I think, emphatic on the point
that the United States went into the Bosnian mission as part of
the alliance, and is going to remain part of the alliance, and
as I think he put it, we went in together, and if we come out,
we are going to go out together, and has no desire to disrupt
the harmony of alliance work on that subject.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much.
Senator Bill Nelson.
Senator Bill Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is my
understanding, Mr. Feith, earlier in the testimony this morning
that you had stated that you agreed with the goal of the
Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), but you disagreed with
language in it. Could you share with us what is the language to
which you object?
Mr. Feith. Senator, I certainly do agree with the goal of
the Chemical Weapons Convention, and think that the world would
be much better off if chemical weapons were entirely abolished,
and nobody had them.
My concern about the convention itself was more than a
matter of language. It was the question of whether the approach
to chemical weapons arms control in that convention was a
sensible approach. My view was, there is a very good chemical
weapons treaty already in existence. It is the Geneva Protocol,
one of the most venerable of the arms control agreements, and
it bans the use of chemical weapons in war.
The principal problem of chemical weapons, the principal
problem of the chemical weapons threat, in my view, was that
that treaty had been on a number of occasions violated most
horrifically and recently by the Iraqis in their war with Iran.
The Iraqi Government of Saddam Hussein also used chemical
weapons against the Iraqi Kurdish citizens, and when that
occurred, the international community did nothing to enforce
the existing treaty.
Then that same international community that dropped the
ball, as it were, that failed to enforce the sensible,
verifiable ban on the use of chemical weapons produced a ban on
possession of chemical weapons, and by undertaking to ban
possession, it was taking on itself a detection and monitoring,
a verification job that just cannot be performed, and it was
quite clear that our intelligence lacks the capability to
detect even militarily significant violations of that
agreement, and that was one of my principal concerns.
So my view was, it would be much more constructive for the
goal that I think everybody in the debate supported, if we had
focused on putting teeth into the enforcement mechanisms for
the ban on the use of chemical weapons, rather than to pursue
the ban on possession. Having said that, I just want to add
that the Chemical Weapons Convention is now the law, and it is
the administration's job to enforce that and make it as
effective as possible, and if confirmed, that would be my
focus.
Senator Bill Nelson. Do I interpret correctly that what you
are saying is that the CWC, in your opinion, is superfluous,
given the fact of the Geneva Convention?
Mr. Feith. I think that rigorous enforcement of the Geneva
Convention would contribute much more to addressing dealing
with the threat of chemical weapons than the nonpossession ban
of the Chemical Weapons Convention.
Senator Bill Nelson. So in essence you are saying yes, that
it is superfluous. Do you think it is harmful?
Mr. Feith. The concern I had about some harm that I saw in
the Chemical Weapons Convention had to do in particular with
certain provisions that required the sharing of technologies
regarding defensive gear and defensive measures, and the
concern that I had is, there is an obligation in the treaty to
share chemical weapons defense technology, and there is a
danger there that a party that would enter into the convention
not in good faith could obtain by its party status access to
defense technology that could enhance the ability of that party
to use chemical weapons offensively, and that is a serious
problem.
I think a number of the problems with the Chemical Weapons
Convention that a number of us highlighted in the course of the
debate were addressed very seriously by the Senate and were, to
some extent, remedied in the ratification action, in the
ratification approval that the Senate took, and so I think that
was a constructive exercise.
Senator Bill Nelson. If confirmed, and you consider that
part of the CWC a danger, how would you then implement the CWC
as law?
Mr. Feith. We would have to implement it as carefully as we
can, fulfilling our treaty obligations but doing so in as
prudent a fashion as possible to minimize the dangers.
Senator Bill Nelson. Could you help me understand what you
mean by prudent?
Mr. Feith. All I can say at this point, Senator, is we
would have to keep the dangers in mind. One of the things that
comes to mind, for example, is, the Nuclear Nonproliferation
Treaty, a treaty that I think was also a net plus, and
contributed to the slowing down of the proliferation of nuclear
weapons capabilities, nevertheless had elements to it that have
been a problem.
For example, in the International Atomic Energy Agency
inspection regime that is part of the Nuclear Nonproliferation
Treaty, Iraq is a party to the Nonproliferation Treaty. After
the Gulf War, when the U.N. weapons inspectors talked to Iraqi
nuclear engineers, they learned that Iraqi nuclear engineers
participated in the International Atomic Energy Agency
inspection regime, and through that participation, learned how
better to conceal the Iraqi nuclear program and Senator, our
intelligence community was stunned at the effectiveness of the
Iraqi concealment program for their nuclear weapons program.
They were much farther along, we discovered after the war, than
our intelligence community thought at the time, and one of the
reasons they were so far along is, they had signed on to the
Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, participated in the IAEA
inspection regime and knew how to do it, how to conceal what
they were doing.
Now, that is an example of how a perfectly well-intentioned
apparatus can sometimes be put to bad use, and we need to
protect against problems of that kind.
Senator Bill Nelson. Indeed we do. Now, with regard to the
CWC, would you share with us what other efforts you think that
our country might take to protect ourselves from chemical
weapons developed and deployed? I would be interested in
hearing your ideas.
Mr. Feith. Senator, one that comes to mind right away is
ensuring that we have appropriate defense capabilities in the
chemical weapons area. Defense capabilities means things like
protective gear, detection and analysis capabilities, so that
if chemical weapons are used against our forces we can know
that they have been used and what the agent is, and also the
appropriate medical treatment for the different agents,
chemical weapons agents that we are likely to confront.
Chemical weapons are most effective against unprepared
forces, and to the extent that our forces are properly prepared
with defensive gear, and defensive technologies, it will
contribute to our deterrence.
Senator Bill Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much.
We are going to go into a second round now, and I am going
to remain.
Mr. Roberts.
Senator Roberts. Doug, in your response to the committee's
questions, you stated, another major challenge is dealing with
so-called emerging threats, the ability of hostile forces,
State and terrorist organizations to cause serious damage on
U.S. territory even though they cannot defeat our armed forces.
You said this field of emerging threats deserves the most
serious attention of defense policymakers. I could not agree
more.
Basically, I think, in assessing our vital national
security interests, we have had reports from the CSIS folks,
the Hart-Rudman Commission, the Gilmore Commission, the Bremmer
Commission, and the Rand Corporation, all of them indicating
that if not number 1, it is close to it. In regards to the
threat to the individual American citizen, homeland security
has now forged to the top.
I am Chairman of the Emerging Threats and Capabilities
Subcommittee, a newly formed subcommittee by the distinguished
chairman. We had a hearing here about 3 weeks ago with the
Appropriations Committee, the Armed Services Committee, and the
Intelligence Committee. We invited 46 Federal agencies to come
up here, and basically asked them, what is your mission, who is
in charge, what do you do? The FBI said we are in charge, FEMA
said they were in charge, and finally the sheriff of Arapaho
County said he was in charge, that he was a first responder.
Now, I understand you are going to have an Assistant
Secretary in charge of Special Operations, Low Intensity
Conflict, or an outfit called SOLIC. That is the acronym for
that DOD agency. Now, about a year ago we asked four people to
come up from the Department of Defense, and I asked them to
testify in order of who is in charge on terrorism, and none of
them knew which to go first. Now, we legislated, however, that
there should be an Assistant Secretary for Terrorism, if that
is the proper word, or homeland security, and you are going to
be in charge of that person, is that right?
Mr. Feith. The Assistant Secretary for SOLIC reports to the
Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, so if confirmed, the
Assistant Secretary would report to me.
Senator Roberts. If confirmed, if we get past all of the
articles and the editorials, et cetera, et cetera, but at any
rate, that person would report to you, is that correct?
Mr. Feith. Yes, sir.
Senator Roberts. OK. Now, some people feel that the DOD
made a mistake in not being in charge of homeland security.
That went to the Justice Department. Now we have FEMA being the
facilitator for the review by the Vice President on this. Do
you have any thoughts on DOD's role, and I am specifically
interested in the National Guard, the RAID teams that we have.
You are going to have people on the scene. You are going to
have--my gosh, you are going to have the RAID teams, special
units, Red Cross, FBI, FEMA, first responders. It is going to
be a real challenge. Any thoughts on DOD's role?
Mr. Feith. Senator, it is bureaucratically very complex. It
is conceptually very complex. To handle this problem within the
United States requires great sensitivity to the issues of civil
liberties and the appropriate role of the Defense Department in
supporting civil authorities within the country. It is a hard
problem, and the messiness, as it were, of the bureaucratic
structure I think reflects that.
Senator Roberts. Yes, but if an incident like this happens,
you know DOD will be called on.
Mr. Feith. Absolutely. When it comes to what is now called
in the bureaucracy ``consequence management,'' the Defense
Department has real expertise, and it knows about analyzing,
for example, chemical agents, or biological agents, it knows
about protective measures, it knows about decontamination.
Those are special talents that have been developed within DOD,
and therefore the Defense Department has an extremely important
role to play if there were a terrorist incident, a use of
weapons of mass destruction in the United States on U.S.
territory, but that role has to be fitted into a general
Government program. DOD is not the lead agency. DOD would be
supporting the civil authorities in that area, and working to
make sure--I have not mastered this very complex field, but I
am at least aware of one of the key challenges, which is
working to make sure that we have the bureaucratic structure in
place so that if a terrible event like this occurs, DOD can
most effectively bring its own capabilities to bear in support
of the civil authorities.
Senator Roberts. I appreciate that answer. I would just
like to say that I want to thank the chairman for his question
on NATO, and thank Dr. Crouch for indicating the number 1
concern is collective action. As we all know, we had the
situation with our allies now talking about something called
ESDP, or ESDI. I do not know about the third way, but the
French and Germans seem to have their own way. Very little
monetary investment in that.
Wes Clark just wrote a book about the 19 nations and our
Kosovo effort. It was like herding cats. Those are my words,
not his.
I want to just mention to you the strategic concept adopted
by NATO two summers ago, as opposed to collective defense, the
mission of NATO now and the United States I assume also
involved missions in Europe as to crime, drugs, environment,
ethnic violence and repression, peacekeeping.
I am worried about this. I am worried about our collective
action and our role in regards to NATO, and in regards to NATO
expansion more especially with the Balkan States. If we are
worried about the ABM Treaty and we expand NATO into the Baltic
States, you talk about a sharp stick in the Russian eye. That
is it, so I have a lot of hesitation. I understand all three of
you indicated school is still out in regards to NATO expansion.
Is that a proper definition?
Dr. Crouch. I do not know that we would put it exactly that
way, Senator, but I think yes, and I think the administration
at this point, from my understanding, has made no commitment
one way or another on this, but I think it is going to be an
issue that we are going to have to face in the next year, and
as I said, my personal views were that I have a very open mind
on the subject.
Senator Roberts. Peter, here is another chance.
Mr. Rodman. I think you are right, obviously no decision
has been made about who or which. Obviously, there have been
general expressions by the President that he is leaning
forward, and there will be a NATO enlargement. I think that may
be a fair characterization of some of his statements, but
certainly the alliance as a whole has to be consulted and the
Senate has to be consulted, so I would express it that as a
country we are at the beginning of considering exactly what is
going to happen.
Mr. Feith. I agree with what both of my colleagues have
said, Senator. The President has said that we support the open
door principle within NATO, but there are criteria for
admitting new members, and those criteria have to be met. There
has to be a scrupulous review of the circumstances to make sure
that the interests of the United States and the interest of the
alliance as a whole are satisfied in the decision about moving
forward. I share my colleagues' view that this is a very
serious, important, and difficult subject, and I also will
approach it with an open mind.
Senator Roberts. I thank the chair, and I thank my
distinguished colleague from Oklahoma.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Levin, we are now on a second round.
Senator Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Feith, my difference, and I think the difference a
number of us have with you relative to ABM does not relate to
the question of whether or not it would be wise to deploy a
missile defense system unilaterally and withdraw from the ABM
Treaty. That is a separate issue, an important issue. The
problem is, you do not think there is an ABM Treaty. You do not
think there is an INF Treaty. Our treaties, according to your
view, are lapsed. INF, you say, you support. There is no INF
Treaty under your view. You are in sharp difference with the
Bush administration's own view, which is that there is a treaty
in effect. They are seeking to modify that treaty. They have
offered amendments to Russia to modify a treaty that you say no
longer exists. INF you say you support. On the other hand,
under your theory, there is no INF Treaty.
The Incidents at Sea Treaty, which our good chairman, by
the way, Senator Warner, perhaps I could interrupt just for 1
second, who negotiated this treaty and signed this treaty,
there is no Incidents at Sea Treaty any more, I assume, under
your theory. It has lapsed.
All right, that one still is with us.
Mr. Feith. I believe so.
Senator Levin. OK. I know the chairman will be happy to
hear. We will ask you for the record what the difference is,
then, between the ABM Treaty, which you say no longer exists,
and Incidents at Sea Treaty, which you say does exist, but that
is for the record.
[The information referred to follows:]
Before answering this specific question, I would like to make a
general comment. I recognize that the position for which I have been
nominated--Under Secretary of Defense for Policy--is responsible for
policy, not legal judgments. The Administration will take positions on
legal questions based on the advice of officials functioning as
lawyers. The Under Secretary of Defense for Policy is not such an
official. Even though I am a lawyer, I know that, if confirmed as Under
Secretary, I would not be making legal judgments for the
administration.
Regarding in particular the legal memorandum I co-authored on
whether the ABM Treaty of 1972 became, upon the U.S.S.R.'s demise, a
treaty between the United States and the Russian Federation, I wish to
note that that work was an attempt to describe the law, not to advocate
what the law should be. As a practical matter, I think the controversy
over the treaty's legal status has been overtaken by events, for this
Administration has made clear that it is respecting the terms of the
ABM Treaty. President Bush has also stated that ``we must move beyond
the constraints of the 30 year old ABM Treaty,'' but he has made it
clear that he seeks to do so cooperatively with Russia.
As Senator Warner noted in the hearing, ``The Incidents at Sea was
an unusual concept, and it is an executive agreement. It does not have
a treaty status, but it has served both nations very, very well, and it
is continually adhered to, and periodically reviews by both nations are
undertaken.'' Based on legal research I did a few years ago, I
concluded that, as a matter of international law, all bilateral, non-
dispositive treaties and all other bilateral, non-dispositive
agreements between the United States and the U.S.S.R. automatically
lapsed upon the U.S.S.R.'s dissolution in December 1991. In my view,
nothing prevented or prevents the U.S. executive branch from deeming
Russia the substitute for the U.S.S.R. with regard to U.S.-U.S.S.R.
agreements that had come into force without Senate approval of
ratification. It is my understanding that the U.S. Government deems
such executive agreements as continuing with Russia as the substitute
party.
If confirmed, I will support U.S. Government policy regarding these
treaties and agreements, deferring on legal questions to the
administration's legal counsel.
Chairman Warner. Could I make one clarification? The ABM is
a treaty in the full context. The Incidents at Sea was an
unusual concept, and it is an executive agreement. It does not
have a treaty status, but it has served both nations very well,
and it is continuously adhered to, and periodical reviews by
both nations are undertaken.
Mr. Feith. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that comment.
Senator Levin. I am glad to hear that.
Chairman Warner. I think his fundamental question is still
in place, because I think the question applies to whether it is
a treaty or an executive agreement. It was an executive
agreement at that time with the Soviet Union.
Senator Levin. The INF Treaty clearly, then, is covered by
your policy. We can discuss the Incidents at Sea at a later
time, but you say you support INF. INF no longer exists under
your theory. It seems to me you are raising such great
uncertainty when you take that position, and it is in such
sharp contrast to what the Bush administration is trying to do,
which is to modify an ABM Treaty, to offer amendments to the
ABM Treaty, that there is just a very clear difference there.
But I want to go on. You indicate that you support the INF
Treaty. You wrote an article at the time that the INF Treaty
was before us, and this was President Reagan's Treaty. In fact,
President Reagan noted when he was looking back on his
presidency that perhaps the most dramatic achievement was when
he and Mr. Gorbachev signed INF, and yet your article in the
Christian Science Monitor sure does not sound to me like you
supported INF. I want to just read you just a couple of lines
from it.
``Despite the general ban on INF systems, various treaty
provisions could actually facilitate the creation or
maintenance of a covert Soviet force of SS-20s, the most
threatening of the Soviet missiles covered. While each such
provision may seem a minor problem in its own right, taken
together, they mean that the Soviets, even without violating
the specific terms of the treaty, could retain a militarily
significant INF capability.''
You said that the treaty had corrosive imprecision in that
article. You said the treaty's defects could only be corrected
with the Soviets' agreement, which they did not agree to. You
said that Senators Nunn and Byrd had extracted promises from
the Secretary of State. You said that the Senators--this is all
from this one article--you said the Senators evinced little
concern about the issue which you raised as to whether or not
the Soviets would agree to the interpretation.
There is nothing in that article that looks like you
supported the INF Treaty. The whole article just is full of
criticism of INF, again President Reagan's, one of his prime
achievements. How do you say that that article reflected
support from the INF? Would any reasonable reader get out of
that article that you were supportive of INF?
Mr. Feith. Senator, what I was focused on in that article
were a number of very complex provisions that were discussed at
some length in this article by article review that I referred
to before that was published by the American Enterprise
Institute. What I was focused on there were some provisions
that I thought were weaknesses in the agreement that could be
remedied, and I was highlighting them and suggesting that they
be remedied, and that the treaty would be a lot better if they
were remedied.
Senator Levin. Were they?
Mr. Feith. No.
Senator Levin. But you still supported the treaty.
Mr. Feith. I still supported the treaty, but the treaty I
do believe would have been better had they been remedied.
Senator Levin. But you still supported the treaty, you say.
In that article, is there any indication of that support?
Mr. Feith. No. That article did not deal with that. That
article dealt with a problem, the remedy of which I was
advocating.
Senator Levin. Well, but the rhetoric of this article--let
us just be fair, OK. Senator Nunn extracted--extracted--
promises from the Secretary of State. He and Senator Byrd and
Senator Pell evinced little concern as to whether or not the
Soviets agree to the interpretations which were offered to it.
The INF Treaty you said is corrosively imprecise. This is in
the article. This is what you published, to the public, OK.
Then you say that despite the ban, that they can retain a
militarily significant INF capability. That is what you tell
the public. Are you saying that does not clearly evince
opposition to the treaty? There is no indication there that you
support the treaty, even if these could be corrected. There is
surely nothing in here about supporting the treaty if they
cannot be corrected.
Now, just look at a fair reader and tell me if anybody
reading that article would think you supported the INF Treaty.
I would just like to ask you that question. Would any fair
reading of that article lead to the conclusion that you support
the INF Treaty? That is my question.
Mr. Feith. I believe a fair reader would recognize I did
not do a net assessment of the treaty in that short article. I
was addressing myself to a specific problem, and suggesting a
remedy.
On the point about corrosively imprecise, I would like to
say that it has been a theme of much of what I have written on
the subject of arms control that we should be as respectful of
the law-making process through arms control treaties as we
generally are of the law-making process in a country like ours
that takes law seriously, and frequently for diplomatic reasons
we allow imprecision to remain in a treaty and it is corrosive.
Imprecision in these treaties, time after time, gives rise
to bitter recriminations about compliance disputes, and there
is nothing more corrosive of the whole process and the whole
concept of international law than entering into agreements
where we know in advance we are purchasing for ourselves
compliance and enforcement disputes.
Senator Levin. That is the Reagan INF Treaty we are talking
about, is that right? Just as long as we are talking about the
same treaty.
Mr. Feith. I am making a point that applies across the
board to treaties in general.
Senator Levin. Your article was referring to the Reagan INF
Treaty, right?
Mr. Feith. I said----
Senator Levin. Is that correct?
Mr. Feith. Yes.
Senator Levin. Thank you. My time is up. I want to just
conclude with one thing, unless we want to just take more time
on this round.
Chairman Warner. Go ahead, Senator, if you wish to take
another question.
Senator Levin. Where did you evince your support of the INF
at the time?
Mr. Feith. I did not. I was not invited to testify. It was
not an area of my responsibility when I was in the Pentagon. I
was not a major voice on the subject.
Senator Levin. But you say that you did support it at the
time.
Mr. Feith. Yes, but I was not a major participant.
Senator Levin. I understand that, but I just want to be
real clear. It is not just that you support it now, but at that
time you supported it.
Mr. Feith. Yes, sir.
Senator Levin. Would you just furnish to the committee, if
you will, a copy of--because we have not been able to get it--
the analysis which you made for the American Enterprise
Institute?
Mr. Feith. Oh, sure.
Senator Levin. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
[The information referred to follows:]
Douglas J. Feith,
June 7, 2001.
Hon. Carl Levin, Chairman,
Senate Armed Services Committee,
Senate Russell Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for the serious consideration and
courtesy you have extended to me in the confirmation process despite
our different points of view on certain matters. It was an honor for me
on Tuesday to discuss such significant issues with you at such length
in so important a forum.
Enclosed, as you requested, is a copy of (1) the February 3, 1988
``Article-by-Article Review of the INF Treaty'' and (2) the May 18,
1988 ``Further Review of the INF Treaty: Seven Key Issues'' by the
American Enterprise Institute (``AEI'') Working Group on the INF
Treaty, of which I was a member. In his introduction to the former
paper, AEI's president, Christopher DeMuth, states:
``The purpose of the working group's analysis is not to support
or oppose ratification of the INF Treaty; indeed the group
includes individuals on both sides of the ultimate issue before
the Senate.''
As you may know, Richard Perle, also a member of the AEI Working
Group, testified before Congress in favor of the INF Treaty.
Reflecting on my confirmation hearing exchanges with you regarding
the INF Treaty, I would like to clarify a point regarding my having
supported the INF Treaty when it was under Senate consideration. I
supported the treaty in that, on balance, I favored approval of
ratification. My role in the ratification debate was limited, however.
I do not recall testifying before Congress, appearing on any television
or radio shows or publishing work about the INF Treaty other than the
AEI Working Group reviews and the single April 6, 1988 Christian
Science Monitor op-ed piece, co-authored by me, that you cited.
The Monitor op-ed urged the Senate to clarify with the
administration certain INF Treaty language issues and to ensure a
meeting of the minds on those issues between the U.S. and Soviet
governments. As I mentioned in the confirmation hearings, treaty
ambiguities gave rise during the Cold War to many bitter U.S.-Soviet
exchanges that strained relations and eroded respect for arms control
and international law. Believing that efforts to craft precise language
should be as serious in the field of international law as they are in
the field of ordinary U.S. domestic law, we wrote in our op-ed:
``Fortunately, the Senate can yet ensure that the INF Treaty is free of
corrosive imprecision.'' The op-ed concludes:
``[Correction of the specified defects]--by and large--would
entail nothing more than conforming the details of the treaty
to the already accepted general obligations. This should make
it a worthy and eminently doable task.'' (Emphasis in original)
I am sending a similar letter also to Senator Warner.
With best wishes, I remain
Yours truly,
Douglas J. Feith.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Warner. Thank you.
Senator Inhofe.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We have a lot of areas that we have not gotten into yet,
and we have discussed quite a bit about contingency operations,
about what shall we do now in Bosnia and Kosovo, but I would
like to talk a little bit about a policy that we would
formulate for something like this coming up in the future.
I can remember so well our resolution of disapproval back
in 1995, of getting into Bosnia, and we lost it by 3 votes, and
it was only because the President gave a guarantee. I remember
hearing him say it, that we would be there only 12 months, and
all the kids would be home for Christmas in December 1996. Of
course, we are still there, and I think most of us knew they
still would be there. It is easy to get in. It is hard to get
out.
I think moving to Kosovo, it was purely a humanitarian
motivation to send our people in there. I was over there during
this time because I knew that that was going to happen, and I
was trying to build a case to keep us from doing that.
I can remember a very prominent TV person was filming the
burning of a mosque. It was the only mosque that was burned, it
is my understanding, during that time, but from every possible
angle. When he got back home you assumed every mosque was
burning down, which we know what happened to 52 Serbian
Orthodox Christian churches after this thing, after we got
involved in it.
I guess my point is, as a policy--it sounds kind of
hardened to say this. It is not that we are not all very
sensitive to humanitarian problems, to genocide, to ethnic
cleansing, but we are in a position where--at least I am, as
Chairman of the Readiness and Management Support Subcommittee,
in recognizing that we at that time are one-half the force
strength that we were during the Persian Gulf War, and that
means one-half the Army divisions, one-half the tactical air
wings, one-half the ships floating around out there, and yet
with the greater threat than immediately following the Persian
Gulf War, and I think everyone agrees to that.
Things are volatile in the Middle East, volatile in Korea,
and to use our limited military assets in areas like Kosovo and
Bosnia and some of the other areas is wrong as policy, because
now we see we can get in, we cannot get out.
I am involved in something that I guess some people refer
to as mission work in West Africa. I am talking about Cote
D'Ivoire, Benin, Nigeria, Togo, Gabon, both Congo, Kinshasa and
Congo Brazziville, and yet during the time that we were making
that decision to go into Kosovo, for every one incident of
ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, there are probably 100 on any given
day in West Africa.
I would like to hear--you may want to answer this for the
record, but any thoughts that you have on what our policy
should be, particularly during this time that we have not
rebuilt our defense system, and particularly at this time with
the threat that we are faced with out there that has been
characterized by people like George Tenet, Director of the CIA,
as being the most threatened position we have been in as a
Nation, what our policy should be regarding involvement in the
future in using humanitarian justifications for that
involvement. Just each one of you, any comments you want to
make?
Mr. Rodman. Let me start, Senator. You have asked a good
question, really, because I think all of us, the President,
many people in Congress, are uncomfortable with the way we seem
to get drawn into things, but many people who have attempted to
draw up a list of criteria, as if a checklist would tell us in
any given case whether it is a place to go in or a place to
stay out, and I am not sure----
Senator Inhofe. Well, I might interrupt you at this point
and say that Senator Roberts did develop one, put it into the
statutes, and they were not followed anyway, so maybe that is
not too important.
Mr. Rodman. Well, it is very relevant. I remember, I read
over Secretary Rumsfeld's confirmation hearing, and he had a
discussion with Senator Roberts about some of the criteria that
Senator Roberts had listed. For example, I do not think there
is any way you can guarantee public support for an enterprise,
and what Secretary Rumsfeld said was, we saw in the Gulf War
that a President can help to shape public support if he
educates the public that in a particular case there is a vital
interest involved, and I think President Lyndon Johnson found
out that you can start with public support and squander it, so
I do not think there is a checklist.
Another point that Secretary Rumsfeld mentioned was, of
course, as a general principle, if we go into something we
should go in overwhelmingly and decisively, and that is a good
principle, but the Secretary mentioned, well, there is always a
case of a pre-crisis situation when maybe an application of a
smaller amount of force can head off a major crisis, so the
variety of cases that we are going to be confronted with, there
is no way to have a procedure that is going to answer all the
questions.
I think we have to pray as Americans that if another case
comes along, that the President and Congress and the public
will have an intelligent debate and give voice to all of these
considerations, and not be driven by media pressure, and to
look at it and cold--well, I will not say cold-bloodedly, but
analytically, and understand what the costs would be to our
readiness, because I think when a case comes along it is going
to have its own unique features, and we have to have the
discipline as a country to look at the situation carefully,
consult among the two branches of Government to make sure there
is some national unity on this.
I think the mood I sense is that as a country we are
uncomfortable with how far we have been drawn into things, and
that this is a time when I think the country is ready for some
restraint, and to show some restraint, and to hope that other
countries can be brought in, that we can share responsibility.
You mentioned Africa. I think one interesting thing that
both his administration and the previous administration did was
with Nigeria, to help train Nigeria to take a greater
responsibility for peacekeeping in West Africa, so we have to
engage other countries. Maybe that is one principle that we can
count on, that we should always look in the first instance to
see if others can do it, and maybe we can help them, backstop
them.
Those are my thoughts on this, but it is a question that
will not go away.
Senator Inhofe. Any other thoughts on this?
I always keep in mind that if you are looking at the public
to see how that barometer is going out there, they are assuming
some things that are not true. For example, during that time
that those decisions were made in both Bosnia and Kosovo, the
general public probably, in fact definitely, according to
polling data, did not know the crisis that we were in, in terms
of what happened to our military.
They thought, well, our cup runneth over, we have
everything we need, let us take care of these poor people out
there, without any knowledge of other places in the world that
this is going on.
So we are dealing with a policy, and I think it needs to be
specific, and any comments you want to make now, and then maybe
elaborate a little bit more for the record, because it is going
to happen again.
Mr. Rodman. No, I will provide some further thoughts,
Senator, if you like, definitely.
[The information referred to follows:]
Humanitarian Intervention
What should our policy be with respect to humanitarian
intervention?
The United States should be selective in its international military
interventions, especially where there is a danger of combat. As
President Bush said at The Citadel on September 23, 1999, ``If America
is committed everywhere, our commitments are everywhere suspect.'' My
personal view is that U.S. combat troops should generally be reserved
for the most significant strategic challenges to the international
order.
At the same time, the United States will not be able to, nor should
it, remain indifferent to significant humanitarian crises. But in these
cases, we should seek as a first resort to help develop mechanisms
whereby other nations can work together and take the leading
responsibility. East Timor and West Africa are examples. The United
States may be willing to provide assistance but others should take the
lead wherever possible.
Senator Inhofe. I will wait till the next round. My time
has expired.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much. The chair wishes to
observe the hearing has been in progress now for 2\1/2\ hours.
We have present a number of wonderful children who have joined
us. It may be in the interest of all if we took about a 3- to
4-minute break so that maybe the children could say goodbye,
daddy, you are on your own. [Laughter.]
Whatever the case may be with your families, and then we
will resume, so let us just take 3 or 4 minutes.
Senator Roberts. We appreciate the break for additional
reasons, Mr. Chairman. [Laughter.]
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much. I hope the Senator
from Georgia would understand. [Recess.]
Thank you. We will resume the hearing, and the chair
recognizes the Senator from Georgia.
Senator Cleland. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I just
want to echo the thoughts of the distinguished Senator from
Oklahoma, Senator Inhofe, about the ease in which a major power
can get drawn into conflicts abroad.
Mr. Chairman, you like quotes, and there are a couple of
quotes I have on that point. Napoleon once said that wars are
easy to get into and hard to get out of, and second, Wellington
once said that no great nation can have a little war, so there
is no such thing as a little engagement for the United States.
I will say, Mr. Feith, you mentioned that the President's
national missile defense program was not aimed at Russia and
China. Who is it aimed at?
Mr. Feith. Senator, the President has said that the purpose
of the missile defense program will be to deal with the missile
threat from rogue states, and the threat from accidental or
unauthorized launches.
Senator Cleland. Let me get into this now. I mean, it is
pretty obvious that the rogue state might be a North Korea. I
want to get into the whole North Korea issue, Dr. Crouch.
In 1995, you wrote in the Journal of Comparative Strategy,
the Bush administration--this is President Bush, Sr.--the Bush
administration's decision to withdraw tactical nuclear weapons
from South Korea was a major geopolitical mistake. Do you
believe that now?
Dr. Crouch. I believe that at the time, Senator, that the
United States had nuclear weapons on the South Korean peninsula
for many decades. My sense was that at a time when the North
Koreans were developing their own nuclear capability, that it
was not prudent, it was not wise for the United States to
withdraw in effect its tactical nuclear systems that were
deployed there, because I believed those represented the best,
most effective deterrent to the use, not only of a potential
North Korean nuclear weapon, but also the use of at the time
North Korea's overwhelming conventional capability.
Senator Cleland. Let us just look at it. I mean, it is no
secret that we ring the Korean peninsula with substantial sea
forces, both submarine forces and other forces, and that we
pose a powerful deterrent to any action that the North Koreans
might pursue.
But let me ask you again, do you believe the Bush
administration's decision to withdraw tactical nuclear weapons
from South Korea was a major geopolitical mistake, and do you
believe that now?
Dr. Crouch. As I said earlier, at the time, I stand by my
statement, I believed it was. Today, I believe the
circumstances have changed dramatically. I mentioned a few of
those changes. One, I would say, that I think is very
important, in addition to the lessening of tensions between the
North and the South, is the fact that the South Korean military
is in a much better position to withstand an attack from North
Korea. That is to say, the conventional disparity that existed
10 years ago is not the same as it is today, so today I do not
believe it is critical to reintroduce tactical nuclear weapons
in South Korea.
Senator Cleland. Your article was written 6 years ago, not
10 years ago, and in that same article just 6 years ago you
recommended the U.S. redeploy nuclear weapons to South Korea to
demonstrate our nuclear commitment to a U.S. ally and maintain
the means at hand to respond to the North Korean nuclear
attack. Do you think we ought to introduce tactical nuclear
weapons in South Korea now?
Dr. Crouch. When I said 10 years ago, Senator, I was
referring to the approximate time frame when they were
withdrawn, not the time of the article.
As I said, I believe--if you go back to 1994, the situation
then was very different than it is now. It was the end of the
Kim Il Sung regime, tensions were high between the North and
the South we had discovered, the Clinton administration had
discovered a major nuclear program, and were very concerned
about that program, and I believed that in light of those
discoveries, at the time, yes, it was a geopolitical mistake.
I believe the circumstances have changed today, and
consequently, today I would not be arguing for the
reintroduction of tactical nuclear weapons into South Korea.
Senator Cleland. In 1995 you also recommended the United
States, quote, set a firm deadline for the destruction of North
Korea's nuclear complex and its long-range missile production
facilities, absent positive visible steps from the North Korean
regime towards this end, authorize the destruction of as much
of this complex as possible by U.S. and allied air power.
Do you think we ought to do that today?
Dr. Crouch. Senator, I think again circumstances have
changed, so the answer would be no.
Senator Cleland. Were you ever in the American military?
Dr. Crouch. No, sir.
Senator Cleland. In 1993, you criticized Senators Hatfield,
Mitchell, and Exon for their amendment to the Energy and Water
Appropriations bill that led to a moratorium on nuclear testing
in the United States, saying those who supported a ban on
nuclear testing--this is 1993 now--were using, quote, Luddite
logic, end of quote.
Now, President Bush has indicated during his campaign that
he supported the current U.S. moratorium on nuclear testing. Is
he a Luddite? Is he using Luddite logic?
Dr. Crouch. No, sir. My concern about nuclear testing that
was evinced in that article is simply that nuclear weapons are
the most awesome explosive power that man has yet invented, and
hopefully we will not invent one that is more awesome, or more
explosive, but that we continue to rely on nuclear weapons, and
I believe this position was reaffirmed by President Clinton. We
continue to rely on nuclear weapons as a primary deterrent of
aggression, deterrent to the use of nuclear weapons against the
United States, as well as against our allies, as well as the
use of conventional weapons against the United States and our
Armed Forces.
My view was that we needed to know, and continue to know,
as much as we can about those weapons, and what, in fact, a ban
on nuclear testing was, was a ban on knowledge about this very
awesome capability, so my argument really was that nuclear
testing per se, as long as we are going to continue to rely on
nuclear weapons, was an important part of understanding and
enhancing the safety and reliability of that force.
Senator Cleland. Do you support the Comprehensive Nuclear
Test Ban Treaty?
Dr. Crouch. No, sir.
Senator Cleland. You also refer to economic sanctions as,
quote, that great panacea of western inaction. We have economic
sanctions on Cuba, Iraq, Iran, and Libya. Do you think we ought
to lift those sanctions? Do you think that is the great panacea
of western inaction?
Dr. Crouch. When I use the term panacea in that context--
the direct answer to your question is no, I do not believe we
ought to. What I think I was pointing out is that sometimes
democracies have a tendency to use sanctions, and to have a
belief in sanctions as the only possible response to things.
I believe that sanctions have an important role. They can
send many signals. They may, in fact, be sending a moral signal
about a particular issue. They may in certain particular cases
be able to be applied and be effective, and so I support that
use of it, but I think sometimes, in some cases, sanctions are
utilized when we simply cannot figure out what else we want to
do.
Senator Cleland. Well, Dr. Crouch and Mr. Feith, your
answers have been very troubling to me, and I want you to know
that, and it is going to be an agonizing thing to go over your
testimony. There are numerous questions I have which I will not
ask now, my time is up, but I would like the opportunity to
submit some questions to you in writing.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. I thank my good friend and colleague from
Georgia. I do wish to say the following. You have referred to
these nominees, which is your right, with regard to their
previous military experience, or the absence of that. They have
responded.
I wish to note that in the 23 years that I have been
privileged to be in Congress I have seen a steady decline
within the ranks of our Congress of those who have had military
service, and I think the nominees coming before the Senate
today, whatever their positions are, reflect, again, the
generational changes.
You and I are of a different generation. Your service is
extraordinary. Mine was very modest to the country, two
opportunities, but I do not know the details of these
gentlemen, but I just observe it seems to me their demographic
backgrounds parallel in many respects the decline in Congress
of the United States.
On the question of testing, I followed that very carefully,
those important questions by my colleague from Georgia, but I
have grave concerns about the future of the stockpile
stewardship program into which we are plowing billions of
dollars in the hopes that generations of computers can at some
point in time give us the same reassurance that you mentioned.
Most importantly, Dr. Crouch, that it is the safety and
reliability of our stockpile, 1) to the people who must deal
with the weapons every day in one fashion or another, 2) to the
environs in our country and elsewhere in the world where there
are other persons in the proximity of the storing or otherwise
deployment of these weapons, and 3) the credibility of the
doctrine of deterrence on which these weapons are the very
foundation, and that comes to the heart of stockpile
stewardship and testing and credibility, so I must say, I think
your responses are consistent with the views held by the chair.
Also, with reference to the ABM Treaty, I think it is a
very important issue. We have covered it thoroughly. I
mentioned some modest association I had back in 1972. I was not
a principal, but I was in a position to observe how this thing
evolved within the Department of Defense over the 2 years,
roughly, 1969 to 1972, when I was there, the importance of this
treaty to the overall stability between the Nations. I think
our President is pursuing this issue in the right way, and I
wish to read his comments into the record on this.
President Bush said, and I quote him, ``we need a new
framework that allows us to build our missile defenses to
counter the different threats of today's world. To do so, we
must move beyond the constraints of the 30-year-old ABM Treaty.
This treaty does not recognize the present or point to the
future. It enshrines the past. No treaty that prevents us from
addressing today's threats and prohibits us from pursuing
promising technology to defend ourselves, our friends, and our
allies, is in our interests, or the interests of world peace.''
I agree with every word of that, and I commend our
President for his initiatives in this area, and I intend to
strongly support him.
Let us return to this issue of the NATO expansion. I just
wish to make one further observation. My concern, Dr. Crouch,
is with the Baltics, and I really believe that before we give
serious attention to their admission we had better have behind
us a resolution of the ABM issues. I just make that observation
for the record.
The general subject of civilian oversight of the military
and most particularly the engagement of policy, this committee
looked into and continues to look at aspects of the U.S.S.
Cole, and we had as our first witness a man in whom I repose
great confidence and respect for his judgment, General Zinni.
He fully accepted his role of accountability for selecting that
port, or accepting a recommendation within the administration
for the use of that port for a refueling mission.
Now, hindsight tells us a lot of things we could have done
and perhaps should have done, but the point is, I think, Mr.
Feith, we want to make certain that the missions of our
forward-deployed forces receive the constant scrutiny and
oversight by the civilian side of the Department of Defense.
We do not want to micro-manage, of course, what the CINCs
are doing. We chose them carefully, put them in those positions
because of the capability we repose in them to handle those
responsibilities, but I just think this record should reflect
your own views on the necessity for constant civilian oversight
and monitoring with respect to our forward-deployed missions
and forces.
Dr. Crouch. Mr. Chairman, the strength of civilian
oversight of the military is, I think, an important part,
attributable to the work that this committee has done, and the
Goldwater-Nichols legislation has made the point in principle,
and has created the means by which there could be more
effective civilian control of the military. This is the point
that I know I, and I believe my colleagues also have taken to
heart, and we can assure you that this is a part of our
responsibility that will be at the fore of our minds, if we are
confirmed for these positions.
Chairman Warner. I thank you on that. I think it is
important that our record today take note of the very serious
developments with regard to the security of the State of
Israel. I think that I would like to ask each of you to give
your views as to what this country should do, and are we doing
that in your judgment at this time to hopefully bring about a
cessation of the hostilities and to foster such formal
agreements as really those two nations can evolve in the
future?
Mr. Feith.
Mr. Feith. Mr. Chairman, I agree that we have an important
relationship with Israel that is based on our shared culture, a
common commitment to democracy, and shared strategic interests.
President Bush referred to the U.S. commitment to Israel as
rock-solid, and Congress has been for decades an important and
effective champion of close U.S.-Israeli strategic and
political ties.
I share your concern about the current situation, which is
really dreadful. I think that President Bush and Secretary of
State Powell have played a delicate and intelligent role in
stressing that any hope for fruitful diplomacy hinges on a
cessation of the violence. I believe this morning's newspapers
highlighted the very sharp message that this administration is
sending to the Palestinian authority to bring the violence to
an end.
I think that President Bush and the entire administration
is handling this difficult matter as well as one can under the
very unfavorable current circumstances.
Chairman Warner. Mr. Rodman.
Mr. Rodman. I want to second what Doug said about the
American commitment to Israel. The Department of Defense, of
course, has a significant role to play in giving content to
that support.
As for the diplomacy, it is clearly the State Department,
Secretary Powell, that takes the lead under the guidance of the
President. They are putting the emphasis correctly on an end to
the violence. If I should be confirmed, and if I have any role
to play in ISA in support of administration policy, it would be
definitely in support of what the State Department is pursuing.
I hope I can contribute to some coherent American strategy for
strengthening peace, promoting some diplomatic progress.
Chairman Warner. Dr. Crouch.
Dr. Crouch. Senator, this is not an area that will be in my
area of responsibility, but I think it is so important that you
should have my views on it. I think it is extremely important
that the United States continue to support Israel.
I have held that view for a very long time, and I think
that we really need to maintain that support for a whole host
of reasons, but the ones that are based in our national
interests, but at the same time I think it is important to
recognize the importance of Israel as a democracy, a
functioning, vital democracy in the Middle East, in a place
where democracy is not flourishing in many respects.
So I commend the President. I think he has struck the right
balance. I think calling for an end to the violence is exactly
the beginning, but it of course is just the beginning of coming
to some sort of genuine resolution to the conflict. Like I
said, I am not going to be involved in these issues very much
directly, but I certainly would echo the views of both of my
colleagues.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much.
Senator Levin.
Senator Levin. Mr. Chairman, thank you. On the chemical
weapons issue, Mr. Feith, you wrote the following about the
Chemical Weapons Convention.
You said it would cheapen the currency of international
law, that it was junk arms control, that President Bush,
obviously, you argued made a mistake in negotiating it. You
also stated in another article that it was modeled after a
concept in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty which aims to
reward States that renounce chemical weapons by providing them
with chemical technology and material for, quote, peaceful
purposes, close quote. Then you referred to those provisions as
the poisons for peace provisions, and you said that the
provisions would require the sale to Iran of an advanced
chemical plant.
Given your strong rhetoric against that convention, which
had been negotiated by President Bush, do you believe we ought
to withdraw from it? You have indicated, well, it is law, it is
done, but there is a withdrawal clause, and you obviously
disagreed with President Bush when you attacked that treaty,
called it junk arms control, called it cheapened the currency
of international law. Should we withdraw from it under its
withdrawal provision?
Mr. Feith. Senator, I do not advocate withdrawing from the
agreement. The point about cheapening the currency, though, I
would like to say a word about, and that is, I really do value
and take seriously international law, and that is the reason--
the fact that I respect international law and think that we as
a country have to respect it, and that I take diplomacy and
treaties seriously, is what gives rise to the comment that we,
if we make agreements that we cannot enforce, and that we have
good reason to believe are going to be violated and are going
to be open to countries that enter them cynically and in bad
faith, the overall consequence of that over time is to cheapen
the currency that we should really be preserving the value of.
It is out of respect for the idea of diplomacy and
agreements that we enter into that I am unhappy when I see that
we are entering into an agreement that I know is going to bring
the whole field of international law into problems.
Senator Levin. But specifically you did say, did you not,
that the Chemical Weapons Convention will cheapen the currency
of international law? As applied to that treaty, which had been
negotiated by President Bush, you said that convention will
cheapen the currency of international law, and was junk arms
control. I am just asking you, is that accurate?
Mr. Feith. Yes, that is accurate.
Senator Levin. But you still think we ought to not pull
out?
Mr. Feith. As I said, Senator, the ratification process
ameliorated some of the problems with the convention, and also
the set of considerations that would go into pulling out of a
treaty once one is in it are somewhat different from the set of
considerations that govern the decision whether to enter into
it in the first instance.
Senator Levin. Chairman Warner asked each of you about the
position towards Israel. I want to ask you a slightly different
question. I agree, by the way, with your answers, but this
question is a little bit different.
Mr. Feith, you wrote that Israel should consider developing
a credible strategy to repudiate Oslo. This was in an article
that you wrote, A Strategy for Israel, and is it true that you
then urged Israel to develop a credible strategy to repudiate
Oslo in light of the Palestinian Authorities' irredeemable
malfeasance? Is that what you were recommending, that they
develop a strategy given the PA's activities?
Mr. Feith. Senator, what I was recommending was that the
Israelis work on devising a means to deal with what I
considered to be one of the major problems that was undermining
the Oslo process, and that was the problem of unremedied
violations, systematic violations that the United States and
Israel both were trying to remedy, but were trying
unsuccessfully.
What I had in mind was, to use an analogy, if somebody goes
into a car dealership to buy a car, and the car salesman knows
that the customer cannot possibly leave the showroom without
buying the car, that customer has no leverage. Only the threat
that an unsatisfactory resolution of a problem or an
unsatisfactory agreement will lead one party to walk away gives
the party leverage. What I was saying is, after years of
violations and compliance disputes and unsuccessful efforts to
enforce the agreements, if the Israelis do not have a credible
strategy for doing something outside the process, they will
have no leverage to fix the process. It is crucial to the
success of the process that the Israelis in my view have
appropriate leverage to deal with the violations problems.
Senator Levin. Very specifically, what you were
recommending, though, in order to achieve that leverage, was
that Israel develop a credible strategy to repudiate Oslo, or
in your own words, abrogating Oslo, is that correct?
Mr. Feith. As I said, if they do not have any credible
strategy for doing that, they have no leverage, and then the
process dies of the violation problem.
Senator Levin. I am first trying to make sure that I
understand. So it is clear that you were recommending that they
have a strategy to repudiate or abrogate Oslo?
Mr. Feith. Yes.
Senator Levin. Now, do you believe they should, under these
circumstances that exist today, abrogate or repudiate Oslo?
Mr. Feith. Senator, I would be very pleased, and I think
that the United States would be benefitted, if the Oslo process
produced a consensual resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict,
but the Oslo process is in bad shape right now.
Senator Levin. I could not agree with you more. My
question, though, is, are you recommending that Israel
repudiate or abrogate Oslo?
Mr. Feith. No, Senator. What I am recommending is that
serious attention is required to do what needs to be done to
fix the situation, and there is a problem of leverage. There is
a problem of how one goes about fixing the situation. If the
status quo is simply maintained without serious thought about
alternatives that are better, different, the current situation
will simply deteriorate, in my view.
Senator Levin. I do not disagree that the status quo is
unacceptable, that the situation has deteriorated. I have no
difficulty with that. I just want to get real clear, because I
think once you write these kind of words, it is important,
given the position to which you have been nominated, that you
be clear on whatever your point of view is, you be clear on
this question, so I am going to ask you again, under all of
these circumstances, given all of the deterioration, given all
the facts, that the status quo is horrific, do you at this time
recommend that Israel abrogate or repudiate Oslo? That is my
question.
Mr. Feith. No, Senator, I do not, nor did I advocate that
in that article. I said that they needed to have a credible
strategy to do that in order to remedy the problem.
Senator Levin. Mr. Rodman, do you want to comment? Do you
recommend that?
Mr. Rodman. No, I do not. I was caught by surprise by Oslo
when it was signed. I had been for many years hoping that we
could find some other leadership of the Palestinians to deal
with, other than the PLO, but I think once Oslo was a reality,
particularly since Prime Minister Rabin was somebody I had
enormous respect for, I thought that the task of our diplomacy
was to somehow make it work.
Senator Levin. Dr. Crouch.
Dr. Crouch. Senator, this is not an issue I have given a
great deal of thought to. I am not an expert specifically on
the Oslo Accords.
Senator Levin. Thank you. My time is up. Thank you.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Several questions
have been asked during the last 2 or 3 hours about the
amendments proposed by President Bush to the ABM Treaty. Does
either one of you know of any specific amendments that the
President has proposed to the ABM Treaty?
Mr. Feith. Senator, I do not believe he has proposed any
specific amendments.
Senator Inhofe. Do the rest of you? OK.
Chairman Warner. Excuse me, I think that is an important
clarification. I certainly know of none, and I would have
thought he would have some----
Senator Inhofe. Nor do I, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Crouch, I think when Senator Cleland asked a question,
it was a very good question, he said, national missile defense
system against who, and I think you answered it, but it was not
quite as elaborate as I would like to get into.
You place emphasis on the actions of China and North Korea
and Russia regarding the sale of weaponry all the way around
the globe recently, or in the first part of this year. The
Chinese personnel were found in Iraq upgrading their IAD, their
integrated air defense system network with fiber optics. We are
talking about SAMs, we are talking about artillery, and we are
also talking about the fact that nearly every day they are
using this to fire on our pilots that are over there.
North Korean weapons are scattered around the Middle East,
posing a threat to United States servicemen and women and our
allies. Most notably, are Russia's close military ties with
Iran, selling diesel submarines and technology for their Shehab
III and IV missiles. Now, those are medium-range missiles which
work very good with the guidance systems that they will get,
that we assume they are getting from Russia. They are good. I
mean, they are accurate, much more accurate than they were.
So I would hope, Dr. Crouch, that you would keep that in
mind. I hear so many times, they say, well, China is not going
to do anything, Russia is not going to do anything, North Korea
is not going to do anything. Now, I am not ready to assume
that, but even if we did assume that, it is very specific that
these systems that these countries have, and this technology,
is being readily traded with countries like Iraq and Iran and
Syria and Libya and other countries. Do you have any comments
about that, Dr. Crouch?
Dr. Crouch. Yes, Senator. If confirmed, one of my
responsibilities will be, in addition to overseeing policy
having to do with missile defense, overseeing policy having to
do with counterproliferation. I see these two issues as very
integrally linked, and I think the President has also
demonstrated that in looking forward at the potential emerging
threats, that missile defense can help to play a role in our
counterproliferation strategy.
As you pointed out, it may well be that Russia and China,
or even North Korea, do not use their missiles, but it may well
be that their missiles fall into the hands, or missile
technology falls into the hands of others who will.
Senator Inhofe. Others who have said they would, such as
Saddam Hussein said 10 years ago.
Dr. Crouch. Right. I believe Mr. Quaddafi also made a
similar statement, so it seems to me that to the extent that a
missile defense system can help to devalue ballistic missiles,
to the extent that the United States can demonstrate that its
forward-deployed forces, its friends, its allies and, indeed,
the United States itself, is defended against these missiles,
it seems to me it places downward pressure on the interests of
these countries in investing their scarce resources into these
technologies. It is not a solution, but it is part of the
solution.
Senator Inhofe. I would like to mention one other thing I
do not think has been mentioned during the course of this
hearing, and that is the quality of our intelligence.
I think as you make policy, you are going to have to make
policy predicated on information that we have, and I do not
think it has been--it has not been good. I can remember the
National intelligence estimate of 1995, I guess it was, that
talked about how long it would be before various countries,
including North Korea, would have the capability of an ICBM,
and they were off by about 15 years, and then they qualified
that by saying, well, we were talking about an indigenous
system.
I am not concerned about indigenous systems. I am concerned
about a rocket that comes over here that is going to be just as
devastating, whether it is indigenous or came as trading
technology with some other country. There are no two people in
the United States Senate who are more familiar with this than
Don Nickles and myself from what happened in Oklahoma City. I
always comment that the damage that was done, which is the most
devastating domestic terrorist attack in the history of this
country, in Oklahoma City, was done with the explosive power
comparable to 1 ton of TNT.
I think it is accurate to say that we do not know, at least
I do not know of any nuclear warheads of less than a kiloton,
so it would be a thousand times that power, so it is a great
concern of mine, and it was a concern of mine back when we
asked the question, back in 1998, of how long it would be
before North Korea would be able to have the capability of a
multiple stage rocket.
A letter that was signed by Henry Shelton--and I do not
blame him for this, because he was depending on information
that he got from our intelligence community, saying it would be
a matter of years before they would have that capability--was
dated August 24, 1998, and 7 days later they fired one. So do
any of you want to comment on plans that you have to upgrade
the level of information that we get from our intelligence
community?
Dr. Crouch. Senator, the subject that you have highlighted
is absolutely crucial to the making of policy, and I know that
it is a subject that is front and center in Secretary
Rumsfeld's view, and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz, as I have
heard them publicly and privately both stress the importance of
precisely the points that you are making about the need to
improve our collection capabilities and our analysis in the
intelligence field.
Senator Inhofe. That is good, and I am certainly hopeful
that the three of you will be confirmed, and that we will be
able to address that so that you will be able to perform your
duties predicated on accurate information.
Since my time has expired, I do have one question that I
would like to ask, and then you could answer it for the record.
Some of us around here are old enough to remember the Cuban
missile crisis, and there was recently a movie that was written
about it called Thirteen Days, Mr. Chairman, which I have not
seen, but was about waking up one morning finding that several
of our American cities were targeted by Russian missiles
located on Cuba. At that time hysteria hit the street and
everyone was concerned, and this movie is about 13 days during
that hysteria, and also about the fact that our President then,
President Kennedy, did a very fine job of getting us out of
that mess. Yet today we have in 1998, there was a release, an
accidental release, I might add, of a CIA report that showed
that around 13 American cities are currently targeted with
Chinese missiles, and we have the same defense system today
that we had back during the Cuban missile crisis. We do not
have the capability of knocking down one that is incoming.
That, coupled with the statements that have been made by
various Chinese officials, one back during the elections, when
the Chinese were demonstrating off the Taiwan Straits, I think
to try to intimidate that election, when the statement was made
that we will not worry about the United States coming to our
aid because they would rather defend Los Angeles than Taipei.
Then even more recently, the defense minister of China said
that war with America is inevitable. I would like to have you
respond for the record your opinion as to the relative risk
that this Nation is facing now versus during the Cuban missile
crisis.
[The information referred to follows:]
National Threats
How would you compare the relative risk that this Nation is facing
compared to that faced during the Cuban missile crisis?
The CIA's National Intelligence Council has acknowledged, in its
September 1999 response to the Rumsfeld Commission Report on the
missile threat that, ``the possibility that a WMD-armed missile will be
used against U.S. forces or interests is higher today than during most
of the Cold War.'' This refers mainly to U.S. forces abroad or allies
and friends, and reflects the proliferation of ballistic missiles and
WMD capabilities into unfriendly hands.
As for the risk to U.S. territory, this in my view is less today
than in 1962, but is certain to increase over the next 5-10 years. The
U.S.-Russian relationship is far more benign today. The number of
weapons on both sides is greater but the ideological conflict has
disappeared. It is hard to imagine a political issue or dispute that
could lead to a U.S.-Russian military confrontation like that over Cuba
in 1962.
Other countries, however, have or are developing ICBMs that can
reach the United States. China, for example, has a small ICBM force
that it is modernizing. Other states like Iran and North Korea also are
intent on acquiring ICBMs.
Mr. Chairman, I know my time has expired, and I do have
other things which I am going to submit for the record, because
I will be presiding probably for the last time for a few
months, and I do not want to miss that opportunity.
Chairman Warner. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma.
Senator Levin.
Senator Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to go back, Dr. Crouch, to the Korean issue. You
have been asked about your statement that the Bush
administration's decision to withdraw tactical nuclear weapons
was a major geopolitical mistake, and in that same article you
recommended U.S. redeployment of nuclear weapons to South
Korea. The tensions were high when you made those
recommendations. The South Korean Government did not support
the redeployment of nuclear weapons to the peninsula, did it?
Dr. Crouch. I do not know that the South Korean Government
was ever asked about that question.
Senator Levin. Was it not their goal to denuclearize the
peninsula?
Dr. Crouch. I am certain that was the South Korean goal. I
think that was also the U.S. goal.
Senator Levin. Are you saying that you recommended that we
redeploy nuclear weapons to North Korea without knowing their
position?
Dr. Crouch. No, I was trying to answer, Senator, your
question, which I thought was, what was the position on the
reintroduction of South Korean nuclear weapons. I do not
believe the question was--at least, I am unaware. I was out of
Government at the time. I am unaware of the position that the
South Korean Government had on that, if they were even asked. I
suspect they were not, so they may not have had to formulate a
position.
Senator Levin. Do you think it is relevant as to what their
position was at the time as to whether we reintroduce nuclear
weapons?
Dr. Crouch. Absolutely. In fact, I think, obviously that
either the introduction or reintroduction of nuclear weapons on
an ally's soil is something that would have to be determined
based on mutual agreement between the parties.
Senator Levin. But when you made the recommendation that we
reintroduce it, are you saying that you made that
recommendation without even knowing what the position of South
Korea was?
Dr. Crouch. No. My recommendation, I believe, would have
been, if, in fact, that recommendation had been taken up, that
we would have sought that agreement from the South Korean
Government.
Senator Levin. Is that what was in your article, that we
seek agreement from South Korea?
Dr. Crouch. I do not have a copy of the article in front of
me, sir.
Senator Levin. Did you support the Framework Agreement?
Dr. Crouch. My view on the Framework Agreement----
Senator Levin. No, not now. Did you support the Framework
Agreement when it was entered into?
Dr. Crouch. No.
Senator Levin. Your language was that the United States
was--and this is an article you wrote in 1995, after the
Framework Agreement--excuse me. This was after the Framework
Agreement was signed in October 1994. You wrote that the United
States was seeking to collude with the North Koreans. Did the
U.S. Government collude with the North Koreans?
Dr. Crouch. I believe that the U.S. position was not the
right position to take. I mean, I think that the----
Senator Levin. I am not arguing that. I am just talking
about the use of the word collude. You wrote that the U.S.
Government was seeking to collude with the North Koreans.
Dr. Crouch. Right. I think the point in the article was
simply that--and my criticism of the administration was simply
that the administration was not taking this particular threat
as seriously as it should have. I guess my rhetorical way of
stating that was that they were in fact colluding with the
North Koreans.
Senator Levin. You also wrote that, again, this was in
1995, after the Agreed Framework was entered into in October
1994, that absent positive viable steps by the North Korean
regime towards the destruction of their nuclear complex, that
you would authorize the destruction, bombing of that complex.
Now, they are in the middle of a very tense situation on
that Korean peninsula, and you are urging us to bomb North
Korea if they do not comply with our demands. What was South
Korea's view about that?
Dr. Crouch. Again, I was not inside the Government. I do
not know specifically what South Korea's view was. I know that
the president at the time, the president of South Korea at the
time considered it, and stated publicly so, that the
development of weapons of mass destruction and the targeting of
those weapons on South Korea was not something that the
Government of South Korea would tolerate, but beyond that, it
is very difficult for me to state what the internal views of
the Government of South Korea----
Senator Levin. Or stated views, relative to bombing North
Korea if they did not comply. This was after the Framework
Agreement was entered into. You wrote in January 1995, 3 months
after the Framework Agreement is entered into, that we ought to
bomb them if they do not comply with our demands, and in a
tense situation. Not knowing what the Government of South Korea
even favors, you recommend bombing. It is such a reckless
comment.
Dr. Crouch. Senator, I think that if I may say a few things
on that, I do not believe that--number 1, if you will look at
the record, the article was actually written in 1994.
Unfortunately, I am in a position where yes, it was published
in 1995. That is the way academic journals--there is usually a
3- to 6-month delay in these things.
Senator Levin. Did you ask them to hold off publication?
Dr. Crouch. No, I did not. No, I did not, obviously, all
right, but I want you to understand that the recommendations
were made in that context, and so--but more to the point, I
think that the concern that was evinced within that Government
by, I believe, Members of the Senate at the time, and certainly
even by Secretary Perry, who I believe testified before the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee that he was considering
options to do just this, is evidence of the serious nature of
this.
I am not suggesting that it was an easy decision, and it
may well have been that if different facts had come to light
that I was not aware of because I was out of Government, I may
have made a different decision, but given what I knew at the
time, I stick by the recommendations.
Senator Levin. All right, but then you are saying that
Secretary Perry made the same suggestion that you were making
in this article?
Dr. Crouch. No. What I said was that I believe that
Secretary Perry testified in front of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee that he had considered and in fact had
ordered that options for doing just that be drawn up.
Senator Levin. Just that.
Dr. Crouch. But--well, not specifically that. The ``just
that'' is attacking, the bombing, if you will, of North Korean
nuclear weapons and missile complexes.
Senator Levin. Under what circumstances?
Dr. Crouch. But he decided against that.
Senator Levin. All right. You are not suggesting that he
and you had the same position?
Dr. Crouch. No, but I am trying to suggest that the
position of considering doing that was not a reckless position.
Senator Levin. You wanted to authorize it. That was your
word, right?
Dr. Crouch. Absent getting an agreement from the North
Koreans----
Senator Levin. Which you opposed.
Dr. Crouch. No. The kind of agreement that I would have
sought--and I think one of the problems we have today with the
Framework Agreement is that we are not getting the kind of
transparency that is necessary to feel confident that the North
Koreans are no longer developing weapons of mass destruction,
in particular, nuclear weapons.
Senator Levin. Do you think we should continue to support
the Framework Agreement now?
Dr. Crouch. I know that the Framework Agreement is
something that is, along with our entire relationship with
North Korea, something that is currently under review by the
administration. One of the things that--and principally this
will--I will be involved in this, if confirmed, but I think it
would be best if I were to know what the other considerations
are, be involved in those deliberations, before making a
determination on that. Ultimately the President, I believe,
will make that decision, and I can certainly support whatever
decision the President makes.
Senator Levin. Well, the decision has already been made.
According to the letter that Deputy Secretary Armitage took to
South Korea, we expect that among the things that our policy
review would show would be that we would continue to support
the Agreed Framework, so it has already been made, but you are
still uncertain as to whether you support the extension of it.
Dr. Crouch. Well, my reading--I have not seen that letter.
I have not been privy to it.
Senator Levin. Perhaps you could for the record, then, take
a look at the letter and give us your answer.
Dr. Crouch. I would be happy to do that, Senator.
[The information referred to follows:]
I support the administration's position on abiding by the Agreed
Framework. The administration has decided to undertake discussions with
North Korea on a broad agenda that includes improved implementation of
the Agreed Framework. I believe that the international situation has
changed greatly since 1994 when I first wrote about the Agreed
Framework. The June 2000 inter-Korean summit is one example of this
change. In coordination with our Asian allies, the administration will
hold discussions with North Korea aimed at reaching verifiable
arrangements that enhance our national security and that of our allies.
Senator Levin. I think my time has probably long gone.
Chairman Warner. Take another minute. Well, I will take a
few points. I just want to follow on. I have had the privilege
of working with Dr. Perry when he was in positions in the
Department of Defense, particularly that of Secretary. I have a
very high personal regard for him, and he, as you recall,
Senator Levin, in the course of his trips to both Koreas would
come and offer himself to consult with the Members of the
Senate Armed Services Committee. I think he provided some very
useful breakthroughs.
I am not going to get into specifics, but I am also an
adherent of the doctrine, the more openness that we try to
share with a nation that is so isolated as North Korea is to
the overall advantage to the United States, so I am hopeful
that the Bush administration will continue to pursue such
opportunity as we may have to alleviate the stresses between
the North and the South and, indeed, the isolation of that
country. Their people are suffering tragically in North Korea
now.
I want to shift to the subject of our relationship with
Taiwan and that of the People's Republic of China. I will just
make an observation of my own. I have followed this for many
years here in the Senate. I strongly support and adhere to the
law of the land whereby we have indicated that in certain
circumstances we would first see that Taiwan is adequately
armed to defend itself, and if necessary we would engage our
forces if the President of the United States at that time felt
that that obligation was in fulfillment of the law of the land.
On the other hand, I feel very strongly that implicit in
the law of the land, our land, the United States, with regard
to the relationship with Taiwan, implicit therein is the
obligation of the Taiwanese elected persons and others who are
in official positions to restrain their rhetoric and their
actions so as to not incite additional stresses between Taiwan
and the People's Republic of China. I think that is very
important, and I always lay down that cautionary note, and I
just wondered if you share a similar view with that of the
chair.
Mr. Feith?
Mr. Feith. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I think that working the
relationship with Taiwan so that we provide the support that we
should, and help keep the situation there secure, and at the
same time work on cooperating with them to make sure that
Taiwan's own position does not become a destabilizing element
in the area is--I think both of those points are worth
stressing.
Chairman Warner. Thank you. Do either of you wish to
comment on that?
Mr. Rodman. I agree with that. I think the United States is
not looking for a crisis with China over Taiwan, and the Taiwan
Relations Act reflects the American commitment, but I think our
objective is to deter a crisis, and the way you expressed it I
think is the right approach.
Chairman Warner. Thank you.
Dr. Crouch.
Dr. Crouch. I agree. I think the President's position on
this has been that he is going to speak clearly on the subject
so that both parties, the PRC in particular, knows about our
commitment, but on the other hand I think it would be wrong to
try to artificially solve that problem or to create stresses
between those two States.
Chairman Warner. Turning to the subject of Iraq, the
administration is actively trying to reengage our allies. Great
Britain has loyally stood by our side. It has certain
initiatives in the United Nations, and before the Security
Council, which I commend Great Britain for taking.
At the same time, we have a daily responsibility to enforce
the no-fly zones, and the risk to aviators, be they U.S. or
British or, should others fly of our allies, is increasingly
risky to them, and we must take cognizance of this. I am
confident that Secretary Rumsfeld in his most recent visit
through the region has enunciated our adherence to protecting
the concept of the no-fly zone, and doing everything we can,
the United States, to enforce the sanctions which prohibit the
importation into Iraq of raw materials and/or technology, or to
add to the weapons of mass destruction, which I am sure Saddam
Hussein daily tries to create in his own country. This is a
keen balance that we have to recognize today with the clear
indication that Saddam Hussein is stepping up the activity
against the aviators. I just wondered if, Mr. Feith, you agree
with my views on this.
Mr. Feith. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. I believe it was
yesterday Secretary Rumsfeld visited the Incirlik Air Base in
Turkey, and made points very much in line with those you just
expressed.
Chairman Warner. I see Turkey is continuing to give its
support to the missions, and I think that is important.
India and Pakistan, countries which we have had a long and
valued relationship with both nations, they are a tinder box,
regrettably, because of their ability to have some capabilities
with nuclear weapons. I think it is important that we maintain
engagement with both nations, and do what we can on matters of
counterterrorism, peacekeeping, regional security, and the
like. Do you agree with my views on that, Mr. Feith?
Mr. Feith. Mr. Chairman, South Asia is rapidly growing in
strategic importance and U.S. relations with the States there
are going to be an important part of shaping the strategic
environment for the 21st century. It is going to influence our
relations with Russia and China. Our relations with India and
Pakistan help contain the danger of conflict between them,
which is especially important, given the nuclear capabilities
and missile capabilities of each of the States.
I would say simply that, if confirmed, I would enter into
the review that I know is underway of our policies towards
South Asia, and would be looking forward to working with the
committee on how we could best weave together our security and
economic and political interests in both of those important
countries.
Chairman Warner. Do either of you wish to add to that?
Dr. Crouch. I agree with that.
Chairman Warner. Thank you. The subject of persons who are
missing in action, commonly referred to as the POW/MIA issue,
is one that I feel very strongly about that our country should
at no turn in its relationships, particularly with Vietnam and,
indeed, Korea--I had a brief tour of service with the Marines
there in 1951-1952, and I have friends who are unaccountable to
this day. I think there are several thousand in the Korean
conflict, and an equal number, if not greater, in Vietnam. Do I
have the assurance of all of you, as you pursue your official
duties, if confirmed, that you will in every way assist in
terms of our official efforts, as well as the efforts of other
recognized and responsible organizations, to solve the
mysteries and the family stress associated with POW/MIA?
Mr. Feith. Yes, sir.
Dr. Crouch. Absolutely, sir.
Mr. Rodman. Absolutely.
Chairman Warner. Thank you.
Senator Levin.
Senator Levin. Thank you. The chairman asked about
amendments--I think it was the chairman. It may have been
Senator Inhofe--asked about the amendments to the ABM Treaty
which had been offered, or were talked about as possibly being
offered to Russia by President Bush, and I think you all
indicated that you do not know of any amendments--maybe Mr.
Feith, you said you do not know of any amendments that have
been proposed, is that correct?
Mr. Feith. That is correct.
Senator Levin. Is it your understanding that amendments to
the ABM Treaty will be proposed by the Bush administration to
Russia?
Mr. Feith. What I understand, Senator, is that the
President has said that he wants to create a new framework for
the relationship between the United States and Russia, and it
is my understanding that the administration right now is in
consultations with the allies and with the Russians and I am
confident with Congress, is working on refining the idea of
framework. The President said in his National Defense
University speech that he is looking at a wide range of ideas
for that framework, and whether amendments of the type that you
are referring to are going to be part of it or not I am sure
will be part of the consideration.
Senator Levin. At The Citadel in 1999 he said that we will
offer Russia the necessary amendments to the ABM Treaty. Do you
remember that?
Mr. Feith. I had not remembered that.
Senator Levin. All right. He did say that. Now, whether he
does that or not, you do acknowledge that either he is going to
be offering a totally new framework to substitute for the ABM
Treaty, or amendments to the ABM Treaty. Is that a fair
statement of what your understanding is of the Bush
administration?
Mr. Feith. My understanding is that he is considering all
sensible options for a framework.
Senator Levin. Which may include----
Mr. Feith. Which may include that, which may include lots
of other ideas.
Senator Levin. OK. Dr. Crouch, on the question of economic
sanctions, in the article which has been referred to where you
were critical of the Framework Agreement and made the other
statements which have been quoted, you said the following, that
the administration is predictably turning to that great panacea
of western inaction, economic sanctions. When you were asked
about it earlier this morning you sounded very different from
that, I must tell you. You said, sanctions have an important
role. I did not catch any of that in this article, the
important role of economic sanctions. They were just labeled a
great panacea. Have you changed your mind since you wrote that?
Dr. Crouch. No, Senator.
Senator Levin. So they still are a great panacea, or ``that
great panacea?'' Is that still a fair summary of where you
stand in terms of economic sanctions?
Dr. Crouch. I think they can be a panacea, yes.
Senator Levin. I would agree with that, but you labeled
economic sanctions as a whole, as a group, generically, as
``that great panacea of western inaction.'' Is that a fair
characterization of your view of sanctions generically now, at
this point, that they represent a great panacea of western
inaction?
Dr. Crouch. The point I was trying to make in the article,
Senator, is that they have been, or have operated as a panacea
of western inaction in the past, and I suppose that this was my
rhetorical way of describing it, and I stick by that statement.
What I wanted to be clear on, however, was that I am not
suggesting that economic sanctions have no value, nor am I
suggesting that in combination with other actions they may not
be able to be part of a comprehensive policy in dealing with
problems like the one I discussed in the article.
Senator Levin. Are there any current sanctions that you
would repeal?
Dr. Crouch. I cannot think of any, no.
Senator Levin. On the nuclear testing issue, you talked
about those who supported a testing as using Luddite logic, and
when asked whether or not President Bush's decision to continue
the moratorium that exists now on testing represented Luddite
logic, you did not give an answer. You sort of laughed. Does it
represent Luddite logic?
Dr. Crouch. I thought I said no.
Senator Levin. Why does it not, given your views back in
this article?
Dr. Crouch. As I stated in the article, I believe, my view
on nuclear testing is that it formed an essential component to
us being able to understand nuclear weapons technology, that as
long as the United States continues to rely on that technology
as a principal basis for its defense, that we need to
understand as much as possible about it, and so I think that
that is about as clear as I can get on it.
Senator Levin. Are you recommending we resume testing?
Dr. Crouch. I am not recommending anything at this point,
Senator.
Senator Levin. Why?
Dr. Crouch. Pardon me?
Senator Levin. Why do you not recommend it? For the reasons
you just gave, why should we not resume testing?
Dr. Crouch. Well, I think that whether we resume testing,
particularly given the fact that the CTBT is a negotiated
treaty, given--this is an issue that has to be looked at in the
context of our entire international commitments, has to be
looked at in terms of what requirements we may have in the
future for nuclear testing, and I think it is an issue that the
administration is going to be looking at very hard in its
strategic review.
Senator Levin. I do not understand how you label it Luddite
logic to stop testing, but not now say that you recommend we
resume it. I do not get it.
Dr. Crouch. The reason I labeled it that is that I think
that, why should we not have as much information as possible?
Senator Levin. Then why should we not resume testing?
Dr. Crouch. I did not say that we should not resume
testing.
Senator Levin. Should we resume testing? You do not say we
should, and I am asking it the other way, why should we not
resume testing, given your position?
Dr. Crouch. Well, I think that considering the resumption
of testing is something that the administration ought to
consider.
Senator Levin. My time is up. Thank you.
Chairman Warner. I would like to follow up on that. This
stockpile program, which is the substitute for testing, was
very carefully evaluated by this committee in the context of
the review of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the Senate
rejected that.
Now, until such time as there is greater clarity to the
success of that program, and in the judgment of this Senator
that clarity has not been brought forth by the technical people
as yet, we should not foreclose any options, because we have a
convergence of the aging of the nuclear stockpile. I am
repeating myself, but the safety of those in our armed forces
and civilians who must deal with these weapons, the proximity
of these weapons, which are aging, to communities in the United
States and other places in the world, we have to keep open the
option of some alternative program to get the safety issue and
the credibility of our deterrence clearly established. Because
as time goes on I think the Nations of the world could attach
some lack of faith in our stockpile of weapons unless we have
some clear documentation that these weapons, no matter how
awesome they maybe, no matter how much I and others hope they
will never be used, but nevertheless they have to be maintained
safely, and they have to provide a credible deterrent.
So in my view, the question of testing is an open one, and
it is dependent on the success or the failure of this stockpile
program that is underway at the cost of an enormous amount of
money, which is basically a computer program, and we have to be
aware of what other nations may be doing with respect to their
testing procedures.
I certainly am not in a position to say unequivocally that
Russia--we accept their representations, but documentation as
to whether to not they are or they are not doing any testing is
an open question in my mind.
I just have one more question on Latin America. It is very
important to this hemisphere. I think we must be ever cognizant
of the importance of the relationships between this nation and
those in Central and Latin America, and there is considerable
instability in a number of the Nations. I just wish to have
your commitment that that is a priority that you will address
from time to time. Mr Rodman.
Mr. Rodman. Yes. It is an area that the President is giving
priority attention to, and if I am confirmed, it is an area
that I will give the same attention to.
Chairman Warner. Good. Any others wish to comment on that?
Mr. Feith. Mr. Chairman, I agree with that.
Chairman Warner. Senator Levin.
Senator Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Crouch, on missile defense I just want to ask you a few
questions. One of the chief U.S. objectives in START II is to
eliminate Russia's S-18 missiles and all of its MIRV'd ICBMs.
Do you believe it is in our interest for Russia to eliminate
all of its MIRV'd ICBMs?
Dr. Crouch. Yes, I do, sir.
Senator Levin. If we determined that unilaterally deploying
a national missile defense, assuming we tried some new
framework and it failed to be achieved, or we tried to modify
by amendment the ABM Treaty, and we failed, if we determined
that unilaterally then deploying a national missile defense
would result in Russia keeping their MIRV'd ICBMs, would that
fact be worthy of consideration by us relative to the question
of whether we would be more or less secure with a unilateral
deployment?
Dr. Crouch. I certainly think it would be worthy of
consideration.
Senator Levin. All right. Is it in our national interest
for Russia to cooperate with us on nuclear nonproliferation?
Dr. Crouch. Yes.
Senator Levin. The same question. If we assess that there
would be proliferation dangers by a unilateral deployment of a
national missile defense, would that make it worthy of
consideration, the question of whether or not to deploy, if it
led to that? Is it just worthy of consideration? I am not
asking you to reverse your position on national missile
defense. I just want to know whether or not you think it is
worthy of consideration.
Dr. Crouch. I absolutely think it is worthy of
consideration.
Senator Levin. All right. Is it in our interests that
Russia not provide advance missile defense countermeasures to
other nations?
Dr. Crouch. Certainly.
Senator Levin. If we determined that a unilateral
deployment of a national missile defense would result in Russia
transferring advanced countermeasures technology to other
countries, would that be worthy of consideration on the
question of whether to unilaterally deploy a national missile
defense?
Dr. Crouch. Yes.
Senator Levin. Is it in our interest that Russia and China
not join together to oppose U.S. interests generally?
Dr. Crouch. Generally, yes.
Senator Levin. If we assess that deploying a national
missile defense unilaterally would result in Russia and China
joining together to oppose U.S. interests, or make it more
likely that they would join together to oppose our interests,
would that be worthy of consideration on the issue of whether
or not to deploy unilaterally a national missile defense?
Dr. Crouch. I think all of those issues are worthy of
consideration.
Senator Levin. I will just give you another, then. You can
add any additional considerations for the record. Is it in our
national interest that China not expand its nuclear forces
beyond a reasonable deterrent level from their perspective?
Dr. Crouch. Yes. I think it is in their interests, too.
Senator Levin. If we assess that deploying a national
missile defense in the way that I just previously described
would result in China expanding its nuclear forces further than
they otherwise would, would that be a consideration, do you
believe, that ought to be taken into account on the decision
whether or not to deploy a national missile defense?
Dr. Crouch. Yes.
Senator Levin. One last question now, and the other ones I
will save for the record. Actually, there are two more
questions, and the others will be saved for the record. This
goes to Mr. Rodman.
In your article in the Los Angeles Times on May 7, 1999,
you wrote that NATO's original demands for a reversal of ethnic
cleansing, withdrawal of the Yugoslav army and police from
Kosovo, and a NATO military protectorate to speed the return of
refugees, is a key benchmark by which to judge any negotiated
outcome, and then you wrote, the outcome is likely to be a
diplomatic compromise superficially confusing enough to allow
some in the West to claim success. What is your view now as to
the success of the diplomatic and military outcome in Kosovo?
Mr. Rodman. I was wrong, Senator. I predicted that it would
not--that the bombing campaign would end inconclusively, and I
was, I say, pleasantly surprised by the outcome.
Senator Levin. Then one question on the Sinai peacekeeping.
If confirmed as Assistant Secretary, you are going to be
responsible, I believe, for advising the Secretary of Defense
on U.S. policy in the Middle East. Do you believe that the
Middle East should withdraw its forces from participation in
the Sinai peacekeeping force?
Mr. Rodman. I know that Secretary Rumsfeld has expressed a
general interest in reviewing the kind of commitments we have
in many parts of the world, and I would not want to prejudge
the outcome of a review because I do not think he is prejudging
the outcome.
I regard the Sinai agreement, the peace treaty between
Egypt and Israel, as one of the most important achievements of
the peace diplomacy. I realize the great role that the MFO has
fulfilled, but I have to say that I think the Secretary is
right to look at these and just to see if they are still
essential. I certainly agree that the peace agreement and
maintaining stability in the Sinai are definitely essential.
Senator Levin. Do you have an opinion as to whether we
should withdraw those forces?
Mr. Rodman. I do not know enough about it. I do not know
whether there are other options that might be available.
Senator Levin. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I and a number of my colleagues have some
questions for the record. I would ask that it be kept open for
24 or 48 hours so that we can get those questions in. There
have been a number of things requested of our nominees,
including the paper that was written for the American
Enterprise Institute, and so I would ask that the record be
kept open for a reasonable length of time so that we can get
the answers to those questions.
Chairman Warner. Senator Levin, I assure you we will do
that. I will do the appropriate thing to consult with you as to
when both sides of the aisle here have had the full opportunity
to submit and get the responses. Of course, we are anxious--you
have been a tremendous team player in getting the nominations
of the Secretary of Defense to the floor expeditiously, and I
expect we will do the same in this case, but there are a number
of questions, and we should get those answered for the record.
This has been an excellent hearing. It may well be my last
for an indefinite time as the chairman, but I think we have
very thoroughly and fairly and objectively looked into all
issues that relate to the Senate's very important
responsibility of advice and consent. I am optimistic that each
of you will receive the advice and consent of the Senate, but
that remains to be seen. Certainly your responses to this
Senator confirm the wisdom of the Secretary of Defense and the
President in selecting you.
In closing, I say to my good friend, Senator Levin, we came
to the Senate some 23 years ago. We have worked together these
many years. We will continue to work together, and throughout
my period of 2 years plus as chairman, Senator Levin, you have
accorded me every courtesy and plus some, and I intend to do
the same whenever the time occurs for the passing of the
mantle, this one, which will be, I presume, in the next 48
hours or so. I wish you luck.
Senator Levin. Mr. Chairman, let me just say that you have
always been, as long as I have known you, a fair person. We
have always operated in a bipartisan manner. You as chairman
have carried out a great tradition of bipartisanship on this
committee. One never knows what the future holds. We have
learned that many times in politics, so you cannot predict how
long anybody will be here, much less how long anybody will be
chairman.
Chairman Warner. That is true.
Senator Levin. I just want to thank you for your continuing
stretching out your hand to this side of the aisle. We will do
the same when the gavel passes. I again just want to thank you
and assure you that I will be just as bipartisan, and try even
to somehow or other be more so, even though that may not be
possible, than you have been. You have been a wonderful role
model for anyone who aspires to be chairman of this committee.
Chairman Warner. I thank you. I accept that with great
humility, and I extend the hand. Good luck. Thank you very
much.
The hearing is concluded, we are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:40 p.m. the committee adjourned.]
[Prepared questions submitted to Douglas Jay Feith by
Chairman Warner prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
May 18, 2001
Hon. John Warner,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Enclosed are the answers to the advance
questions the Senate Armed Services Committee asked me to complete.
Yours Truly,
Douglas J. Feith.
cc: Hon. Carl Levin,
Ranking Minority Member.
______
Questions and Responses
defense reforms
Question. More than a decade has passed since the enactment of the
Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and
the Special Operations reforms.
Do you support full implementation of these defense reforms?
Answer. Yes, I support the implementation of these reforms. The
focus on ``jointness'' outlined in the Defense Reorganization Act of
1986 has significantly enhanced the readiness and warfighting
capabilities of the U.S. armed forces.
Question. What is your view of the extent to which these defense
reforms have been implemented?
Answer. These reforms have fundamentally changed the way the
Department of Defense works by strengthening civilian control of DOD,
improving military advice given to the President and Secretary of
Defense, and advancing the ability of the Department to carry out its
fundamental mission--protecting America's security and furthering its
vital interests.
Question. What do you consider to be the most important aspects of
these defense reforms?
Answer. From my point of view, the most important aspects are the
clear responsibility and authority given the CINCs for mission
accomplishment, and the increased attention to formulation of strategy
and contingency planning.
Question. The goals of Congress in enacting these defense reforms,
as reflected in section 3 of the Goldwater-Nichols Department of
Defense Reorganization Act, can be summarized as strengthening civilian
control; improving military advice; placing a clear responsibility on
the combatant commanders for the accomplishment of their missions;
ensuring the authority of the combatant commanders is commensurate with
their responsibility; increasing attention to the formulation of
strategy and to contingency planning; providing for more efficient use
of defense resources; and enhancing the effectiveness of military
operations and improving the management and administration of the
Department of Defense.
Do you agree with these goals?
Answer. Yes, I support the goals of Congress in enacting the
reforms of the Goldwater-Nichols legislation.
Question. Recently, there have been articles that indicate an
interest within the Department of Defense in modifying Goldwater-
Nichols in light of the changing environment and possible revisions to
the national strategy.
Do you anticipate that legislative proposals to amend Goldwater-
Nichols may be appropriate? If so, what areas do you believe it might
be appropriate to address in these proposals?
Answer. I am unaware of any major changes that are needed to
Goldwater-Nichols. Before any modifications are suggested, the
Department should consult closely with Congress, especially this
committee.
duties
Question. Section 134 of Title 10, United States Code, provides
that the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy shall assist the
Secretary of Defense in preparing written policy guidance for the
preparation and review of contingency plans and in reviewing such
plans.
Additionally, subject to the authority, direction and control of
the Secretary of Defense, the Under Secretary shall have responsibility
for supervising and directing activities of the Department of Defense
relating to export controls.
Department of Defense Directive 5111.1 reiterates these duties and
specifically notes that the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy is
the principal staff assistant and advisor to the Secretary of Defense
and the Deputy Secretary of Defense for all matters on the formulation
of national security and defense policy and the integration and
oversight of DOD policy and plans to achieve national security
objectives.
What is your understanding of the duties and functions of the Under
Secretary of Defense for Policy under current regulations and
practices?
Answer. If confirmed, I will perform the duties provided by statute
and regulation, as set forth in the Directive. The Under Secretary of
Defense for Policy serves as the principal assistant and advisor to the
Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense for all matters concerning
the formulation of national security and defense policy and the
integration and oversight of DOD policy and plans to achieve national
security objectives.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what duties and functions do
you expect that Secretary Rumsfeld would prescribe for you?
Answer. I would expect Secretary Rumsfeld to look to the Under
Secretary of Defense for Policy to fulfill all the duties assigned to
that office by statute and regulation--in particular, assistance and
advice on the formulation of national security and defense policy. This
would likely include: oversight of DOD policy and plans; DOD relations
with foreign governments and international organizations; and DOD
participation in the interagency process of the U.S. government.
Question. How do you see the civilian role, as opposed to the
military role, in the formulation of strategy and contingency planning?
Answer. As I understand this activity from the briefings I have
received, the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy office, on behalf
of the Secretary, initiates the contingency planning process though its
preparation of the Presidentially-approved Contingency Planning
Guidance. The Under Secretary of Defense for Policy staff follows the
development of actual plans which are developed by the military over
the 18-24 month deliberate planning cycle and then conducts a formal
review of the final products. Final plans as well as preliminary
strategic concepts are briefed to the Under Secretary of Defense for
Policy for approval, and a number of key plans and strategic concepts
are brought to the Secretary for his approval.
contingency planning
Question. One of the purposes of Goldwater-Nichols was to increase
attention on the formulation of strategy and contingency planning. The
Under Secretary of Defense for Policy is specifically directed to
assist the Secretary of Defense in preparing written policy guidance
for the preparation and review of contingency plans and in reviewing
such plans.
In your opinion, does the civilian leadership currently have an
appropriate level of oversight of contingency planning?
Answer. I am not able to judge at this time, but I am told that
civilian oversight of the contingency planning process is at its most
mature state since enactment of Goldwater-Nichols. I have been told
that the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy has good
relations with the Joint Staff and CINCs' planning staffs that
facilitate oversight.
Question. What steps do you believe are necessary to ensure
effective civilian control and oversight of contingency planning?
Answer. If confirmed, I will be able to gain a more detailed
understanding of OSD's oversight processes and how it might be
improved.
major challenges and problems
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges confronting
the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy?
Answer. The Under Secretary of Defense for Policy must strive to
ensure that the U.S. military maintains the ability to deter the range
of threats we face and defend our national interests in a world of
diverse and not necessarily predictable threats. We face major
challenges in properly supporting our forces today while transforming
the military to deal effectively with future uncertainties. Another
major challenge is dealing with so-called emerging threats--the ability
of hostile forces (states and terrorist organizations) to cause serious
damage on U.S. territory even though they cannot defeat our armed
forces. This field of emerging threats deserves the most serious
attention of defense policy makers.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that we have a defense
strategy and appropriate policies and plans to address the threats we
face and capitalize on U.S. strengths.
european security and defense policy
Question. A major challenge facing the United States and NATO in
the months and years ahead will be the European Union's (EU)
implementation of its European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP), that
is, an EU capability to conduct military operations in response to
international crises in cases where ``NATO as a whole is not engaged.''
Many in Congress have expressed concern that ESDP could emerge as a
competitor, rather than a complement, to the NATO Alliance.
Do you share these concerns? What steps do you believe that the
United States and NATO must take to ensure that ESDP is implemented in
a way that strengthens the Alliance?
Answer. The United States and our NATO Allies must ensure that ESDP
preserves NATO's integrity as the primary instrument of transatlantic
security and does not diminish the Alliance's military operational
effectiveness. ESDP could increase European military capabilities,
complementing and reinforcing NATO to balance better the transatlantic
relationship; however, with historically low levels in Europe of
investment and public interest in security, ESDP could also pose a
resource diversion risk and undermine NATO's ability to undertake
effective collective defense.
iraq policy
Question. The administration is currently conducting a
comprehensive review of U.S. policy toward Iraq. Secretary of State
Powell recently raised the possibility of changing the sanctions regime
against Iraq to ease economic sanctions in return for strengthening the
implementation of sanctions on military-related items.
What elements do you think should be part of the administration's
policy to ensure Iraqi compliance with the obligations Iraq accepted at
the end of the Gulf war?
Answer. U.S. policy toward Iraq aims to ensure that the Baghdad
regime does not threaten U.S. interests in the Gulf region or the
Middle East as a whole. That objective is consistent with the aims of
the Gulf War cease-fire resolution and the other UN Security Council
resolutions dating back to the initial invasion of Kuwait-all of which
are intended to ensure that Iraq can no longer be a threat to peace and
security.
I am advised that the ongoing administration review of Iraq policy
focuses on three main elements: (1) refocusing sanctions to target
Iraqi military and WMD capabilities; (2) using the military more
effectively to support our policy objectives, including enforcing the
no-fly zones; and (3) promoting conditions in which the Iraqi people
might be able to free themselves of Saddam's tyrannical regime. These
elements are linked to each other and our challenge is to bring all
three together while addressing the complex task of rebuilding
consensus in the region and in the international community.
engagement policy
Question. President Bush has directed the comprehensive review of
all U.S. military deployments abroad. In his September 1999 speech at
the Citadel when he announced his intention to have such a review,
then-Governor Bush spoke of problems with ``open-ended deployments and
unclear military missions.''
What do you believe are the proper criteria to apply when deciding
whether or not to involve the U.S. Armed Forces in military operations
overseas?
Answer. The decision to employ U.S. military forces in support of
our national interests is one of the most important that a President
has made. Each case is unique. The assessments on the use of force
should consider what interests are at stake, whether the goals we seek
are achievable, and at what cost and how we would characterize success.
It is important that the mission be defined so that we know when it is
over and when we can bring our forces home.
Question. If confirmed, would you support continued engagement
activities of the U.S. military?
Answer. Engagement activities, if conducted wisely and at
appropriate levels of effort, can serve useful purposes including:
strengthening alliances; deterring threats; and enhancing U.S. military
access in key regions. I support such U.S. military activities for
these useful purposes. If confirmed, I will assist in reviewing
engagement activities to ensure that they support our goals.
Question. Do you believe that these activities contribute to U.S.
national security?
Answer. These activities can serve the national interest,
demonstrating U.S. commitment, deterring aggression and adventurism,
and helping ensure a rapid and decisive response in the event of
crisis.
Question. Would you assure the committee that there would be
adequate civilian oversight of these activities?
Answer. If confirmed, I assure the committee that there will be
adequate civilian oversight of engagement activities.
involvement in the balkans
Question. Since the United States first deployed ground troops to
Bosnia in December 1995, there have been dramatic changes in the
Balkans. Although ethnic tensions remain high throughout the region and
ethnic conflict has flared in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
(FYROM), the major source of instability in the Balkans, Slobodan
Milosevic, is out of power and under arrest in Serbia, and a new,
democratically elected government is now in charge in the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia.
Given recent changes, should the United States and the
international community re-evaluate its policies in the Balkans, to
include a re-evaluation of the need for a large U.S. and NATO-led
presence in the region?
Answer. Military forces are being used to secure the environment in
which civil implementation of the Dayton Accords and of other
peacekeeping arrangements can take place. Decisions on the
circumstances and timing of continued military presence will result
from the regular alliance processes reviewing the missions. I
understand that we have underway an assessment of the need for military
forces in these missions, and we are committed to act as a member of
the alliance in defining any reductions in our presence.
peacekeeping operations
Question. What is your view as to the value of U.S. forces'
participation in peace operations?
Answer. U.S. forces' participation in peace operations can serve
the national interest and strengthen military skills in several areas,
such as operating in coalitions, providing logistics, communications,
engineering and medical support, small unit leadership and civil
affairs. Readiness benefits have to be balanced against the readiness
detriment inherent in any use of military forces for operations other
than war. Both of these factors are part of the broader national
interest cost-benefit analysis required regarding peace operations.
asymmetric threats
Question. What are the asymmetric threats you see to the United
States and its interests, and what are the appropriate responses to
these threats?
Answer. Asymmetric threats to the United States include nuclear,
biological and chemical (NBC) weapons and their means of delivery,
terrorism, threats against our space and information systems, and a
range of conventional capabilities intended to deny U.S. access to key
regions in times of crisis. In light of these threats, President Bush
has made the development and deployment of missile defenses a priority
for his administration. Also, the Department is preparing U.S. forces
to deter such threats and, if deterrence fails, to fight and win
despite the threat or actual use of NBC weapons against them.
As part of the administration's response to emerging threats to
U.S. use of space, Secretary Rumsfeld announced several major
organizational changes designed to improve the effectiveness of U.S.
space capabilities.
Countering anti-access and area-denial capabilities, such as
submarines, anti-ship cruise missiles, advanced surface-to-air
missiles, and advanced sea mines, requires ongoing investments to
transform the weapons and the doctrine, organization, training,
logistics, and procedures of our armed forces.
Question. Do you think policies are required to address this
emerging threat and growing biotech capability?
Answer. Yes. Please see answer to 10A.
Question. In your view, it is possible to develop and implement
policies that will address this growing biotech capability?
Answer. Yes. Please see answer to 10A.
counter-narcotics
Question. In your view, what is the appropriate role of the
Department of Defense in U.S. counter-drug efforts?
Answer. As the President recently said, a successful counter-drug
(CD) effort depends on a thoughtful and integrated approach. The
Department's CD activities support a range of programs in the
administration's overall National Drug Control Strategy. The Department
is reviewing all its missions, including CD-related support to other
Federal Agencies. I am ready, if confirmed, to oversee the support the
President and the Secretary deem required to assist other agencies in
their counter-drug efforts.
Question. Do the Department's efforts contribute to the defense of
our vital national interests?
Answer. The Department's CD activities play a significant role in
contributing to the administration's overall National Drug Control
Strategy.
Question. What role do you believe the United States should play in
the implementation of Plan Colombia?
Answer. The Department of Defense supports U.S. Government efforts
to assist President Pastrana's Plan Colombia. The Department of State
is the lead Federal Agency for coordinating these efforts. Both the
President and the Secretary of State have made it clear that the new
administration will support Plan Colombia by assisting the Colombians
in their counternarcotics efforts. The Secretary of State and his team
can best address in detail USG support to Plan Colombia.
north korea
Question. Please outline your views with regards to the situation
on the Korean Peninsula. In particular, discuss your thoughts on the
implementation of the 1994 Agreed Framework and on the missile
proliferation talks between the United States and North Korea.
Answer. With regard to the Agreed Framework, I believe our goal
must be a complete and verifiable end to the North Korean nuclear
program. If there are ways to improve upon the Agreed Framework that
enable us to have more confidence in achieving that goal, they should
be considered. Regarding North Korean missiles, please see 12 B.
Question. Do you believe U.S. policy should continue to seek an end
to North Korean's nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs?
Answer. Yes. North Korea continues to pose a significant military
threat to U.S. and South Korean forces. North Korea has been actively
producing and exporting missiles and missile-related equipment and
technology to other countries for more than a decade. These activities
pose a threat to regional security and stability and to U.S. forces,
allies, and friends.
Question. Should these efforts include talks and negotiations with
North Korea?
Answer. North Korean activities and capabilities--regarding WMD and
missiles, as well as conventional artillery--warrant intense attention.
We must take the necessary steps to address these threats. I understand
that the North Korea policy review, now underway, is considering
various options. I look forward to becoming involved in this process if
confirmed. If we engage in talks with the North Koreans, I believe we
should do so with clearly defined objectives and a realistic assessment
of our chances of achieving them.
africa policy
Question. The Defense Department is currently involved in a number
of initiatives in Africa to help certain nations be better prepared to
provide their own regional peacekeeping forces and humanitarian
missions. The African Crisis Response Initiative and the ongoing
training of several Nigerian army battalions for peacekeeping duty in
Sierra Leone are two examples of this policy.
Do you support these initiatives?
Answer. Yes. The United States has an interest in the development
of a peace operations and humanitarian response capacity in Sub-Saharan
Africa. We can promote this interest by developing defense partnerships
with important states and sub-regional organizations. The concept is to
help regional actors deal with regional problems. One such actor is
Nigeria, with whom the United States is currently conducting peace
operations training to support UNAMSIL in Sierra Leone (Operation FOCUS
RELIEF, or OFR), training that also includes Senegal and Ghana.
missile defense
Question. The President has made clear his commitment to the
deployment of a limited missile defense system to protect the American
people and our overseas interests and allies.
In your view, to what extent should the United States utilize the
ground-based architecture developed under the previous administration
as a starting point for implementing the President's missile defense
plans?
Answer. The President has established missile defense as a top
priority. Our policy is to deploy ballistic missile defenses based on
the best available options, at the earliest possible date, that are
capable of defending not only the United States but also friends and
allies and U.S. forces overseas. Before it decides on deployment, I
understand that the administration will examine all available options
and basing modes that can contribute to defense.
Question. Do you believe that system can meet the operational
requirement for defending all 50 States against ballistic missile
attack?
Answer. The ground-based system advocated by the previous
administration was being developed to meet the defined requirement of
defending all 50 states. It would not have been capable, however, of
defending allies and friends. Other system architectures could be more
effective overall and capable of defending our allies, friends and
forces abroad.
Question. If that system can meet this operational requirement,
what would be the rationale for expanding beyond the land-based system?
Answer. That system was designed so its development (and even its
deployment) could take place largely within the constraints of the ABM
Treaty, which prohibited us from pursuing promising new technologies.
It is not clear, therefore, that the system is based on the best
available options. As noted above, that system would lack the
robustness of a system that also included other types of defenses, and
would not provide protection to allies and friends. I understand that
the administration, before it decides on deployment, will examine all
available options and basing modes that can contribute to defense
including land-based options.
Question. Is it your view that the administration is committed to
deploy a national missile defense system without regard to the ABM
Treaty and without regard to the views of our allies, Russia or China?
Answer. The President has made clear that he is not interested in
defenses that would separate us from our allies. The principle of
shared risk is not in doubt or open to question. As demonstrated by the
most recent round of consultations, the President and the Secretary of
Defense are committed to substantive and meaningful dialogue with our
allies.
We have diplomatic challenges to work through regarding Russia and
the ABM Treaty. The President has said we will address Russian concerns
about the impact of defenses on their deterrent. We have had serious
discussions with Chinese officials and listened to their views. Missile
defense is not a threat to China--rather, it is intended to defend
against the newly emerging ballistic missile threat resulting from
proliferation and also against accidental and unauthorized launches.
Question. What are the advantages of eliminating distinctions
between ``national'' and ``theater'' missile defense systems?
Answer. The President has said we will deploy defenses capable of
defending the United States and our allies and friends. Whether a
particular system is a ``national'' system or a ``theater'' system
depends on where you live and how close you are to the threat. Some
systems--boost-phase systems, for instance--may be effective against
short-, medium-, and long-range ballistic missiles, whether they are
directed at the United States or at allies in theater. These systems
should be used where they are effective.
Question. Does the administration intend to continue pursuing
missile defense systems specifically for tactical or theater
applications?
Answer. Yes. U.S. and Allied forces already face threats from
shorter-range ballistic missiles. It is important to pursue existing
programs to address these threats.
Question. To what extent do you believe that multi-layered missile
defenses are necessary for dealing with the emerging ballistic missile
threat?
Answer. The administration has made clear that more work is needed
to determine the final form defenses might take. In this process, it
might draw on established technologies to intercept in boost-phase,
mid-course, or after reentry vehicles enter the atmosphere. In
principle, I believe a multi-layered defense is the most robust
approach.
Question. Will space-based defenses be needed in the future?
Answer. As the President indicated in his May 1 speech, we have
more work to do to determine the final form a missile defenses might
take. The administration says it will continue to explore all options.
I think it is well-advised to do so.
Question. Does the administration intend to continue pursuing
missile defenses specifically for applications against missiles with
ranges from 300 to 3,500 kilometers?
Answer. Yes. The United States and its allies will likely face
threats from the full spectrum of ballistic missiles--short-, medium-,
intermediate- and long-range. Therefore, the administration believes
that it is imperative to continue programs designed to combat short-,
medium-, and intermediate-range threats, as well as long-range threats.
Question. Can the existing set of theater and national missile
defense programs provide effective defenses against missile attack, as
planned, or do you believe that space-based defenses will also be
needed?
Answer. As the President indicated in his May 1 speech, there is
more work to be done to determine the final form a missile defense
architecture might take. I believe we should continue to explore all
options.
Question. Critics of ballistic missile defense occasionally point
out that such systems would not be able to defend against weapons of
mass destruction delivered by non-missile systems such as ships or
trucks. In your view does this fact detract from the case in favor of
deploying defenses?
Answer. No. The United States currently has efforts underway to
address non-missile threats (e.g., intelligence, border controls,
etc.), but now has no defenses against long-range ballistic missiles.
Leaving ourselves vulnerable to ballistic missiles, does not diminish
other threats. Rather, it encourages countries to obtain long-range
ballistic missiles for potential coercion or blackmail of the United
States and its allies to deter us from intervening in regional
conflicts.
Question. What programs will the administration implement to defend
against non-ballistic missile attacks with nuclear, chemical or
biological warheads?
Answer. I believe we should pursue improvements in threat
reduction, export controls, border controls, detection,
decontamination, protective clothing, shelters and equipment, vaccines,
antidotes, antibiotics, and other emerging technological advances.
Question. Do you agree with President Bush that the goal of a
missile defense protecting our nation is to defend against limited
missile attacks, or do you believe that goal should be to defend
against large scale attack, long-range, missile attacks?
Answer. I agree with the President. Defense of the United States
should be designed to deter and defend against limited threats, in
particular, attacks from states that are currently attempting to
develop or acquire long-range ballistic missiles, and against
accidental or unauthorized launches.
Question. Do you believe an appropriate justification for a
national missile defense system is to protect against accidental or
unauthorized ballistic missile launches?
Answer. Yes.
abm treaty
Question. Why do you believe the ABM Treaty no longer exists?
Answer. The Bush administration has not promulgated a judgment on
the treaty's legal status, but it has declared that it is treating the
Treaty as being in effect. I support the administration's approach.
Question. In your view, does the 1997 ABM multilateral Memorandum
of Understanding have any force or effect, legal or moral?
Answer. The United States signed the 1997 Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU), but the Clinton administration did not send it to
the Senate for approval of ratification. The Bush administration has
not announced a specific decision on what it will do with the MOU. The
question will be considered in the context of the President's statement
that we should replace the ABM Treaty with a new framework that
reflects a break from Cold-War thinking and facilitates development of
a new, cooperative relationship between the United States and Russia.
strategic nuclear forces
Question. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2001 requires the Secretary of Defense to conduct a new nuclear posture
review.
When would you expect this review to be completed and to what
extent will this review encompass the views expressed by the President
in his May 1, 2001, speech?
Answer. I understand that the Defense Authorization Act states that
the review must be completed in December 2001. I have been told the
Department intends to submit the report by that date. I am unfamiliar
with the details of the review. However, if confirmed, I would
recommend that the study, as emphasized by President, recognize that
although nuclear weapons still have a role to play in our security and
that of our allies, the Cold War is over and the nature of the threat
has changed. The administration has said it is aiming to achieve a
credible deterrent with the lowest possible number of nuclear weapons
consistent with our national security needs.
Question. As the President pointed out in his National Defense
University speech, ``nuclear weapons still have a vital role to play in
our security and that of our allies.'' Would you describe your view of
what that role is?
Answer. Nuclear weapons remain important as a deterrent to threats
and, if necessary, a response to use of nuclear, biological, or
chemical weapons against the United States, its deployed forces, or its
Allies and friends. Nuclear weapons also serve as a means of upholding
U.S. security commitments to our Allies, as a disincentive to those who
would otherwise contemplate developing or acquiring their own nuclear
weapons, and as a hedge against an uncertain future.
Question. What changes to our alert posture would you recommend, if
any, to enhance security and stability?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Department of Defense will
review all aspects of nuclear forces and their posture as a part an
overall review of our nuclear deterrent. I am not aware of any results
of this review to date.
Question. How do you define ``hair trigger alert'' and what U.S.
weapons fit the description of being ``on hair trigger alert?''
Answer. As President Bush said in his speech on May 1, at the
height of the Cold War the Soviet Union and the United States had
``thousands of nuclear weapons pointed at each other on hair-trigger
alert.'' This meant first, that large numbers of ICBMs, SLBMs, and
strategic bombers carrying thousands of warheads were maintained by
both sides in an alert status that would have allowed their execution
within minutes; and second, that the overall U.S.-Soviet strategic
relationship was so characterized by distrust and potential for
conflict that there was significant concern about the possibility of a
first strike in a crisis. Clearly, the latter condition does not apply
to the current U.S.-Russian relationship.
Question. Do you believe that United States strategic systems are
on ``hair trigger'' alert status today?
Answer. As noted above, the overall U.S.-Russian relationship is
not characterized by the same level of distrust that was present during
the U.S.-Soviet standoff in the Cold War. In addition, changes have
been made since the end of the Cold War that have altered the status of
U.S. forces. For example, strategic bombers no longer stand alert on a
day-to-day basis, and would require a few days (as opposed to minutes)
before the force could be launched on a mission. The President has made
clear his determination to change further the size, composition, and
character of U.S. nuclear forces in a way that recognizes that the Cold
War is over.
Question. Would you support prompt de-alerting of any Russian or
U.S. weapons that are to be retired?
Answer. De-alerting of U.S. strategic systems scheduled for
retirement is not without precedent. In 1991 former President Bush, as
a part of the Presidential Nuclear Initiative, ordered the de-alerting
of all Minuteman II ICBMs scheduled for deactivation under START I. I
understand that this is an issue that will be carefully examined in the
nuclear posture review.
Question. What other weapons would you recommend come off ``hair
trigger'' alert?
Answer. As I have not been confirmed, it would be premature for me
to recommend specific changes to the composition and character of U.S.
forces. This issue will be considered in the review of U.S. nuclear
forces.
Question. Do you support repeal of section 1302(b) of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the committee to review the
provision.
Question. Do you support prompt retirement of the Peacekeeper ICBM?
Answer. This is an issue that should be examined in the context of
the review of U.S. nuclear forces.
Question. Do you support unilateral reductions in strategic nuclear
forces and if so, to what levels?
Answer. The Bush administration has stated its intention to reduce
the U.S. nuclear arsenal to the lowest level consistent with our
national security requirements, including our commitments to our
allies.
The Presidential Nuclear Initiatives of 1991 and 1992 resulted in
significant unilateral reductions to our tactical nuclear forces, and
termination or curtailment of modernization programs for our strategic
forces, without requiring years of detailed negotiations in the context
of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties. This is an option for making
reductions that warrants serious consideration.
Question. Would you support reductions below START II force levels?
Answer. I support reductions significantly below existing levels,
which are a vestige of the Cold War. How far to reduce U.S. nuclear
forces is being addressed in the review of nuclear forces.
Question. Do you support dismantling warheads removed from
deployment?
Answer. I believe we need to address the dismantlement of warheads
removed from deployment on a case-by-case basis.
Question. In your view what is the appropriate size of the nuclear
arsenal?
Answer. As noted above, the Bush administration has stated its
intention to reduce the U.S. nuclear arsenal to the lowest level
consistent with our national security requirements, including our
commitments to our allies.
Question. Do you support a hedge strategy and if so for what
purpose?
Answer. We cannot reliably predict the future. Unforeseen
circumstances will arise, despite our best efforts to anticipate them.
The United States needs to take steps to reduce its nuclear forces,
while at the same time ensuring that we have the needed flexibility and
capacity to deploy an effective deterrent against any potential
aggressor.
technological capabilities of terrorists
Question. A key disadvantage of the proliferation of information
technology is that potential and acknowledged adversaries can now
gather data, imagery, and intelligence updates from many of the same
sources and means that the U.S. military uses. The ability to counter
these emerging capabilities is a great concern for this committee.
What would you propose the United States do to address this
problem?
Answer. The power of the Internet to access and assimilate data
rapidly is a double-edged sword for the U.S. military--it provides
opportunities and challenges. A search for information that previously
would take days or even weeks to assemble can now be retrieved in hours
through sophisticated data mining. But in any event, open source
collection is not on the level of U.S. intelligence capabilities.
While there are some circumstances where commercial availability of
high quality satellite imagery may become a concern, we have commercial
remote imagery policies in place to address these concerns. But I
believe these policies should be reviewed. Regarding monitoring
commercial open source intelligence analysis and commercial satellite
imagery, it is useful for the Department to be aware of the information
that is being disseminated and who the recipients are.
I understand that DOD has included operational security (OPSEC) as
a core capability of its Information Operations policy and implementing
doctrine.
Question. Open sources have reported recently that Usama Bin
Laden's communications network ``is getting tougher to crack. He is
using powerful encryption devices that can be bought on the open
market. . . Usama Bin Laden has better communications technology than
the U.S.'' These reports demonstrate that this growing technological
capability is being and will continue to be used against U.S. interests
by known terrorists.
How would you address this growing terrorist technological
capability?
Answer. It is my understanding the Department does not agree that
Usama Bin Laden has better communications than we do. Nevertheless, the
worldwide proliferation of encryption, particularly on the Internet,
underscores the need to ensure that the intelligence community has the
necessary resources.
Most of what is on the Internet is beyond the control of DOD or the
U.S. Government, including the proliferation of encryption technology.
In any event, we must take steps to keep pace with the changing
environment.
export of sensitive technologies
Question. In his October 1999 speech on high tech issues, then
Governor Bush stated that, as President, he would safeguard sensitive
high technology exports, while letting Americans sell what is already
widely available elsewhere. He stated that wherever there is no
security interest at stake, exports would be permitted. Wherever
security is truly a stake, exports would be barred, with serious
penalties for violations.
If confirmed as Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, what
policies and procedures do you believe need to be changed in the export
license control process to reflect the proper balance between national
security and commercial interests?
Answer. Exports of sensitive technology affect U.S. national
security interests in many ways. First, we must protect our military
personnel and our security interests by ensuring that sensitive
technologies are not exported to potential adversaries or to foreign
entities that represent a significant diversion risk. Second, we must
have sensible policies and procedures to ensure authorization of
appropriate transfer of military and commercial systems and
technologies that support our coalition warfighting objectives.
Finally, we must be mindful that the United States is not the only
country with advanced military and commercial technology. So, we need
to work with our allies and friends to ensure that their policies and
approaches toward the export of such technologies meet our common
security interests. The Department of Defense has an essential role to
play in designing and implementing export control policies. If
confirmed, I will be working closely with Congress and my
administration colleagues on these important matters.
Question. Do you believe the Department of Defense should play a
greater role in the export licensing process than it currently does in
determining whether sensitive technologies should be exported overseas?
Answer. The Defense Department must have a strong role in the
export control policy process. Defense has talent and technical
expertise in the export control area and should have the ability to
apply these assets to the overall process. If confirmed, I will review
the licensing process and determine whether to recommend specific
changes in how DOD participates.
cooperative threat reduction (ctr) program
Question. Given the increase in Russia's GDP during the past year
and the subsequent increases in its military spending and arms exports,
what is your view regarding Russia's ability to assume more of the cost
share associated with threat reduction efforts?
Answer. Russia should do more to fund the reduction of the weapons
of mass destruction left by the Former Soviet Union. Part of the
ongoing administration review of assistance programs to Russia is to
identify whether Russia is doing as much as it can to fund these
reductions. The recent upturn in Russia's economic situation and
increase in military spending should be taken into account.
Question. What is your view regarding the fungibility of U.S. funds
associated with threat reduction assistance in light of Russia's
priority on military spending?
Answer. Investment in the CTR program and other U.S.
nonproliferation programs should not become a means by which Russia
frees resources to finance its military modernization programs. The
current review of these programs should look at such questions.
Question. Do you support the CTR Program?
Answer. Yes. The elimination of former Soviet strategic nuclear
weapons, other weapons of mass destruction, and their delivery vehicles
funded by the CTR program has benefited U.S. national security. The
United States also has an interest in ensuring that Russia eliminates
its stockpile of chemical munitions and biological agents. At the same
time we do not want the CTR program to become a means by which Russia
frees resources to finance its military modernization programs.
Question. Do you support funding for the Russian chemical weapons
destruction facility at Shchuch'ye?
Answer. I have been advised that U.S. funding for the construction
of a chemical weapon destruction facility at Shchuch'ye is under
review. Many complex issues are involved in this program, including
Russian and international commitments to this program. Such a review
will help inform a decision on how the administration wants to proceed
with this and other assistance programs.
Question. Do you believe the CTR programs are making a long-term
contribution to increasing the security of the United States?
Answer. Yes. Please see answer to 19 C.
Question. Do you believe the CTR programs are reducing the
probability of an accidental or unauthorized launch of a Russian
ballistic missile?
Answer. The CTR program does not address directly the issue of
accidental or unauthorized launches. To the extent that the program
funds the elimination of former Soviet strategic nuclear weapons and
their delivery vehicles, it can be said to contribute to the reduction
of that danger.
Question. Do you support increasing funding for the CTR programs as
necessary to improve control over all aspects of Russia's nuclear
arsenal including dismantlement of nuclear warheads, accounting storage
and control of weapons-usable plutonium and uranium, and shutting down
the last three Russian plutonium producing reactors?
Answer. I have been briefed that the administration is currently
reviewing the efficiency and effectiveness of all Russian assistance
programs, including the CTR program. Upon completion of this review, a
decision will be made regarding the scope of the program and related
funding issues.
comprehensive test ban treaty (ctbt)/nuclear test monitoring
Question. In the CTBT Task Force report that was released in
January 2001, General Shalikashvili notes that the U.S. should take
whatever steps are necessary to deter or detect any nuclear explosions
that could decrease national security, regardless of what it decides
about the CTBT.
What is your view of this statement?
Answer. In principle, I agree that the United States should have
the capability to deter or detect, identify, locate, and attribute any
nuclear explosion that could decrease national security. In practice I
believe that the Unites States needs to decide how much detection
capability is possible and how much it is willing to pay, taking into
account all defense and intelligence budget priorities.
Question. Do you believe that our existing nuclear monitoring
capabilities are sufficient to deter and detect any nuclear explosions?
Answer. I understand that the Department deems our existing
monitoring capabilities sufficient to detect some, but not all, nuclear
explosions. The risk of detection will not necessarily deter testing.
Whether a country will be deterred depends on its own calculation of
whether the benefits of the test exceed possible penalties resulting
from possible detection.
Question. Are there steps that should be taken to enhance our
nuclear monitoring capabilities?
Answer. An answer to this question would require an examination of
U.S. nuclear monitoring requirements and the extent to which current
capabilities can satisfy them. If confirmed, I would review the
adequacy of our ability to detect foreign nuclear tests and the cost-
effectiveness of potential improvements.
Question. What should be the policy within the Department of
Defense regarding programs that support the CTBT, e.g., the Center for
Monitoring Research funded by the Department?
Answer. Secretary Rumsfeld has said that he has concerns with CTBT:
in particular, the risks to the reliability and safety of our nuclear
weapon stockpile and the difficulty of verification. Secretary of State
Powell has made clear the administration does not intend to pursue
ratification. If confirmed, I would support a review of all planned DOD
activities associated with the CTBT.
Question. Do you support continued and full funding for the
International Monitoring System?
Answer. The U.S. contribution to the CTBT Organization, which
includes support for the International Monitoring System, or IMS, is in
the Department of State's budget. If confirmed, I would support a
review of all DOD activities associated with the CTBT.
Question. Do you support the Department of Energy's Stockpile
Stewardship program?
Answer. Yes, I support the Department of Energy's Stockpile
Stewardship program for its contribution to maintaining a credible
nuclear deterrent. Ensuring the safety, reliability, and effectiveness
of U.S. nuclear weapons is important to the National security interests
of the United States. If confirmed, I would support an administration
review of the Stockpile Stewardship Program.
reorganization of the office of the under secretary of defense for
policy (ousd(p))
Question. At the beginning of the Clinton administration, Secretary
of Defense Aspin undertook a major reorganization of the OUSD(P). There
are reports that the Bush administration is currently planning another
reorganization of this office.
If confirmed, what changes would you propose to the current
organization of the OUSD(P)?
Answer. If confirmed, I may propose a modest restructuring of the
current organization to address better the concerns and priorities of
the President and the Secretary of Defense and would look forward to
consultations with this committee on those changes.
arms control
Question. Are arms control treaties, either bilateral or
unilateral, in the national interest of the United States, and, if so,
under what circumstances?
Answer. Arms control agreements and actions can be in the national
interest of the United States. Each proposed treaty or unilateral
action needs to be evaluated to determine whether it is in the U.S.
national interest. Relevant considerations regarding treaties include:
Is a proposed treaty's purpose in our national interest? Will the
proposed terms accomplish the purpose? Is the proposed treaty
verifiable? How likely is it that other parties will comply? How
effective are efforts likely to be to enforce compliance if the treaty
is violated? Are there collateral benefits of the proposed treaty even
if its terms are violated by other parties?
intermediate nuclear forces (inf) treaty
Question. In April 1988 you co-authored an article in which you
concluded that the INF Treaty does not accomplish its stated purpose:
``the complete, verifiable elimination of U.S. and Soviet intermediate
and shorter-range ground-based nuclear missiles.'' You also wrote that
``various [INF] provisions would actually facilitate the creation of
maintenance of a covert Soviet force of SS-20's, the most threatening
of the Soviet missiles covered.''
Answer. First, allow me to comment directly about the 1988 article
on the INF Treaty, which I co-authored. This article highlighted a
study of the INF Treaty performed by a six-person group of which I was
a member. The study group did not oppose the treaty or take a position
against ratification. One study member, Richard Perle, testified before
Congress in favor of ratification. I did not oppose the treaty. In my
view, the treaty has contributed positively to U.S. national security,
and I think the Senate acted wisely in approving ratification.
Also related to my past writings, questions have been raised about
a 1997 article I wrote on the Palestinian-Israeli ``Oslo'' accord. The
main theme of my several articles on that subject has been that the
accords have been violated systematically and efforts to remedy the
violations have proven ineffective. This point should not be taken as
opposition to Oslo or peace negotiations as such. What I oppose are the
violations, which have done harm to the negotiating process, to the
Israeli and Palestinian victims of violence, and to U.S. interests.
My criticisms over the years of the Oslo process specifically, and
the arms control process in general, have all arisen from my conviction
that such negotiations should take full account of the difficulties of
enforcing compliance. This problem is closely tied to the character,
stability, political organization and other traits of the parties. Each
negotiation and each proposed agreement requires careful, pragmatic
judgments by policymakers.
Question. Do you believe that the Senate's ratification of the INF
Treaty was a mistake?
Answer. In that April 1988 article, my co-author and I examined
drafting defects in the INF Treaty in the context of the Cold War, a
period of hostility and suspicion on our part regarding the Soviet
Union. The Cold War is over and our relationship with Russia is
fundamentally different from and better than our relationship with the
Soviet Union. As I stated above, I did not oppose the INF Treaty. In my
view, the treaty has contributed positively to U.S. national security
and I think the Senate acted wisely in approving ratification.
chemical weapons convention
Question. The United States is a party to the Chemical Weapons
Convention. During the floor debate on this treaty, you wrote urging
opposition to it.
What are your views of the Chemical Weapons Convention today?
Answer. The United States is a party to the Chemical Weapons
Convention and has accepted legal obligations under the Convention. The
Department of Defense will implement its obligations fully, including
those spelled out in the Senate Conditions to the Resolution of
Ratification. If confirmed, I will work to make the Convention as
effective as possible in eliminating the danger of chemical weapons.
Question. Will you fully implement the terms and conditions of this
treaty?
Answer. Please see answer to 24 A.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, when asked, to give your personal views,
even if those views differ from the administration in power?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as the Under Secretary of Defense
for Policy?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings, and
other communications or information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Carl Levin
treaties/agreements
1. Senator Levin. Is it your opinion that all bilateral non-
dispositive treaties and agreements between the U.S. and the Soviet
Union automatically lapsed in December 1991, or just the treaties?
Mr. Feith. A number of the questions in this new set ask about my
opinions on legal matters. Before I answer the specific questions, I
wish to make some general comments. I recognize that the position for
which I have been nominated--Under Secretary of Defense for Policy--is
responsible for policy, not legal judgments. The administration will
take positions on legal questions based on the advice of officials
functioning as lawyers. The Under Secretary of Defense for Policy is
not such an official. Even though I am a lawyer, I know that, if
confirmed as Under Secretary, I would not be making legal judgments for
the administration.
I want also to note that, as Under Secretary, I would (if
confirmed) do my policy work within the bounds of legal judgments made
by other administration officials (and, of course, the courts). That
would be true with regard to the ABM Treaty and all other law-related
matters. I foresee no difficulty operating in this fashion even if
those legal judgments differ from mine, let alone from an opinion I
formulated in the private sector.
Regarding in particular the legal memorandum I co-authored on
whether the ABM Treaty of 1972 became, upon the U.S.S.R.'s demise, a
treaty between the United States and the Russian Federation, I wish to
note that that work was an attempt to describe the law, not to advocate
what the law should be. As a practical matter, I think the controversy
over the treaty's legal status has been overtaken by events, for this
administration has made clear that it is respecting the terms of the
ABM Treaty. President Bush has also stated that ``we must move beyond
the constraints of the 30 year old ABM Treaty,'' but he has made it
clear that he seeks to do so cooperatively with Russia. The issue of
the ABM Treaty is, I recognize, essentially political and diplomatic in
nature.
On the issues of missile defense, arms control in general and,
indeed, all defense policy matters, I believe that it is important to
think questions through pragmatically, non-ideologically, with an
appreciation that reasonable people differ on such important topics. If
confirmed, I would see it as my responsibility to ensure that policy
making at the Defense Department is an open-minded, comprehensive and
honest process conducted in close consultation with Congress.
Now, specifically in answer to Question 1: Based on legal research
I did a few years ago, I concluded that, as a matter of international
law, all bilateral, non-dispositive treaties and all other bilateral,
non-dispositive agreements between the United States and the U.S.S.R.
automatically lapsed upon the U.S.S.R.'s dissolution in December 1991.
(See Attachment hereto, which reproduces from the legal memorandum I
co-authored the section describing the relevant legal doctrine.) I
appreciate that reasonable people differ on this question. In any
event, in my view, nothing prevented or prevents the U.S. Executive
Branch from deeming Russia the substitute for the U.S.S.R. with regard
to U.S.-U.S.S.R. agreements that had come into force without Senate
approval of ratification. It is my understanding that the U.S.
Government deems such executive agreements as continuing with Russia as
the substitute party.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
2. Senator Levin. Why would treaties lapse and not agreements?
Mr. Feith. Please see answer to Question 1.
inf treaty
3. Senator Levin. Is the treaty between the United States and the
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the elimination of their
intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles together with the
Memorandum of Understanding and the two protocols thereto collectively
referred to as the INF Treaty (Entered into force December 11, 1988)
still in force?
Mr. Feith. My understanding is that the United States is committed
to complying with the terms of the INF treaty. I understand further
that the Clinton administration stated that the 12 newly independent
states that arose on the territory of the former U.S.S.R. ``remain
subject to the [INF] Treaty's indefinite ban on the possession,
production, and flight testing of intermediate-range and shorter-range
missiles.'' No succession agreement has ever been signed, though my
understanding is that the Clinton administration sought unsuccessfully
to negotiate a succession agreement with the Russian Federation,
Kazakhstan, Belarus, and Ukraine.
The heads of state of ten of the twelve members of the Commonwealth
of Independent States adopted the October 1992 Bishkek Resolution, to
which the United States was not a Party. That Resolution declared that
its signatories ``will implement the provisions of the INF Treaty with
respect to their territory and taking into account their national
interests.''
If confirmed, I would support U.S. Government policy regarding the
treaty, deferring on legal questions to the administration's legal
counsel.
abm treaty
4. Senator Levin. Both President Bush and President Clinton
operated on the general principle that the treaty rights and
obligations of the former Soviet Union had passed to the successor
States, unless the terms or the purpose of the treaty required a
different result. Edwin D. Williamson, the Legal Advisor to the State
Department during the former Bush administration, confirming the idea
that the Russian federation and the other Republics were successors to
the treaty obligations of the former Soviet Union, wrote:
``Perhaps most importantly, however, continuity has been
supported by the republics themselves, who affirmed this
approach in the Alma Ata Declaration when they guaranteed the
``fulfillment of international obligations stemming from the
treaties and agreements of the former U.S.S.R.''
Would you then agree that the views of the Executive Branch, as
dispositive of this issue, are that the U.S. and Russia are bound by
the ABM Treaty?
Mr. Feith. The Bush administration has declared that it is treating
the Treaty as being in effect. I support the administration's approach
and would, if confirmed as Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, defer
on legal questions to the administration's legal counsel.
alma ata declaration
5. Senator Levin. What, in your view, is the effect of the Alma Ata
Declaration of December 21, 1991 made by the States of the Former
Soviet Union that ``. . . the States participating in the Commonwealth
(of Independent States) guarantee in accordance with their
constitutional procedures the discharge of the international
obligations deriving from treaties and agreements concluded by the
former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. . .'' and the January 13,
1992 note in which the Russian Federation informed the U.S. that it . .
. ``continues to perform the right and fulfill the obligations
following from the international agreements signed by the Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics . . .''?
Mr. Feith. The December 21, 1991 and January 13, 1992 declarations
of the newly independent states did not, I believe, impose any
obligations on the United States. I believe this has been the
consistent view of the U.S. Government since the declarations were
made.
chemical weapons convention
6. Senator Levin. Under what circumstances would you advocate
withdrawing from the Chemical Weapons Convention?
Mr. Feith. I do not advocate U.S. withdrawal from the Chemical
Weapons Convention and cannot foresee the circumstance under which I
would do so.
nuclear nonproliferation treaty
7. Senator Levin. In an article you wrote for The Washington
Quarterly, Spring 1986, you state that you are a strong supporter of
the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Nevertheless in your article
discussing and opposing the Chemical Weapons Convention on April 21,
1997 in The Washington Times you write ``CWC Articles X and XI have
become the main focus of the critics' case that the CWC will do more
harm than good. These provisions, modeled on the `atoms for peace'
concept of the NNPT (Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty), aim to reward
states that renounce chemical weapons by providing them with chemical
technology and material `for peaceful purposes.' You then refer to
these provisions as the ``poisons for peace'' provisions and state that
these provisions would ``require the sale'' to Iran of ``an advanced
chemical plant.''
In making this statement, do you believe that the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty ``atoms for peace'' provisions have encourage
or required proliferation? Do you have evidence that this has occurred?
Mr. Feith. The NPT has been an important ``net plus'' for U.S.
national security interests. The treaty embodies a number of bargains:
For example, first, a bargain among the nuclear-weapons states. Second,
a bargain between the nuclear-weapons states, on the one hand, and the
non-nuclear-weapons states on the other.
It has impeded (albeit not prevented altogether) the proliferation
of nuclear weapons capabilities. The treaty's requirement (based on
``atoms for peace'') to share nuclear technology ``for peaceful
purposes'' and the related inspection regime have created problems,
however. For example, before the Gulf War, Iraq was accepted as a
participant in good standing in the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) inspection program. After the Gulf War, our intelligence
community (``IC'') was surprised when U.N. weapons inspectors
discovered just how effective Iraq had been at concealing the Iraqi
nuclear weapons program, which was much further along than the IC had
thought. Iraqis told the U.N. inspectors that they had learned
concealment techniques by participating in the IAEA inspection program
under the NPT.
Regarding my April 21, 1997 Washington Times article on the CWC, I
did not state that Article XI would require the sale to Iran of an
advanced chemical plant, but that Article XI might be cited as a
pretext. I wrote:
Article XI prohibits--or at least expresses disapproval of--
export restrictions in the chemical field among treaty parties.
. . . If a German or a Chinese company arranges to sell an
advanced chemical plant to Iran and the U.S. government
protests that this would enhance Iran's chemical weapons
program, we can expect the German or Chinese government to cite
Article XI, arguing that the CWC not only permits but requires
the sale, for Iran will be a treaty party in good standing (or,
in any event a party against whom no violation has been
proved). [Emphasis added.]
inf treaty
8. Senator Levin. In April 1988 you coauthored an article with
Frank Gaffney in The Christian Science Monitor in which you criticized
the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty negotiated by President Reagan's
administration which was pending before the Senate. You wrote:
``Despite the general ban on INF systems, various treaty provisions
could actually facilitate the creation or maintenance of a covert
Soviet force of SS-20s, the most threatening of the Soviet missiles
covered. While each such provision may seem a minor problem in its own
right, taken together they mean that the Soviets, even without
violating the specific terms of the treaty, could retain a militarily
significant INF capability.'' In your view did the INF Treaty
facilitate a covert force of SS-20s?
Mr. Feith. No.
missile defense
9. Senator Levin. The current and former Commanders in Chief of the
Strategic Command have both said that the Russian command and control
system over its nuclear weapons launch capability is intact and the
possibility of an accidental or unauthorized launch is virtually non-
existent. Do you agree that Russia should not be a justification for an
NMD system?
Mr. Feith. I am not familiar with any such statements from the
current or former Commanders in Chief of the Strategic Command. In any
event, the primary purpose of U.S. missile defense, according to
President Bush, would be to defend against the emerging ballistic
missile threat from rogue states. Such defenses, however, would also
help protect against accidental or unauthorized launches. Though the
probability of an accidental or unauthorized launch may be very low,
the consequences would be extremely grave, so serious that the United
States should, in my view, assess the risk as warranting defensive
measures, which could be cooperative in nature.
chinese icbm launch
10. Senator Levin. The Chinese ICBMs are not maintained on a high
alert status. Would you agree that the possibility of an accidental or
unauthorized launch of a Chinese ICBM is remote?
Mr. Feith. I have not been briefed on the PRC command and control
system for nuclear weapons. My understanding is, however, that the
primary purpose of U.S. missile defense, according to President Bush,
would be to defend against the emerging ballistic missile threat from
rogue states. Such defenses, however, would also help protect against
accidental or unauthorized launches. Though the probability of an
accidental or unauthorized launch may be very low, the consequences
would be extremely grave, so serious that the United States should, in
my view, assess the risk as warranting defensive measures, which could
be cooperative in nature.
start i/start ii
11. Senator Levin. Do you support repeal of section 1302(b) of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 that requires
the U.S. to maintain a START I stockpile until START II enters into
force?
Mr. Feith. I understand that the administration (1) is now
reviewing nuclear forces and arms control policies as a part of the
strategic review and (2) supports repealing this section of the
Authorization Act. I have not been briefed on the underlying
considerations and, therefore, cannot offer a personal view.
The President has said he wants to reduce the number of U.S.
nuclear weapons to the lowest level consistent with our national
security, a policy that I support.
If confirmed, I would work with the committee to review legislation
that requires the United States to maintain defined levels of nuclear
forces, and to reach a position that is consistent with the results of
the strategic review recommendations.
peacekeeper icbm
12. Senator Levin. Do you support prompt retirement of the
Peacekeeper ICBM?
Mr. Feith. This is an issue that will be examined in the Nuclear
Posture Review. I am aware that the President has said that he wants to
reduce nuclear forces, a policy that I support. If confirmed, I would
need to be briefed on the Peacekeeper issue before I could form a
personal opinion on it.
strategic nuclear forces
13. Senator Levin. Do you support unilateral reductions in
strategic nuclear forces? To what levels? Would you support reductions
below the START II force levels? Would such reductions be unilateral,
pursuant to treaty, or other government-to-government agreement?
Mr. Feith. This administration has stated its intention to reduce
the U.S. nuclear arsenal to the lowest level consistent with our
national security requirements. I support this policy and, in
particular, support reductions below existing levels. But whether it
will be possible to reduce to below START II levels is a question on
which I have not yet formed a personal opinion. I understand that the
ongoing nuclear forces review is addressing that question.
Nor do I yet have a personal view on how best to pursue reduction
goals. This is a complex question that hinges on many military and
diplomatic considerations. If confirmed, I would get briefed on all the
relevant facts and considerations and would look forward to working
with this committee in thinking through the best course of action for
arms reductions.
nuclear arsenal
14. Senator Levin. Do you support dismantling warheads moved from
deployment? In your view what is the appropriate size of the nuclear
arsenal? Do you support a hedge strategy and if so for what purpose?
Mr. Feith. I cannot now offer a personal view on dismantling
warheads, the appropriate size of the nuclear arsenal or the hedge
strategy. These are complex issues on which, if confirmed, I would have
to be briefed regarding all relevant facts and considerations.
nuclear forces
15. Senator Levin. How do you define ``hair trigger alert'' and
what U.S. weapons fit the description of being ``on hair trigger
alert?''
Mr. Feith. I do not have a personal view on this issue nor am I in
a position to define the term ``hair trigger alert.'' If confirmed, I
would need to be briefed on the posture of our nuclear forces before
taking a position. The President has made clear his determination to
change further the size, composition and character of U.S. nuclear
forces in a way that takes full account of current international
circumstances.
russian/u.s. weapons
16. Senator Levin. Would you support prompt de-alerting any Russian
or U.S. weapons that are to be retired?
Mr. Feith. This measure is not without precedent. I understand this
issue will be examined as a part of the nuclear posture review. If
confirmed, I would have to be briefed on all relevant facts and
considerations, but my present inclination is to look favorably at the
suggestion.
nuclear posture
17. Senator Levin. What other weapons would you recommend come off
``hair trigger'' alert?
Mr. Feith. I do not now have a personal view on this issue. I
understand that this issue will be considered during the nuclear
posture review and, if confirmed, I would study this issue carefully
before making a recommendation to the Secretary of Defense. My present
inclination is to look favorably at prudent de-alerting proposals.
abm treaty
18. Senator Levin. In your view does the 1997 ABM multilateral MOU
have any force or effect, legal or moral?
Mr. Feith. The 1997 ABM multilateral MOU is an agreement that the
United States signed but has not ratified. The Executive Branch has
never submitted it to the Senate for approval of ratification, so the
MOU is not in force. In any event, customary international law
prohibits a signatory from defeating an agreement's object and purpose
unless and until the signatory makes clear its intention not to become
a party.
19. Senator Levin. Would you, if confirmed, recommend to the
Secretary of Defense or others that if negotiations to modify the ABM
Treaty are not successful, that the Treaty could or should be viewed as
no longer in force? If confirmed, will you advocate this position?
Mr. Feith. Regarding your first question: As I understand it,
within the administration, this question, if it should arise, would be
resolved by the President on the basis of legal advice from the
administration's legal counsel. Please be assured that I appreciate
that the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy should not render legal
opinions.
As I noted in my answer to Question 1, as a practical matter, I
think the controversy over the treaty's legal status has been overtaken
by events, for this administration has made clear that it is respecting
the terms of the ABM Treaty. President Bush has also stated that ``we
must move beyond the constraints of the 30-year-old ABM Treaty,'' but
he has made it clear that he seeks to do so cooperatively with Russia.
The issue of the ABM Treaty is, I recognize, essentially political and
diplomatic in nature. Even though I am a lawyer, I know that, if
confirmed as Under Secretary, I would not be making legal judgments for
the administration. As Under Secretary, I would (if confirmed) do my
policy work within the bounds of legal judgments made by other
administration officials (and, of course, the courts). That would be
true with regard to the ABM Treaty and all other law-related matters. I
foresee no difficulty operating in this fashion even if those legal
judgments differ from mine, let alone from an opinion I formulated in
the private sector.
missile defense
20. Senator Levin. In your view, to what extent should the United
States utilize the ground-based architecture developed under the
previous administration as the primary element for implementing the
President's missile defense plans, if, as currently, that system can
meet the operational requirement for defending all 50 States against
ballistic missile attack? What would be the rationale for expanding
beyond the land-based system?
Mr. Feith. The question of alternative architectures for missile
defense is complex and I have not been briefed to the extent that would
permit me responsibly to form a judgment on the question.
north korea
21. Senator Levin. Do you believe U.S. policy should continue to
seek an end to North Korea's nuclear weapons and ballistic missile
programs? Should these efforts include talks and negotiations with
North Korea?
Mr. Feith. My answer to both questions is yes.
cooperative threat reduction
22. Senator Levin. Will you support the Cooperative Threat
Reduction programs, increasing the funding as necessary to improve
control over all aspects of Russia's arsenal including dismantlement of
nuclear warheads, accounting storage and control of weapons usable
plutonium and uranium, and shutting down the last three Russian
plutonium producing reactors?
Mr. Feith. I strongly support the CTR program. As to the particular
elements of the program, I would, if confirmed, get briefed on all
relevant facts and circumstances to allow me to formulate views on an
appropriate funding level.
23. Senator Levin. Do you support CTR funding for the Russian
chemical weapons destruction facility at Shchuch'ye?
Mr. Feith. I do not have a personal opinion on Shchuch'ye. I would,
if confirmed, get briefed on all relevant facts and circumstances to
allow me to formulate a view.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd
treaties
24. Senator Byrd. The article you co-authored in 1988 on the
Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty was critical of Senate
action to clarify the terms and obligations of the treaty. What is your
understanding of the role of the Senate in the making of treaties? To
what degree do you believe the Senate is bound by international law, as
opposed to the Constitution, in its consideration of treaties?
Mr. Feith. My 1998 INF article, cited in the question, did not
oppose Senate action to clarify the terms and obligations of the
treaty. Rather, it urged the Senate to clarify those items with the
administration and then also to ensure a meeting of minds on the
clarifications between the U.S. and U.S.S.R. governments.
Treaty ambiguities gave rise during the Cold War to many bitter
U.S.-Soviet exchanges that strained relations and eroded respect for
arms control and international law. I believe that efforts to craft
precise language should be as serious in the field of international law
as they are in the field of ordinary U.S. domestic law.
I view the Senate as having a crucial role to play, through the
exercise of its constitutional treaty-making authority, in clarifying
the meaning of international agreements negotiated by the Executive
Branch.
The Constitution of the United States, Article II, section 2,
paragraph 2 vests in the President the power ``by and with the Advice
and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the
Senators present concur; . . '' Article VI, paragraph 2 provides that
``This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be
made in pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be
made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme
law of the Land; . . '' Accordingly, as a matter of internal law, an
agreement that would constitute a ``treaty'' for purposes of Article
II, section 2, paragraph 2 cannot constitutionally bind the United
States if it has not been concurred in by a two-thirds vote of the
Senators present.
With respect to the second question, it is my understanding that
international law does not bind the Senate in its consideration of
treaties. The Senate has a crucial role under the Constitution in the
making of treaties, so it is important that the Executive Branch give
the Senate an accurate understanding of the terms of a treaty when the
Senate deliberates on whether to provide advice and consent to
ratification.
25. Senator Byrd. May authoritative representations made before the
ratification of a treaty later be altered without the further advice
and consent of the Senate?
Mr. Feith. Please see my answer to Question 1 as to the fact that
the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy has responsibility to give
policy but not legal advice.
In his confirmation process, Mr. William Taft, IV, now State
Department Legal Adviser, made the following statements:
``The Constitution's scheme of sharing the treaty-making power
requires that mutual understandings on treaty interpretation reached
with the Senate in the ratification process must be respected. . . . My
view is that modifications or amendments to treaties should be
submitted to the Senate for its advice and consent.''
I concur with these statements.
26. Senator Byrd. Do you believe that the Senate gives its advice
and consent to a treaty irrespective of representations made to it by
the Executive Branch?
Mr. Feith. Treaty-making is a power shared by the President and the
Senate. During the process of advice and consent, I believe the
Executive Branch is obliged to provide information necessary to allow
the Senate to fulfill the Senate's constitutional role. Such
information should be complete and accurate and the Senate should be
able to rely upon it.
sofaer doctrine
27. Senator Byrd. Did you participate in the formulation of the
``Sofaer doctrine?''
Mr. Feith. I had no official or formal involvement in the
formulation of the ``Sofaer doctrine,'' nor do I recall any particular
informal role.
28. Senator Byrd. At the time you wrote the article on the INF
Treaty, what were your views on the ``Sofaer doctrine?'' Have your
views on this doctrine changed?
Mr. Feith. I did not perform independent legal research on the
matter and do not recall ever having formulated a definite opinion.
treaties
29. Senator Byrd. If you were to be called to testify before a
Senate committee, can you give an authoritative reading of any
provision of any treaty that might affect the Department of Defense?
Mr. Feith. I do not know under what circumstances the Under
Secretary of Defense for Policy would be called upon to give an
authoritative reading of a treaty provision. In any case, if I were
called upon to do so, I would rely upon guidance provided by
administration legal counsel.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Max Cleland
abm treaty
30. Senator Cleland. Your position regarding the ABM Treaty seems
to be that it has no legal force as of the dissolution of the USSR, but
that the U.S. and Russia have chosen to continue it in the absence of a
legal requirement to do so. Would you recommend that the U.S. abrogate
the treaty unilaterally without a successor agreement and over the
strenuous objections of a significant number of our Allies?
Mr. Feith. The Bush administration has declared that it is treating
the ABM Treaty as being in effect, an approach I support. The President
seeks to work with Russia to replace the ABM Treaty with a new
framework that reflects a break from Cold War thinking and a new,
cooperative relationship. The administration is in consultations with
the Russians and with the allies on the framework. The President has
said we will address Russian concerns. The President has also
emphasized that we are not interested in defense that would separate
the United States from our allies. It is clear that this administration
values our allies and appreciates the importance of creating as broad a
base of support as possible for U.S. policies. If confirmed, I would
work toward achieving that new framework and the support of our allies.
missile defense
31. Senator Cleland. The term ``international cooperation,'' like
``bipartisan cooperation,'' implies that the parties in such a
cooperative relationship cannot always have it their way. Is it
appropriate for a nation such as the United States to surrender some of
its prerogatives because of the preferences of its avowed allies? Under
what circumstances would you disregard the preferences of allies? In
your mind, is the deployment of a National Missile Defense system
important enough to pursue even over the objections of allies? Why?
Mr. Feith. I believe that in the area of missile defense, the
United States and our allies have fundamentally harmonious interests.
In my view, the United States should proceed in this area in accordance
with its national interests, taking into account the views of our
allies. Good alliance relations are an important element of U.S.
national interests. I think there are reasonable grounds for hoping
that the United States and our allies will work closely and
cooperatively in coming years to protect against the threats resulting
from the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and missile
capabilities. The United States has begun a cooperative allied
consultation process. As a result of the first round of consultations
in May and Secretary Rumsfeld's recent June visit to Europe, I think
the administration has a better understanding of allied views, both
supportive and skeptical. I know that the administration welcomes the
allies' input and intends to continue the consultations. The desirable
outcome, I believe, is alliance consensus, which enlightened U.S.
leadership has often over the years been able to produce.
iraq policy
32. Senator Cleland. Will you actively oppose any efforts to employ
U.S. ground forces in efforts to replace the current regime in Iraq
with one more favorable to U.S. interests? Under what circumstances
would you consider supporting the commitment of American ground forces
to areas in and around the Persian Gulf in which hostilities are
ongoing or imminent?
Mr. Feith. I do not favor--indeed I oppose--sending U.S. ground
forces into combat in Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein.
At the same time, I agree with Section 3 of the Iraq Liberation Act
(Public Law 105-338), that it should be U.S. policy ``to promote the
emergence of a democratic government to replace [the Saddam Hussein]
regime.''
I cannot now identify what circumstances in the future might
justify a commitment of U.S. ground forces in hostilities in the
Persian Gulf area. I did, however, support the use of U.S. forces to
liberate Kuwait in the 1990-1991 crisis. I supported President
Clinton's decision in 1994 to deploy U.S. ground forces in Kuwait to
deter another Iraqi invasion. But I always consider any decision to
commit U.S. forces of any kind a matter of the profoundest seriousness
which must be considered rigorously and thoroughly on the basis of its
own particular circumstances.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Strom Thurmond
israeli policy
33. Senator Thurmond. The fiscal year 2000 Omnibus Appropriations
Act provided $1.2 billion to assist the Government of Israel with
implementation of the Wye River Accords, a peace agreement signed
October 23, 1998. Specifically, the U.S. aid was to provide funding to
move Israeli troops and military installations out of the occupied
territories, as called for in the agreement. As part of this
assistance, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is tasked to construct two
infantry-training bases, and a Reserve division storage/logistics base
in Israel. The program, estimated to cost $233 million, is funded with
Foreign Military Financing.
Considering the current turmoil in Israel, should the United States
continue supporting the construction of these bases? Have the Israeli
troops been withdrawn from the territories, as required by the Wye
agreement?
Mr. Feith. I have not yet been briefed on this legislation and the
implementation issues. If confirmed, I would review this matter and
consult with the committee about it.
north korea
34. Senator Thurmond. Recently President Bush implied that
continuing the peace talks with North Korea were not ``worthwhile.''
What are your views on the role North Korea has in maintaining
peace and stability in the Pacific region?
Mr. Feith. The administration has stated it plans to resume
negotiations with North Korea. As I understand it, the President has
directed his national security team to undertake discussions with North
Korea on a broad agenda, including: improved implementation of the
Agreed Framework relating to North Korea's nuclear activities;
verifiable constraints on North Korea's missile programs and a ban on
its missile exports; and a less threatening conventional military
posture. As the President stated, the approach will offer North Korea
the opportunity to demonstrate the seriousness of its desire for
improved relations. I support the President's approach.
persian gulf policy
35. Senator Thurmond. The presence of U.S. military forces in the
Persian Gulf region is seen as an important factor in maintaining
stability in the region by our strategic planners. However, some of our
allies in the region are under considerable internal pressure to reduce
or eliminate the presence of our forces.
In your view, what are the long-term implications of maintaining
large numbers of our forces in the Persian Gulf region?
Mr. Feith. Since 1990, most U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf region
have been there to carry out missions arising from Iraq's failure to
abide by the terms of the 1991 Gulf War cease-fire. The requirement to
maintain the U.S. presence depends in large measure on developments in
Iraq.
In general, I believe the U.S. military presence in the Gulf should
take account of the evolution of threats to U.S. interests and should
be shaped through continuing consultations with our allies and partners
in the Gulf. The U.S. presence in the region contributes to deterrence,
regional stability and U.S. interests generally.
russia/china
36. Senator Thurmond. Both Russia and China have expressed their
concern regarding the United States sole super power status. There are
some foreign policy experts who believe that these two nations may join
others to check U.S. influence throughout the world.
In your judgment, is there a basis for such concerns and is there a
potential that we could enter another Cold War era?
Mr. Feith. In my view, as the United States contributes to shaping
the international security environment, we should work to avoid
creating incentives for other states to coalesce in opposition to our
interests and those of our allies. The concern reflected in the
question is an important one, and I know that the administration is
intent on developing relations with Russia and China that are non-
confrontational.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Bob Smith
china mil-to-mil
37. Senator Smith. I'm directing this comment to you because I'm
sure you're aware of controversy over the U.S./China military-to-
military exchanges--I authored the fiscal year 2000 DOD restrictions on
these exchanges.
I have requested a briefing on the department's perspective of the
value of these contacts, the lack of reciprocity on the part of the
Chinese, and to discuss how we might improve the program--if it is
going to continue--so that it meets some clear objectives and is not
divulging militarily useful information to the Chinese military.
Can you comment on the administration's change in the mil-to-mil
program--how the new ``case-by-case'' review differ from the previous
program under the Clinton administration?
Specifically, are we still trying to have the PRC observe at the
COBRA GOLD exercises, as CINCPAC Admiral Blair stated?
Mr. Feith and Dr. Crouch. We have been advised that the Department
of Defense began in January a series of broad policy reviews. One of
the areas to be examined in detail was the program for military-to-
military exchanges with the People's Republic of China. The first step
in this process was to undertake a serious review of the schedule of
military-to-military events with the PLA planned for 2001.
As we understand it, since the April 1 EP-3 incident over the South
China Sea, business with China has not been as usual. Steps have been
taken to limit the travel of DOD personnel to China and to limit
contact with PRC officials, especially PLA personnel. The military-to-
military program has been conducted on a case-by-case basis, with
special emphasis on (1) benefit to U.S. interests and (2) reciprocity.
The PRC, along with other countries in the region, was invited to
observe the command post portion of EXERCISE COBRA GOLD. The PRC,
however, declined the invitation.
taiwan policy
38. Senator Smith. I would also like to raise with you in the
future the issue of closer ties between U.S. and Taiwan military
forces--I believe we should lift the petty and counter-productive
restrictions on U.S. military officer travel to Taiwan and allow more
U.S. military personnel to train Taiwanese military personnel in
Taiwan.
We should also be establishing direct and secure communications
between Taiwan and the U.S. military, linking PACOM and Taiwan's
defense ministry.
I urge you to undertake a review of U.S. military policy towards
Taiwan. Not taking these steps could be disastrous in the event of
another crisis in the straits.
Mr. Feith and Dr. Crouch. It is our understanding that the
Department of Defense is reviewing a range of issues associated with
our defense relationship with Taiwan, including enhancing our training
programs. If confirmed, we would give serious consideration to the
issue of U.S. military visitors to Taiwan.
cooperative threat reduction
39. Senator Smith. In your responses to the committee's questions,
you were asked about the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program.
There have been ongoing concerns, some lodged by the GAO, others by
experts on Russia, that the program has failed to meet its objectives--
that it has freed up Russian resources to remove obsolete weapons
systems while the Russian continue with military modernization and
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction to rogue nations.
I have also been told that there might be some confusion over CTR's
accomplishments because of use of the terms ``deactivation,
dismantlement and destruction.'' Shouldn't we be focusing on
destruction of warheads as opposed to simply their deactivation or
dismantlement? Can you comment further on CTR and whether the program
warrants an overhaul and how can we go about clarifying program
objectives and evaluating success or failure?
Mr. Feith. I do not have a personal view on this issue. If
confirmed, I would expect to be briefed on these important issues and
would look forward to consulting with you on the development of policy
in this area.
asia pacific center
40. Senator Smith. Are you familiar with the Asia Pacific Center
for Security Studies? The center was mentioned in a recent New York
Times article, ``Rumsfeld Limiting Military Contacts with the
Chinese.''
Could you inform the committee as to any reason why the Asia
Pacific Center for Security Studies does not list Taiwan on its
website's ``List of Countries in the Asia Pacific Region?''
Could you inform the committee as to why, after having been advised
by the Secretary of Defense to invite a Taiwanese scholar to a May
conference, the Asia Pacific Center then postponed the conference?
Are you aware of whether the Pentagon felt undercut on its missile
defense agenda by the Director's (Asia Pacific Center) recent arguments
in Australia against missile defenses?
Mr. Feith. I do not have a personal view on this issue. If
confirmed, I would expect to be briefed on these important issues and
would look forward to consulting with you on the development of policy
in this area.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Susan Collins
contingency operations
41. Senator Collins. As Secretary Rumsfeld recently told the press,
contingency operations is one of several issues under examination in
the ongoing Rumsfeld Strategic Review. Given that one of your oversight
responsibilities is to assist the Secretary of Defense in preparing
written policy guidance for the preparation and review of contingency
plans or crisis management models, will you give us your thoughts on
the possibility of having a standing joint task force that would be
established solely to deal with contingency operations?
Mr. Feith. I do not have a personal view on this issue. This issue
is now under review by the Secretary. If confirmed, I look forward to
participating in the review and working with this committee on the
issue.
deployment of our armed forces
42. Senator Collins. I would like to briefly discuss your views on
the Department's engagement policy. The decision to employ our troops
in support of our national interests is one of the most important
decisions that a President has to make. It is imperative that we not
only carefully assess the use of force, set achievable goals, and
determine the cost, prior to deploying our troops; but that we
effectively characterize success criteria before placing them in harms
way. If confirmed, how will you establish such criteria to ensure that
when our U.S. military forces are employed, that the mission is clearly
defined and a definite end is identified so we can bring our forces
home at the appropriate time, limiting the number of continuous and
indefinite military operations? Further, on the subject of continuous
operations, would you identify for the committee, operations in the
past decade involving overseas deployments, which you believe have
contributed to engagement activities, strengthened alliances, deterred
threats; and enhanced U.S. military access in key regions?
Mr. Feith. As you state, deploying U.S. armed forces in support of
our national interests is one of the President's weightiest decisions.
It is important that we carefully assess the use of force, set
realistic goals and determine the risks involved before sending our
troops into harm's way. The considerations you have laid out in your
question are, I believe, valid. While there may not be any objective
criteria applicable to all circumstances, and each contingency must
therefore be addressed on a case-by-case basis, it is necessary to have
definite political and military objectives before forces are deployed.
If confirmed, I will work with DOD officials, others in the
administration, and this committee to help ensure that when we deploy
our armed forces, the mission is justified and well-defined and the
strategy is well-conceived.
Our deployments in the Persian Gulf area and in the Balkans are
examples of overseas operations that have served the kind of U.S.
interests specified in the question.
______
[The nomination reference of Douglas Jay Feith follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
April 30, 2001.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Douglas Jay Feith, of Maryland, to be Under Secretary of Defense
for Policy, vice Walter Becker Slocombe.
______
[The biographical sketch of Douglas Jay Feith, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Douglas J. Feith
Douglas J. Feith is currently the Managing Attorney of the law firm
of Feith & Zell, P.C., of Washington, DC. He founded the firm in 1986.
Mr. Feith began his professional career as an Attorney with the
Washington, DC, law firm of Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Kampelman
(1978 to 1981). In 1981-1982, he served on the staff of the National
Security Council as a Middle East specialist, working primarily on
Arab-Israeli, Persian Gulf and energy security issues. From 1982 to
1984, he was Special Counsel to Assistant Secretary of Defense Richard
Perle.
In 1984, Mr. Feith was appointed Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Negotiations Policy. In that position, he was responsible
for policy for various arms control negotiations, including those on
conventional force reductions, Confidence, and Security-Building
Measures in Europe, chemical and biological weapons and nuclear
testing, nuclear non-proliferation issues, and East-West political
relations. For his work, he received the Defense Department's highest
civilian award, the Distinguished Public Service Medal.
A native of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Mr. Feith received an A.B.
degree magna cum laude from Harvard College in 1975 and a J.D. degree
magna cum laude from the Georgetown University Law Center in 1978. Mr.
Feith has published extensively on matters of international law and on
foreign and defense policy. His writings have appeared in The New York
Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, Commentary, The
New Republic and elsewhere. In addition, he has contributed chapters to
a number of books, including James W. Muller, ed., Churchill as
Peacemaker; Douglas J. Feith, et al., Israel's Legitimacy in Law and
History; and Uri Ra'anan, et al., eds., Hydra of Carnage: International
Linkages of Terrorism.
Mr. Feith now serves as the President of the Charles E. Smith
Jewish Day School, a K-12 school with over 1,400 students. He is a
member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the International
Institute for Strategic Studies. He lives in Bethesda, Maryland with
his wife, Yanna, and their four children, Daniel, David, Dafna, and
Dore.
______
[The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
form that details the biographical, financial and other
information of the nominee. The form executed by Douglas Jay
Feith in connection with his nomination follows:]
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Room SR-228
Washington, DC 20510-6050
(202) 224-3871
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation
of your answer applies.
Part A--Biographical Information
Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.
1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
Douglas Jay Feith.
2. Position to which nominated:
Under Secretary of Defense for Policy.
3. Date of nomination:
April 30, 2001.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
5. Date and place of birth:
July 16, 1953; Philadelphia, PA.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Yanna Feith (nee Tatyana Belenky).
7. Names and ages of children:
Daniel J. Feith, 17; David J. Feith, 13; Dafna M. Feith, 9; Dore L.
Feith, 4.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received and date degree granted.
Central High School (Philadelphia, PA), graduated in 1971; Harvard
College, A.B. (magna cum laude) 1975; Georgetown Univ. Law Center, J.D.
(magna cum laude) 1978.
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
1986-now: Managing attorney, Feith & Zell, P.C., Washington, DC
(law firm).
10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative,
honorary or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State,
or local governments, other than those listed above.
Summer 1979, Intern, U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency;
1981-82, Staff member, National Security Council; 1982-84, Special
Counsel to Assistant Secretary of Defense (International Security
Policy); 1984-86, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Negotiations Policy; 1986-?, Consultant to Office of Secretary of
Defense (I do not recall if I ever charged for any consulting services
and I did not recall when the consultancy lapsed.)
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational or other institution.
Feith & Zell, PC (law firm, President and managing attorney;
Charles E. Smith Jewish Day School (non-profit K-12 school in
Rockville, MD), President; Foundation for Jewish Studies (non-profit
educational organization), Director/officer.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable and
other organizations.
Council of Foreign Relations, Member; Center for Security Policy,
Member, advisory board; District of Columbia Bar, Member; Harvard Club
of Washington, DC, Member; Jewish Community Center of Washington, DC,
Member.
13. Political affiliations and activities:
(a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or
any public office for which you have been a candidate.
None.
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5
years.
Middle East policy advisor in Dole for President Campaign, 1996.
(c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $100 or more for the past 5 years.
Year Amount
1996................................ I do not have personal $ 500.00
records showing any
political
contributions for
1996.
1997................................ Wash Pol Action 500.00
Committee.
1998................................ Wash Pol Action 500.00
Committee.
1998................................ Kyl for Senate........ 2,000.00
1998................................ Wash Pol Action 500.00
Committee.
1999................................ Kyl for Senate........ 2,000.00
1999................................ Wash Pol Action 500.00
Committee.
1999................................ Friends of Doug Duncan 500.00
2000................................ Gilman for Congress... 500.00
2000................................ Bush for President.... 1,000.00
2000................................ Odom, James for 250.00
Congress.
2000................................ Washington PAC........ 500.00
2000................................ Saxton for Congress... 500.00
2000................................ Spence for Congress... 500.00
2001................................ Washington PAC........ 500.00
14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals and any other special recognitions
for outstanding service or achievements.
1986, Department of Defense Distinguished Public Service Medal;
1997, Justice Louis D. Brandeis Award from Zionist Organization of
America.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
See list below. I do not have a comprehensive list of my published
writings, but the list below, I believe, is representative of the range
of those writings.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
16. Speeches: Provide the committee with two copies of any formal
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have
copies of and are on topics relevant to the position for which you have
been nominated.
See attached. I have given speeches at various forums, symposia and
conferences. Only my formal speeches are attached. The substance of all
the relevant speeches, I believe, is conveyed in the writings listed in
my answer to question 15 of part A above.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
17. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree,
if confirmed, to respond to requests to appear and testify before any
duly constituted committee of the Senate?
Yes.
______
[The nominee responded to the questions in Parts B-F of the
committee questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set
forth in the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to
Parts B-F are contained in the committee's executive files.]
------
Signature and Date
I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate,
and complete.
Douglas Jay Feith.
This 30th day of April, 2001.
[The nomination of Douglas Jay Feith was reported to the
Senate by Chairman Levin on July 11, 2001, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on July 12, 2001.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to Dr. J.D. Crouch by
Chairman Warner prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
May 21, 2001.
Hon. John Warner,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Enclosed are the answers to the advance
questions the Senate Armed Services Committee asked me to complete.
Sincerely,
J.D. Crouch, II.
cc: Hon. Carl Levin,
Ranking Minority Member.
______
Questions and Responses
defense reforms
Question. More than a decade has passed since the enactment of the
Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and
the Special Operations reforms.
Do you support full implementation of these defense reforms?
Answer. Yes, I support the implementation of these reforms. The
focus on ``jointness'' outlined in the Defense Reorganization Act of
1986 has significantly enhanced the readiness and warfighting
capabilities of the U.S. armed forces.
Question. What is your view of the extent to which these defense
reforms have been implemented?
Answer. These reforms have fundamentally changed the way the
Department of Defense works by strengthening civilian control of DOD,
improving military advice given to the President and Secretary of
Defense, and advancing the ability of the Department to carry out its
fundamental mission--protecting America's security and furthering its
vital interests.
Question. What do you consider to be the most important aspects of
these defense reforms?
Answer. From my point of view, the most important aspects are the
clear responsibilities and authorities given the CINCs for mission
accomplishment, and the increased attention to formulation of strategy
and contingency planning.
Question. The goals of Congress in enacting these defense reforms,
as reflected in section 3 of the Goldwater-Nichols Department of
Defense Reorganization Act, can be summarized as strengthening civilian
control; improving military advice; placing clear responsibility on the
combatant commanders for the accomplishment of their missions; ensuring
the authority of the combatant commanders is commensurate with their
responsibility; increasing attention to the formulation of strategy and
to contingency planning; providing for more efficient use of defense
resources; and enhancing the effectiveness of military operations and
improving the management and administration of the Department of
Defense.
Do you agree with these goals?
Answer. Yes, I support the goals of Congress in enacting the
reforms of the Goldwater-Nichols legislation.
Question. Recently, there have been articles which indicate an
interest within the Department of Defense in modifying Goldwater-
Nichols in light of the changing environment and possible revisions to
the National strategy.
Do you anticipate that legislative proposals to amend Goldwater-
Nichols may be appropriate? If so, what areas do you believe it might
be appropriate to address in these proposals?
Answer. I am unaware of any proposals to modify Goldwater-Nichols.
The Department will should consult closely with Congress, especially
this committee, on any changes that might be appropriate.
duties
Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy?
Answer. I understand that, if confirmed, my duties as Assistant
Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy will be to serve
as the principal assistant and advisor to the Under Secretary of
Defense for Policy in formulating and implementing national security
and defense policy in a wide range of areas, including: nuclear forces;
technology security; missile defense; Europe and NATO; Russia, Ukraine,
and Eurasia; arms control, non-proliferation, and counter-
proliferation.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what duties and functions do
you expect that Secretary Rumsfeld would prescribe for you?
Answer. I would expect Secretary Rumsfeld to look to the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy to fulfill all
the duties assigned to that office by statute and regulation--in
particular, assistance and advice on the formulation of national
security and defense policy in the areas noted in 2A .
Question. How do you see the civilian role, as opposed to the
military role, in the formulation of strategy and contingency planning?
Answer. As I understand this activity, the Policy Office, on behalf
of the Secretary, initiates the contingency planning process though its
preparation of the Presidentially-approved Contingency Planning
Guidance, and subsequently reviews actual plans developed by the
military. Formulation of strategy and the contingency planning guidance
that flows from it is an inherently civilian role. The military as an
institution or through individual leaders, has an important part in
this process. However, leadership and final decisions relating to
formulation of strategy and contingency guidance is appropriately
within the purview of the Nation's civilian leaders.
major challenges and problems
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will
confront the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security
Policy?
Answer. The Department as a whole must strive to ensure that the
U.S. military maintains the ability to deter the range of threats we
face and defend our national interests in a world of diverse and not
necessarily predictable threats. The United States government faces
major challenges in properly supporting our forces today while
transforming the military to deal effectively with future
uncertainties. Another major challenge is dealing with so-called
emerging threats--the ability of hostile forces (states and terrorist
organizations) to cause serious damage on U.S. territory even though
they cannot defeat our armed forces.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, I will strive to ensure that we have a
defense strategy and appropriate policies and plans to address the
range of threats we face. In particular, the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for International Security Policy plays a key role in
addressing the challenges of emerging threats; this deserves the most
serious attention.
nato expansion
Question. The further expansion of the NATO Alliance will be an
issue addressed at the NATO Summit in 2002. Currently, nine nations in
central and eastern Europe--including the three Baltic nations--are
interested in joining the Alliance.
In your view, what criteria should the United States use in
determining which nations should be invited to join this important
military alliance?
Answer. The NATO Alliance has been the key instrument in keeping
the peace in Europe for over 50 years. A main factor in considering
future NATO expansion is whether or not expansion will enhance U.S. and
NATO security. It is important that the broadening of NATO membership
preserve the Alliance's capacity for effective collective action.
New members should share the democratic values of the Alliance and
be prepared to make the necessary investments in the creation and
maintenance of effective and interoperable military forces.
nato challenges
Question. What are the greatest challenges that you foresee for
NATO over the next 5 years?
Answer. One of the key challenges will be to complete the Alliance
transition from stationary forces to more mobile, deployable, and
sustainable forces, and to assist new members and partners in
developing forces that are better able to operate with NATO forces.
Another challenge is to develop a cooperative relationship with the
European Union on the European Security and Defense Policy that
preserves NATO's military operational effectiveness.
A final challenge will be to continue to evolve the relationship
with Russia as we move away from the Cold War.
european security and defense policy
Question. The European Union (EU) is pursuing a European Security
and Defense Policy (ESDP) under which the EU will be in a position to
launch and conduct EU-led operations in response to international
crises, where NATO as a whole is not engaged. The United States has
endorsed the ESDP provided it is done right.
Do you agree with the United States position on ESDP?
Answer. Yes, I agree with the United States' position on ESDP. As
President Bush stated in February, ``The U.S. welcomes ESDP, intended
to make Europe a stronger, more capable partner in deterring and
managing crises affecting the security of the transatlantic
community.''
United States support for ESDP is based on the assumption that EU
efforts will result in increased European capabilities and will not
undermine NATO's military operational effectiveness, Allied cohesion,
or the transatlantic link. ESDP could increased European military
capabilities, complementing and reinforcing NATO to better balance the
transatlantic relationship; however, ESDP could also pose a resource
diversion risk and undermine NATO's ability to undertake collective
defense.
Question. In your view, what does the EU have to do to ensure that
ESDP is ``done right''?
Answer. The EU must be willing to ensure that ESDP preserves NATO's
integrity as the primary instrument of transatlantic security and does
not diminish the Alliance's military operational effectiveness.
In addition, the EU should recognize that robust participation
arrangements for non-EU European Allies, like Turkey, in EU crisis
response planning and operations are essential to a successful NATO-EU
relationship. While all 15 EU members (11 of which are also NATO
Allies) have made a political commitments to ESDP, they must deliver on
these commitments by providing resources to increase capabilities.
conflict in macedonia
Question. For the past several months, we have witnessed fighting
between ethnic Albanians and government forces in the Former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia. NATO has agreed to offer some assistance to the
Macedonian Government in this conflict.
What do you believe is the proper role for the United States and
NATO in this conflict? Should our involvement, if any, include the use
of U.S. troops?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Bush administration plans
to continue to assist the Macedonians to maintain territorial
integrity, using their own means. The administration has consistently
condemned the violence initiated by ethnic Albanian militants and
supported the sovereignty of Macedonia. In cooperation with NATO, the
United States has provided intelligence support and equipment
appropriate for the level of the conflict. The administration supports
the multi-ethnic Macedonian ruling coalition (Government of National
Unity). I understand that, at present, the administration does not
foresee a reason to expand the U.S. role beyond our current assistance
and participation in KFOR, and nor does it foresee a reason for U.S.
forces to be involved in the Macedonian conflict.
missile defense
Question. The United States has invested a significant amount of
funding and time into the development of ground-based national missile
defense system. The capability being developed under this program
appears more mature than any alternative approach for countering
strategic ballistic missiles.
Do you believe that it is the most mature missile defense program?
Answer. The President has established missile defense as a top
priority. The administration's policy is to deploy ballistic missile
defenses based on the best available options. It is my understanding
that while the ground-based, mid-course system currently appears more
mature, the administration intends to explore a broad range of missile
defense technologies, pursuant to the President's guidance.
Question. To what extent would you recommend continuing this
effort?
Answer. Secretary Rumsfeld has said that we have more work to do to
determine the final form defenses might take. If confirmed, I will work
with my colleagues in the Department to explore all of these options.
Question. Secretary Rumsfeld has indicated his intention to stop
differentiating between ``theater'' and ``national'' missile defense
systems.
Does this change in terminology in any way signify a reduction in
the priority for programs designed primarily for tactical or
battlefield use, such as the Theater High Altitude Area Defense, the
Patriot PAC-3, the Airborne Laser, or the Navy Area Defense?
Answer. No. The President has said we will deploy a system capable
of defending the United States, U.S. forces deployed overseas, and our
allies and friends. Whether a particular system could be a ``national''
system or a ``theater'' system depends on where you live and how close
you are to the threat.
abm treaty
Question. What, in your view, is the legal status of the ABM Treaty
today?
Answer. The Bush administration has not announced a specific view
on the ABM treaty's legal status. The administration has treated the
ABM Treaty as being in effect. I agree with the administration's
approach.
Question. Do you agree with the view that the treaty ceased to be
legally binding when the Soviet Union dissolved?
Answer. The Bush administration has treated the ABM as being in
effect. I agree with the administration's approach.
Question. The President has described a new strategic ``framework''
as the best alternative to the ABM Treaty in its current form. In your
view, should such a framework be a new treaty, which would require
Senate advice and consent, or should it be something other than a
treaty? If not a treaty, what alternatives should the United States
consider, and why?
Answer. I understand that the concept of a new strategic framework
is currently being discussed, and no decisions have been made regarding
its form. It is my view that any such framework should provide for the
opportunity for openness, mutual confidence, and include a real chance
for cooperation--including in the field of missile defense.
Question. If you do not believe that the ABM Treaty ceased to exist
with the collapse of the Soviet Union, do you believe that the treaty
should be modified? If yes, what types of defensive systems should any
such modifications permit or disallow?
Answer. As the President has said, we need to move beyond the ABM
Treaty, which prohibits us from pursuing promising new missile defense
technologies. I have been told that all available technologies and
basing modes are being examined, but no decisions have been made.
Question. If you do believe that the ABM Treaty ceased to exist as
a matter of law when the Soviet Union collapsed, do you believe that
Russia, nevertheless, should abide by all of the international treaties
and obligations that were entered into by the former Soviet Union,
including the ABM Treaty?
Answer. Russia has declared itself to be a successor state to the
Soviet Union for the purposes of the ABM Treaty and various other
agreements and should act accordingly.
strategic forces
Question. What role should strategic nuclear forces continue to
play in United States policy and strategy?
Answer. As the President has said, ``Nuclear weapons still have a
vital role to play in our security and that of our allies.'' I believe
that nuclear weapons remain a critical part of the overall deterrent
capability of the United States. Nuclear weapons also serve as a means
of upholding U.S. security commitments to our Allies, as a disincentive
to those who would otherwise contemplate developing or acquiring their
own weapons, and as a hedge against an uncertain future.
Question. What criteria should the United States use in determining
an appropriate strategic nuclear force posture for the foreseeable
future?
Answer. It is my understanding that these criteria will be
developed as a part of the congressionally mandated Nuclear Posture
Review (NPR). I am not aware of the status of the review, nor am I
aware of what criteria will be applied in determining an appropriate
strategic nuclear force posture for the foreseeable future.
Question. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2001 requires the Secretary of Defense to prepare a new Nuclear Posture
Review and a Plan for the Modernization and Sustainment of United
States Strategic Nuclear Forces.
If confirmed, would you ensure that these requirements are
fulfilled in a thorough and timely manner?
Answer. Yes.
Question. In your view, will the United States need to resume
underground nuclear testing in the foreseeable future in order to
ensure the reliability, safety, and security of the United States
strategic nuclear forces?
Answer. If confirmed, I would support a review of how we can ensure
the reliability and safety of our nuclear weapon stockpile.
Question. Do you believe that Russia should comply with the terms
and conditions of the START II Treaty?
Answer. I regret that Russia did not unconditionally ratify START
II as the United States did in 1996. As long as START II has not
entered into force, Russia is not required to comply with its terms and
conditions. However, I believe the administration would welcome Russian
strategic force reductions to START II levels or below.
Question. Do you support ratification of the START II Treaty or
would you advocate moving directly to a START III Treaty?
Answer. I understand that the Bush administration is currently
reviewing nuclear forces and associated arms control policies as part
of a strategic review. As the President noted in his speech on May 1,
the objective is to reduce the number of nuclear weapons to the lowest
level consistent with our national security requirements including our
commitments to our allies. The President also has indicated that he
wants to reduce nuclear forces quickly and is prepared to lead by
example.
Question. As part of the ongoing review of strategic nuclear
programs and the statutorily mandated nuclear posture review will you
commit to look at the entire nuclear enterprise as part of that review,
including the total number of nuclear weapons, the required number of
delivery systems, ensuring a balance between the number of weapons and
the delivery systems, and the requirements of the nuclear weapons
complex?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to consultations with this
committee on these matters as well as in other areas. As I noted
earlier, I am not aware of the progress of the Nuclear Posture review.
However, we would welcome Russian strategic force reductions to START
II levels or below.
Question. Will you agree to work closely with the National Nuclear
Security Administration?
Answer. Yes, I believe the Department of Defense and the National
Nuclear Security Administration need to work closely together. The
National Nuclear Security Administration has a critical role in
supporting U.S. national security interests because of its
responsibility to ensure the safety, security, reliability and
effectiveness of U.S. nuclear weapons. If confirmed, I intend to work
closely and cooperatively with Gen. John Gordon (Ret.), the
Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration, and key
members of his staff.
Question. Do you support the Stockpile Stewardship Program?
Answer. Ensuring the safety, reliability, and effectiveness of U.S.
nuclear weapons is critically important to the National security
interests of the United States. If confirmed, I would support an
administration review of the Stockpile Stewardship Program to evaluate
how well it has done its job to date, and how to improve it to meet
future stockpile issues.
Question. If you believe that the U.S. will need to resume
underground explosive nuclear testing, what is the test that would be
necessary, why is it necessary, what is the specific problem to be
addressed, why are the alternatives to testing not suitable, and when
must such a test be conducted?
Answer. I have not been briefed on a DOD requirement for the United
States to resume nuclear explosive testing at this time. As I said
earlier, if confirmed, I would support a review of how we can ensure
the reliability and safety of our nuclear weapon stockpile.
space policy
Question. Do you support the 1996 National Space Policy?
Answer. The 1996 National Space Policy continues to provide policy
and guidance for the conduct of the our nation's space activities. I
agree with the Commission to Assess United States National Security
Space Management and Organization that ``the broad outline of U.S.
national space policy is sound.'' I expect that the number, range, and
complexity of domestic and international space issues, however, will
continue to increase. If confirmed, I look forward to working with
Congress and my administration colleagues to ensure that our national
space provides a coherent approach and clear direction for advancing
our interests in space.
Question. Do you favor the development and deployment of weapons in
space?
Answer. The question of whether to develop and deploy weapons in
space or not is one that deserves careful and thoughtful consideration.
If confirmed, I look forward to participating in the process that will
answer this question.
dod's cooperative threat reduction (ctr) program
Question. The CTR program has several key objectives that include
(1) reducing strategic nuclear weapons; (2) improving the security and
accounting of nuclear weapons and fissile material; (3) eliminating and
preventing biological and chemical weapons and capabilities; and (4)
encouraging military reductions and reforms to reduce proliferation
threats. Currently, the Department of Defense is conducting a review of
these programs to determine the program's future direction.
In light of the CTR objectives, do you believe the CTR program
should continue with its current scope or do you believe adjustments
are necessary?
Answer. The President supports the goals and objectives of the CTR
program. I have been briefed that the CTR program is just one of a
number of programs under review at this time by the administration. A
review of all CTR program areas and their respective national security
benefits will determine how the program can best meet its goals
efficiently and effectively.
Question. In your view, what do you believe should be the top three
objectives for the CTR program?
Answer.
1. Accelerate reductions in Russian strategic arms.
2. Prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons and fissile
material from the former Soviet Union.
3. Elimination of SS-24 missiles in Ukraine and infrastructure
in Ukraine and Kazakhstan.
Question. Secretary Rumsfeld stated in his answers to advance
policy questions to this committee that ``the elimination of former
Soviet strategic nuclear weapons and their delivery vehicles that the
CTR program has funded has benefited U.S. national security.''
What is your view of the CTR program's chemical and biological
weapons elimination efforts?
Answer. As the President has noted, many nations have or are
seeking chemical and biological weapons and related weapons delivery
technologies. The United States has an interest in ensuring that Russia
eliminates its stockpile of chemical munitions and biological agents.
As I noted earlier, the CTR program activities that address these
threats are under review along with the nuclear threat reduction
programs. The benefit to U.S. security should be the primary criterion
being used to evaluate continued support of these programs.
Question. Do you believe these have benefited U.S. national
security? How?
Answer. The elimination of former Soviet strategic nuclear weapons
and their delivery vehicles funded by the CTR program has benefited
U.S. national security. The United States also has an interest in
ensuring that Russia eliminates its stockpile of chemical munitions and
biological agents. At the same time we would not want the CTR program
to become a means by which Russia frees resources to finance its
military modernization programs.
Question. Given increases in Russia's gross domestic product during
the past year and subsequent increases in its military spending and
arms exports, what is your view regarding Russia's ability to assume
more of the cost share associated with CTR efforts in Russia?
Answer. Russia should do what it can to fund the reduction of the
weapons of mass destruction left by the Former Soviet Union. I
understand that part of the ongoing administration review of assistance
programs to Russia is to identify whether Russia is doing as much as it
can to fund these reductions and to identify whether they can do more.
The recent upturn in the economic situation in Russia will be taken
into account in the review.
Question. In light of Russia's increasing priority on military
spending, what is your view regarding the fungibility of U.S. funds
associated with threat reduction assistance?
Answer. Investment in the CTR program and other U.S.
nonproliferation programs to should not become a means by which Russia
frees resources to finance its military modernization programs. I
understand that the current review of these programs is looking at
these questions.
Question. Do you think the CTR program is well coordinated among
the U.S. government agencies that engage in threat reduction efforts in
Russia, e.g., the State Department and the Department of Energy?
Answer. Effective coordination between among all U.S. government
agencies is vital to the success of any multi-agency endeavor. I have
been informed that the administration is reviewing CTR along with
Russian assistance programs provided by other U.S. agencies to
determine how we can best to ensure the most cost-effective means to
achieve our objectives.
Question. Do you believe the CTR program should pay for the
construction of fossil fuel plants to assist with replacing the power
produced by the planned shut down of the three remaining plutonium
production reactors in Russia?
Answer. Secretary Rumsfeld has previously noted that it has been
the policy of our country to attempt to assist in seeing that nuclear
materials in Russia are handled in a safe way so that they do not
proliferate. The current review should assess how best to eliminate
effectively and efficiently the Russian production of weapons-grade
plutonium.
Question. Will you have responsibility for policy development,
coordination, and oversight of the CTR program, if confirmed?
Answer. Yes, if confirmed.
Question. Do you fully support the CTR programs?
Answer. The elimination of former Soviet strategic nuclear weapons
and their delivery vehicles funded by the CTR program has benefited
U.S. national security. The United States also has an interest in
ensuring that Russia eliminates its stockpile of chemical munitions and
biological agents. At the same time we would not want the CTR program
to become a means by which Russia frees resources to finance its
military modernization programs. If confirmed, I will work to ensure
that the CTR program meets its goals efficiently and effectively.
Question. Do you support the active participation of the United
States in the effort to destroy Russian chemical munitions at
Shchuch'ye?
Answer. I have been informed that U.S. funding for the construction
of a chemical weapon destruction facility at Shchuch'ye is under
review. Many complex issues are involved in this program, including
Russian and international commitments to this program. The review will
help inform a decision on how the administration wants to proceed with
this and other assistance programs.
Question. If the CTR program does not support the shutdown of the
last three plutonium producing reactors in Russia and replace their
power generating capacity with fossil fueled plants, how would you
propose to stop plutonium production in Russia by 2006 or earlier? Do
you believe that the CTR program should support the destruction of
Russian nuclear powered submarines capable of delivering nuclear
weapons by other than SLBMs? Do you support expansion of the CTR
program and if so in what specific areas?
Answer. I am not in a position to make a judgment on these issues
at this time. If confirmed, I look forward to working with this
committee on these and other important questions relating to the CTR
program.
russia and iran
Question. In December, 2000, Secretary Cohen met with then Russian
Defense Minister Igor Sergeyev to discuss U.S. concern over Moscow's
continuing arms sales and proliferation activities with Iran. While
this meeting and subsequent State Department meetings were considered
positive, the United States did not receive concrete assurances from
Russia that these proliferation activities would cease. In fact,
subsequent actions by Russia indicate that Russia intends to continue
and increase its arms sales and nuclear technology efforts with Iran,
despite U.S. concerns.
As Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security
Policy, what policy options would you propose to address the continued
proliferation activities of Russia regarding Iran?
Answer. If confirmed, I would look at the full range of available
options. I would underscore for Russian policymakers that this is a new
administration and that positive, concrete steps on their part to
address our security and stability concerns in this area can provide a
basis for a constructive bilateral relationship.
Question. Would you propose limiting or prohibiting Cooperative
Threat Reduction assistance to Russia until Russia ceases its
proliferation activities with Iran?
Answer. I have been informed that the administration is currently
reviewing its options for encouraging Russia to cease its proliferation
activities with Iran, including possible steps in the event that Russia
does not cease such cooperation. If confirmed, I would expect to
participate actively in that review.
comprehensive test ban treaty/nuclear test monitoring
Question. What do you believe the policy should be within the
Department of Defense regarding DOD Programs that support the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty?
Answer. Secretary Rumsfeld has said that he has two concerns with
the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT): the risks to the reliability
and safety of our nuclear weapon stockpile and the difficulty of
verification. Because the CTBT has not been ratified by the United
States or entered into force, the United States is under no obligation
to implement it. If confirmed, I would strongly support a review of all
planned DOD activities associated with the CTBT, to determine whether
they are useful on their own merits.
arms control technology priorities
Question. The Department of Defense plays the lead role in
developing and implementing arms control technology in support of arms
control agreements.
What do you believe should be the key capabilities that the
Department should pursue and develop? What challenges do you believe
exist in developing these key capabilities?
Answer. I am not in a position to make a judgment on these issues
at this time. If confirmed, I look forward to working with this
committee on these and other important questions relating to arms
control technologies and capabilities.
biological weapons convention (bwc)
Question. The Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) prohibits the
stockpiling of biological materials in quantities that are not
justifiable for solely peaceful purposes. Currently, the parties to the
Convention are discussing details of a new protocol that consists of a
legally binding regime for verification that goes beyond confidence
building measures. Critics of these discussions believe that such
verification measures are impossible due to limitations in the
technology to enforce these measures.
What is your view of the Convention and do you believe it is
possible to establish and verify measures beyond confidence building?
Answer. The Biological Weapons Convention establishes an important
norm against the development, production, acquisition and stockpiling
of biological weapons. However, given the nature of biological weapons
and biotechnology, the Convention is inherently unverifiable.
export administration act
Question. The Export Administration Act of 2001 (S.149) was
introduced by Senators Enzi and Gramm, and reported out of Banking
Committee subsequently on a 19-1 vote on March 22, 2001. The
administration has released a Statement of Administration Position
indicating its support for the bill in its current form.
Do you support the Export Administration Act of 2001 in its current
form? If not, what changes do you believe are needed to the measure?
Answer. I support the use of export controls to protect U.S.
national security. The administration has indicated its support for the
bill in its current form. I have not yet been briefed on the bill, but
I note that it contains several provisions that will improve the
process for controlling exports of dual-use goods and technologies. It
also has other provisions that will help transition the current system-
based cold war policies into a more modern system that focuses on WMD,
end-user and end-use controls. As a result, the bill would allow the
administration to meet national security and foreign policy objectives
without impairing U.S. companies' ability to compete in the world
marketplace.
Question. Do you believe that the State Department or the Commerce
Department should be the lead agency for licensing satellite exports?
Answer. My own views on this question are not yet fully formed. I
believe Congress and the administration must be deliberate in
contemplating any change in export controls. Any review must be
undertaken in a manner that seeks to preserve fundamental national
security interests. I believe that the administration will be examining
this issue carefully (including any statutory or regulatory changes
that might be required), and will consult closely with Congress as this
review proceeds.
Question. Do you believe that additional steps need to be taken to
streamline the export control process?
Answer. I understand that the administration will be examining
whether further streamlining is necessary.
Question. Do you support the Defense Capabilities Initiative (DCI)?
Answer. I support the goals and objectives of the DCI, but I have
not yet been fully briefed on its implementation or the extent to which
it has improved our Allies abilities to meet the needs of NATO in the
21st century.
the oslo accords
Question. What is your view of the Oslo Accords? Do you believe
that Israel should abrogate any or all of the Oslo agreements, or do
you believe that Israel and the Palestinian Authority should honor the
agreements arrived at to date, and that the peace process should
continue?
Answer. I have not fully formed a view on the Oslo Accords. I note
that this issue will not be in the area of responsibility of the
position for which I am seeking confirmation.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other
appropriate committees of the Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, when asked, to give your personal views,
even if those views differ from the administration in power?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for International Security Policy?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings and
other communications of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Carl Levin
north korea
1. Senator Levin. During your nomination hearing, I asked you for
your view as to whether you believe the United States should continue
to support the Agreed Framework. You responded to the effect that the
issue was still being considered by the administration. I then advised
you that, during his visit to South Korea on May 10th, Deputy Secretary
of State Armitage delivered a letter from President Bush for President
Kim Dae Jung in which President Bush stated that we expected, among the
things our policy review would show that we would continue to support
the Agreed Framework. Subsequently, on May 16th, State Department
spokesman, Richard Boucher, stated that ``Our position has always been
that we intend to abide by the Agreed Framework and we expect them to
abide by the Agreed Framework. . . .''
Do you believe that we should continue to abide by the Agreed
Framework?
Dr. Crouch. Yes, I support the administration's recent announcement
on abiding by the Agreed Framework. The administration has decided to
undertake discussions with North Korea on a broad agenda that includes
improved implementation of the Agreed Framework. I believe that the
international situation has changed greatly since 1994 when I first
wrote about the Agreed Framework. The June 2000 inter-Korean summit is
one example of this change. In coordination with our Asian allies, the
administration will hold discussions with North Korea aimed at reaching
verifiable arrangements that enhance our national security and that of
our allies.
2. Senator Levin. At your hearing, I asked about your article
published in 1995 about North Korea, in which you advocated presenting
North Korea with an ultimatum and bombing North Korea if they did not
acquiesce to our demands. At the hearing, you suggested that you had
done nothing different than what then-Defense Secretary Perry had done
to consider the option of offensive military action.
As I see it, there is a considerable difference between your
position and that of Secretary Perry at the time. In Dr. Perry's case,
as he told this committee on January 26, 1995, he considered--but
rejected--the option of taking military action to destroy the one
reactor before it could be refueled and its spent fuel reprocessed.
That was a matter of prudent military planning. Secretary Perry never
advocated a pre-emptive attack against any or all of North Korea's
nuclear facilities, nor giving North Korea an ultimatum.
In your case, you advocated the position that we should issue North
Korea an ultimatum to get rid of its nuclear complex and to ``authorize
the destruction of as much of this complex as possible,'' if they did
not take ``positive, visible'' steps to do so. According to what he
told this committee, Secretary Perry did not advocate that position; he
looked at the various scenarios and options and recommended to the
President a course of action that he thought had the best chance of
reducing the North Korean nuclear threat and preserving U.S. security,
which was not to authorize a pre-emptive strike.
Do you agree that there is a difference between the Secretary of
Defense considering--and rejecting--a number of options, including the
possibility of military action against the Yongbyon reactor, and your
advocating the destruction of the North Korean nuclear complex if North
Korea did not accept an ultimatum to do so itself?
You mentioned at your hearing that you believed Secretary Perry
testified to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on North Korea and
advocated a position similar to yours. If he did so, it would be very
different from what he told the Armed Services Committee. Can you
provide a record of Secretary Perry's testimony to the Foreign
Relations Committee?
Dr. Crouch. Mr. Chairman, I stated in my testimony that ``even
Secretary Perry, who, I believe testified before the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee that he was considering options to do just this is
evidence of the serious nature of this.'' In testimony before the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee on January 24, 1995, he stated:
What were the alternatives then faced by the United States?
Obviously, there was an alternative, a theoretical alternative,
of going in and taking out the nuclear reactor. We considered
that option. We looked very carefully at what would be required
to do that. I can tell you flatly that we know how to do that,
but on consideration, I did not recommend that course of action
to the President--and careful consideration did not recommend
that course of action.
I agree with you that there is a difference between having
considered options and having authorized them. My intervention in the
hearing in which I paraphrased Secretary Perry's testimony was in
response to questions about the reasonableness of my recommendations. I
was pointing out that the sitting Secretary of Defense was concerned
enough about the situation to have planned for, and considered, options
to do what I recommended doing if the North Koreans did not respond to
demands to open up their nuclear facilities to international
inspection. He went on in his testimony to state, ``there is no
security problem we are facing more important than this one in which
the alternatives are grimmer.'' My intervention was not to portray
Secretary Perry's views and mine as identical, but simply to
demonstrate that in that time and in those circumstances, others were
considering the same kinds of military actions that my article
discussed.
In December 1993, Representative John Murtha suggested that if we
know the location of the North Korean weapons facility, ``we should
consider military action.'' He went on to state:
You have to weigh what the North Koreans would do, because
obviously it could precipitate an invasion. My feeling is I
would be willing to take that chance, because to me it is just
unthinkable to have a regime like North Korea with a nuclear
weapon of any kind. It would be like Iraq having a nuclear
weapon.
In June 1994 Senator Robert Dole stated in response to questioning
about the crisis: ``I would not rule out the military option. I'd go
ahead and start building up in that part of the world.'' This echoes
what Secretary Perry said at the time, ``I said we will not have a
preemptive military strike at this time and under these circumstances.
I am not ruling that option out in the future.''
Finally, former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft and
former Under Secretary of State Arnold Kanter stated in a June, 1994
Washington Post editorial: ``We should tell North Korea that it either
must permit continuous, unfettered IAEA monitoring to confirm that no
further reprocessing is taking place, or we will remove its capacity to
reprocess.'' They acknowledged that this course of action is ``not
risk-free'' and recommended a build-up of U.S. forces similar to what I
recommended in my article. They concluded by stating: ``Pyongyang must
be made to understand that if war is unavoidable, we would rather fight
it sooner than later, when North Korea might have a sizable nuclear
arsenal.'' This judgment, Mr. Chairman, was a central factor in my
making the recommendations in my article.
Mr. Chairman, I certainly acknowledge a great difference between
considering options and executing them. I also stated in my testimony
that it was possible that ``if different facts had come to light that I
was not aware of because I was out of government,'' I may have made
different recommendations. I agree with Secretary Perry that we were
facing grim alternatives during this time. I quote the thoughts of
others during this crisis not to convince you or the committee that my
recommendations were right, or to imply that those quoted held
identical views to mine, but simply to demonstrate that similar ideas
were considered at the time by well respected authorities.
Special Note: Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity
to respond to a concern you raised during my hearing about the use of
the word ``collude'' in my 1995 article on North Korea. I have reread
that article, and I can see that was a poor choice of words on my part.
What I was trying to convey in that paragraph was that the Clinton
administration, the IAEA, and the North Koreans had very different
reasons for joining together in the Agreed Framework regime, though the
fact of agreement was widely taken as a sign of true commonality of
purpose. I was not trying to say that U.S. support for the Agreed
Framework involved impropriety. I should not have used a word that can
be taken as implying that. I believe that reasonable people can differ
on the value of the Agreed Framework, and I also recognize that since
the hearing, the President has announced the administration's support
for moving forward with its implementation. If confirmed, I would
wholeheartedly support the President in his efforts to implement that
agreement in ways that enhance its prospects for success.
chemical weapons convention
3. Senator Levin. In March 1996 you testified against ratification
of the Chemical Weapons Convention before the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee. You said in your testimony: ``I cannot imagine an agreement
less suited to our security needs in the post-Cold War security
environment [than the CWC].''
You also said that with the CWC, the United States is abandoning
``one of the most effective deterrents to chemical use against itself
and its allies: the right to an extant and mature offensive chemical
weapons program.''
You said that the CWC would weaken deterrence ``by eliminating the
ability of the United States to respond in kind to chemical attack,''
and the result would be ``that American and allied soldiers and
citizens are more, not less, likely to be attacked with chemical
weapons.''
Are these still your views? Do you believe that the CWC has
weakened deterrence and increased the likelihood of a chemical weapons
attack on American soldiers?
Dr. Crouch. While my earlier statements focused on my belief in the
deterrent value of response in kind, I also believe there is deterrent
value in robust defenses, including chemical defenses, that will deny
an aggressor any advantages in first use of chemical weapons. The
Senate substantially improved the CWC during the ratification process.
For example, the Senate endorsed an enhanced and robust chemical and
biological defense program in Ratification Resolution #11. The
Department of Defense has similarly made a commitment to establishing
robust chemical defenses that have sent the clear message to states
that might contemplate use of CW that DOD is prepared for combat in a
CW environment. I believe that this has diminished the likelihood of
attack on American soldiers.
The CWC is now the law of the land. If confirmed, I see it as one
of my most important responsibilities to ensure that it is implemented
and enforced as effectively as possible. If confirmed, I would look
forward to working with the committee to improve further our
capabilities to deter and defend our forces against CW attack in the
absence of a response in kind.
4. Senator Levin. If confirmed as Assistant Secretary of Defense
for International Security Policy, will you advocate that the U.S.
withdraw from the Chemical Weapons Convention?
Under what circumstances would you advocate withdrawing from the
treaty?
Dr. Crouch. I would not advocate a withdrawal from the Chemical
Weapons Convention and cannot foresee the circumstances under which I
would do so.
5. Senator Levin. Do you believe the U.S. should have an offensive
chemical weapons capability? Would you advocate withdrawing from the
CWC to develop such a capability?
Dr. Crouch. I would not advocate a withdrawal ``from the CWC to
develop such a capability'' and cannot foresee the circumstances under
which I would do so.
nuclear weapons
6. Senator Levin. In an article in Global Affairs in 1993, you
wrote that ``in order to neutralize the effects of nuclear, chemical,
or biological weapons that some future Saddam might put on a ballistic
missile, our next generation, long-range Patriots might have to carry
very low-yield nuclear weapons.''
Do you favor equipping missile defense interceptors with nuclear
warheads?
Dr. Crouch. No, I do not think the United States has such a
requirement. Since 1993, the United States has demonstrated many hit-
to-kill successes. For example, the Ballistic Missile Defense
Organization has conducted eight successful intercepts for advanced
PATRIOT (PAC-3), two for Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD),
and one for the Ground-Based Interceptor. I believe the most promising
solution to weapons of mass destruction threats may be to develop hit-
to-kill technologies in combination with boost-phase interception that
could neutralize these threats.
abm treaty
7. Senator Levin. If confirmed as the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for International Security Policy, you will be one of the main
Defense Department policy makers involved in any negotiations to modify
the ABM Treaty or to replace it with some new strategic framework.
In your view, how should these negotiations proceed? Do you believe
that the ABM Treaty can be modified to allow the deployment of limited
missile defenses?
Dr. Crouch. The President has said the ABM Treaty should be
replaced with a new framework that reflects a break from Cold War
thinking and facilitates development of a new, cooperative relationship
between the United States and Russia. Quite properly, in my view, the
administration is consulting with the Russians, with Allies, and with
Congress on the concept of such a framework, which should provide the
opportunity for openness, mutual confidence, and a real chance for
cooperation, including in the area of missile defense. The exact nature
of the new framework and whether it includes agreements, parallel or
unilateral actions, or a combination thereof, is something that is
being developed. As Secretary Rumsfeld is quoted in the June 12 edition
of the New York Times, ``We may end up signing something that is not a
treaty, but it's an agreement or it's an understanding or it's a record
of discussion.'' The President is looking at a wide range of ideas for
the framework, and whether amendments will be part of it remains under
consideration. If confirmed, I look forward to participating in these
efforts.
nato expansion
8. Senator Levin. In your answer to a pre-hearing policy question,
you stated that ``A main factor in considering future NATO expansion is
whether or not expansion will enhance U.S. and NATO security. It is
important that the broadening of NATO membership preserve the
Alliance's capacity for effective collective action.''
Do you believe that the enlargement of the Alliance to include
Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic enhanced U.S. and NATO security?
Do you believe that the United States' and NATO's relationship with
Russia should be a consideration in the NATO enlargement decision?
Dr. Crouch. Yes, the accession of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech
Republic has enhanced U.S. and NATO security. As a concrete example, in
October 2000 the Congressional Budget Office judged that all three of
the new allies are making roughly proportional contributions to the
ongoing missions in Bosnia and Kosovo compared with other long-standing
NATO members with populations of similar size. This is quite an
accomplishment for countries that are in the process of restructuring
and modernizing their military forces from Warsaw Pact design to NATO
requirements, which the United States has always expected to require
many years.
As Dr. Rice, the Assistant to the President for National Security
Affairs, said on June 6, ``the United States believes strongly that
enlargement needs to continue. It is only natural that enlargement will
continue, that we believe strongly that there should be no red lines,
geographic or historic, that eliminate any country as a fait accompli,
and that we believe that there can be no veto by any country over NATO
enlargement.''
While Russia will not be allowed to veto a NATO decision on which
additional countries are admitted to NATO, I believe that the U.S. and
NATO's relationship with Russia should and will be a consideration in
the NATO enlargement decision.
nato
9. Senator Levin. NATO's 50th anniversary Washington Summit, the
Alliance launched the Defense Capabilities Initiative which is designed
to improve NATO's core capabilities in five areas: mobility and
deployability, sustainability and logistics, effective engagement,
survivability, and consultation, command and control. Secretary General
Lord Robertson, in reviewing the progress on the Defense Capabilities
Initiative last year said that ``governments will have to spend
smarter, and where necessary, they will have to spend more.''
In a speech in Barcelona on May 10th, U.S. Ambassador to NATO Sandy
Vershbow, stated that ``Unfortunately, 2 years after the Washington
Summit, the reality is that rhetoric has far outpaced action when it
comes to capabilities.''
Last Wednesday, the London-based think tank, International
Institute for Strategic Studies, issued its annual Strategic Survey,
which found that ``European military forces are still in many respects
configured for the Cold War era. Rising personnel costs and a wave of
systems acquisitions initiated long ago, as well as the costs of
ongoing operations, have left little room for investment in R&D an
procurement to satisfy newly identified requirements. . . . European
defense spending in real terms continues to fall at a rate of nearly 5
percent every year.''
If confirmed, how would you plan to encourage our European allies
to spend more wisely and, if necessary, spend more so as to improve
NATO's core competencies?
Dr. Crouch. The United States, like all Allies, continues to
support strongly the Defense Capabilities Initiative (DCI). The
Alliance is aware of its shortfalls, and all nations are working to
improve national, and Alliance capabilities. While I am sympathetic to
the budgetary concerns of our Allies--all nations, including the United
States, have budgetary constraints--I believe they must do more to
ensure adequate spending and appropriate priorities for defense.
If confirmed, I intend to continue DCI work at NATO and in
bilateral meetings to press Allies to move forward on their defense
restructuring plans and improved spending levels. Many Allies have
chosen to begin to work cooperatively to meet capability shortfalls. I
understand the United States fully supports these efforts and has
offered to assist these multinational groups. I also understand the
United States is chairing a multinational group on combat
identification to determine whether there is scope for cooperation. The
United States is committed to working with our Allies to build defense
capabilities and remains committed to improving transatlantic defense
industrial cooperation, to include meaningful cooperation in co-
development and technology sharing. If confirmed, I look forward to
exploring with the committee ways we can advance these goals.
macedonia
10. Senator Levin. For the past several months, we have witnessed
fighting between ethnic Albanians and government forces in the Former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. NATO has agreed to offer some
assistance to the Macedonian Government in this conflict.
What do you believe is the proper role for the United States and
NATO in this conflict? Should our involvement, if any, include the use
of U.S. troops?
Dr. Crouch. I believe that the administration's current level of
support to the forces of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is
the appropriate level of support at this time. I do believe it is
important that the United States and NATO continue to monitor the
situation closely. I do not think that there is a requirement for U.S.
ground combat forces. I am not aware of any facts or any circumstances
on the ground that would suggest a role different from the current role
of U.S. peacekeeping forces in the region.
weapons in space
11. Senator Levin. Do you favor the development and deployment of
weapons in space?
Dr. Crouch. The security and well-being of the United States, our
allies, and friends depend on our ability to operate in space. Our
increasing dependence and the vulnerability it creates, however,
require us to have the means to deter and dissuade threats to our
national interests in space. In this regard, I strongly support the
1996 National Space Policy, which provides that ``consistent with
treaty obligations, the United States will develop, operate, and
maintain space control capabilities to ensure freedom of action in
space and, if directed, deny such freedom of action to adversaries.
These capabilities may also be enhanced by diplomatic, legal or
military measures to preclude an adversary's hostile use of space
systems and services.'' A broad range of military capabilities may be
required to implement this policy. I understand the administration has
included in its on-going strategic review the range of capabilities
necessary to implement this policy, and I support this effort.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Max Cleland
north korea
12. Senator Cleland. In a 1995 article, you proposed using air
strikes to destroy the North Korean nuclear facilities in the absence
of evidence that the North Koreans dismantled these facilities in
accordance with a specified deadline. In testimony at the 5 June
hearing, you stated that you stood by that recommendation given the
situation as it was then, but would not recommend the same approach now
given the improvements that have occurred in relations on the Korean
peninsula.
Explain how you could conceivably have thought air strikes against
an unstable regime with a large chemical weapon inventory and the most
offensively postured military in the world would have accomplished
objectives consistent with U.S. interests in 1995. What was the
likelihood, in your 1995 calculus, that the North Koreans would have
responded in some military fashion, such as with a chemical Scud attack
against a population center? What was the contingency plan, in your
mind, to deal with this possibility?
Dr. Crouch. When I wrote my article in 1995, the situation in Korea
was as Secretary Perry described it: ``There is no security problem we
are facing more important than this one in which the alternatives are
grimmer.'' As I noted in my answer to Question 25, I was not alone in
the midst of that situation in considering the airstrike option--many
respected defense authorities, both inside and outside the government,
were also considering it. From my vantage point--outside the government
and without access to the full range of information available to those
in authority--the airstrike option seemed necessary to achieve our
objective and, along with the other steps I was recommending, to
mitigate damage in the event deterrence failed.
I believe, and this belief was shared by responsible experts, that
in any event there was a worrisome possibility of North Korean
aggression against South Korea and U.S. forces stationed there in the
mid-1990s. I recommended in my 1995 article that a series of steps be
taken to bolster deterrence on the Korean peninsula. These included
strengthening the U.S. force posture in various ways, including
developing and deploying with South Korea and Japan a missile defense
capable of countering the North Korean missile arsenal. All of these
measures were designed to strengthen deterrence and, in the contingency
that might follow the failure of deterrence, to minimize the impact of
a North Korean use of weapons of mass destruction.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Strom Thurmond
nato
13. Senator Thurmond. Press accounts of Secretary Rumsfeld's
strategic review indicate that the Secretary will recommend a shift of
focus and forces from Europe to the Pacific.
In your personal opinion, what impact will such a shift have on our
role within NATO?
Dr. Crouch. The United States has a vital interest, with our
European and Canadian Allies, in NATO. It will remain the foundation of
America's security commitment to its Allies. In my view, increased U.S.
attention to the security situation, for example in the Persian Gulf or
Korea, in no way implies any American intention to de-emphasize Europe.
I do not believe this is a zero-sum game.
european security and defense policy
14. Senator Thurmond. A significant concern with the European
Security and Defense Policy is that it will divert resources from the
modernization and support of the European forces committed to NATO.
In your judgement, is this a valid concern? If not, why not?
Dr. Crouch. The President and his administration support the
European Security and Defense Policy as long as it adds capabilities to
NATO, embeds EU planning within NATO, and ensures transparency and a
right of first refusal for NATO. There is no reason why NATO and the
European Union (EU) cannot work cooperatively to build capabilities,
maintain operational military effectiveness, and avoid squandering
scarce defense resources. Much hard work lies ahead to ensure we make
progress on these three fronts--and avoid an unnecessary and
destructive competition from arising between the two pillars of our
transatlantic community.
The EU's Headline Goal and NATO's Defense Capabilities Initiative
have many points of intersection. Both call for increases in strategic
mobility and sustainability. The EU's catalogue of forces and NATO's
force goals both envision the need for increased capabilities in the
areas of deployable and secure communications, suppression of enemy air
defenses, aerial refueling, biological defense, and theater missile
defense. Because eleven of the members of the EU are also members of
NATO, there is a wonderful opportunity for European nations to increase
these capabilities and take credit for the improvement in both NATO and
the EU. Each of these European nations has only one pool of forces to
draw from and only one budget to support their aspirations for and
promises to NATO and the EU.
bosnia
15. Senator Thurmond. I, like many of my colleagues, am concerned
about the continuing commitment of our forces to Bosnia. I believe now
is the time to start planning for the complete withdrawal of our forces
from that specific region.
What in your judgment are the conditions that must be met before
the United States can withdraw its forces from Bosnia?
Dr. Crouch. The Bosnia commitment is an Alliance effort: U.S.
policy is that since the allies went in together, they will leave
together. When withdrawal may actually be appropriate will depend on
judgments to be made about whether it would leave intact the essential
achievements of the Dayton Accords, namely cessation of the war and
preservation of regional stability. The mission has evolved from a
primarily military mission into one that is more a matter of civil
implementation. Overall force levels are reviewed every 6 months in the
Alliance.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Bob Smith
china mil-to-mil
16. Senator Smith. I'm directing this comment to you because I'm
sure you're aware of controversy over the U.S./China military-to-
military exchanges--I authored the fiscal year 2000 DOD restrictions on
these exchanges.
I have requested a briefing on the department's perspective of the
value of these contacts, the lack of reciprocity on the part of the
Chinese, and to discuss how we might improve the program--if it is
going to continue--so that it meets some clear objectives and is not
divulging militarily useful information to the Chinese military.
Can you comment on the administration's change in the mil-to-mil
program--how the new ``case by case'' review differ from the previous
program under the Clinton administration?
Specifically, are we still trying to have the PRC observe at the
COBRA GOLD exercises, as CINCPAC Admiral Blair stated?
Mr. Feith and Dr. Crouch. We have been advised that the Department
of Defense began in January a series of broad policy reviews. One of
the areas to be examined in detail was the program for military-to-
military exchanges with the People's Republic of China. The first step
in this process was to undertake a serious review of the schedule of
military-to-military events with the PLA planned for 2001.
As we understand it, since the April 1 EP-3 incident over the South
China Sea, business with China has not been as usual. Steps have been
taken to limit the travel of DOD personnel to China and to limit
contact with PRC officials, especially PLA personnel. The military-to-
military program has been conducted on a case-by-case basis, with
special emphasis on (1) benefit to U.S. interests and (2) reciprocity.
The PRC, along with other countries in the region, was invited to
observe the command post portion of EXERCISE COBRA GOLD. The PRC,
however, declined the invitation.
taiwan policy
17. Senator Smith. I would also like to raise with you in the
future the issue of closer ties between U.S. and Taiwan military
forces. I believe we should lift the petty and counter-productive
restrictions on U.S. military officer travel to Taiwan and allow more
U.S. military personnel to train Taiwanese military personnel in
Taiwan.
We should also be establishing direct and secure communications
between Taiwan and the U.S. military, linking PACOM and Taiwan's
defense ministry.
I urge you to undertake a review of U.S. military policy towards
Taiwan. Not taking these steps could be disastrous in the event of
another crisis in the straits.
Mr. Feith and Dr. Crouch. It is our understanding that the
Department of Defense is reviewing a range of issues associated with
our defense relationship with Taiwan, including enhancing our training
programs. If confirmed, we would give serious consideration to the
issue of U.S. military visitors to Taiwan.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Rick Santorum
nuclear cities initiative
18. Senator Santorum. Created in 1998, the Nuclear Cities
Initiative (NCI) is a nonproliferation program designed to create
sustainable job opportunities for weapons scientists in Russia's closed
nuclear cities and to help Russia accelerate the downsizing of its
nuclear weapons complex. From fiscal year 1999 through December 2000,
the expenditures for the NCI totaled about $15.9 million. According to
a recent report prepared by the General Accounting Office, of that
amount, about $11.2 million (or 70 percent) had been spent in the
United States by the national laboratories, and about $4.7 million (or
30 percent) had been spent for projects and activities in Russia.
About 50 percent of the NCI projects have been established to fund
a variety of activities in the nuclear cities. According to DOE, while
these projects may increase the potential for job creation in the
closed cities, they are not designed to directly lead to new jobs for
weapons scientists. DOE officials believe that community development
projects are needed to improve the economic and social conditions in
the cities in order to make them more attractive to commercial
investors.
Do you believe that the level of funds being invested in Russia is
adequate given the goal of the program to create sustainable jobs in
Russia? What is your opinion of NCI investments in ``community
development'' projects?
Dr. Crouch. The Nuclear Cities Initiative is not a Department of
Defense funded or administered program. I understand that the
administration is conducting an interagency review of this program, and
if I am confirmed, I will participate in the interagency process that
is intended to provide general guidance on these programs. At this
point, I have not been briefed on the NCI. If confirmed, I will look
into this program early on, and I look forward to working with this
committee in the area of aid to Russia.
initiatives for proliferation prevention
19. Senator Santorum. Another program, the Initiatives for
Proliferation Prevention (IPP), is also administered by DOE. IPP seeks
to employ weapons scientists in several countries of the former Soviet
Union, including Russia and the nuclear cities. IPP is designed to
commercialize technologies that utilize the expertise of the scientists
who work at the various nuclear weapons institutes. IPP requires that
all proposed projects have an industry partner to help ensure the
commercial viability of each project.
The IPP program relies on a nonprofit association of U.S. companies
and universities to help evaluate and develop commercial projects. The
NCI program did not require that projects have industry partners or
demonstrate commercial viability until January 2001. GAO speculates
that since the NCI and IPP programs share a common goal, combining the
two programs could alleviate many of the concerns the entity has with
the implementation of the NCI program.
Do you concur with GAO's observation on commonalities existing
between the NCI and IPP programs? Would you support a review that
looked at consolidating these two programs?
Dr. Crouch. The Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention program is
not a Department of Defense funded or administered program. As with its
Nuclear Cities Initiative, I understand that the administration is
conducting an interagency review of this program. If confirmed, I will
participate in the interagency process that is intended to provide
general guidance on these programs and will look into the question of
consolidating the programs. Like the NCI, I look forward to getting
briefed on the IPP and working with this committee on ensuring that
U.S. aid to Russia is efficiently administered.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Susan Collins
nato
20. Senator Collins. You mentioned in one of your responses to the
advance questions, one of the major challenges that you will face will
be developing a cooperative relationship with the European Union on the
European Security Defense Policy that preserves NATO's military
operational effectiveness. How do you propose that we preserve NATO's
military operational effectiveness, and how do you propose the U.S.
coordinate a united position with the other agencies involved in this
effort, i.e. the Department of State?
Dr. Crouch. For the United States, the maintenance of military
operational effectiveness is the touchstone for assessing all proposals
for European defense. As I stated in response to Question 60, the
President and his administration support the European Security and
Defense Policy as long as it adds capabilities to NATO, embeds EU
planning within NATO, and ensures transparency and a right of first
refusal for NATO. There is no reason why NATO and the EU cannot work
cooperatively to build capabilities, maintain operational military
effectiveness, and avoid squandering scare defense resources. In
implementing the President's policy with regard to ESDP, I believe it
will be important to ensure that NATO's military operational
effectiveness is preserved. If confirmed, I would get briefed on all
the relevant facts and considerations and would look forward to working
with others in the administration, including the Department of State,
and with this committee in determining the best course of action with
regard to ESDP and preserving NATO's capabilities.
______
[The nomination reference of Dr. Jack Dyer Crouch II,
follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
May 7, 2001.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Dr. Jack Dyer Crouch II, of Missouri, to be an Assistant Secretary
of Defense, vice Franklin D. Kramer.
______
[The biographical sketch of Dr. Jack Dyer Crouch II, which
was transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Dr. J.D. Crouch II
J.D. Crouch is Associate Professor of Defense & Strategic Studies
at Southwest Missouri State University in Springfield, MO. From 1990 to
1992 he was Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for
International Security Policy in the first Bush administration. From
1986 to 1990 he was the Military Legislative Assistant to Senator
Malcolm Wallop (R-WY) and served as his staff designee on the Senate
Armed Services Committee. From 1984 to 1986 he worked for the Assistant
Director for Strategic Programs in the U.S. Arms Control & Disarmament
Agency and was an Advisor to the U.S. Delegation on Nuclear & Space
Arms Talks with the former Soviet Union.
He is also co-founder of PalmGear.com, a leading internet company.
As part of his public service through the university, Dr. Crouch has
served as a Reserve Deputy Sheriff in Christian County, MO and member
of a Multi-County Special Response Team from 1993 to present. He is on
the Board of Editors of Comparative Strategy and is a member of the
Board of Advisors of the Center for Security Policy.
Dr. Crouch holds a Ph.D. in International Relations from the
University of Southern California. He has written on a wide range of
defense and foreign policy issues. He lives with his wife, Kristin
Crouch, and his two children, Lara and Jake, in Nixa, MO.
______
[The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
form that details the biographical, financial and other
information of the nominee. The form executed by Dr. Jack Dyer
Crouch II, in connection with his nomination follows:]
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Room SR-228
Washington, DC 20510-6050
(202) 224-3871
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation
of your answer applies.
Part A--Biographical Information
Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.
1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
Jack Dyer Crouch, II, aka J.D. Crouch.
2. Position to which nominated:
Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy.
3. Date of nomination:
May 7, 2001.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
5. Date and place of birth:
July 1, 1958; Santa Monica, CA.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Kristin Crouch, Maiden Name: Karnbrock.
7. Names and ages of children:
Lara, 12; Jake, 9.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received and date degree granted.
University of Southern California, 09/81-08/87, Ph.D. 08/87.
University of Southern California, 06/80-08/81, M.A. 08/81.
University of Southern California, 06/76-06/80, B.A. 06/80.
Palm Springs High School, 09/73-06/76, Diploma 06/76.
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
Associate Professor, Southwest Missouri State University,
Springfield, MO, 08/92-present.
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (ISP), DOD,
Washington, DC., 02/90-07/92.
Legislative Assistant, Senator Malcolm Wallop, Washington, DC., 03/
86-02/90.
Foreign Affairs Officer, ACDA, Washington, DC., 08/85-03/86.
10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative,
honorary or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State,
or local governments, other than those listed above.
Deputy Sheriff; Christian County Sheriffs Department, Ozark, MO,
12/93-present.
Consultant to OSD, 07/92-01/93.
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational or other institution.
Consultant to MobilePCGear H.Q., 1997-present.
Board of Directors, MobilePCGear H.Q., 1999-present.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable and
other organizations.
Life Member, National Rifle Association, 1992-present; Member,
Academics for the Second Amendment, 1996-present; Member, National
Policy Council on U.S. Leadership in a Changing World, 1995-96; Member,
Board of Editors, Comparative Strategy, 1993-present; Member, Board of
Advisors, Center for Security Policy, 1992-present; President,
Christian County Deputy Sheriffs Association, 2001-present; Member,
Missouri Deputy Sheriffs Association, 1994-present; Member, National
Association of Scholars (approx. 1994-1996); Reserve Deputy Sheriff,
Christian County, MO, 1993-present; Member, Board of Advisors,
Missourians for Personal Safety, 1998-99; Member, National Tactical
Officers Association, 1999-present; Alpha Tau Omega fraternity, 1978-
present; Skull & Dagger Honor Society, University of Southern
California, 1980-present; Member, Multi-County Jurisdictional Special
Response Team, 1993-present; Adjunct Fellow, The Claremont Institute,
1993-present; Trainer, Association of Professional Trainers, 1997-
present; Member, Military Committee, Springfield Chamber of Commerce,
1994-present.
13. Political affiliations and activities:
(a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or
any public office for which you have been a candidate.
None.
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5
years.
Campaign Manager, Citizens for Matlock, Candidate for Christian
County Sheriff, 1999-2000.
(c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $100 or more for the past 5 years.
Citizens for Matlock 2000 Election, Maximum in both Primary &
General; Talent for Governor 2000 Election, $200; Tim Hayes, Election
2000, $100.
14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals and any other special recognitions
for outstanding service or achievements.
Hubert H. Humphrey Dissertation Fellowship 1983-1984.
Skull & Dagger All-University Honor Society 1980.
Blue Key Honor Society 1980.
Distinguished Public Service Award, Department of Defense, 1992.
Missouri Reserve Deputy Sheriff of the Year, 2000.
Rockwell Dennis Hunt Scholastic Award, top graduate student award,
1981-82.
Order of the Palm, highest undergraduate award for excellence in
scholarship and service to the University, 1980.
Herman Fellowship, USC School of International Relations, 1980-81,
1981-82.
Earhart Foundation Fellowship in National Security Affairs, 1980-
81.
Publius Fellowship, from Public Research, Syndicated, Claremont,
California, 1981.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
``Gun Law Enforcement, Not More Gun Laws,'' Washington Times, April
29, 1999.
``Concealed-Gun Law Can Help Us Defend Innocent,'' Springfield
News-Leader, September 10, 1998, p. 10A.
``Clinton's Slow Boat to Korea,'' Comparative Strategy, Vol. 14,
No. 1, pp. 35-44.
``Europe: U.S. Hobson's Choice,'' Global Affairs, Fall 1993, pp. 1-
18.
``The Politics of Reform in Russia,'' with William R. Van Cleave,
et. al., Global Affairs, Summer 1993, pp. 185-204.
``The President and Nuclear Testing,'' Global Affairs, Spring 1993,
pp. 122-135.
``A National Missile Defense?'', Comparative Strategy, January-
March 1993, pp. 57-63.
``Republican Responsibility,'' On Principle, February 1995, p. 5.
Economic Reform and the Military in Russia, Report of Proceedings
of U.S.-Russian International Security Council Conference, March 15,
1994.
``Founding Fathers Got Balance Right,'' The News-Leader, February
28, 1994, p. 7A.
``Multicultural Education: What Is It?,'' The Bear Review, Vol. 1,
Number Two, January 1994, p. 1.
The Politics of Reform in Russia, with William R. Van Cleave,
Report of Proceedings of U.S.-Russian International Security Council
Conference, April 15-16, 1993.
``European Security from an American Perspective,'' in Thomas J.
Marshall, European Security and the U.S. Role: 1990s and Beyond, p. 30-
53. A monograph published by The Center for National Security
Negotiations and the Institut Francais des Relations Internationales,
1993.
``Charges Against SDI Program Tests Unfounded,'' The News-Leader,
September 20, 1993, p. 7A.
The Emerging Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States, Report
of the Proliferation Study Team, U.S. Department of Defense, February
1993, Chairman Lt. Gen. William E. Odom. Drafted section on
``Possibilities of Changing Intentions,'' and reviewed and commented on
the balance of the report.
``SDI and the Securing of Western Freedoms,'' Laissez Faire, July
1992, p. 17-21.
``SDI: A Lasting Legacy?,'' The Wall Street Journal, June 20, 1988.
``Academic Tyranny at USC,'' Chapter, Academic License, Ed. by Les
Csorba, III, 1988.
``Deadly Habits,'' a Review of Deadly Gambits: The Reagan
administration and the Stalemate in Nuclear Arms Control by Strobe
Talbott, with Patrick J. Garrity, The Claremont Review of Books, Winter
1984.
``The Missile Crisis in Europe'' with William R. Van Cleave, The
Chicago Tribune, January 1, 1984.
``One Defector's View: An Interview with General Leon Dubicki,''
conducted in West Germany, in Grand Strategy: Countercurrents, Vol. 2,
No. 19, 1 October 1982, p. 2.
``The Soviet Theater Nuclear Offensive,'' in Grand Strategy:
Countercurrents, Vol. 2, No. 13, 1 July 1982, p. 2.
``To Be or NATO Be: The SPD and German Neutralism,'' in Grand
Strategy: Countercurrents, Vol. 2, No. 7, 1 April 1982, p. 2.
``A Bibliographical Survey of West German Security Policy,''
prepared for the Center for National Security Studies, Los Alamos
National Laboratory, 1982.
``Mexico: Key to the New Caribbean Order,'' in Grand Strategy:
Countercurrents, Vol. 1, No. 9, 1 November 1981, p. 10.
Presenter, After the Cold War: Anglo-American Relations and
Stability in Europe, at conference What Remains Special About the
Special Relationship, sponsored by The University of Hull and The
Fulbright Commission, April 10-11, 1995, Hull England.
Guest Lecturer, ``American Strategic Policy Under Reagan and
After,'' Keck Center for International and Strategic Studies, Claremont
McKenna College, Claremont, CA, October 26, 1994.
Presenter, Panel on ``Assessing Security Downsizing in the Light of
Deterrence and United States Defense Commitments,'' at American Bar
Association Conference on National Security Law in a Changing World,
Washington, DC., International Club, October 20-21, 1994.
Discussant, Panel on ``U.S.: The Prudence and Perils of
Multilateralism,'' Conference on The U.S., The U.N., and the
International Order, Century Plaza Hotel, Los Angeles, CA, October 7,
1994.
Briefing, ``North Korea and Nuclear Weapons: An Assessment,''
published by the International Security Council in Discussion of North
Korea, July 11, 1994.
Presentation, for M.A. Program in Education, on Problem of North
Korea and Nuclear Weapons, Drury College, June 16, 1994.
Interview, KSMU Radio, SMS & You, May 28, 1994 on Clinton Crime
Bill. Presentation, Future Roles for Strategic Forces, Center for
Strategic and International Studies, Washington, DC., May 1994.
Participant, Conference on European Security and the U.S. Role,
sponsored by The Center for National Security Negotiations and the
Institut Francais des Relations Internationales, February 4-5, 1993,
Paris, France.
Participant, in Conference on Russian Economic Reform, sponsored by
the International Security Council, October 1993, Washington, DC.
Presentation on National Missile Defense at the Conference on
Defense Against Ballistic Missiles: The Emerging Consensus for SDI,
Washington, DC., 23 September 1992.
``The Politics of Near-term Deployment of the Strategic Defense
Initiative,'' a paper presented at the Annual American Political
Science Association meeting, September 4-7, 1987, Chicago, IL.
``Strengthening America's Strategic Nuclear Deterrent,'' a paper
presented at the Ground Zero Symposium, April 21-22, 1982, Claremont,
California.
There are doubtless other informal speaking arrangements local to
the Springfield area including the Breakfast Club of the Ozarks, Rotary
Club, etc. that I have participated in but have not recorded the dates
and topics.
16. Speeches: Provide the committee with two copies of any formal
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have
copies of and are on topics relevant to the position for which you have
been nominated.
None.
17. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree,
if confirmed, to respond to requests to appear and testify before any
duly constituted committee of the Senate?
Yes.
______
[The nominee responded to the questions in Parts B-F of the
committee questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set
forth in the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to
Parts B-F are contained in the committee's executive files.]
------
Signature and Date
I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate,
and complete.
Jack Dyer Crouch II.
This 10th day of May, 2001.
[The nomination of Dr. Jack Dyer Crouch II, was reported to
the Senate by Chairman Levin on July 11, 2001, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on August 1, 2001.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to Peter W. Rodman by
Chairman Warner prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
June 1, 2001.
Hon. John Warner,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Enclosed are the answers to the advance
questions the Senate Armed Services Committee asked me to complete.
Sincerely,
Peter W. Rodman.
cc: Hon. Carl Levin,
Ranking Minority Member.
______
Questions and Responses
defense reforms
Question. More than a decade has passed since the enactment of the
Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and
the Special Operations reforms.
Do you support full implementation of these defense reforms?
Answer. Yes, I support the implementation of these reforms. The
focus on ``jointness'' outlined in the Defense Reorganization Act of
1986 has significantly enhanced the readiness and warfighting
capabilities of the U.S. armed forces.
Question. What is your view of the extent to which these defense
reforms have been implemented?
Answer. These reforms have fundamentally changed the way the
Department of Defense works by strengthening civilian control of DOD,
improving military advice given to the President and Secretary of
Defense, and advancing the ability of the Department to carry out its
fundamental mission--protecting America's security and furthering its
vital interests.
Question. What do you consider to be the most important aspects of
these defense reforms?
Answer. From my point of view, the most important aspects are the
clear responsibility and authority given the CINCs for mission
accomplishment, and the increased attention to formulation of strategy
and contingency planning.
Question. The goals of Congress in enacting these defense reforms,
as reflected in section 3 of the Goldwater-Nichols Department of
Defense Reorganization Act, can be summarized as strengthening civilian
control; improving military advice; placing clear responsibility on the
combatant commanders for the accomplishment of their missions; ensuring
the authority of the combatant commanders is commensurate with their
responsibility; increasing attention to the formulation of strategy and
to contingency planning; providing for more efficient use of defense
resources; and enhancing the effectiveness of military operations and
improving the management and administration of the Department of
Defense.
Do you agree with these goals?
Answer. Yes, I support the goals of Congress in enacting the
reforms of the Goldwater-Nichols legislation.
Question. Recently, there have been articles that indicate an
interest within the Department of Defense in modifying Goldwater-
Nichols in light of the changing environment and possible revisions to
the National strategy.
Do you anticipate that legislative proposals to amend Goldwater-
Nichols may be appropriate? If so, what areas do you believe it might
be appropriate to address in these proposals?
Answer. I have no knowledge of any proposals to amend Goldwater-
Nichols; however, if confirmed, before any modifications are suggested,
I believe it is necessary to review the extent to which these reforms
have been implemented and the stated goals achieved. If any changes are
determined to be appropriate after such a review, I am confident the
Department would consult closely with Congress and this committee.
duties
Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs?
Answer. I understand, that if confirmed, I will perform the duties
of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security
Affairs as prescribed by Department of Defense Directive 5111.7. The
directive notes that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
International Security Affairs is the principal staff assistant and
advisor to the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy (USD(P)) and the
Secretary of Defense for the formulation and coordination of
international security strategy and policy; political-military policy
on issues of DOD interest that relate to various foreign regions and
nations, their governments and their defense establishments, for
oversight of security cooperative programs and foreign military sales
programs; and direction of DOD activities to promote civilian control
of the military and standards of military professionalism respectful of
human rights throughout the world.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what duties and functions do
you expect that Secretary Rumsfeld would prescribe for you?
Answer. While I have not formally consulted with Secretary Rumsfeld
on this issue, I would expect him to look to the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for International Security Affairs to fulfill all the duties
assigned to that office by statute and regulation--in particular,
formulation and coordination of international security strategy and
policy.
Question. How do you see the civilian role, as opposed to the
military role, in the formulation of strategy and contingency planning?
Answer. As I understand this activity, the Policy Office, on behalf
of the Secretary, initiates the contingency planning process though its
preparation of the Presidential-approved Contingency Planning Guidance,
and subsequently reviews actual plans developed by the military.
Formulation of strategy and the contingency planning guidance that
flows from it are an inherently civilian role. The military as an
institution, or through individual leaders, has an important part in
this process. However, leadership and final decisions relating to
formulation of strategy and contingency guidance are appropriately
within the purview of the Nation's civilian leaders.
Question. Will the responsibilities of the Assistant Secretary for
International Security Affairs include responsibility for dealing with
NATO nuclear matters?
Answer. The incoming Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, with
the approval of the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary of Defense, may
choose to restructure the current Policy organization to address better
their concerns and priorities and the concerns and priorities of the
President. Under the current organization, NATO and European Affairs
fall under the responsibilities of the Assistant Secretary for
International Security Affairs, while nuclear and counter- and non-
proliferation issues fall under the responsibilities of the Assistant
Secretary for Strategy and Threat Reduction.
Question. Will the responsibilities of the Assistant Secretary for
International Security Affairs include any responsibility for
formulating strategic nuclear policy?
Answer. Please see answer to 2D.
Question. Will the responsibilities of the Assistant Secretary for
International Security Affairs include any responsibility for the Nunn-
Lugar programs?
Answer. Please see answer to 2D.
Question. Will the responsibilities of the Assistant Secretary for
International Security Affairs include any responsibility with respect
to nonproliferation efforts of the DOD?
Answer. Please see answer to 2D.
Question. Will the responsibilities of the Assistant Secretary for
International Security Affairs include any responsibility with respect
to nuclear matters in Asia, including the Agreed Framework?
Answer. As I mentioned above, the incoming Under Secretary of
Defense for Policy, with the approval of the Secretary and the Deputy
Secretary of Defense, may choose to restructure the current Policy
organization to address better their concerns and priorities and the
concerns and priorities of the President. Under the current
organization, Asian and Pacific affairs fall under the responsibilities
of the Assistant Secretary for International Security Affairs, while
nuclear and counter and non-proliferation issues fall under the
responsibilities of the Assistant Secretary for Strategy and Threat
Reduction.
major challenges and problems
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will
confront the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security
Affairs?
Answer. As currently structured, the Assistant Secretary of Defense
for International Security Affairs will oversee development and
implementation of U.S. security policies in many regions of the world,
as determined by the Secretary of Defense. This traditionally includes
various regions of potential major crisis such as the Asia/Pacific and
the Middle East and the Gulf, and could also include challenges of
different kinds in Latin America and Africa. In areas of potential
major crisis, the challenge is to ensure that this country is strong in
deterring aggression and conflict and strong in supporting its friends
and allies. In other dimensions of U.S. security relations, DOD has an
opportunity through its policies of engagement to contribute to
military professionalism, respect for civilian authority and human
rights, and otherwise contribute to strengthened political relations
and peace and freedom. If confirmed, I look forward to meeting these
challenges.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, I will advise the Secretary of Defense, the
Deputy Secretary of Defense, and the Under Secretary of Defense for
Policy in formulating and executing policies that deter regional crises
and build a more secure world. I will also seek to assure that DOD's
relationships with other countries contribute to the advancement of
American values, as well as American strategic interests. I look
forward to working with Congress and, in particular, with this
committee in carrying out these responsibilities.
policy toward iran
Question. In a December 1996 editorial, you expressed support for a
policy of containment of Iran, to include tight economic sanctions.
Given the changes that have taken place in Iran since that time, do
you believe that containment is still the best policy for the United
States to pursue? If so, why?
Answer. While there have been some changes since this article was
written, Iran continues to pursue policies that threaten U.S. security
interests and are destabilizing to the region, including the pursuit of
WMD and long-range missile technologies, support for terrorism, and
support for violent opposition to Middle East peace. While internal
changes in Iran continue to be a cause for interest and hope, it is
unlikely that these changes, by themselves, will produce significant
improvements in the areas of U.S. concern. It is my understanding that
the new administration is conducting a thorough review of Iran policy.
If confirmed, I look forward to participating in such a review.
iraq policy review
Question. The administration is currently engaged in a
comprehensive review of U.S. policy toward Iraq, to include a review of
military options. It has been reported that one option under
consideration is a restructuring of the sanctions regime against Iraq.
What elements do you think are necessary for a U.S. policy designed
to ensure Iraq's compliance with the commitments it made at the end of
the Gulf War?
Answer. The fundamental objective of U.S. policy toward Iraq must
be to ensure that the Baghdad regime does not threaten our interests in
the Gulf region and in the Middle East more broadly. That objective is
consistent with the aims of the Gulf War cease-fire resolution and a
succession of other UN Security Council resolutions dating back to the
initial invasion of Kuwait--all of which are intended to assure the
international community that Iraq can no longer be a threat to peace
and security.
I am advised that the ongoing administration review of Iraq policy
focuses on three main elements: (1) refining sanctions to improve the
precision with which sanctions target Iraqi military and WMD
capabilities; (2) using military forces more efficiently to support our
overarching policy objectives, including through enforcement of the no-
fly zones; and (3) facilitating a change in the regime in Iraq. These
elements are linked to each other and the challenge is to bring all
three together while addressing the complex task of rebuilding
consensus in the region and in the international community.
developments in the middle east
Question. The conflict in the Middle East continues to escalate,
with both sides seemingly unwilling to take the first step to end the
violence. On May 21, Senators Mitchell and Rudman issued a report
recommending a possible path ahead to end the violence.
What are your views on the Mitchell-Rudman report recommendations?
Answer. While I would defer to the Department of State to provide
the official U.S. view, I believe the Mitchell-Rudman report provides a
good point of departure for renewed negotiations. The recent resumption
of joint security talks following Ambassador Burns' visit is a step in
that direction. The parties must work to end the violence and resolve
their differences through negotiations.
Question. What role do you believe the U.S. should play, if any, in
this on-going conflict?
Answer. I agree with the view that a solution to this conflict
cannot be imposed on the parties. However, the U.S. must remain
committed to helping the Israelis and the Palestinians find a way to
end the violence and return to negotiations. As President Bush has
stated, the United States remains committed to Israel's security and
maintaining Israel's qualitative military edge regardless of
circumstances. If confirmed, I will work with Congress and this
committee to further these objectives.
engagement policy in the middle east
Question. The terrorist attack on U.S.S. Cole in October 2000,
focused attention not only on the terrorist threat in the region, but
also on the U.S. policy of military engagement with a wide range of
nations worldwide. Many Americans were surprised to learn that the
United States military personnel and U.S. Navy ships made frequent
stops in Yemen.
What criteria do you believe should be used to determine when the
U.S. military should pursue a policy of engagement with a nation--
particularly in a volatile area such as the Middle East?
Answer. Engagement, if conducted wisely and at appropriate levels
of effort, can serve U.S. interests in the Middle East including:
strengthening alliances; deterring threats; and enhancing U.S. military
access in this key region. I support such activities for these useful
purposes. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that engagement in the
Middle East and elsewhere supports our goals and that associated risks
are fully assessed and guarded against.
Question. If confirmed, would you ensure that there is appropriate
civilian oversight of any such engagement decisions by our military
commanders?
Answer. Yes.
regional security and dod counter-narcotics activities
Question. For the past several years there has been a debate
regarding the counter-narcotics activities of the Department of Defense
with particular emphasis placed on the question of the U.S. military's
role in the Andean Ridge. While some believe that these activities
should more appropriately be performed by law enforcement agencies,
others believe that these activities contribute to stability in a
region where we have important interests.
Would you please outline what important interests you believe the
United States has in the Andean Ridge?
Answer. It is my view that it is in the United States' interests to
promote and support democracy and democratic institutions, foster
sustainable economic development and trade liberalization, and
significantly reduce the supply of illegal drugs. A stable, prosperous
and democratic Andean Ridge and an improved economic and political
environment across the Western Hemisphere are in our interests.
Our interests, however, are threatened by the corrosive influence
of a thriving illegal narcotics industry. Fueled by billions of dollars
of drug money, the traffickers challenge not merely the laws of states,
but the states themselves. It is clearly in our national interest to
continue to work with other nations to combat narcotics trafficking.
Given the President's firm intention to work more closely with
Latin governments to achieve economic and security objectives, it is my
understanding the Department of Defense is reviewing existing policies
and programs, including the counterdrug program, to make DOD's role in
that process more effective. I am ready, if confirmed, to oversee the
support the President and the Secretary of Defense deem required to
assist other agencies, and work with Congress and this committee, in
these efforts.
Question. Do you believe that the Department's activities in the
theater, including counter-narcotics operations, contribute to the
advancement of these interests?
Answer. Please see answer to Question 8A.
regional stability--latin america
Question. Over the past few decades, democracy has taken root in
Latin America. Unfortunately, we are witnessing a retreat from
democracy in many of these countries. Peru has suffered a severe
political scandal, Ecuador has experienced a coup, and Venezuela could
be headed down a path of one-man rule. Furthermore, Colombia is faced
with escalating violence between the Colombian Armed Forces, two
communist rebel organizations, and a collection of paramilitary forces.
How do you view the current and future stability of the region?
Answer. I share your concern about stability in Latin America,
particularly in the Andean Ridge, the sub-region to which all the
countries the question mentioned. The good news is that Andean
governments are interested in maintaining strong bilateral
relationships with the United States. Thus, the United States is well-
positioned to influence events there, if it is deemed necessary to do
so.
Question. What actions, if any, should the United States take to
strengthen regional stability in the Andean Ridge?
Answer. DOD plays a supporting role in defining U.S. foreign
policy, so I hesitate to offer specific proposals. I understand the
Department of Defense is still in the midst of a broad review of all
its overseas activities, so it would be premature for me to suggest
where DOD might be heading. In general, the United States should
continue to encourage governments in the region to redouble their
efforts to defend human rights and combat corruption; progress in areas
such as these will help the inhabitants of the region to realize the
benefits of democracy.
china/taiwan
Question. President Bush recently stated that the United States
would do ``whatever it took'' to defend Taiwan from China.
What is your understanding of this statement and how will this
impact the U.S. military posture in the Pacific region, particularly
with regards to the U.S.-Taiwanese military relationship?
Answer. My understanding is that the President's statement did not
signal a change in U.S. policy toward Taiwan, or in the U.S. position
on ``One China.'' We remain committed to help Taiwan defend itself.
U.S. policy toward Taiwan is guided by the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA)
of 1979. The premise of the TRA is that an adequate defensive
capability on Taiwan is conducive to the maintenance of peace and
security in the region, so long as differences remain between the PRC
and Taiwan.
There is an ongoing review of the U.S. defense strategy and
posture. I am not privy to the progress of that review; however, if
confirmed, I look forward to participating in that review and working
with this committee and Congress on this important matter.
Question. What is your understanding of how this statement will
affect U.S.-China relations?
Answer. Our unofficial relationship with Taiwan is an issue that is
frequently raised in discussions between the United States and China--a
condition likely to persist so long as differences remain between us.
The President has also made clear his interest in building a
constructive relationship with China.
Question. The Department of Defense is currently reviewing the
merits of the military to military contacts program between the United
States and China.
What are your thoughts on the merits of establishing a military-to-
military contacts program between the United States and Taiwan?
Answer. This is an important issue. However, I have not had an
opportunity to study it in detail or formulate a view on this issue.
export controls
Question. In 1998 Congress transferred jurisdiction over commercial
communications satellite export licenses from the Commerce Department
to the State Department. Now, the aerospace industry is complaining
that the State Department approval process takes too long and
undermines our ability to compete internationally.
Do you see any problems with the current licensing process for
satellite technology, and if so, how would you change it?
Answer. I am not familiar with the details of the export licensing
process; therefore, I am not in a position to recommend changes.
However, in general, I believe Congress and the administration are
deliberate in examining any change in export controls on these
sensitive items. Any review should be undertaken in a manner that seeks
to preserve fundamental national security interests.
Question. In 1995, a 6-year bilateral trade agreement was signed by
China and the United States, restricting the number of Chinese
commercial space launches, so that China would not unduly benefit from
its nonmarket economy at the expense of U.S. companies. This agreement
will expire on December 31, 2001.
Do you believe that it is in our interest to limit the number of
Chinese launches?
Answer. It is premature for me to offer an opinion on this subject
other than to say that this is a matter that could be reviewed by the
administration. Should there be such a review, I would expect that it
would involve the Department of Defense. If confirmed, I will work to
ensure that U.S. space-related national security considerations are
prominent. I am also advised that there is a substantial interest in
this matter in Congress and that there therefore should be
Congressional consultations associated with such a review.
Question. Do you favor renewing the agreement?
Answer. Please see answer to 11B.
engagement policy
Question. Do you believe that engagement missions--exercises, small
joint and multinational operations, training the trainers--contribute
to troop readiness at the individual and small unit level?
Answer. Engagement missions, if conducted wisely and at appropriate
levels of effort, can serve useful purposes including: strengthening
alliances; deterring threats; and enhancing U.S. military access in key
regions. I support such U.S. military activities for these useful
purposes. If confirmed, I will assist in reviewing engagement
activities to ensure that they support our goals.
Question. Do you believe that the U.S. should participate in
humanitarian interventions, and if so, under what circumstances?
Answer. Decisions on whether or when to use military forces are one
of the most important that a President can make. Each case is unique,
and should be guided, first and foremost, by the U.S. national
interests at stake and by a consideration of the costs and risks of a
particular military involvement. If confirmed, I plan to work closely
with the Secretary of Defense and his most senior advisors to help
develop appropriate policies on how to guide the use of our military
forces.
engagement policy in africa
Question. U.S. Special Forces personnel are beginning the second
phase of Operation Focus Relief, a U.S. initiative to provide training
and equipment to West African troops for peacekeeping operations.
Do you consider this a beneficial program and would you support
expanding it to other African nations?
Answer. While I am not familiar with the details, it is my
understanding that Operation Focus Relief is the sort of engagement
intended to help regional actors deal with regional issues. Nigeria's
peace operations capacity is key to resolution of the situation in
Sierra Leone and the sub-region. In my opinion, supporting regional
powers can reduce the need to engage U.S. forces.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, when asked, to give your personal views,
even if those views differ from the administration in power?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for International Security Affairs.
Answer. Yes.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Carl Levin
iraq policy
1. Senator Levin. In an April 28, 2000 lecture at the University of
Virginia Law School you criticized the Clinton administration as one
``that uses only pinpricks against Saddam Hussein.'' Yet, the only
military action President George W. Bush's administration has taken
against Iraq has likewise been a limited airstrike on January 28th on
Iraqi surface-to-air missile system sites in southern Iraq. How was the
January attack different from the ones you have criticized?
Are you advocating stronger use of force against Saddam Hussein?
Mr. Rodman. President Bush authorized a response against Iraqi air
defense and command and control facilities on February 16, 2001. That
Coalition strike, against targets north of the 33rd parallel that had
not been attacked since Operation DESERT FOX in 1998, was intended to
signal to Saddam Hussein that we will resolutely enforce the relevant
U.N. Security Council resolutions. I understand that the administration
is conducting an Iraq policy review that addresses the use of military
force, including our operations in the no-fly zones. With respect to
the appropriate level of force, before I could formulate an opinion I
would need to have before me all the relevant facts and considerations
that are part of that on-going review.
2. Senator Levin. You were one of 40 signatories of a February 19,
1998 open letter to the President advocating that the U.S. Government:
``Recognize a provisional government of Iraq based on the
principles and leaders of the Iraqi National Congress (INC) that is
representative of all the peoples of Iraq.
Restore and enhance the safe haven in northern Iraq to allow the
provisional government to extend its authority there and establish a
zone in southern Iraq from which Saddam's ground forces would also be
excluded.''
You urged the President to ``position U.S. ground force equipment
in the region so that, as a last resort, we have the capacity to
protect and assist the anti-Saddam forces in the northern and southern
parts of Iraq.''
Do you still support this policy and, in particular, do you still
advocate the use of U.S. ground troops in Iraq in order to support an
insurrection against Saddam Hussein?
Mr. Rodman. In my view, there is no question that the whole region
would be a safer place, Iraq would be a better country, and American
national interests would benefit if Iraq were freed from the grip of
the Saddam Hussein regime. The specific details of how best to support
the Iraqi opposition, in the framework of the Iraq Liberation Act, are
being reviewed in the context of overall policy toward Iraq. I do not
favor the deployment of American ground forces in Iraq to replace the
Saddam Hussein regime.
3. Senator Levin. The administration's current efforts are to
revise the sanctions regime by the adoption of a new Resolution by the
UN Security Council that would apply throughout Iraq.
Do you agree with this approach and, if so, would you explain how
it would be consistent with the policy espoused in the February 19,
1998 letter?
Mr. Rodman. The ongoing administration review of Iraq policy, of
which sanctions are a part, is, I believe, consistent with the 1998
letter. That review focuses on three main elements: (1) refining
sanctions to improve the precision with which sanctions target Iraqi
military and WMD capabilities; (2) improving how we use our military
forces, including those patrolling the no-fly zones, to support our
overarching policy objectives; and (3) facilitating a change in the
regime in Iraq. These elements are linked to each other. Our challenge
is to bring all three together while addressing the complex task of
rebuilding consensus in the region and in the international community.
missile defense/strategic weapons
4. Senator Levin. In a November 22, 1999 National Review article
you criticized the Clinton administration on their negotiations with
Russia regarding missile defense and strategic weapons. You wrote: ``To
entice Moscow, they are offering 1) dangerously low ceilings on
strategic offensive weapons, 2) a very restrictive definition of the
defenses we might employ and 3) other sweeteners, such as financing for
new ABM radars in Siberia. The Russians haven't yet bitten. But one
thing is certain: Such an agreement, if reached, would be defeated in
the Senate even more overwhelmingly than the test-ban treaty.''
President Bush has proposed substantial and unilateral reductions
in the current levels of U.S. strategic weapons, and is also reportedly
preparing to offer Russia a package of weapons purchases, joint anti-
missile exercises, money to rebuild its outmoded early warning radar
system, and a proposal to include Russian S-300 surface-to-air missiles
in a new defensive shield over Russia and Europe as enticements to
obtain Russian agreement to scrap the ABM Treaty.
What is your opinion of these proposals?
If the Russians accepted such proposals, would you recommend that
the Senate reject it?
Mr. Rodman. There are a number of assumptions in the question with
respect to the Bush administration's approach. In any event, the
President has not announced specific proposals in these three areas
though he has indicated a general direction. It would be a mistake for
me to prejudge the decisions he may make. The key weakness I was
criticizing in my article was #2--the Clinton administration's
restrictions on defenses. I believe a strategic environment
characterized by offensive reductions and expanded defenses is the most
stable strategic environment of all.
nato enlargement
5. Senator Levin. In your 1999 article ``The Future of NATO
Enlargement'' you wrote that ``The `sensitivity' of Russians to the
Baltic States' association with the West is not something that the West
can, as a matter of principle, defer to.'' Subsequently, you expressed
the view that NATO must answer the question of ensuring Baltic security
and listed three options, namely early NATO membership for Lithuania,
Latvia and Estonia; membership for one of the Baltic states (Lithuania)
and one in the southeast (Slovenia); or, as an interim step, a security
umbrella over the three Baltic states that would be short of NATO
membership.
Do you believe, then, that NATO has a responsibility to ensure
Baltic security?
If our NATO allies were unwilling to ensure Baltic security, what
action would you recommend the United States take?
Mr. Rodman. I believe the United States and NATO have an interest
in the security, independence, and freedom of the Baltic states. As I
wrote in that article, there are various options for protecting this
interest, and NATO membership is one. In the absence of NATO guarantees
formalized by NATO membership, I believe the United States may want to
strengthen U.S. bilateral ties and use NATO's Partnership for Peace as
a vehicle for strengthening NATO's security links with the Baltic
states.
bosnia
6. Senator Levin. On December 11, 2000 in a speech to the German
Foreign Policy Association you said: ``The more recent debate over
reducing U.S. troops in Bosnia, originating in some statements by Gov.
George W. Bush, is really more an issue of timing. Americans share
European hopes that European forces can take on a greater role in
peacekeeping in such cases. But all agree that any further transfer of
responsibility ought to be a matter of consultation and agreement.''
Yet--much to the consternation of our European allies--2 weeks ago
Secretary Rumsfeld said in a Washington Post interview that he was
``pushing'' to have U.S. troops withdrawn from Bosnia.
Do you favor Secretary Rumsfeld's unilateral approach, or would you
support Secretary Powell's consultative assertion that the U.S. went in
with our allies and ``we'll come out together?''
Mr. Rodman. My understanding of Secretary Rumsfeld's policy is that
he does not oppose the Bosnia mission or advocate unilateral
withdrawal. Rather, he wants to ensure that the mission is fulfilled in
the most efficient manner. It is my understanding that there is
complete harmony in the administration on the principle that, as we
went into Bosnia together with our allies, we will come out together.
balkans policy
7. Senator Levin. Does maintaining stability in the Balkans
contribute to stability in Europe--and therefore bolster U.S. national
security interests?
How do we decide when to disengage from our current obligations in
Europe, the Sinai and elsewhere?
Mr. Rodman. In my view, it is in the national interest to bolster
regional stability on NATO's southern flank, and to ensure the long-
term viability of NATO as the guarantor of security in the region.
Decisions to alter U.S. deployments, whether in Europe or Sinai or
elsewhere, should, I believe, depend on such factors as whether the
mission has been reliably accomplished, whether there is a more
efficient way to fulfill the mission, whether other partners can do the
job, whether we can reach consensus with partners, and other factors.
north korea
8. Senator Levin. If confirmed as the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for International Security Affairs, you will be responsible for
advising the Secretary of Defense on U.S. policy towards North Korea.
Do you believe that the United States should continue to abide by
the Agreed Framework as long as North Korea lives up to its side of the
agreement?
Mr. Rodman. Yes. I support the administration's recent announcement
on abiding by the Agreed Framework. The administration has decided to
undertake discussions with North Korea on a broad agenda that includes
improved implementation of the Agreed Framework.
iran policy
9. Senator Levin. In a December 1996 editorial, you expressed
support for a policy of containment of Iran, to include tight economic
sanctions.
Given the changes that have taken place in Iran since that time, do
you believe that containment is still the best policy for the United
States to pursue? If so, why?
Mr. Rodman. My general views of policy toward Iran have not changed
since that article. I think that domestic developments in Iran over the
past 4 years give reason to hope for an eventual improvement in U.S.-
Iranian relations. However, Iran continues to pursue policies that
threaten U.S. security interests and are destabilizing to the region,
including the pursuit of WMD and long-range missile technology, support
for terrorism, and support for violent opposition to the Middle East
peace negotiations. I believe it is therefore prudent for us to
continue a strategy to deter and defend against Iranian threats to U.S.
interests. Such a policy, I believe, has the best chance of moderating
Iran's foreign policy.
iraq policy
10. Senator Levin. The administration is currently engaged in a
comprehensive review of U.S. policy toward Iraq, to include a review of
military options. It has been reported that one option under
consideration is a restructuring of the sanctions regime against Iraq.
What elements do you think are necessary for a U.S. policy designed
to ensure Iraq's compliance with the commitments it made at the end of
the Gulf War?
Mr. Rodman. Ensuring Iraqi compliance with U.N. Security Council
resolutions since the Gulf War will, I believe, require a comprehensive
approach. Strengthening the sanctions regime is one part of such an
approach. Enforcing the no-fly zones and other aspects of the U.N.
Security Council resolutions, as coalition forces are now doing, is
also important, and the United States should, I believe, look for ways
to accomplish this more effectively. Finally, as expressed on a
bipartisan basis in the Iraq Liberation Act, regime change should be an
element of U.S. policy.
taiwan policy
11. Senator Levin. What are your thoughts on the merits of
establishing a military-to-military contacts program between the United
States and Taiwan?
Mr. Rodman. First, I believe our military contacts should be guided
by the provisions of the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979. Second, I would
have to study the merits of any particular proposed contact program.
But in principle, I would support contacts that contribute to
deterrence and regional stability and that would enhance communication
between the United States and Taiwan, especially in a crisis.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Strom Thurmond
africa policy
12. Senator Thurmond. In response to the committee's advance policy
question on the major challenge you might face if confirmed as the
Assistant Secretary you indicated ``challenges of different kinds in
Latin America and Africa.''
What do you believe are the challenges facing the United States in
regard to Africa and how should we respond to those challenges?
Mr. Rodman. In Africa, the challenges include tasks of building
security ties in a way that promotes not only military skills but also
military professionalism and respect for civil authority and human
rights. Africa also faces the more acute challenges of instability and
violent ethnic conflict. Sudan is an especially troubling case. DOD is
providing training for Nigeria (along with Ghana and Senegal) to enable
them to play a peacekeeping role in West Africa, including as part of
the U.N. mission in Sierra Leone. This DOD effort is meant to enable
regional countries to cooperate more effectively and take a greater
share of responsibility for regional security.
iraq policy/economic sanctions
13. Senator Thurmond. Although the sanctions against Iraq have
precluded Saddam Hussein from rebuilding his military force, from a
public relations standpoint they have been a disaster. We have been
accused of causing malnutrition and the premature deaths of children
and as a result are under pressure to lift sanctions.
What are your views on economic sanctions and how do we reverse the
public relations failure in regard to Iraq?
Mr. Rodman. Sanctions were imposed to secure Iraqi compliance with
its international obligations. In my view, they also serve a specific
purpose--to impede the rebuilding of the Iraqi military machine. I
therefore believe sanctions in some form should remain in place until
Iraq complies with its obligations. There is no justification short of
that for removing the sanctions, especially since the oil-for-food
program is generating more than enough revenue to meet the Iraqi
people's humanitarian needs. Moreover, Security Council Resolution 1284
has established a roadmap for suspending and lifting sanctions based on
Iraqi progress toward compliance.
At the same time, I think it makes sense to review the process by
which contracts under the oil-for-food program are now done and to
ensure that the sanctions are applied in a focused way against Iraqi
military capabilities. These changes in the application of sanctions
should make it harder for Saddam Hussein to use the suffering of his
people as an argument against the sanctions.
india/pakistan
14. Senator Thurmond. What role should the United States play in
resolving the Kashmiri dispute between India and Pakistan?
Mr. Rodman. The United States should not, in my opinion, attempt to
mediate the India/Pakistan dispute over Kashmir in the absence of clear
indications that it would make a decisive difference. However,
maintaining good relations with India and Pakistan contributes to U.S.
influence that can have a moderating effect.
european security and defense policy
15. Senator Thurmond. Many policy experts believe that the European
Security and Defense Policy coupled with the Rapid Reaction Force will
lead to the demise of NATO.
What are your views on the impact of these European initiatives on
NATO?
Mr. Rodman. NATO will continue to be the indispensable foundation
for American engagement in European security and for ensuring the
collective defense of Alliance members. In my view, it is important
that ESDP proceed in a manner that does not damage the transatlantic
link or the ability of the Alliance to take collective action. I note
that Prime Minister Blair told the Canadian Parliament in February that
``NATO is our organization of choice'' and that ESDP ``applies only
where NATO has chosen not to act collectively.'' I believe that that
approach serves the common interests of the United States, the UK, and
all the Atlantic allies.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Rick Santorum
africa/aids threat
16. Senator Santorum. As you are aware, President George W. Bush
has raised the profile of the AIDS plight impacting the continent of
Africa. The United States recently contributed $200 million to a United
Nations trust fund to help treat individuals suffering from this
disease and help combat the spread of the AIDS virus. More than 70
percent of all people living with the disease, an estimated 25.3
million HIV-positive individuals, live in Africa.
President Bush has designated Health and Human Services Secretary
Tommy Thompson and Secretary of State Colin Powell to chair a new high-
level task force to better coordinate the administration's activities
and responses to the AIDS crisis. The Secretary of State has indicated
that he considers the spread of the AIDS virus as a national security
threat to the United States.
What can you do as ASD/ISA to help the administration to make a
difference in the fight against the AIDS virus? What is the appropriate
role of the Department of Defense in response to this national security
threat?
Mr. Rodman. I recognize this is an enormously important subject,
though I am not at present conversant with DOD's role in this area. If
confirmed, I will make it a priority to obtain briefings on this
subject and will contribute as appropriate in the interagency process
to advance U.S. policies.
______
[The nomination reference of Peter W. Rodman follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
May 14, 2001.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Peter W. Rodman of the District of Columbia, to be an Assistant
Secretary of Defense, vice Edward L. Warner III.
______
[The biographical sketch of Peter W. Rodman, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Peter W. Rodman
Peter W. Rodman is Director of National Security Programs at the
Nixon Center. He is the author of More Precious than Peace (Scribner,
1994)--a history of the Cold War in the Third World--and of a series of
annual strategic assessments published by the Nixon Center, the most
recent of which is Uneasy Giant: The Challenges to American
Predominance.
Mr. Rodman served as a Deputy Assistant to President Reagan for
National Security Affairs (Foreign Policy) from March 1986 to January
1987 and then, until September 1990, under Presidents Reagan and Bush,
as Special Assistant for National Security Affairs and NSC Counselor.
From April 1984 to March 1986, he was Director of the Department of
State Policy Planning Staff, advising Secretary of State George P.
Shultz on major issues including U.S.-Soviet relations and the Middle
East.
In the Nixon and Ford administrations, from August 1969 to January
1977, Mr. Rodman was a member of the National Security Council staff
and a special assistant to Dr. Henry A. Kissinger. From 1972 to 1977 he
took part in nearly all of Dr. Kissinger's negotiations and missions.
Following this, he was principal research and editorial assistant to
Dr. Kissinger in the preparation of his memoirs and was Director of
Research for Kissinger Associates, Inc.
Mr. Rodman has been a Senior Editor of National Review (1991-1999)
and a Senior Advisor on foreign policy to the 1992 Republican National
Convention Committee on Resolutions (Platform Committee). He has been a
scholar at both the Center for Strategic and International Studies and
the Johns Hopkins Foreign Policy Institute.
Mr. Rodman was born on November 24, 1943, in Boston. He was
educated at Harvard College (A.B. 1964, summa cum laude), Oxford
University (B.A., M.A.), and Harvard Law School (J.D. 1969). He is a
member of the boards of Freedom House, the World Affairs Council of
Washington, DC, and the U.S. Committee on NATO. He and his wife
Veronique live in Washington with their two children.
______
[The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
form that details the biographical, financial and other
information of the nominee. The form executed by Peter W.
Rodman in connection with his nomination follows:]
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Room SR-228
Washington, DC 20510-6050
(202) 224-3871
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation
of your answer applies.
Part A--Biographical Information
Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.
1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
Peter Warren Rodman.
2. Position to which nominated:
Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs.
3. Date of nomination:
May 14, 2001.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
5. Date and place of birth:
November 24, 1943; Boston, MA.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to former F. Veronique Boulad.
7. Names and ages of children:
Theodora Tatiana Boulad Rodman, age: 15; Nicholas George Rodman,
age: 14.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received and date degree granted.
Roxbury Latin School, 1955-1961: High School diploma 1961.
Harvard College, 1961-1964: AB degree 1964.
Oxford University, 1964-1966: AB degree 1966; MA 1971.
Harvard Law School, 1966-1969: JD degree 1969.
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
Director of National Security Programs, The Nixon Center, 1615 L
St., NW, (#1250) Washington, DC 20036, Feb. 1995-present.
Director of Middle East and Eurasian Studies, Center for Strategic
and International Studies, 1800 K St., NW (#400), Washington DC 20006:
January 1994-February 1995.
Fellow, The Johns Hopkins Foreign Policy Institute, 1619 Mass.
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20036: September 1990-January 1994.
10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative,
honorary or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State,
or local governments, other than those listed above.
Member, NSC Staff (August 1969-Jan. 1977).
Member, Policy Planning Council, Dept. of State (March 1983-March
1984).
Director, Policy Planning Staff, Dept. of State (March 1984-March
1986).
Deputy Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs
(Foreign Policy) (March 1986-February 1987).
Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs
and NSC Counselor (February 1987-September 1990).
U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century, National
Security Study Group, Member (1999-present).
Study Group on Enhancing Multilateral Export Controls for U.S.
National Security, Member (1999-present).
CIA Strategic Assessment Group, China Futures Panel, Member (August
2000-present).
Library of Congress, Henry Alfred Kissinger Chair in Foreign Policy
and International Affairs, Executive Director and Member of Steering
Committee (December 2000-present).
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational or other institution.
AMK Advisers, LLC (Member, August 1997-present).
ipx, inc. (Consultant, June 1999-present).
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable and
other organizations.
World Affairs Council of Washington, DC (Board member, 1991-
present; Vice President, 1996-present).
Freedom House (Board member, 1996-present).
U.S. Committee on NATO (Board member, 1996-present).
Cosmos Club (member, 1984-present).
Council on Foreign Relations (member).
International Institute for Strategic Studies (member).
George Bush Presidential Library (member).
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library (member).
Gerald Ford Foundation (member).
Richard Nixon Library and Birthplace Foundation (member).
The Federalist Society (member).
American Automobile Association member (1970-present).
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (charter member).
Friends of the National Zoo (member).
Smithsonian Associates (member).
National Geographic Society (member).
National Aquarium in Baltimore (member).
National Air & Space Society (member).
National Trust for Historic Preservation (member).
United Ostomy Association (member).
WETA (member).
13. Political affiliations and activities:
(a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or
any public office for which you have been a candidate.
None.
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5
years.
None.
(c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $100 or more for the past 5 years.
Jim Miller for Senate (VA), June 5, 1996 ($100)
John Pappageorge for Congress (MI), June 10, 1996 ($100)
David Catania for City Council (DC), Oct. 17, 1997 ($100)
Governor Bush Committee (TX), June 29, 1998 ($200)
Heather Wilson for Congress (NM), June 29, 1998 ($200)
David Catania for City Council (DC), July 25, 1998 ($100)
Heather Wilson for Congress (NM), Oct. 4, 1998 ($150)
DC Republican Committee, Oct. 11, 1998 ($250)
McCain for President, Feb. 28, 1999 ($200)
George W. Bush Exploratory Committee, July 11, 1998 ($150)
DC Republican Committee, July 11, 1998 ($250)
McCain for President, Jan. 19, 2000 ($200)
DC Republican Committee, May 29, 2000 ($100)
Bush for President, May 29, 2000 ($200)
Carol Schwartz for City Council (DC), July 3, 2000 ($150)
Heather Wilson for Congress (NM), Sept. 17, 2000 ($100)
RNC Victory 2000, Sept. 17, 2000 ($100)
RNC Victory 2000, Nov. 2, 2000 ($150)
Heather Wilson for Congress (NM), Nov. 2, 2000 ($150)
DC Republican Committee, Feb. 15, 2001 ($100)
14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals and any other special recognitions
for outstanding service or achievements.
Medal of Merit of the Czech Republic, awarded by President Vaclav
Havel on September 17, 1988, in Washington, in connection with my
support of the Czech Republic's admission into NATO.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
16. Speeches: Provide the committee with two copies of any formal
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have
copies of and are on topics relevant to the position for which you have
been nominated.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
17. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree,
if confirmed, to respond to requests to appear and testify before any
duly constituted committee of the Senate?
Yes.
______
[The nominee responded to the questions in Parts B-F of the
committee questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set
forth in the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to
Parts B-F are contained in the committee's executive files.]
------
Signature and Date
I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate,
and complete.
Peter W. Rodman.
This 15th day of May, 2001.
[The nomination of Peter W. Rodman was reported to the
Senate by Senator Warner on July 11, 2001, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on July 12, 2001.]
NOMINATIONS OF SUSAN MORRISEY LIVINGSTONE TO BE UNDER SECRETARY OF THE
NAVY; JESSIE HILL ROBERSON TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF ENERGY FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT; AND THOMAS P. CHRISTIE TO BE DIRECTOR OF
OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 7, 2001
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m. in room
SH-216, Hart Senate Office Building, Senator Carl Levin
(chairman) presiding.
Committee members present: Senators Levin, Reed, Bill
Nelson, Carnahan, and Warner.
Committee staff members present: David S. Lyles, staff
director; and Christine E. Cowart, chief clerk.
Majority staff members present: Daniel J. Cox, Jr.,
professional staff member; Madelyn R. Creedon, counsel;
Creighton Greene, professional staff member; and Peter K.
Levine, general counsel.
Minority staff members present: Romie L. Brownlee,
Republican staff director; Charles W. Alsup, professional staff
member; L. David Cherington, minority counsel; Brian R. Green,
professional staff member; William C. Greenwalt, professional
staff member; George W. Lauffer, professional staff member;
Thomas L. MacKenzie, professional staff member; Ann M.
Mittermeyer, minority counsel; Joseph T. Sixeas, professional
staff member; Cord A. Sterling, professional staff member; and
Scott W. Stucky, minority counsel.
Staff assistants present: Kristi M. Freddo, Thomas C.
Moore, and Michele A. Traficante.
Committee members' assistants present: Menda S. Fife,
assistant to Senator Kennedy; Elizabeth King, assistant to
Senator Reed; Davelyn Noelani Kalipi and Ross Kawakami,
assistants to Senator Akaka; Peter A. Contostavlos, assistant
to Senator Bill Nelson; Susan Harris, assistant to Senator
Carnahan; George M. Bernier III, assistant to Senator Santorum;
Robert Alan McCurry, assistant to Senator Roberts; Douglas
Flanders, assistant to Senator Allard; Kristine Fauser,
assistant to Senator Collins; and Derek Maurer, assistant to
Senator Bunning.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN, CHAIRMAN
Chairman Levin. Good morning everybody. The committee meets
today to consider the nominations of Susan Livingstone to be
Under Secretary of the Navy; Jesse Roberson to be Assistant
Secretary of Energy for Environmental Management; and Thomas
Christie to be Director of Operational Testing and Evaluation
of the Department of Defense.
Just one note on the changed circumstances that we all find
ourselves in. This committee has a time-honored tradition of
being a bipartisan committee. The chairmen over the years have
truly honored that tradition and have made it work. John Warner
has added luster to that tradition. He has always reached out
to me personally on this side of the aisle and it has been an
honor to be a ranking member under his chairmanship. He is
always gracious. He is always involving us in decisions.
Obviously the chairman makes those decisions, but he has gone
the extra mile to involve members on this side of the aisle. He
has truly been a role model and I intend to do the best I can
as long as I am chairman to follow that tradition.
One never knows around here whether it is the next day or
the next election, which can bounce the ball in a different
direction. We get used to it. We have been here together a long
time. We have been steadfast and good friends. Again, one of
the highlights I know of whatever length of time I happen to be
serving as chairman will be having Senator John Warner as my
ranking member. So, I just want to extend my hand to him as
chairman, and I know he will reciprocate. Indeed he will do
more than that as he always does.
Senator Warner. Would the Senator yield?
Chairman Levin. I'd be happy to.
Senator Warner. Thank you for those kind remarks. It is
interesting in the life of the Senate, we come here from
different parts of the United States, but we have common goals
and certainly the security of our Nation is the first
obligation of every citizen, from the President right on down.
Yesterday I accompanied our President to Bedford, Virginia
where he gave very stirring and solemn remarks in honor of the
57th anniversary of the landings of U.S. forces and our allies
on D-Day, June 6, 1944.
But Senator, you and I came here exactly--and these folks
might not know it--23 years ago. We were elected in the fall of
1978 and took our office together, in January 1979. We were
both very lucky to get on this committee at that time, and we
have served together these many years. Do we have differences?
Yes, but our fundamental guidance is always on the welfare of
the men and women of the armed forces and to make this Nation
strong so it can defend itself. Somehow I think there is a note
of irony here today that you assume rightfully your
chairmanship with dignity and grace, and we have before us a
nominee for Under Secretary of the Navy, which is the best job
I ever had in my life.
Chairman Levin. The ranking member well, he will just
surpass that. [Laughter.]
Senator Warner. We welcome our nominees and I thank you for
these few minutes. You will have my cooperation, as you have
had it these many years.
Chairman Levin. Thank you. One other note before we get to
our nominees. Congress needs time to consider the
administration's proposed defense budget. We have not yet
received that budget and unless we do receive that budget soon
we may run out of time to complete action on the Defense
Authorization and Defense Appropriation bills before the next
fiscal year begins on October 1. We are going to do everything
we can to complete that action regardless of when we receive
the budget. But, by the way, it is going to be more and more
difficult the later we receive that budget.
I know we will be joining together and letting the
administration know that it is important that they get that
budget amendment as they call it up here promptly. I'm speaking
for all of us here when I say that. We usually take months to
review a budget, to hold hearings, to bring the bill to the
floor, to then have a conference. If we are going to get this
done in 1 month essentially, it is going to be a miracle. But
if we can get it in the middle of June, we at least would have
at least a few extra weeks over getting it the last part of
June.
Senator Warner. If the Senator would yield on that. You and
I have met with the Secretary of Defense in the past few weeks
and he has indicated he will work through the Office of
Management and Budget. It is his hope to get the budget up here
late this month. Just for the record, it is the 2002 budget
that you were discussing because the President has forwarded to
Congress the supplemental as it relates to the 2001.
Further, Senator, we are working on the budgets submitted
by the last President, President Clinton, which is traditional.
This will be a budget amendment. So we have before us now a
budget on which our staffs have been working. I think you and I
should also take this opportunity to reflect on the superb
staff support that we have received all through these 23 years.
We have today the former staff director, Les Brownlee, and the
new staff director, David Lyles--two of the finest, together
with their subordinates, that have ever served this committee.
Chairman Levin. It is very true. We are blessed in many
ways and it is one of the blessings that we have great staff
and that they work together too.
Our witnesses this morning have been nominated for some
very important national security positions and they are faced
with some difficult challenges. If confirmed, Ms. Livingstone
will be the number two official in the Department of the Navy.
Ms. Roberson will be in charge of the entire environmental
program of the Department of Energy. Mr. Christie will be
charged with ensuring that the testing of our weapons systems
is independent, fair, and reliable. Each of our nominees this
morning has impressive credentials and appears to be well-
qualified to take on these challenges.
First, Ms. Livingstone served for 4 years as Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Installations, Logistics, and
Environment. Since then, she's been an executive with the Red
Cross and the Association of the United States Army.
Ms. Roberson has served for a dozen years in the Department
of Energy, most recently as the site manager for Rocky Flats
and as a member of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.
Mr. Christie has served in the Department of Defense for
more than 30 years, including 10 years as the Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense and Director of the Office of Program
Integration. Since that time he's been the Director of the
Operational Evaluation Division at the Institute for Defense
Analysis.
So, all of our nominees are highly qualified, and I not
only want to welcome you but welcome any family members you
have with you today. We have a tradition in our committee of
asking our nominees to introduce family members who might be
present. We know that a number of family members were going to
be present but we've rescheduled this hearing so many times
kids had to go to school finally, and a few things like that.
So, I think Mr. Christie, you may be the only one that has a
family member with you. Would you introduce your wife?
Mr. Christie. I'm lucky enough for this to be my first
hearing and I haven't had any postponement. This is my wife
Kathleen who has put up with me for many years.
Chairman Levin. Maybe we should call her as a witness.
[Laughter.]
Each of the families whether they are here to hear this in
person or whether they will hear about it later and know about
it later are indeed part of this effort and make sacrifices
along the way. We are grateful to you for the support you have
given Mr. Christie and to your families all whether they are
here or not here today for what sacrifices they will be making.
Senator Warner.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN WARNER
Senator Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
place in the record my opening statement, followed by the
opening statement of Senator Thurmond. Also, Senator Allard had
hoped to be here today, Ms. Roberson. But I believe he is at
the White House in connection with the signing of the tax
legislation this morning. A number of our members have the
opportunity to join the President on this historic moment. So,
I would ask unanimous consent that his statement also be placed
into the record.
Chairman Levin. It will be.
[The prepared statements of Senators Warner, Thurmond, and
Allard follow:]
Prepared Statement by Senator John Warner
Thank you, Senator Levin.
I join you in welcoming the nominees and their families.
Ms. Livingstone, I regret your husband, Neil, could not be here
today.
Ms. Roberson, I understand that your daughter, Jessica, is here
with you today. Welcome to you both.
Mr. Christie, I understand your wife, Kathleen, is here with you
today. Welcome.
Family support is critical to the success of individuals in senior
positions in our government and we appreciate the support and
sacrifices of the families of these distinguished nominees.
Ms. Susan Morrissey Livingstone is returning to the Pentagon for a
second tour of duty. She served as Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Installations, Logistics, and Environment from 1989 to 1993. The
Department of the Navy will welcome you, nonetheless, I am sure. Some
32 years ago, I myself had the privilege of serving in the billet to
which you have been nominated, and I congratulate you. Ms. Livingstone
has also rendered distinguished service in the Veterans' Administration
in various senior positions, with the American Red Cross, and,
currently, she is the CEO of the Association of the United States Army.
We are grateful for her commitment to the welfare of our men and women
in uniform.
Ms. Jessie Hill Roberson is a distinguished member of the Defense
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, having been confirmed by this
committee in 1999. Prior to that she worked for the Department of
Energy for 11 years, serving in a variety of positions managing
projects associated with nuclear reactor operations and environmental
restoration. Her last assignment was Site Manager at the Rocky Flats,
Colorado, Environmental Technology Site, where she performed her duties
in an outstanding fashion. On behalf of our colleague, Senator Allard,
I would ask that an introductory statement summarizing Ms. Roberson's
achievements be entered into the record.
Mr. Thomas P. Christie, who, I note, is a Virginian, is also
returning to the Department of Defense for another tour, having
previously served with OSD's Program Analysis and Evaluation Office
and, from 1986 to 1989, as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Programs and Resources and Director of Program Integration. Most
recently, Mr. Christie has worked for the Institute for Defense
Analysis (IDA) as director of its Operational Evaluation Division.
Your willingness to serve again in this most important post as the
Department of Defense's Director of Operational Test and Evaluation is
appreciated.
Our nominees have a wealth of experience and accomplishments. I
believe they will excel in the position to which they have been
nominated. We welcome them and their family members and look forward to
their comments and responses today.
Mr. Chairman.
______
Prepared Statement by Senator Strom Thurmond
Thank you, Mr. Chairman: Chairman Levin, I want to join my
colleagues in congratulating you on your accession as Chairman of the
Armed Services Committee. This committee has a great tradition of
placing the security of the Nation and the welfare of its men and women
in uniform above partisanship. I know under your leadership we will
continue in that tradition and I look forward to working with you and
your staff as you assume this great challenge.
Mr. Chairman, I join you in welcoming this distinguished group of
nominees. I find that this group is especially noteworthy since they
have all had prior service in appointed positions within the executive
branch. They have an appreciation of the challenges and personal
sacrifices that they can expect once they are confirmed for the
positions to which the President has nominated them.
I want to extend my congratulations and appreciation to each
nominee. Once you are confirmed, you will each have a vital role in
assuring the security of our Nation. More importantly, every action you
take will have a direct impact on the 1.4 million men and women who
wear the uniforms of our military services and the thousands of civil
servants who support them. You can be assured that you will have my
support and that of this committee in carrying out these
responsibilities. I only ask that you keep us informed and do not
hesitate to contact us when you need our support.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
______
Prepared Statement by Senator Wayne Allard
Mr. Chairman, Senator Warner, and members of the committee--I am
honored to be able to introduce and recommend a person who I believe is
an exceptional and deserving nominee to be the next Assistant Secretary
for Environmental Management at the Department of Energy, Ms. Jessie
Roberson.
Currently, Ms. Roberson is a Board Member of the Defense Nuclear
Facilities Safety Board or DNFSB. The DNFSB is the oversight body which
ensures the nuclear health and safety activities at all of DOE's
nuclear weapons complex. She has been a Board Member since January
2000.
Prior to being a Board Member, Ms. Roberson was with the Department
of Energy. In her 10 years with the Department she was at the Rocky
Flats Environmental Technology Site, Golden, Colorado and the Savannah
River Site, Aiken, South Carolina. It was during her time at Rocky
Flats that I met and befriended Ms. Roberson.
In 1996, she became the Manager of the Department of Energy's Rocky
Flats Field Office. She was ultimately responsible for the integration
and performance of all environmental cleanup activities at Rocky Flats.
Before becoming the Site Manager, Rocky Flats was scheduled for a
2015 cleanup and closure date, but once she stepped in as manager, she
put into place a more robust and vigorous plan to close the site at the
end of 2006. I can say unequivocally that without her leadership this
ambitious plan would never have been a reality.
While I believe Ms. Roberson's credentials and experience alone
speak for her qualifications to become the next Assistant Secretary for
Environmental Management at the Department of Energy, she has also
received numerous awards and honors. In 1998 she was recognized as one
of the top 25 newsmakers in the construction industry with a 1997
Newsmaker Award by Engineering News Record.
In 1997, Fort Valley State University awarded her the Platinum
Achievement Award for Outstanding Leadership in the Field of Energy.
Plus, the Girl Scouts Mile Hi Council awarded Jessie the Women of
Distinction Award. In 1996 Ms. Roberson was honored with the Black
Engineer of the Year Award for Professional Achievement in Government
and the NAACP Scientific Achievement Award by the Conecuh County
Branch.
I have worked with her for many years and have seen her make many
tough, and sometimes not always popular, decisions. However, she stood
her ground, took care of business and got the job done. Jessie also
worked very close with the state and local communities. She kept
everyone involved and informed during every phase of the project.
As a matter of fact, the Governor of Colorado, Bill Owens, strongly
supports Jessie's nomination. Plus, the Denver Post wrote an April 3,
2001 Denver Post editorial, titled ``Roberson a top flight pick'' which
I would like to insert into the record. Due to her efforts of
cooperation at Rocky Flats, today state and local communities are the
biggest supporters of the closure activities at Rocky Flats and not all
closure sites can claim this.
Mr. Chairman, Jessie will bring 17 years of private and public
sector experience in the nuclear field with an emphasis in
environmental cleanup and restoration, low level waste management,
nuclear reactor operations and project management, and safeguards and
security to the Environmental Management job.
Given Jessie's extensive experience and qualifications, I strongly
recommend her swift approval for the position of Assistant Secretary of
Energy for Environmental Management at the Department of Energy. I am
very proud to call Jessie a friend and hope to soon call her Madame
Assistant Secretary.
Again, thank you for allowing me to speak on behalf of Jessie.
4/3/01--Denver Post 6B
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Warner. I compliment each of you and have had the
privilege to meet with you and talk with you. I commend the
President and the Secretary of Defense. This team he is putting
together is just incredible in terms of experience and
qualifications to take on the very heavy responsibilities with
regard to our Nation's defense, and certainly your
responsibilities in the Energy Department are tied very closely
to those in the Department of Defense.
The problems before you Ms. Roberson are mountainous. In
the statement by Senator Allard, he cites an article from the
Denver Post, which says ``Roberson: A Top Flight Pick''. I
think that says it all. You do not have to go beyond that
headline.
Ms. Livingstone, you have a great opportunity before you
and you are going to enjoy every day of it. I will have a
chance in the months and years to come to work with you, and
perhaps give you a little advice along the way. But I certainly
think from your distinguished background, you are well-
qualified to proceed on this. You have my strong support, all
three of you.
Mr. Christie, thank you and your wife for returning to
serve in another important position, but this time at a little
higher pay grade, however, with the same problems. The Nation
needs to re-equip its military with cutting edge technology and
you will be responsible for that. I remember so well the
stories--I experienced some of them myself in the modest career
I had in the military--about the weapons, clothing, and other
things that were getting into the field that were not
adequately tested. The M-16 rifle went through a tortuous
scenario and indeed maybe life and limb were lost because of
the failure of that testing. But you know those things far
better than I. So, I wish you luck. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Talking about testing reminds me of a
former colleague of ours who, when the testing wasn't adequate,
went down to test the DIVAD system for himself. That was the
end of that system. Senator Nelson, do you have an opening
statement you would like to make?
Senator Bill Nelson. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Let me ask the following questions of each
of our witnesses. In response to the advance policy questions
you agreed to appear as a witness before congressional
committees when called to ensure that briefings, testimonies,
and other communications are provided to Congress. So, we
already have those commitments. Now I will ask the following
questions.
Have each of you adhered to applicable laws and regulations
governing conflict of interest? Ms. Roberson first.
Ms. Roberson. Yes, I have.
Chairman Levin. Ms. Livingstone?
Ms. Livingstone. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Mr. Christie?
Mr. Christie. Yes, I have.
Chairman Levin. Have you assumed any duties or undertaken
any actions that would appear to presume the outcome of the
confirmation process? Ms. Roberson?
Ms. Roberson. No, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Ms. Livingstone?
Ms. Livingstone. No, sir.
Chairman Levin. Mr. Christie?
Mr. Christie. No, sir.
Chairman Levin. Would you assure that the Department
complies with deadlines established for requested communication
including prepared testimony and questions for the record and
hearings? Ms. Roberson?
Ms. Roberson. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Ms. Livingstone?
Livingstone. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Mr. Christie?
Mr. Christie. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Will you cooperate in providing witnesses
and briefers in response to congressional requests? Ms.
Roberson?
Ms. Roberson. Yes, sir.
Chairman Levin. Ms. Livingstone?
Ms. Livingstone. Yes, sir.
Chairman Levin. Mr. Christie?
Mr. Christie. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Will those witnesses be protected from
reprisal for their testimony? Ms. Roberson?
Ms. Roberson. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Ms. Livingstone?
Ms. Livingstone. Absolutely.
Chairman Levin. Mr. Christie?
Mr. Christie. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. The responses that I've referred to the
committee's pre-hearing policy questions and our standard
questionnaire will be made a part of the record. We have
received the required paperwork on each of the nominees and we
will be reviewing that paperwork to ensure that it is in
accordance with the committee's requirements. After the opening
statements, if they choose to give any, by our nominees we will
proceed with the first round of questions limited to 6 minutes
for each Senator on the basis of the early-bird rule. Before we
begin we have already covered that so we will now call upon our
witnesses. I think the order we have them listed in our notice
is the order we will call upon them. Is that right protocol?
All right.
Ms. Livingstone, you are first.
STATEMENT OF SUSAN MORRISEY LIVINGSTONE, NOMINEE TO BE UNDER
SECRETARY OF THE NAVY
Ms. Livingstone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, Mr.
Chairman, I would like to thank Senator Conrad Burns for his
leadership on behalf of our Nation and our home state, the
great State of Montana. Senator Burns was going to introduce me
today but had a schedule conflict, which as you probably
noticed, is I believe the signing of the tax bill.
Mr. Chairman, Senator Warner, and distinguished members of
this committee, it is a sincere honor and privilege to appear
before you as the nominee for Under Secretary of our
incomparable Navy and Marine Corps team. In the interest of
time, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that my formal statement be
submitted for the record, and that I might just make a few
brief comments at this time.
Chairman Levin. It will be made a part of the record.
Ms. Livingstone. Thank you. If I merit your confirmation, I
am more than humbled by the opportunity to again serve our men
and women in uniform, both active and reserve, their families,
as well as the civilian workforce and those who served before--
our military retirees. I thank President Bush for his
nomination, and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and Navy Secretary
Gordon England for the opportunity to be a part of their team.
I sincerely thank this committee for all that you do on behalf
of our Nation and those who serve in its defense. If confirmed,
I look forward to closely working with this committee and all
members of Congress in support and advocacy of those who today
volunteer to so selflessly serve in defense of our Nation, and
in particular, the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps.
To close, Mr. Chairman, with the committee's indulgence, I
want to thank my family for their abiding love and support, and
particularly my husband of nearly 33 years, Neil. Their
foundation has been a mainstay of my life. If I might, I would
like to wish my parents, Catherine and Dick Morrisey, who
retired after a career in the Air Force to Russellville,
Arkansas, not only a very happy birthday, but also happy
anniversary. Both of them just recently turned 83 and on June
4, celebrated their 62nd wedding anniversary.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That concludes my opening remarks.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Livingstone follows:]
Prepared Statement by Susan Morrisey Livingstone
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, it is my distinct honor to
appear before you today in seeking confirmation as the Under Secretary
of the Navy and the privilege to work with our incomparable Naval
forces. I would also like to express my deepest thanks and appreciation
to the President, Secretary Rumsfeld, and Secretary-Designate England,
for this opportunity to serve our Nation and our incomparable Navy and
Marine Corps. I am in full support of the President, the Secretary of
Defense, and the Secretary-Designate of the Navy in their effort to
build a Navy Department which addresses the needs, threats and
opportunities of the 21st century. Should I be confirmed, I look
forward to the opportunity to work closely with this committee and
Congress to effect this transformation within the Department.
Previously, Secretary-Designate England stated he intended to
initiate four thrusts in support of the President's vision. These
initiatives centered on combat capability, people, technology, and
business practices. I am in complete agreement with the focus and
proposed effort in these areas, and if I am confirmed, I welcome the
opportunity to support these initiatives and look forward to moving
them forward in the Department of the Navy.
Beginning with combat capabilities, this committee is well aware
the mission of the Navy and Marine Corps is to deter, train for, and
when necessary, fight and win the battles of our Nation. As such, it is
only logical that combat readiness, to include platforms, weapons
systems, and training, be the primary focus of the Department's
collective efforts. Given limited and limited resources, the question,
``does this system, base, facility, or program substantively contribute
to improved unit combat capability and readiness?'' needs to be asked,
and often. It is also critical that the Department invest in doctrinal
experimentation to find innovative and leading edge ways of
accomplishing our mission.
People are by far our most important and valuable resource and we
need to do a first-class job of taking care of them. Our uniformed and
civilian work force is not an unlimited resource, rather it is very
finite, and if confirmed, I will take great pains to ensure this
valuable resource is treated responsibly and with the respect they
deserve. Therefore, I fully support Secretary-Designate England's
emphasis on ``Quality of Service'' for all our sailors and marines,
both active duty and reserve, civilians and their families. Competitive
compensation and quality housing, workplace resources, professional
development, health care and training, combined with an operational
tempo which considers not only the community and the family, but also
the needs of the individual, are but a few of the areas which I
consider important to improving their quality of service.
The advancement of technology is occurring at a blinding pace and
is central to the strength of our military. I am in complete agreement
with Secretary-Designate England in the need to focus on the leveraging
capability of technology. To maximize our investment however, the Navy
Department needs to draw from the broad spectrum of academia and
industry, streamline outdated bureaucratic processes and come into
closer alignment with proven business practices.
But improving business practices goes beyond technology to all of
the considerable non-operational activities of the department. We must
focus our resources on acquiring combat capabilities, and not on
processing paper.
In essence, we need to increase the ``tooth'' part of the ``tooth
to tail'' ratio. If confirmed, it is my intention to work closely with
Secretary-Designate England to put in place such management techniques
as will help managers know the actual cost of a process or system; some
empirical method to measure worth or success; and ways to evaluate what
is needed to improve or modify that system. In short, we must fix the
process to improve the product.
In summation, if confirmed, I look forward to closely working with
Secretary-Designate England and with this committee to improve Navy and
Marine Corps combat capabilities, the quality of service for our
people, incorporate new and innovative technologies in a prudent but
quicker manner, and bring the Department of the Navy's business
practices into the 21st century. As each one of these efforts is
inherently related and given that the Department is a large and complex
entity, the challenge is large. But we owe the men and women of the
Navy and Marine Corps nothing less. The continued support of this
committee is essential to this undertaking and if confirmed, I am
committed to close communications, cooperation, and coordination with
you.
Thank you for your consideration.
Chairman Levin. Thank you.
Ms. Roberson.
STATEMENT OF JESSIE HILL ROBERSON, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF ENERGY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Ms. Roberson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Warner, and
other members of the committee. It is a privilege to appear
before you today as the President's nominee to be Assistant
Secretary of Energy for Environmental Management. I thank the
President and Secretary Abraham for their support. I look
forward to serving under Secretary Abraham in this critical
position.
I also thank you, Mr. Chairman, and your staff for moving
rapidly on my nomination. I pledge to work closely with this
committee and all of Congress in meeting the many challenges
ahead. Mr. Chairman, I would also ask that the completion of my
statement be included in the record.
Chairman Levin. It will.
Ms. Roberson. I come before you today with an appreciation
of the magnitude of the task I am undertaking. As a former
environmental program manager at the Savannah River Site in
South Carolina and a former site manager at Rocky Flats in
Colorado, I have experienced firsthand the many difficulties
that we face in achieving safe and effective clean-up of the
Cold War legacy. My work as a member of the Defense Nuclear
Facilities Safety Board has further broadened my outlook to
encompass the issues confronting the entire DOE complex.
However, I am not daunted by the task. I am ready to get on
with it. I share Secretary Abraham's view that we can and will
do a better job than we have. That we can and will make
achievable clean-up commitments and that we will meet our
commitments to the states and to our citizens and that we can
and will use taxpayer's money responsibly.
I commit to working with Congress, the States, and
individual citizens and informing them of our goals, plans,
methods, and performance in an open and transparent manner.
Perhaps I can condense my thoughts today by saying that I
intend to learn, to encourage, to communicate, and to act and
that I will devote my fullest energies to this task every day
that I serve in this position.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Roberson follows:]
Prepared Statement by Jessie Hill Roberson
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator Warner, and other members of
the committee.
It is a privilege to appear before you today as the President's
nominee to be Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management. I thank
the President and Secretary Abraham for their support and look forward
to serving under Secretary Abraham in this critical position. I also
thank you, Mr. Chairman, and your staff for moving rapidly on my
nomination. I pledge to work closely with this committee and all of
Congress in meeting the many challenges ahead.
I come before you today with an appreciation of the magnitude of
the task I am undertaking. As a former Environmental Program Manager at
Savannah River and a former Site Manager at Rocky Flats, I have
experienced first-hand the many difficulties we face in achieving safe
and effective cleanup of the Cold War legacy. My work as a member of
the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board has further broadened my
outlook to encompass the issues confronting the entire DOE complex.
I am not daunted by the task, however, rather, I am eager and
anxious to get about it. I share Secretary Abraham's view that we can
and will do a better job than we have been doing, that we can and will
make achievable cleanup commitments and we will meet our commitments to
the States and our citizens, and that we can and will use taxpayer's
money responsibly.
Mr. Chairman, I plan to acquire a deep understanding of the
technical strengths and weaknesses of the existing environmental
program I am being asked to manage. I need to know successes, failures,
where it has inspired public confidence, and where it has disappointed
the public's expectations. I will participate in making a series of
critical decisions on projects that are just not making the grade. I
recognize fully that hard decisions like these will not please
everyone, nonetheless, decisions must be made and carried out. I will
challenge the employees in my charge, from top managers to the hands-on
employees in the field to satisfy our commitments.
Finally, I commit to informing Congress, the States, and individual
citizens of my plans, goals, methods, and performance. Why is this
critical? I cannot say it nearly as well as President Franklin
Roosevelt in his Second Inaugural: ``Government is competent when all
who compose it work as trustees for the whole people. It can make
constant progress when it keeps abreast of all the facts. It can obtain
justified support and legitimate criticism when the people receive true
information of all that government does.''
Perhaps I can condense my thoughts today by saying that I intend to
learn, act, encourage, and communicate, and that I will devote my
fullest energies to the task every day that I serve in this position.
Mr. Chairman and other members of the committee, I will be pleased
to answer any questions you may have.
Chairman Levin. Thank you.
Mr. Christie.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS P. CHRISTIE, NOMINEE TO BE DIRECTOR OF
OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Mr. Christie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Warner,
for your gracious remarks. With your indulgence and approval
and with the indulgence and approval of the other committee
members, I will dispense with an opening statement and just
make a few remarks here. I do want to express my feelings about
what an honor it is to have been selected for this position and
to be appearing before you today. Also, I'm deeply honored that
President Bush has nominated me and Secretary Rumsfeld has
supported me for the position of the Director of Operational
Test and Evaluation.
They have proposed, with your advice and consent, to
entrust me with the position and a mission vital to the Nation,
to Congress, and to the Department of Defense. If confirmed, I
will work with this committee and other members of Congress to
ensure that the weapons and equipment that we deliver to the
men and women of our armed forces are adequately tested and are
operationally effective, suitable, and survivable for their use
in whatever combat situations our troops end up using them. I
look forward to your questions.
Chairman Levin. Mr. Christie, we thank you. Let me begin,
Ms. Livingstone, with you. First on Vieques. Over the past
couple of years our naval forces have been unable to conduct
live fire training in the Navy's training range on Vieques.
This has degraded the readiness of our forces to execute their
wartime missions. Senator Inhofe and others on this committee
have been particularly active in this area relative to this
problem. An agreement was reached with the previous governor of
Puerto Rico to try to resolve the issue. But the current
governor of Puerto Rico does not appear to support the
agreement. How do you believe that the issue should be
resolved?
Ms. Livingstone. If confirmed, I perceive my role as being
the strongest possible advocate on behalf of the Navy and the
Marine Corps in terms of meeting their training needs. In terms
of meeting those training needs I think there is no substitute
for the ability to train as they fight, which would include
live fire. Vieques is a very unique training range with
capability in terms of providing not only integrated but also
combined arms training. Really for the near term I do not see
any possible alternative to meeting those kinds of training
requirements other than hopefully being able to somehow
continue to train in Vieques.
Chairman Levin. The President has said that the Navy needs
to find another base to replace Vieques. Do you know of any
plans underway to find another location or to renegotiate the
agreement reached by President Clinton and the Navy with Puerto
Rico?
Ms. Livingstone. No, sir, I do not. I do believe that the
Navy is looking into possible alternatives for live fire
capability, but Vieques is a very unique asset. If there were
some longer term area, or longer term option, other than
Vieques for combining integrated and live fire training, it
would really need to look like and be like Vieques and also
combine the instrumentation and evaluation capability that
Vieques does. But I know of no specific options review of
alternatives at this point, other than, I believe, one on live
fire.
Chairman Levin. As part of the agreement, Puerto Rico was
supposed to make sure that the exercises could continue there
until an election was held or a referendum was held. They kept
their end of the bargain.
Ms. Livingstone. Sir, I only know what I have read in the
newspapers. It appears the exercises have been able to move
forward. I know there have been some protests and some
difficulties in that regard, but the training has proceeded,
and I believe there has been an announcement that additional
training will occur soon in Vieques.
Chairman Levin. With the support of the government?
Ms. Livingstone. That I cannot answer, sir. I simply do not
know.
Chairman Levin. Secretary Rumsfeld has stated that new base
closures, and this is a question related to BRAC, will be
needed to address the Defense Department's excess
infrastructure. Do you believe the Department of the Navy has
excess infrastructure?
Ms. Livingstone. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I believe as the
military service is currently sized there is excess
infrastructure. Obviously, we have the Quadrennial Defense
Review ahead and that study may point more specifically to
areas and opportunities where base realignments and closures
would be beneficial.
Chairman Levin. Do you believe there have been savings from
previous rounds of base closures?
Ms. Livingstone. I have been away from the Pentagon since
1993. I am aware of GAO reports that have looked at and
verified that there have been significant cost savings. I
cannot speak specifically to that. I know that there are a lot
of upfront costs that occur, environmental cleanup
notwithstanding, and that must be expended. But I believe the
GAO has underscored that there are real and very distinct
savings from base closures.
Chairman Levin. Former Secretary Danzig made an effort to
reduce the demands for manpower on Navy ships. The new DD-21
scheduled to be deployed in 2010 would have a crew size of as
few as 95 people compared to a crew of more than 300 on a
comparable ship today. In the nearer term, the Navy has started
to outfit existing ships with more automation--a so-called
Smart Ship Program--to reduce the need for people. That program
has run into technical difficulties. Do you plan to pursue such
initiatives such as the Smart Ship Program to help reduce
demands on personnel and on their operating tempo?
Ms. Livingstone. Mr. Chairman, I would look forward to, if
confirmed, working with Secretary Gordon England in that
particular area. I have not been briefed on the specifics, but
from what I know as a person from the outside that has been
reading in those areas, the smart ship and crew sizing both
appear to be very beneficial programs that are worthy of being
pursued strongly.
Chairman Levin. In your answers to the pre-hearing
questions, you stated that currently the application of
advanced technology is significantly lagging in its
availability. We must become far more agile in applying and
leveraging the capability of technology. What specific
recommendation do you have for reducing the time between the
availability and the application of advanced technology for
systems within the Defense Department?
Ms. Livingstone. Mr. Chairman, my reference in my written
responses to those questions really was looking to the area of
acquisition reform, the length of time it takes the Department
of Defense and actually the Federal Government to move from
requirements to actual production and capability. What I would
be looking for would be areas where we could shorten that cycle
in the acquisition arena in order to ensure that technology can
be more readily available. I believe Secretary England has
talked about some initiatives such as spiral development,
things of that nature. I would look forward, if confirmed, to
working with him as well as OSD and this body on acquisition
reforms that would allow us to perhaps leverage the
capabilities of technology much more quickly than we are
currently.
Chairman Levin. Back to Vieques for a moment. The
referendum is scheduled for November 6. Will you support the
result of that referendum?
Ms. Livingstone. Mr. Chairman, my inclination is to again
go back to what my perceived role would be, which is, if
confirmed, to serve as the strongest possible advocate for the
training requirements and needs of our Marine Corps and our
Navy team. That said, I know there is an agreement and I also
know there is congressional statutory language and obviously
within the parameters of what is appropriate, I will support
the law.
Chairman Levin. My time's expired.
Senator Bill Nelson. Will you yield?
Chairman Levin. I would yield to you on that----
Senator Bill Nelson. If you could give us some
clarification on that--and perhaps Senator Warner could help
clarify for this new member of the committee. The United States
made an agreement, as I understand, with Puerto Rico
specifically with the island of Vieques that there would a
November 6 referendum.
Senator Warner. That is right. That was sanctioned by
Congress in statute.
Senator Bill Nelson. Then is there any question that we
should not honor that agreement that we made? Because that was
not the answer of the witness----
Senator Warner. If I may say, Senator, I do not think there
is any question on the part of the previous administration or
this administration that that agreement should be honored. The
practical effect is with the change in the political landscape
there. The current administration in Puerto Rico has decided
not to accept the agreement, which was entered into by the
previous administration. That places before the military
services--particularly the Navy and Marine Corps--a very
serious dilemma. Adequate training with live fire ammunition is
essential for those elements of our military who are being
deployed now into the Gulf region where so often they find that
within a matter of days or weeks after arriving on scene to
relieve the previous contingents, they are in a combat
situation.
So we have a very serious problem. I think there has been a
natural sequence between the administrations, a joint view and
a law. We have kept our word. Regrettably, the current
administration in Puerto Rico desires not to do it and this
places a tremendous burden on the chiefs of services of our
Navy and Marine Corps together with their civilian bosses, the
Secretary and the Under Secretary. I think our witness today
has responded to these questions as best as she or any other
witness placed in this position could respond.
Chairman Levin. Senator Nelson, my recollection is that
there was an agreement and part of that agreement was that the
government of Puerto Rico was to assure us access to that base
during the interim until the election. We made certain
commitments in that agreement as well, but I am one who
believes that we ought to keep our commitments. I also believe
that Puerto Rico ought to keep its commitments. When the
governor started the lawsuit to prevent us--as I understand it,
and I want to double check this--to prevent us from having the
ability to do exactly what the agreement said we were supposed
to have the ability to do in the interim. I was troubled by the
lawsuit because it seemed to me that it was inconsistent with
the agreement.
Now that gets into a legal situation which is not up to us,
or at least I am not going to try to comment on or resolve it
because I do not know the precise wording of it. I happen to
believe that both parties to an agreement ought to keep their
agreement and where that leads us, I do not know. Thank you for
that follow-up question about the referendum. I think it is
very important.
Senator Warner. Senator, if I could just say, I think that
the committee would welcome your active participation, and I
would suggest that you talk with Senator Inhofe. He has really
put in a lot of time on behalf of this committee and made many
trips down there and to have someone from your side of the
aisle to join in that volume of work would be very helpful. It
is a challenge.
Ms. Livingstone, I just want to chat a moment or so. I
remember experiences I had when I was in your office. One I
will never forget--I went to the retirement ceremony overseas
of a four-star admiral who was renown for his extraordinary
career in the United States Navy. When I arrived I had a very
modest role to represent the President at his retirement and so
forth, put in I think some 40 years in the Navy, and when I
arrived the ceremony was being put in place, and it was quite a
grand ceremony which was befitting his distinguished career. He
asked if he could sit down and talk with me. He said, ``I am
not going to go down there and retire until I get your
assurance that you are going to protect the heart and soul of
the United States Navy,'' at which time he proceeded to lecture
me at great length.
Although I had a very modest career in the Navy, I have
studied it and I learned from him that there is a heart and
soul to each of the military services. They are different in
different ways. There is a difference between the Marine Corps
and the Navy. But I would hope that you would spend time with
those who have devoted much of their lives, whether they are on
active or retired status, to understand the intangible
qualities, which are the magnificence of our services. There is
nothing like it, nothing comparable in the world as you said in
your opening statement.
So I just hope that you will avail yourself of the
opportunity to learn as I did and continue to learn about the
services and what is so important because those intangible
qualities are what attract the men and women today to accept
the challenges, the risks--indeed the risk of life in some
instances--to wear the uniform, and their families to have to
pack and move so many times when their civilian counterparts
remain safely in their villages and towns and cities across
America and get to pursue a more controlled life.
Ms. Livingstone. Senator Warner, I appreciate your comments
and I can assure you, if confirmed, I look forward to nothing
more than communicating very closely with the men and women of
both the Navy and the Marine Corps. As I said in my opening
statement, I am--and I mean this very sincerely--honored and
humbled by this opportunity, not the least of which, of course,
is the large shoes to fill that you have set in the Under's
position in the Department of the Navy. But I agree that
communications are critical. I came from a military background
and I can assure you that I will perpetuate every opportunity
for very close communication with our men and women in uniform.
Senator Warner. I was running a rough calculation, if your
father is 83----
Ms. Livingstone. Yes, sir.
Senator Warner.--that means he joined the Army Air Corps in
World War II. Would that be correct?
Ms. Livingstone. That's correct. Actually he called my mom
up and enlisted without telling her before he left home in the
morning. Then she followed him around for the next couple of
months and from place to place as he went through different
kinds of training. But he, of course, ultimately ended up in
the Air Force after the Army Air Corps.
Senator Warner. That is wonderful. That is a great heritage
that you have. My father served as a doctor in World War I in
the trenches and is an inspiration to me. But so much for that.
Let's turn to the Osprey, the Marine Corps aircraft. This is a
joint question to both of you. I will let Mr. Christie lead
off.
The panel of witnesses which sat at that very table before
this committee some several weeks ago was asked if it could
make an impartial evaluation. They did a great service to the
country and particularly to the Marine Corps in putting into
perspective where we are in this complicated aircraft system
and where we should go in the months and years to come. I am
prepared to support the recommendations of that panel. I wanted
to know, Mr. Christie, if you have had an opportunity to review
it?
Mr. Christie. I have looked over the briefing that was
presented here by the panel and do support their
recommendations. In fact, I do believe that the Under Secretary
of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics is
working with the Navy to develop a revised program that will do
the necessary testing, that perhaps we skipped, in order to
address the deficiencies that we found in the earlier testing
before we proceed with any full production or deployment
decision. If confirmed, I assure you that I will be part of
those deliberations, assessing whether that testing will be
adequate to fulfill the requirements that are laid down.
Senator Warner. In that context, during the course of the
hearing towards the end, the issue of the dissemination of
operational test information was looked into by the committee.
We did not bring to closure exactly what happened. But there
were some allegations to the effect that the program manager
did not receive full information. I do not think there was
anything intentional done to circumvent the rules and
regulations, but I do think there should be absolute clarity as
to how this information is distributed and shared.
There are tendencies, I think, by the services to push a
program because of the oftentimes desperate operational
requirements to have this system in an operational status. But
you have to resist that. You have to make sure that the result
of test and evaluation is known to all that have a degree of
responsibility. Could you give me that assurance?
Mr. Christie. Yes, sir.
Senator Warner. You will clarify those rules? Because there
was something in here----
Mr. Christie. I am aware of some ongoing negotiations or
some interactions with this committee staff to look at whether
a new policy should be promulgated in the Department.
Senator Warner. We have isolated the problem, and Ms.
Livingstone, I want you to work with Mr. Christie on it. It
comes with the normal responsibilities of the Under Secretary.
Ms. Livingstone. Senator Warner, I would be pleased to do
so if both of us are confirmed and agree that we have a major
issue and challenge before us in terms of restoring the trust
and confidence in the Osprey program. We will work with
Congress, OSD, and the pilots and the maintainers to do that.
Chairman Levin. Senator Nelson has been kind enough to
yield to Senator Carnahan even though Senator Nelson was here
first, because of her commitment. Senator Carnahan.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JEAN CARNAHAN
Senator Carnahan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I just
want to thank you for inviting me to this hearing. I am eager
to rejoin this committee as soon as possible and I am looking
forward to working with you and Senator Warner on the
challenging issues ahead. In the meantime, I want to----
Chairman Levin. Excuse me for interrupting. If I may, for a
second, that may be a bit of an in-joke that our audience is
not totally in on, so we might explain that until we have a new
resolution of organization in place, members that joined the
committee this year are technically not on the committee. But
we have welcomed them to participate in these hearings and, of
course, any vote that we have will hopefully take place after
they have ``rejoined'' the committee. But we can assure you all
that we consider you full members.
Senator Warner. I assure you, I fervently desire to have
you specifically stay on this committee.
Senator Carnahan. Thank you very much.
Senator Warner. You have a been a valuable member and we
very much want you to remain.
Senator Carnahan. Thank you. I want to welcome our
distinguished panel to the committee hearing today. I am
delighted to hear your testimony and I am looking forward to
working with you on issues affecting our Navy and U.S.
Departments of Energy and Defense. At this time I would like to
direct my comments specifically to the nominee for Assistant
Secretary of Energy for Environmental Management.
I enjoyed meeting with Ms. Roberson yesterday about an
issue that is of great concern to us in Missouri and that is
the cross-country shipment of nuclear waste through Missouri.
As some of you may know, the Department of Energy's
Environmental Management Program, which Ms. Roberson will
oversee in her new role, is responsible for managing the
disposal of spent nuclear fuel in this country. This includes
both foreign and domestically produced nuclear waste. For the
past several years the DOE has been making cross-country
shipments of foreign nuclear waste. They plan to do another
shipment in the near future. This shipment is scheduled to
cross Missouri's I-70 right through two major metropolitan
areas of St. Louis and Kansas City.
What we have asked the DOE repeatedly is if it makes sense
to ship this waste on this route versus shipping it on another
route where perhaps the roads are better, or on one that avoids
major metropolitan areas. We want proof that this is the safest
determinable route. We have asked the DOE to prove to us that
it is, in fact, the safest route, prior to the shipment coming
through our state.
So, Ms. Roberson, as I said to you yesterday, I sent a
letter to Secretary Abraham on May 25 asking if the Department
of Energy had conducted a peer review of its route selection
process. If so, I would like to know who conducted it and what
the results were. If not, I would like to request that such a
peer review be conducted. I would also like to have the general
cooperation of the Energy Department and especially the
Environmental Management Program that you will oversee in
working with us on these kinds of route selections, analyses,
and decisions.
We are not trying to be obstructionist here. We are only
saying prove to us that your route determination for shipment
of nuclear waste is, in fact, based on careful and rigorous
analysis. Considering the seriousness of this issue to the
people of Missouri, I firmly believe this is only fair to
expect, and I hope you will work closely with us on this issue.
I would welcome your comments on this subject today.
Ms. Roberson. Senator Carnahan, thank you for the question.
I too enjoyed our meeting yesterday. My understanding is that
there has been a peer review conducted and that the Department
of Energy is working expeditiously to respond to your letter. I
would like to commit to you--or demonstrate to you--my
commitment to work with you and the Governor of Missouri to
make sure that we address your safety concerns and those safety
concerns across the country as we pursue this program. I will
be open and transparent in those interactions and you certainly
have my commitment to work with you.
Senator Carnahan. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Senator Reed, it is a pleasure to call upon
you as always.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JACK REED
Senator Reed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you ladies and
gentlemen for your testimony. Mr. Christie, you answered a pre-
hearing question on acquisition streamlining related to spiral
development and its relationship to weapon system testing. Do
you believe that the approach of testing this spiral
development program could or should be applied to the fielding
of commercial off-the-shelf technology in weapons systems or
administrative support systems?
Mr. Christie. I think so, Senator. One thing about spiral
development--if I may make a comment--perhaps it is becoming a
little bit of a buzz word, but it is a way of getting new
technology into the field faster. We have to be careful that
what we introduce into the field at the end of one spiral and
before we go one to another one is in fact useful and effective
for the user. I do believe that test techniques that are being
used in the systems that are in that context are being used for
commercial off-the-shelf equipment.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Mr. Christie. Mr. Christie, let me
turn my attention to another issue. Prior to his departure,
your predecessor, Mr. Coyle, looked at the testing program for
the National Missile Defense in the Ballistic Missile Defense
Office and recommended a significant increase in the robustness
in the testing, in the number tested, and the challenges
inherent in the testing. Would you continue that effort, which
I believe, is critical?
Mr. Christie. Yes, sir, Senator. I am not familiar at this
point in time with what the administration is developing in the
way of a new National Missile Defense Program. Mr. Coyle's
assessment was, of course, based on the previous
administration's primarily land-based interceptor program. As
soon as the Department has come together with their strategy
for National Missile Defense, and if confirmed, I'm sure that I
will be involved in working to ensure that proper testing or
robust testing is planned and executed before we make decisions
to deploy such a system.
Senator Reed. While I think that is absolutely critical and
seems to be obvious, sometimes the obvious in Washington is not
a reality. This is one of the more challenging technological
endeavors that we have engaged in in many years and if we
proceed forward with the land-based system, the current
architecture, that requires increasingly more sophisticated and
challenging testing. If we move to other architecture we are
starting close to ground zero. So, I would assume that you
would be intimately involved and I would urge you to be very
demanding in the testing.
Mr. Christie. If confirmed, I will do so, sir.
Senator Reed. So far you are doing pretty well. Let me turn
my attention to Ms. Roberson. Ms. Roberson, there is consensus
that the Department of Energy's budget request for fiscal year
2002 is about $1 billion short of the amount required to keep
the DOE current on all of its enforceable commitments to the
states and to the EPA. Now if the supplemental or amended
budget request does not address this funding shortfall and you
are confirmed, how do you plan to deal with these issues? In
effect, how do you plan to keep DOE in compliance with state
judgments and Federal judgments?
Ms. Roberson. Senator Reed, if confirmed, one of the first
tasks that I will undertake, which Secretary Abraham is
committed to, is a complete review of the Environmental
Management Program. That program recently celebrated its 10-
year anniversary. So, we have 10 years of successes and
disappointments to learn from to advance the program in the
future. I believe that we will identify opportunities to aid
and complete our clean-up activities in a more expeditious way.
However, I am committed to working with this committee and
Congress to make sure that we spend the budget that is
allocated for this program, once that budget process is
complete, in an efficient and effective manner.
Senator Reed. Part of your job is certainly to spend the
money that is appropriated but I would assume in other parts to
advocate within the Department of Energy and within the OMB and
within the administration and even within Congress for
sufficient funds. This seems to me to be a case which is quite
compelling. There are judgments and outstanding Federal
requirements that we have to meet and we are about $1 billion
short. I presume--it is obvious you recognize that--and I would
hope that you could see that we follow through on our
commitments to the states and the EPA.
Ms. Roberson. If confirmed, Senator, it is my goal and my
commitment to work with the parties involved to make sure that
we satisfy our environmental obligations as committed.
Senator Reed. One of the challenges you face, Ms. Roberson,
is to deal with other agencies, among them the National Nuclear
Security Administration, in order to carry out your
responsibilities. Could you just briefly indicate how you view
your relationship and what you will do to provide for an
integrated approach to the challenges at the DOE?
Ms. Roberson. Senator Reed, quite frankly, as a result of
being a member of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board I
have had the opportunity to see where those opportunities exist
across the complex. I have met with General Gordon and I
believe that we will have a very positive working relationship.
I do not think that there will be any difference in the goals.
Where our goals meet, they are very much aligned and I believe
I will have a very good working relationship with General
Gordon and his staff.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, my time is
up. I have one additional question, if I may.
Chairman Levin. Go ahead.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator
Warner. Ms. Livingstone, currently the Navy is considering a
conversion of Trident submarines. How do you feel about that
conversion process? Could you elaborate on it?
Ms. Livingstone. Senator Reed, I wish I could elaborate,
but unfortunately, I have not been briefed. I am not yet
confirmed and have not been really briefed on the program. It
is something, however, I recognize as an important program area
and I certainly will work with Secretary England and the
Department of the Navy to get up to speed as quickly as
possible, if I am confirmed.
Senator Reed. Sorry, I should ask you questions about the
Army then because you are fully conversant on the Army.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Livingstone. I was an Air Force brat and I worked for
the Department of the Army and now I am honored to work on
behalf of the Navy and the Marine Corps, if I am confirmed. But
you have to say the Navy and Marine Corps are air, sea, and
land, so we have it all covered.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Reed. Senator Reed
raised a number of questions that I want to pursue and get a
little more assurance on. I think these are really important
areas that he has opened up. First on the question of the
Department of Energy's budget request for 2002, as he pointed
out, it is, we believe, about $1 billion short of the amount
that is necessary to keep the DOE current in its commitments.
These are legally binding commitments to states and to the EPA.
You have indicated that you will spend the budget allocated and
will seek an adequate budget. Those are the assurances you gave
to Senator Reed and those are very important. Do you agree that
there is a shortfall?
Ms. Roberson. Mr. Chairman, I really have not had the
opportunity to look at the details of the budget and work with
the site managers and the contractors responsible for
implementing those. So, I am really at a disadvantage to answer
that question.
Chairman Levin. Fair enough. I expect and hope you will be
promptly confirmed. Will you get back to this committee after
you are in office with your assessment of that issue, of that
problem?
Ms. Roberson. Absolutely.
Chairman Levin. Let us know whether or not after you have
had a chance to look at it if you believe there is a shortfall.
We need your opinion. Whether or not you get the money from
OMB, we need your commitment to give us your opinion on that.
Ms. Roberson. Yes, sir.
Chairman Levin. Mr. Christie, Senator Reed asked you about
testing the National Missile Defense system to make sure that
you will continue your predecessor's determination that the
testing be robust and realistic. You made a commitment that you
would do the same.
Mr. Christie. Absolutely.
Chairman Levin. I assume then that it would include a
commitment that if the operational testing and evaluation of
the National Missile Defense system does not demonstrate that
the items and the components tested are effective and suitable
for combat, that you would then recommend against acquisition
or deployment.
Mr. Christie. Mr. Chairman, I view my mission or my
responsibility to be one of reporting to the Secretary of
Defense and to Congress the test results and whether or not the
system was operationally effective, suitable, and survivable in
the tests that were conducted, and that those tests were in
fact robust enough or adequate enough to reach that conclusion.
It is not my responsibility, in my view, to recommend that we
deploy or not. That is, in fact, a decision that is to be made
by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology,
and Logistics and in this case, no doubt, the Secretary of
Defense and the President. I will just lay the facts on the
table: here are the test results; here is my view of the tests
that were conducted and how realistic they were, how robust
they were. That decision on deployment or acquisition is in
other hands.
Chairman Levin. Fair enough. Do you believe that the
program that you have described from operational testing and
evaluation for the National Missile Defense system includes the
use of countermeasures?
Mr. Christie. Yes, sir, it will.
Chairman Levin. I guess the most important point is you
have given us the assurance, which is so essential, which is
you are just going to tell it like it is.
Mr. Christie. Yes, sir. I may not last long, but I will
tell it like it is.
Chairman Levin. Mr. Christie, I have a question on Army
transformation. The National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2001 requires the Secretary of the Army to conduct
a comparative evaluation of the interim armored vehicles
selected for the fielding of the interim brigade combat teams
with equipment that is already in the inventory. The law
requires that the evaluation plan, including the sizes of the
units involved in the evaluation, be approved by the DOT&E.
Last month the acting DOT&E approved an evaluation plan for
side-by-side testing at the platoon level. Do you agree that an
evaluation of platoon level missions is sufficient for such a
new and unique unit that is designed primarily for operations
at the brigade level?
Mr. Christie. My understanding of what has been looked at
or has been approved, by the acting DOT&E, is that this will be
a company-size unit as to the numbers of vehicles in the side-
by-side comparison carrying out missions that are at the
platoon level. I think the feeling is--and I have not looked
into this in enough detail to form my own thoughts that it
would be sufficient to enable a good assessment of the
differences in the vehicle and to provide information to
decision-makers as to whether they should proceed with one or
the other. I believe that, if we go on with the IAV into IOT&E,
it would of course be a much larger test. But right now I
believe the side-by-side comparison is 13 or 14 vehicles, which
is a company-level vehicle unit, but they will be carrying out
platoon-level missions.
Chairman Levin. After you review the decision, after you
are confirmed, would you take a personal interest in providing
the oversight for the conduct of the operational comparison?
Mr. Christie. Absolutely. Certainly.
Chairman Levin. Senator Warner.
Senator Warner. I want to follow-up. That is a very
important inquiry that our Chairman has brought up. The Army
certainly needs this transformation but the selection of the
particular vehicle is subject to a great deal of controversy
right now. It is an enormously expensive system. I really think
that this is among the five major responsibilities--missile
defense, this, the Osprey--that you have to bear down on. I
would hope that you could expedite this situation. We will have
to address it in the 2002 budget and any preliminary
information you could supply to this committee would be a great
help to us. We want to do the right thing by the Army. It has
to be right. It has to be fixed, and has to be fixed right. So,
I wish you luck on that.
Mr. Christie. Thank you, sir. If confirmed, I commit to
getting into this personally.
Senator Warner. It is a top priority. Give us interim
reports on it.
Ms. Livingstone, of course, the number of ships in the Navy
is always a matter of great concern. You will be directly
responsible for a lot of the shipbuilding and contracting and
you will work with the Secretary on the budgeting. All
indications are that our Nation is falling short on laying the
plans today, tomorrow, and in the future for an adequate number
of hulls to carry out the missions, which our Navy must carry
out. The sea lanes of the world are the arteries of this Nation
not only in terms of our national security but indeed in our
ever-expanding trade with nations abroad. The protection of sea
lanes is absolutely imperative. So I presume you are going to
go to work on that early on.
Ms. Livingstone. Senator Warner, absolutely. I share your
concerns about the current rates of shipbuilding not only in
terms of the implications it has for combat capability and
readiness, but also in terms of the business aspects of it in
the economies of scale and production efficiencies and also the
impacts on the shipyard industrial base. I look forward to
working on that issue with Secretary England and also within
the context of the strategic reviews ongoing and in the
Quadrennial Defense Review.
Senator Warner. Good. Ms. Roberson, on behalf of Senator
Allard, I am going to submit a very detailed question to you
regarding the Rocky Flats situation and ask that you provide a
response for the record.
Another question, you have stated that ``sound science and
innovative technology are critical to solving the complex
technical problems that the Department faces including up to
the DOE complex.'' You have also acknowledged that the EM
Technology Development Program has experienced problems in
transferring cutting edge research to DOE clean-up and waste
management sites. How do you view your role in ensuring that
science and technology activities are responsible to on-the-
ground needs identified in the field and then the users that
participate in all aspects of technology decision-making from
planning through deployment? You can amplify your response to
that rather technical question in the record, but if you could
give us a preliminary, I would appreciate it.
Ms. Roberson. Senator Warner, if confirmed, I will be
responsible for ensuring that integration occurs and having
been a field manager on the other end as a client and recipient
of technologies, I think I understand quite clearly how that
relationship has to work to be effective. I will work with the
staff in the Department to ensure that those areas of
improvement are implemented, and then I will provide a more
detailed response to you.
Senator Warner. I wish you luck. You have a real challenge.
I serve on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
and, therefore, have another oversight responsibility for the
clean-up of America's distressed sites. I really think we have
to assign priority to those sites that have the potential to or
are actually contributing to a degrading of the quality of life
on a real-time basis. Many of the military sites are basically
dormant so far as we know. Now scientific evidence may show
leakage into the underground water system and things that are
not apparent on the surface. I think you are going to have to
prioritize your clean-up operations with your budget and how
urgent it is with respect to the quality of life. I hope you
exercise sound judgment and flexibility and petition your
Secretary, whom I know very well and is a wonderful man, to
give you some leeway in how you proceed on these issues.
Now, Ms. Livingstone, this is a question that is
interesting. I greeted this day, as most of us do, listening to
the news of the world and also the news here at home. Our air
traffic situation is in need. I will let you answer this for
the record so you can sit back and relax--the air traffic
situation is becoming desperate. Commercial air traffic is
expected to increase 6 percent annually and military airspace
use will also increase for the next generation of high
performance weapons. As a result of the pressures associated
with commercial air traffic congestion, noise, and
environmental concerns, the acquisition and use of special use
air space has evolved into a challenging endeavor for all of
the military departments. I want to put you on alert there
because you are going to have to work to try and resolve that.
It's not unlike Vieques, where you have the essential need for
that training site to maintain our readiness and the same with
our airspace here at home. Fortunately, we have not had a
breakout of hostile viewpoints on this, but it is something you
need to take a look at. With the commercial air system growing
rapidly, it juxtaposes in many instances with our military
requirements and airfields. Look at it and get ahead of the
curve on this.
Ms. Livingstone. Senator Warner, I appreciate your question
very much and also appreciate the opportunity to respond for
the record later on. It is an important issue, thank you.
[The information follows:]
As airspace needs change with the evolution of new weapons systems
and tactics, the drastic increase in civilian aviation traffic,
compounded by urban sprawl, remains a continued threat to the retention
of current airspace assets and the expansion of those assets.
Scheduling/using agencies of Special Use Airspace delegated to Navy by
the Federal Aviation Administration continually evaluate this resource
to assure that it is properly sized, both vertically and laterally, to
support the mission for which it was designed. Navy currently has three
proposals at FAA headquarters for approval and a small number of
proposals in the early stage of development. Preliminary discussions
suggest that these proposals, if properly documented, have an excellent
chance for approval. To facilitate continued interagency cooperation,
we continue to expend a considerable amount of time in cultivating
relationships with senior FAA officials in Washington Headquarters and
the Regional Offices.
Senator Warner. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I think you are
off to an excellent start. That completes my questions.
Chairman Levin. Senator Warner, thank you. We thank our
nominees and we congratulate you again. We look forward to a
prompt confirmation and to your service.
Ms. Livingstone. Thank you.
Ms. Roberson. Thank you.
Mr. Christie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Whereupon, at 10:40 a.m., the committee adjourned.]
[Prepared questions submitted to Susan Morrisey Livingstone
by Chairman Warner prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
May 21, 2001.
Chairman,
Committee on Armed Services,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Enclosed are the answers to the advance
questions the Senate Armed Services Committee asked me to complete.
Sincerely,
Susan M. Livingstone.
cc: Ranking Minority Member.
______
Questions and Responses
Question. More than 10 years have passed since the enactment of the
Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and
the Special Operations reforms. From your close association with
defense issues, you have had an opportunity to observe the
implementation and impact of those reforms.
Do you support full implementation of these defense reforms?
Answer. I am committed to the complete and effective implementation
of these reforms.
Question. What is your view of the extent to which these defense
reforms have been implemented?
Answer. I believe these reforms have been accepted and implemented.
They have clarified the responsibilities and authorities of the
Secretary of Defense, the Secretaries of the Military Departments, the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. As a
result of these reforms, the effectiveness of our joint warfighting
forces has improved.
Question. What do you consider to be the most important aspects of
these defense reforms?
Answer. I consider the most significant value of these reforms to
be an improvement in joint warfighting capabilities. Our military is
now stronger and more lethal because our Services can work better
together. If confirmed, I will maintain and extend the Navy's
commitment to the principles of joint warfare including
interoperability and joint doctrine.
Question. The goals of Congress in enacting these defense reforms,
as reflected in section 3 of the Goldwater-Nichols Department of
Defense Reorganization Act, can be summarized as strengthening civilian
control; improving military advice; placing a clear responsibility on
the combatant commanders for the accomplishment of their missions;
ensuring the authority of the combatant commanders is commensurate with
their responsibility; increasing attention to the formulation of
strategy and to contingency planning; providing for more efficient use
of defense resources; and enhancing the effectiveness of military
operations and improving the management and administration of the
Department of Defense.
Do you agree with these goals?
Answer. Yes.
duties
Question. Section 5015 of Title 10, United States Code, states the
Under Secretary of the Navy shall perform such duties and exercise such
powers as the Secretary of the Navy may prescribe.
Assuming you are confirmed, what duties and powers do you expect to
be assigned to you?
Answer. The role of the Under Secretary of the Navy is to keep the
Department on track and focused on the Secretary of the Navy's top
priorities and keep him informed of any impediments to their successful
completion. If confirmed, I will monitor and maintain those priorities
and, in coordination with the SECNAV, if needed, take the lead on any
item needing special attention, as well as perform any other duties
assigned by the Secretary.
Question. In carrying out your duties, how will you work with the
Assistant Secretary of Navy for Manpower and Reserve Affairs; the
Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Installations and Environment; the
Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Financial Management and
Comptroller of the Navy; the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for
Research, Development and Acquisition; and the General Counsel?
Answer. If confirmed, it is my intention to work closely and
directly with the Assistant Secretaries of the Navy and the General
Counsel to ensure the Department maintains a clear focus on the
priorities outlined by Secretary-designate England consistent with the
appropriate laws and Title X of the U.S. Code. I intend to encourage
and foster teamwork within the Department of the Navy developing
integrated product teams both within the civilian leadership and
between the civilian leadership and their uniformed counterparts.
major challenges
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges confronting
the next Secretary of the Navy and Under Secretary of the Navy?
Answer. I agree with Mr. England that there are four major areas of
challenge facing the Department of the Navy:
Combat Capability--The primary purpose of the Navy and
Marine Corps is to deter, train for, and when necessary, fight
and win our Nation's battles and wars. Combat capability,
including readiness, must therefore be the primary focus with
dedicated attention to the platforms, weapon systems, and
training needed by the Navy and Marines in the context of the
National Military Strategy.
People--The men and women of the naval forces team are
our most valued resource. Accordingly, if confirmed, I will
work diligently in support of ``quality of service'' which
includes both a quality workplace and quality of life for our
sailors and marines (both active duty and reserve), civilians,
and their families. An environment of excellence throughout the
Department should be the standard. We must also maintain faith
with those who came before: our retired community.
Technology and Interoperability--The foundation of our
military's strength lies in the application of advanced
technology. Currently, the application of advanced technology
is significantly lagging in its availability. We must become
far more agile in applying and leveraging the capability of
technology. We must improve the interoperability within and
between all of the military services and our allies.
Modernization of Business Practices--More effective
management processes must be applied and institutionalized to
systematically improve the efficiency of the Department of the
Navy.
Question. If confirmed, what plans do you have for addressing these
challenges?
Answer. I will immediately work with the Secretary of the Navy to
establish priority actions in each of these areas and then support him
in initiating each as rapidly as possible.
ship acquisition
Question. The Navy recently delayed two key ship acquisition
decisions, T-AKE acquisition and DD-21 design selection. Regardless of
the reasons for these delays, they raise questions about the Navy's
ability to keep major ship programs on schedule.
As Under Secretary of the Navy, how would you intend to ensure that
the acquisition decision process possesses the discipline to adhere to
established schedules?
Answer. If confirmed as Under Secretary of the Navy, I will focus
my attention in several areas to ensure that the acquisition process
possesses the discipline to adhere to established schedules. I believe
that the overall acquisition process must include:
stability of operational requirements for acquisition
programs which also recognize the rapid pace of technological
change;
stability of funding required to procure the ships
needed for the 21st century naval forces;
adequate staffing and training of acquisition
organizations responsible for performing the contract source
selections and life cycle management; and
effective communications between the Department of the
Navy, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and Congress to
ensure understanding of the shipbuilding procurement plan and
prevent surprises on any shipbuilding program.
navy force structure
Question. Navy operational commanders have testified that there are
not enough ships to complete the tasks required and that the burden of
this inadequate force structure is being borne by the men and women of
the Navy and the Marine Corps.
Do you concur with the operational commanders' assessments of the
Navy's force structure versus operational commitment? If so, how would
you address the mismatch? If not, what is your assessment?
Answer. I have not had an opportunity to review the issue of Navy
and Marine Corps resources versus commitments, but this is an area that
certainly falls within Secretary-designate England's focus on combat
capability. If confirmed, I will work closely within the Department of
the Navy and, through the Secretary of the Navy, with the Secretary of
Defense's staff and Congress, to ensure the men and women of our Navy
and Marine Corps have the resources they need to meet current and
future requirements.
industrial base
Question. In recent years, several industrial suppliers of
important weapons subsystems or components have decided to leave the
market. This raises questions about the adequacy of the industrial base
to provide key Navy and Marine Corps operational capabilities.
If confirmed, how would you determine whether or not the industrial
base is sufficient to support required Navy and Marine Corps programs
and to ensure that the Department of the Navy is adequately tracking
this industrial base?
Answer. The Navy Department has a vital concern and interest in
assessing and ensuring the industrial base's ability to develop and
produce the weapons systems required for the 21st century. Therefore,
if confirmed, one of my priorities will be to examine our Nation's
industrial base to identify issues that may impact Navy acquisition
programs and work with the OSD team and Congress to determine how best
to resolve those issues. The health of the industrial base is a vital
component of our future combat capability and readiness.
aircraft maintenance
Question. The CNO has stated that in addition to quality of life
issues, we must also be attentive to quality of service if we are to
recruit and retain the sailors and marines we need. In the area of
aircraft maintenance, the hours of maintenance dedicated to aircraft
for each hour flown continues to rise as our aircraft continue to age.
This aging aircraft problem is consuming more fiscal and human
resources on an annual basis, and is often paid for by the RDT&E and
modernization accounts that would replace the aging equipment.
What are your views on this one aspect of quality of service,
increased working hours for maintenance as well as aircraft
cannibalization, and what do you think should be done about it?
Answer. I am concerned about the increased hours that our sailors
and marines are working to support the aging equipment that we have in
our inventory. The key to reducing this impact is to establish a proper
balance between the acquisition of new equipment, which helps reduce
maintenance requirements, and properly funding the support elements for
our in-service equipment.
organizational changes
Question. The CNO staff was recently reorganized to create a
Warfare Requirements and Programs division.
Are there organization changes that you would recommend to the
Secretary of the Navy regarding the staff that will support your
decision-making?
Answer. I understand that the Deputy CNO for Warfare Requirements
and Programs (N7) has fit well into the current Department of the Navy
organization. I don't anticipate recommending any additional changes
until I have had the opportunity to closely observe the Department. If
confirmed, I will work closely with the SECNAV in evaluating the
Department's organization to determine if any additional changes are
required.
readiness
Question. Over the last few years we have seen increasing evidence
that the readiness of the U.S. Armed Forces has begun to deteriorate as
a result of the over-commitment of an under-resourced military.
What do you view as the major readiness challenges that will have
to be addressed by the Navy and Marine Corps, and, if confirmed, how
would you approach these issues?
Answer. I am concerned about the increasing stress placed on the
people and equipment of our Navy and Marine Corps. In the near term, if
confirmed, I will work with the Secretary of the Navy to identify
actions that might help to balance the ``TEMPO'' stresses. In the
longer term, we must ensure the naval forces are right-sized, trained,
and equipped to meet the commitments that are placed on them. One major
readiness challenge will be finding the resources to provide the proper
balance between the modernization of our equipment and the support of
the equipment that is already in place. Recruitment and retention also
remain readiness challenges. Having the right measures and metrics is
also critical to ensuring we identify thoroughly the resources needed
to meet these readiness challenges.
encroachment
Question. Some of the most significant issues that will impact the
readiness of the Armed Forces as we enter the 21st century involve the
Armed Forces' ability to operate and train effectively. The Senior
Readiness Oversight Committee is currently reviewing several readiness
challenges it has characterized as ``encroachment'' issues. These
issues include environmental constraints on military training ranges,
local community efforts to obtain military property, airspace
restrictions to accommodate civilian airlines, transfer of radio
frequency spectrum from the Department of Defense to the wireless
communications industry, and many others. Unless these issues are
effectively addressed, our military forces will find it increasingly
difficult to train and operate at home and abroad.
In your opinion, how serious are these problems for the Navy?
Answer. Encroachment is a very serious problem. As encroachment
grows, training and testing plans and procedures are impacted. These
impacts include decreased days for testing and training, restrictions
on the location and timing for testing and training, and limitations on
the types of training available. The cumulative effect can diminish
readiness. If confirmed, I will work with the Secretary of the Navy, as
well as OSD and other federal agencies to seek resolve of specific
encroachment concerns as well as assess the issue from a broader,
overall policy perspective.
environmental security
Question. The Department of Defense makes it a practice to request
funding only for those environmental compliance areas that are already
out of compliance and subject to an enforcement action, and those that
will be out of compliance before the next budget cycle.
Would you agree that continuing funding for this type of
environmental cleanup is critical to maintaining a positive
relationship with local regulatory authorities and the communities
around our military bases?
Answer. It is important that the Navy and Marine Corps maintain a
positive relationship with local authorities and communities. In this
regard, compliance with environmental protection requirements is vital
and must be budgeted for appropriately. If confirmed, this is an area
that will have my close attention.
Question. Do you believe that the Department of Defense should be
exempt from the application of the environmental laws?
Answer. In general, no. However, application of some environmental
laws and regulations to militarily-unique training actions should be
examined and may require some regulatory clarification to ensure
national security.
Question. Do you support the basic principle of the Federal
Facilities Act and other laws that federal facilities, including DOD
facilities, should be subject to the same standards as comparably
situated civilian facilities?
Answer. In general, yes. There may be circumstances where
environmental regulations must be tailored to accommodate the unique
military mission or special circumstances related to military training
while balancing the need to ensure good environmental stewardship.
vieques
Question. Over the past 18 months, naval forces deploying from the
East Coast of the United States have been prevented from conducting
live-fire training on the Navy's training range on Vieques, Puerto
Rico, which has had a significant impact on the readiness of these
forces to execute their wartime missions. An agreement was reached in
2000 with the former Governor of Puerto Rico, and legislation passed to
implement that agreement, which will provide economic incentives to the
people of Vieques in return for their cooperation in the restoration of
live-fire training. Unfortunately, the current Governor of Puerto Rico
has stated that she will not abide by the terms of this agreement and
that she will insist the Navy cease operations immediately.
Recent press reports have quoted the President as saying that the
agreement ``evidently is not satisfactory with the government of Puerto
Rico'' and ``the Navy needs to find another base'' for Atlantic fleet
training. In the past, Navy officials have stated that no such
alternative is available.
Do you agree with the Chief of Naval Operations and the Commandant
of the Marine Corps that Vieques is essential to the readiness of East
Coast naval forces?
Answer. Yes. The Navy and Marine Corps have briefed me on the
importance of Vieques to ensuring the readiness of naval forces.
Integrated combined arms training and evaluation are an essential step
to prepare deploying forces to perform any task the President may
direct. Vieques provides an unequalled environment for this training
and evaluation. That said, this is an issue that involves not just the
Department of the Navy, but also OSD, the current administration, and
Congress. If confirmed, my role in this issue will be to advocate the
training needs of our naval forces.
Question. If confirmed, would you ensure that the $40.0 million
Congress appropriated to fund economic development and outreach
programs on the island of Vieques is released and put to effective use?
Answer. Yes, I will continue the Department's commitment to
implement effective outreach and economic development in Vieques.
Question. Does the Navy now believe that an alternative training
site to Vieques can be located?
Answer. Vieques provides a unique training environment to prepare
deploying forces. President Clinton directed the Navy to examine long-
term alternatives for live fire training on Vieques. From the briefings
I have received, that review is underway using the following
operational criteria:
Availability of an air-to-ground live ordnance range
with tactically realistic and challenging targets and airspace,
which allow the use of high-altitude weapons delivery.
Availability of naval surface fire support range that
permits training of ships, forward spotters, and fire
coordination teams.
Ability to exercise combined arms amphibious
operations.
Availability of nearby naval and base support.
At this point, it is unclear whether any such alternative could
completely replicate the training and evaluation capabilities available
on Vieques.
Question. Does the administration intend to proceed with the
November 2001 referendum?
Answer. I cannot speak for the administration on that issue and
must therefore defer that question to others. I understand that the law
says a referendum must be held unless the Chief of Naval Operations and
Commandant of the Marine Corps certify that the Vieques Training Range
is no longer needed for training.
installation readiness
Question. Based on your prior service as Assistant Secretary of the
Army for Installations, Logistics, and Environment, your expertise will
be important to the Secretary of the Navy especially as it relates to
shore-based infrastructure. According to the General Accounting Office,
by 1992 the military had accumulated an estimated $8.9 billion in
deferred maintenance. By 1998, that had grown to $14.6 billion. It now
exceeds $16.0 billion. Last year in his testimony before Congress, the
GAO's Neil Curtain said, ``There really is a risk of losing the value
of those (military) facilities. Real property maintenance is in
disarray.''
What priority would you place on installation readiness and
eliminating this backlog in maintenance and repair?
Answer. My past experience as Assistant Secretary leaves me well-
acquainted with the difficult challenges the military departments have
faced to sufficiently invest in infrastructure. If confirmed, I will
work with the Secretary on the Navy, the Assistant Secretary for
Installations and Environment, the Chief of Naval Operations, and the
Commandant of the Marine Corps to improve installation readiness so
that it best supports the Department of the Navy's ability to
accomplish its national defense mission.
Question. What are your views regarding the transfer of real
property maintenance funds to meet operational needs?
Answer. I know from my previous experience that in preparing the
Department's budget request, the Service Secretaries and the Secretary
of Defense must make tough choices to balance competing demands. During
budget execution, events can unfold that place severe financial
pressure across the operating accounts.
Question. Would you support fencing real property maintenance funds
to eliminate the backlog in maintenance and repair?
Answer. No. I believe we need to maintain financial flexibility
during program execution to handle unexpected events.
base realignment and closure
Question. Over the past several years, various departmental
officials have testified that there is excess defense infrastructure
and have requested Congress to authorize another round of base
closures.
Do you believe that we have excess defense facilities and, if so,
where does this excess capacity exist?
Answer. Once ongoing reviews are complete, a vision of how we must
reshape the Department of Defense to best meet the threats of today and
tomorrow to our Nation will be identified. Any discussion of where
there may be excess capacity must await completion of these reviews,
which will likely involve a shift in the focus and priorities of the
military departments, including its supporting shore establishment.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, when asked, to give your personal views,
even if those views differ from the administration in power?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as the Under Secretary of the
Navy?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings, and
other communications of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator John Warner
1. Senator Warner. In September 1999, as a result of environmental
and worker safety issues, the Navy began conducting ship disposal
through the Ship Disposal Project. Since that time, the Navy has
budgeted for the disposal of 3 to 4 ships per year. At that funding
level, it could take about 12 years to dispose of the backlog of about
47 obsolete Navy ships. These vessels are berthed in several locations
around the United States, to include Portsmouth, VA. The communities in
which these vessels are berthed recognize that the potential for
environmental and navigational problems increases with length of time
they are stored.
Wouldn't you agree that it is important to develop a budget and
plan that allows the Navy to complete the disposal of its obsolete
ships in the near-term? When is it anticipated that the Navy will
complete disposal of its obsolete ships?
Ms. Livingstone. I would agree. In order to further reduce the size
of the Navy's inventory of inactive ships in an orderly and cost-
effective manner, the Navy utilizes multiple ship disposal
methodologies, including transferring ships to eligible foreign
governments under the Arms Export Control Act, donating ships as
memorials or museums, utilizing vessels as targets or for other
experimental purposes, transferring title of certain merchant-type
ships to the Maritime Administration under the Department of
Transportation (MARAD) for disposal, and domestic scrapping. As of June
7, 2001, the total number of stricken Navy ships available for disposal
by all methodologies combined is 94 ships. The Navy expects to dispose
of all but one of these ships by the end of fiscal year 2007, 19 by
domestic scrapping and 74 utilizing the other methodologies.
Additionally, 8 currently active ships are designated for scrapping
upon their decommissioning through fiscal year 2007. Thus, the Navy
expects to complete the scrapping of 24 conventionally powered
destroyers and frigates by the end of fiscal year 2007.
resource protection
2. Senator Warner. Maritime resource protection laws, Executive
orders, and interpretations of Federal and state regulations have
affected the conduct of maritime operations, test, and training
activities.
As Under Secretary of the Navy, what measures would you take to
preserve fleet operations and training exercises under the current
regulatory and statutory framework?
Ms. Livingstone. I understand that the Navy has taken several
positive steps in response to impacts from various laws, regulations,
and Executive orders affecting maritime activities. This year, the
Department of the Navy has been designated as the Department of Defense
executive agent for maritime sustainability. This program, which will
be implemented through the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, has
as its goal to achieve sustainable readiness in compliance with
statutory and regulatory requirements. To that end, the Navy has
adopted a strategy with four principal elements: sound legal position,
knowledge advancement, consistent policy and procedures, and education
and engagement. These pillars are being applied to solve some of the
existing and future regulatory constraints facing service training
within marine operational areas and ranges. I will support this program
as needed to ensure continuation of fleet operations and training
exercises.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Strom Thurmond
3. Senator Thurmond. In recent testimony before the Subcommittee on
Readiness and Management Support, Navy officials testified that the
Navy's backlog of critical installation maintenance and repair was
approximately $2.5 billion. The officials further testified that over
33 percent of the Navy's base readiness reports reflect C-3 and C-4
readiness ratings due to facility conditions.
Based on your experience as the former Assistant Secretary of the
Army for Installations, what are your concerns regarding this
significant backlog in the critical repair and maintenance of Navy
installations? What role will you assume in correcting this problem, if
confirmed as the Under Secretary?
Ms. Livingstone. Our inability to maintain Navy infrastructure at
acceptable levels and the resulting backlog growth make it more and
more difficult and costly to turn the corner on the chronic
deterioration of our bases. Lack of sufficient maintenance funds also
translates directly to morale, retention, and readiness problems. I
look forward to closely monitoring our progress in arresting backlog
growth, reporting continuous improvement in our base readiness reports,
and exploring ways to accomplish these objectives in a more timely
manner.
base closure
4. Senator Thurmond. In response to the advance policy question on
the need for additional base closures, you indicated that any
discussion regarding base closure should be deferred until the
completion of the strategic reviews.
Although I appreciate your response, I would like your views on the
process used for base closures. Do you believe the process used for
prior base closures is appropriate? If not, what changes would you
advocate?
Ms. Livingstone. While the base closure process used in the past is
not perfect, it has accomplished its primary intended goal--to close
unneeded bases and remove excess and costly-to-maintain capacity from
the Department of Defense. The criteria to evaluate the military need
for installations and activities have been based on explicit standards
established by Congress. Before the process begins, the data for
analyses are obtained and verified by outside sources, the
recommendations of the President are reviewed by an impartial
commission, and communities are given the opportunity to participate.
The all-or-nothing congressional approval keeps the focus on the
overall picture; the process is based on a reasonable time schedule. In
short, the process is fair and it has worked. That is a major
accomplishment in comparison with the many previous failed efforts.
In terms of improvement, I think there are opportunities to
accelerate property cleanup and disposal. In some cases, communities
have been slow to accept the closure decision and begin reuse planning.
By the same token, the cleanup and disposal process by the DOD has been
hampered by uncertainty over cleanup standards to meet reuse needs,
lack of timely funding, and expensive cleanup costs. The needs of both
can often be best met when cleanup and disposal are integrated into the
construction phase of redevelopment.
privatization
5. Senator Thurmond. It is generally assumed that privatization of
functions performed by government employees achieves savings. Although
I believe that in many cases there may be short-term savings, over the
long-term these savings disappear as contracts are renegotiated.
What are your views on the long-term savings realized as a result
of privatization?
Ms. Livingstone. The benefit of having a contract is the degree of
control it provides the government in managing its business. Contracts
can be re-competed to ensure the most economical price is provided for
the requirement. Further, additional requirements cannot be assigned to
a contract without defining the work scope and negotiating the price.
This ensures the government is fully cognizant of the increase in
requirements and additional cost to accomplish this requirement.
Informed business decisions can be made with the factual understanding
of the requirement and cost. Based on this information an acquisition
decision can be made on the need for competition. Competition provides
the baseline for determining the most cost efficient method to procure
goods and services using the efficiency tools of privatization or
competitive sourcing.
transformation
6. Senator Thurmond. Based on your affiliation with the Association
of the United States Army, I know you are familiar with the need to
transform the Army to meet the challenges of the new strategic
environment.
Do you anticipate that the Navy will have to undergo some level of
transformation to support the new threat environment? If so, what
changes would you advocate?
Ms. Livingstone. Transformation is a process of meeting strategic
mission and capability requirements through major changes in
operational concepts, technology, and organization. The Navy's
transformation started in 1992 with publication of . . . From the Sea,
commencing a strategic shift from the Cold War's emphasis first upon
sea control and then sequential power projection ashore once the Soviet
fleet was defeated, to today's simultaneous sea control and power
projection directly ashore at the very initiation of conflict from the
littoral.
The key operational challenge for the U.S. Navy today and in the
near-term is sustaining assured access to deny the ability of any
prospective adversary to be successful in employing an area denial
strategy. The key to sustaining assured access lies in the Navy's
evolution from a platform-centric to a network-centric force. Naval
forces already forward, properly programmed, will deliver the sustained
assured access from the first day of conflict that is needed for joint
forces to flow into theater to carry out U.S. military strategy. While
no one service can assure access on its own, by dint of already being
forward and immediately employable, the Navy plays a key role in
enabling the rapid deployment of decisive combat power to the theater
of operations.
In the mid-term, geographically dispersed and interoperable naval
forces will take advantage of network-centric operations to maintain a
dominant military advantage, enhancing the Navy's ability to assure
access when and where our Nation chooses to fight, and thereby
deterring potential adversaries. The Navy will leverage its unmatched
battlespace awareness with the capability to project offense ashore in
effects-based attacks with vast volume from stealthy strike platforms
and ``artillery from the sea'', holding even time critical targets at
risk.
In the far-term, the Navy transformation will result in a
universally netted force of dispersed manned and unmanned systems that
leverages knowledge superiority with improved lethality. With assured
access now established in all warfare dimensions, forward deployed
naval forces will play a vital role in dissuading potential adversaries
from pursuing policies inimical to U.S. interests. The Navy will
maintain sea superiority with directed energy weapons and project
offense ashore with supersonic strike missiles and unmanned combat
aerial vehicles.
By maintaining sea superiority on, below, and above the sea, now
and in the future, naval forces can continue to also project offense
ashore--artillery from the sea, deep-land attack, and USMC operations
ashore--and simultaneously project defense ashore with theater
ballistic missile defense, all integrated through netted sensors that
assures accuracy and lethality through knowledge superiority.
All this said, the DOD is currently undergoing a series of
strategic reviews and the Quadrennial Defense Review. If confirmed, we
will need to assess how the Navy's current transformation plans fit
within the context of revised national security strategy and national
military strategy. In addition, I need to become more knowledgeable
about the overall planned architecture for USMC-Navy joint operations
for the 21st century.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Rick Santorum
joint strike fighter
7. Senator Santorum. The Joint Strike Fighter is approaching a
major decision point, with a source selection and entry into
engineering and manufacturing development (EMD).
Do you feel the program can receive the stable funding required for
it to meet its goals in light of other programs competing for limited
resources, e.g. F-22 in the case of the Air Force and F/A-18E/F in the
case of the Navy?
Ms. Livingstone. The Secretary of Defense is currently conducting a
comprehensive strategic review of the Department's near- and long-term
requirements. The results from that review will be incorporated into
the Quadrennial Defense Review to provide the appropriate
prioritization of our programs to meet those requirements. The
allocation of Department resources will be based on that
prioritization.
vieques
8. Senator Santorum. Last year, the Navy and the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico negotiated an agreement concerning the Navy's use of the
Atlantic Fleet Weapons Training Facility (AFWTF) at Vieques, Puerto
Rico. A deal negotiated by President Clinton and Governor Rossello
allowed for the Navy to resume training exercises with inert ordnance
in exchange for an infusion of $40 million in economic development
funds to the island and a promise for a referendum on a resumption of
live fire training. If the residents of the island support a resumption
of live fire testing, an additional $50 million will be provided by the
U.S. government. If the residents of the island oppose a resumption of
live fire testing, the Navy must leave by 2003.
Do you believe that the Navy needs to train at Vieques? Do you
support the Clinton-Rossello agreement that was negotiated last year?
What will be the impact on the Navy's readiness levels if it is denied
access to the AFWTF at Vieques?
Ms. Livingstone. The central issue is effective training for our
sailors and marines. The naval forces need and deserve the best
training we can make available to them. I understand that although the
Navy plans to discontinue training on Vieques in May 2003, they will,
until then, continue to use the range facilities on Vieques in
accordance with the mutually agreed upon restrictions on live fire and
usage rates. I understand that the Navy is working to find alternatives
to Vieques. While a 2-year timetable to find alternatives is certainly
challenging, I believe it is reasonable and achievable. It is my
understanding that this study on alternatives also will assess the
impact on training readiness. The Clinton-Rossello agreement has been
codified into law and is supported by the Department of the Navy.
ship depot maintenance requirements
9. Senator Santorum. Last spring, during consideration of the
Fiscal Year 2001 National Defense Authorization Act, Congress added
$142 million for the Navy to maintain its ships. Then, last October,
Congress was informed that ship maintenance availabilities were being
canceled due to lack of ship maintenance funds. In a briefing to staff
on the Senate Armed Services Committee, the Navy indicated that it was
$283 million short in ship maintenance funding for fiscal year 2001.
The October 12, 2000, terrorist attack on the U.S.S. Cole added another
$150 million to that requirement. Using the Navy's numbers, this brings
the total ship maintenance requirement shortfall for fiscal year 2001
to $433 million.
Please explain how the Navy estimates its yearly ship maintenance
requirements. How is it possible for the Navy to have miscalculated by
$283 million for its ship maintenance needs? Will you work to see that
a more accurate method of projecting ship maintenance requirements is
developed?
Ms. Livingstone. The Navy estimates its yearly ship maintenance
requirements using the best information available including historical
execution data and estimated requirements of future needs. Engineered
maintenance requirements, current ship material conditions, operational
and maintenance schedules, and anticipated labor and material costs are
components used to establish representative requirements for each
planned CNO-scheduled ship availability.
Programming estimates are made up to 2 years in advance of actual
execution of ship maintenance. Unanticipated requirements such as
increased private sector man-day rates, material and support costs,
unplanned repairs, and chronic underfunding to less than 100 percent of
requirements in ship maintenance accounts led to the shortfall in ship
maintenance funding in fiscal year 2001. Additionally, Navy must often
reallocate available funding to unplanned emergent ship repair
requirements, creating shortfalls in planned maintenance
availabilities.
Navy has committed substantial resources to improving its estimates
of ship maintenance requirements. I fully support these initiatives and
full funding of all known requirements to prevent reallocation of
funding in the year of execution. I will work closely with Navy
leadership to provide the best information available about requirements
to Congress.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Susan Collins
naval forces
10. Senator Collins. I believe that strong leadership is needed to
address the declining naval shipbuilding rate and our shrinking
industrial base. The numbers are very troubling to me. The U.S. Navy
has shrunk from a fleet of 594 ships in 1987 to approximately 315
today, while during the same period, deployments have increased more
than 300 percent. Moreover, regional CINCs have repeatedly warned that
the fleet is stretched perilously thin and needs to be increased to
about a 360-ship Navy to meet the present mission requirements.
At the current low rate of production, the cost per ship will
increase and the efficiency at our yards will go down. The fact is that
this administration and Congress will be faced with the challenge of
rebuilding and recapitalizing the Nation's naval fleet. The numbers are
just as clear as can be: at present rate of investment, our Navy is
heading toward a 200-ship fleet, which is alarmingly inadequate.
What are your thoughts on the need to increase the rate of
production for our naval forces?
Ms. Livingstone. I believe the rate of production needs to be
increased. In order to maintain the 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review
(QDR) battle force of approximately 310 ships per year, Navy must
procure approximately 9 ships per year.
ddg 51
11. Senator Collins. In your advance questions, you address the
issue of delays in the acquisition process and the impact of those
delays on stability in acquisition programs. As you may know, this
committee took the lead last year to authorize a follow-on DDG 51
shipbuilding multi-year procurement for the period fiscal year 2002
through fiscal year 2005 at the sustained rate of three ships per year.
Could you comment on the benefits of utilizing multi-year
procurement in mature programs, such as DDG 51, and the importance once
a multi-year process has been initiated to sustain it for further
requirements in order to continue to gain maximum cost efficiencies and
other industrial base benefits that result from program stability?
Ms. Livingstone. As I understand it, multi-year procurement (MYP)
in mature programs ultimately strives to achieve affordability and
workload stability. It does so by providing a stable business base and
sufficient workload to various manufacturers, and second- and third-
tier vendors needed to justify enhanced capital investment and a long-
term commitment. MYP stabilizes the manufacturer and GFE industrial
base resulting in:
Greater manufacturer and vendor efficiency and
improved overhead planning and capitalization, enhanced
viability of the manufacturers as well as other providers;
Continuous, stable construction of ships, aircraft,
and combat system components;
Stable employment levels and retention of skilled
labor;
Large lot or economic order quantity material
procurement which reduces the cost through volume discounts;
and
More efficient pre-production planning for one build
of multiple ships at each yard, rather than separate, annual
efforts.
dd 21 program
12. Senator Collins. Recently, along with eight of my colleagues, I
sent a letter to Secretary Rumsfeld highlighting the leap-ahead
technologies and support that the DD 21 program will provide the Navy,
if pursued. I don't know how familiar you are at this point with the DD
21 program, but could you share with the committee your understanding
of some of the real breakthroughs anticipated from this program:
technology wise, in terms of acquisition process, in terms of
dramatically reduced total ownership costs, in terms of littoral
warfare and joint interoperability, improved quality of service/quality
of life for our sailors, greater survivability, employment of stealth
features beyond any current applications on surface ships, introduction
of integrated power systems with electric drive and the greater
maneuverability and endurance capability with that technology and any
other aspects you would care to discuss.
Ms. Livingstone. As I understand it, DD 21 will bring many unique
capabilities to the fleet. These include a land attack warfare
capability to meet USMC/JROC requirements for gunfire support for
forces ashore; an Integrated Power System (IPS)/Electric Drive that
provides electric power to the total ship (propulsion and ship service)
with an integrated plant to reduce operating costs and improve
warfighting capability and architectural flexibility; optimized manning
through automation that will allow it to meet mission requirements with
a significantly reduced crew size of 95-150 sailors while improving the
sailor's quality of service; affordability resulting from DD 21's
streamlined acquisition approach and significant cost savings through
the use of advanced commercial technologies and non-developmental
items; a new radar suite which provides DD 21 and other applicable
surface combatants with affordable, high performance radar for ship
self-defense; survivability improvements that will lead the Navy in the
development of system and protection concepts that reduce vulnerability
to conventional weapons and peacetime accidents under reduced manning
conditions; and stealth design features which reduce acoustic,
magnetic, infrared, and radar cross section signatures resulting in
lower vulnerability to mine and cruise missile attack in the littoral
environment in which it will be operating.
p-3 aircraft
13. Senator Collins. Currently, the P-3 aircraft is an integral
part of our current war plans, carrying out our patrol and
reconnaissance missions. As you may be aware, however, the average age
of the P-3 platform is roughly 25 years old. While aircraft avionics
upgrades have kept the plane relevant and viable in today's threat
environment, the airframe itself is reaching the end of its use service
life. The CINCs have come to rely on the P-3 to perform their roles and
missions on a daily basis, and a follow-on to the program should be
pursued in the near-term.
I am aware that an ongoing service life assessment program is
studying the airframe fatigue life of the plane. I am also aware that
there is an ongoing analysis of alternatives underway to look at the
multi-mission aircraft (MMA) as a potential follow-on to the P-3
program.
What are your thoughts on the MMA program as a follow-on contender
for the Navy patrol and reconnaissance missions?
Ms. Livingstone. It is my understanding that the Navy and OSD
continue to analyze a variety of options to fill CINC requirements
currently filled by P-3 and EP-3 aircraft. The options include not only
manned aircraft (i.e., MMA) but also innovative ways to provide part of
the capability the CINCs need that do not require manned aircraft such
as unmanned aerial vehicles. The analyses suggest that a manned
aircraft is an essential element of filling the void created if P-3s
and EP-3s are not replaced soon. I also understand that the Navy and
OSD have examined both extending service life and remanufacturing the
airframes as part of the analysis of alternatives. Preliminary results
seem to indicate that new procurement may be a more economical solution
than remanufacture of legacy airframes. Both the MMA and promising
adjunct systems are to be further examined next year as a follow-on
effort to the work already completed. If confirmed, I will work with
the senior Department leadership to structure a program that meets
warfighting requirements within fiscal constraints.
______
[The nomination reference of Susan Morrisey Livingstone
follows:]
Nomination Reference
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
May 7, 2001.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Susan Morrisey Livingstone of Montana, to be Under Secretary of the
Navy, vice Robert B. Pirie, Jr., resigned.
______
[The biographical sketch of Susan Morrisey Livingstone,
which was transmitted to the committee at the time the
nomination was referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Susan M. Livingstone
For more than 30 years, Susan Livingstone has held demanding, high
profile positions, both inside and outside of the Federal Government.
She has headed five major management operations, served in three
Federal departments (culminating in Presidential appointment/Senate
confirmation as an Assistant Secretary of the Army), served as a vice
president for the Nation's largest humanitarian organization, and held
senior leadership, executive, strategic policy and planning, line
management and operational roles.
Mrs. Livingstone currently is CEO of the Association of the United
States Army (AUSA) and deputy chairman of its Council of Trustees. She
also serves as a vice president and on the Board of the Procurement
Round Table, as well as consults on policy and strategic management
issues.
From December 1993 to October 1997, Mrs. Livingstone served as Vice
President (Health and Safety Services) for the American Red Cross
(ARC), responsible for leading and operating a major new strategic
direction and restructuring of a $100 million gross revenue and profit
center that provides health and safety, education to over 15 million
people a year. From November 1996 to May 1997, Mrs. Livingstone also
served as ARC Acting Senior Vice President, Chapter Services, declining
to be considered for the permanent position. She served as a consultant
to the ARC from October 1997 to March 1998. From April 1998 to August
1998, Mrs. Livingstone served as a committee chairman and consultant to
the 1998 Defense Science Board (DSB) Summer Study on Logistics
Transformation and consulted on phase 2 of this D8B study from October-
December 2000.
Prior to joining the Red Cross, Mrs. Livingstone worked for over 20
years in the Legislative and Executive branches of the Federal
Government, most recently, as Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Installations, Logistics and Environment (November 1989 to January
1993).
As an Assistant Secretary of the Army, Mrs. Livingstone was
responsible for oversight and policy direction for programs with $20
billion in annual appropriations and employing over 125,000 people. Her
responsibilities included the Army's military construction program,
installation management program, logistics systems, chemical munitions
stockpile demilitarization program, base realignment and closure
program, energy and environmental programs, the Pentagon's support to
domestic disaster relief, and the emergency reconstruction of Kuwait's
public infrastructure following Operation Desert Storm.
From 1981 to 1989, Mrs. Livingstone served in the Veterans
Administration (now Department of Veterans Affairs) in several
Assistant Secretary level positions, including Associate Deputy
Administrator for Logistics and Associate Deputy Administrator for
Management. During her service at the VA, Mrs. Livingstone's
responsibilities included direction and management of the Nation's
largest medical facility construction program ($1 billion annually) and
the Federal Government's fourth largest procurement and supply program
($4 billion annually). Prior to her executive branch service, Mrs.
Livingstone worked for more than 9 years in the legislative branch on
the personal staff of both a Senator and two Congressmen. From 1975 to
1981, she served as an Administrative Assistant to a House member.
Mrs. Livingstone is the recipient of the Army's highest civilian
award (1993), the VA's highest civilian award (1989), two VA Unique
Contribution Awards (1987 and 1988), and the ARC Special Achievement
Award (May 1997). She received the highest performance ratings for all
years of Federal service (1981-1993). She has spoken extensively
throughout the United States and abroad, testified on numerous
occasions before Congress, and appeared in a variety of print, radio,
and television media.
Mrs. Livingstone has an A.B. from the College of William and Mary,
an M.A. in Political Science from the University of Montana, and spent
2 years in postgraduate studies at Tufts University and the Fletcher
School of Law and Diplomacy. She married Neil C. Livingstone in 1968.
______
[The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
form that details the biographical, financial and other
information of the nominee. The form executed by Susan Morrisey
Livingstone in connection with her nomination follows:]
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Room SR-228
Washington, DC 20510-6050
(202) 224-3871
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation
of your answer applies.
Part A--Biographical Information
Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.
1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
Susan Morrisey Livingstone--nee Susan Morrisey--Susan M.
Livingstone--Susan Livingstone--Mrs. Neil (N.C.) Livingstone.
2. Position to which nominated:
Under Secretary of the Navy.
3. Date of nomination:
May 7, 2001.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
5. Date and place of birth:
January 13, 1946; Carthage, Missouri (Jasper County--USA).
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Neil C. Livingstone--1968.
7. Names and ages of children:
None.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
High School--9/60--6/64--Summerville High School, Summerville,
South Carolina. High School diploma received 6/64 (salutatorian). (My
father was stationed at Charleston Air Force Base at the time.)
Undergraduate--9/64-6/68--College of William & Mary, Williamsburg,
VA 23185. AB received 6/68.
Further undergraduate language study: 7/65-9/95--Georgetown
University, Washington, DC.
Masters--9/70-8/71--University of Montana, Missoula, Montana.
Masters awarded either 12/72 or early 1973.
Ph.D. Studies--9/71-5/72--Tufts University (NDEA Fellowship and
Full Tuition Scholarship), Medford, Massachusetts 02155. No degree.
Course credits transferred for further study at the Fletcher School
(see next below).
MA, MALD, Ph.D. Studies--9/72-6/93--The Fletcher School of Law and
Diplomacy, Medford, Massachusetts 02155. No degree. Completed course
requirements for MA, MALD and Ph.D. Wrote MALD (Masters of Arts of Law
and Diplomacy) thesis. Passed Ph.D exams (4/18/78).
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
11/89-/93--Assistant Secretary of the Army (Installations,
Logistics and Environment), Department of Army, The Pentagon,
Washington, DC 20310.
1/93-12/93--Took time off (unemployed).
12/93-10/97--Vice President (Health and Safety Services), American
Red Cross National Headquarters, 8111 Gatehouse Road, Falls Church,
Virginia 22042. From 11/96-5/97, I also served as Acting Senior Vice
President for Chapter Services, American Red Cross.
10/97-3/98--Paid consultant for American Red Cross division of
Armed Forces Emergency Services, 8111 Gatehouse Road, Falls Church,
Virginia 22042.
From 3/98 to present, I have been working pro bono (volunteer)--
(see No. 11 below).
10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative,
honorary, or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State,
or local governments, other than those listed above.
a. 1966-68--(STATE)--Researcher for the Philosophy Department,
College of William & Mary.
b. 2/69-8/70--(FEDERAL) Legislative Researcher--Senator Mark O.
Hatfield.
c. (1970-73)--Interim years in graduate school.
9/70-8/71 (STATE): Graduate Researcher, Graduate Assistantship
and Full Tuition Scholarship, University of Montana.
Summer 1972 (STATE): Wrote 2 film scripts for the State of
Montana (a travelogue on Helena, MT and a state film on mental
retardation).
1971-72 (academic years): NDEA Fellowship and full tuition
scholarship, Tufts University.
d. 9/73-1/81--(FEDERAL) Legislative Assistant and Press Secretary
(9/73-8/75) and Administrative Assistant/Chief of Staff (8/75-1/81) to
Congressman Richard H. Ichord.
e. 1/81-7/81--(FEDERAL) Consultant to Congressman Wendell Bailey
(part time pending Executive Branch appointment.
f. 7/81-9/81--(FEDERAL) Deputy Director (Legislative Liaison),
Community Services Administration.
g. 11/3/81-11/81--(FEDERAL) Detailed to the Department of Health
and Human Services to write the report on the closure of the Community
Services Administration.
h. 10/4/81-10/31/81--(FEDERAL) Detailed to the Small Business
Administration to conclude close out of the Community Services
Administration and initiate the close out report.
i. 11/81-6/89--(FEDERAL)--Department of Veterans Affairs (then was
Veterans Administration). From 11/81-2/85, I was Executive Assistant to
the Associate Deputy Administrator for Logistics (VA). From 2/85-6/89,
I was Associate Deputy Administrator for Logistics (VA). From 12/85-4/
86, I was dual-hatted as Associate Deputy Administrator for Logistics
and Associate Deputy Administrator for Management.
j. 6/89-11/89--Unemployed pending clearance for Assistant Secretary
of the Army position.
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
None.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
a. Consultant and Panel Chairman, Defense Science Board Summer
Study on Logistics Transformation (Phase I: 4/98-8/98). Consultant to
follow-on study (Phase II) 10/00-12/00.
b. CEO and Deputy Chairman, Association of the United States Army
(AUSA), 2000-present.
c. Prior to above work with AUSA, I was on the AUSA Council of
Trustees (1996-2000) and the AUSA Advisory Board (1994-96). I have been
a member of the George Washington Chapter of AUSA since 1994.
d. Member (1993-present) and a vice president (1999 or 2000-
present), Procurement Round Table, Washington, DC.
e. Member, Advisory Board to the Martin Institute, University of
Idaho, Moscow, Idaho. I was invited to be a member of this Board and
accepted, but our first meeting was to be 5/2001, which I will not
attend.
f. I also have done pro bono work for American's Promise (wrote a
marketing plan 5-11-98); wrote and consulted for ``The National Moment
of Remembrance'' (2000); and served on as a volunteer representative of
our apartment building to the rest of the apartment complex as well as
served on our apartment ``architectural and engineering'' committee
(1999-present).
13. Political affiliations and activities:
a. List all offices with a political party which you have held or
any public office for which you have been a candidate.
None.
b. List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5
years.
None.
c. Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $100 or more for the past 5 years.
6/6/00--ASHCROFT 2000--$500.
10/20/00--RNC VICTORY--$500.
6/21/01--George W. Bush Campaign--$500.
14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals, and any other special
recognitions for outstanding service or achievements.
Special Achievement Award, American Red Cross (May 1997).
Army Distinguished Civilian Service Award (1993).
VA Exceptional Service Award (1989).
VA Unique Contribution Awards (1987 and 1988).
NDEA Fellowship and Full Tuition Scholarship, Tufts University
(1971-72).
Full Tuition Scholarship, University of Montana (1970-71).
Also in ``Outstanding Young Women in America'' (1979) and ``Who's
Who in America'' (since 1989).
Have received numerous other Federal awards, certificates, and
recognitions (but never kept a list).
Counselor (1964) and participant (1963), American Legion's Girls
State (South Carolina).
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
I was an occasional ``student'' reporter for the College of William
and Mary student newspaper, The Flat Hat, from approximately 1966-68. I
may have gotten several ``by-lines'', but this would need to be checked
as it has been a long time. In the summer of 1972, my husband and I co-
authored some film scripts for the State of Montana: one was on mental
retardation and one was a travelogue on Helena, Montana. In 1983, I had
the following 2 articles published: ``Terrorism: The Original Cheap
Shot--An Interview with Ambassador Diego Asencio,'' World Affairs, Vol
146:1, Summer 1983, and ``Terrorism Wrongs vs. Human Rights--An
Interview with Assistant Secretary of State Elliott Abrams,'' World
Affairs, Vol 146:1, Summer 1983. Other than these, I have written
numerous articles and/or given numerous speeches in association with my
work in the Federal Government, at the American Red Cross, and my
volunteer work with the Association of the United States Army. I also
have appeared in the TV media in association with my Federal work. I
have attribution on two Defense Science Board reports (both on
``Logistics Transformation''), one was completed in 1998 and the other
in December 2000. In addition, I wrote first drafts of two papers for
the Procurement Round Table (1998 and 2000), one on outsourcing and the
other on Federal acquisition reform in the 21st century.
16. Speeches: Provide the committee with two copies of any formal
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have
copies of and are on topics relevant to the position for which you have
been nominated.
I have given speeches at events at the Annual Meeting of the
Association of the United States Army (but not with a formal prepared
text) and these were more ``toastmaster'' in nature (1996-2000).
I gave a number of speeches while I was at the American Red Cross
(1993-1997) pertinent to my work area.
I gave a speech before ``Women in International Security'' on 10/
24/96, on ``Presidential Appointments: Preparing for the Next
Administration''. (I spoke from notes.)
I gave a speech on ``logistics transformation'' in the Pentagon
courtyard for Logistics Reform Focus Day (10/1/98), but do not have a
final version.
I also spoke at the Pentagon during Women's History Month on
``Women at DOD'' (4/97) and spoke from notes.
I was the guest speaker at the dedication of the Emilie Lawrence
Reed Women's Imaging Center at Walter Reed Army Medical Center (6/12/
97).
17. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree,
if confirmed, to respond to requests to appear and testify before any
duly constituted committee of the Senate?
Yes.
______
[The nominee responded to the questions in Parts B-F of the
committee questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set
forth in the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to
Parts B-F are contained in the committee's executive files.]
------
Signature and Date
I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate,
and complete.
Susan Morrisey Livingstone.
This 8th day of May, 2001.
[The nomination of Susan Morrisey Livingstone was reported
to the Senate by Senator Warner on July 11, 2001, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on July 19, 2001.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to Jessie Hill Roberson by
Chairman Warner prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
Chairman,
Committee on Armed Services,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Enclosed are the answers to the advance
questions the Senate Armed Services Committee asked me to complete.
Sincerely,
Jessie Hill Roberson.
cc: Ranking Minority Member.
______
Questions and Responses
duties
Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
the Assistant Secretary of Energy for Environmental Management under
current regulations and practices?
Answer. In broad terms, these responsibilities include managing and
overseeing the environmental restoration of contaminated soils and
water, managing and disposing of waste created by past DOE missions,
establishing the policy and procedures to promote safety and regulatory
compliance, and supporting the development of new technologies to
address unique cleanup and waste-management challenges.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what duties and functions do
you expect that Secretary Abraham would prescribe for you?
Answer. If confirmed, I would be responsible for the duties and
functions assigned to the position by law and regulation. I also would
be tasked by Secretary Abraham to lead a top-to-bottom assessment of
the program, in order to promote efficiency and accelerate efforts to
complete cleanup projects and site closures. The assessment offers
tremendous opportunities to review all aspects of work--ranging from
contracting strategies to program and management efficiencies that
could be gained based on recommendations of independent reviewers and
the Office of the Inspector General, actual cleanup strategies using
innovative technologies, and future land-use options.
major challenges
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges confronting
the Assistant Secretary of Energy for Environmental Management and the
Environmental Management Program?
Answer. I believe there are two major fundamental challenges facing
the Energy Department's environmental program: the pace and cost of
cleanup. I believe the program has made progress to date in managing a
number of highly complex projects and completing work in the field.
However, recent baseline estimates indicate that it may cost over $200
billion and take up to 70 years to complete cleanup at the Department's
major sites. The Secretary has indicated that his goal is to do
better--and to make every effort to cut these costs and get the job
done more quickly. I support these goals.
Question. Cleaning up the legacy of 50 years of nuclear weapons
production and research is one of the toughest and most important jobs
facing this country. These are some of the riskiest problems in the
country, as well as the most technically complex and perhaps
politically difficult. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you
have for addressing these challenges?
Answer. This review will look for opportunities to improve the
effectiveness of the EM program by identifying opportunities for
greater integration within EM, as well as opportunities to apply new
technologies and efficiencies in our operations, eliminating redundant
or unnecessary DOE requirements, and working with regulators and
communities to prioritize our activities.
funding shortfalls
Question. The majority of the Department of Energy (DOE) complex-
wide clean-up program is included in enforceable regulatory commitments
made to Congress through the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.
It now appears that the DOE did not obtain sufficient funding from OMB
and therefore sites across the Nation may not be able to fulfill their
binding commitments. How do you propose to meet the Department's
legally enforceable commitments?
Answer. The DOE is committed to meeting its legal obligations, and
I am committed to find a way to do so. I also commit to look at all
sites in the complex to find better ways to achieve the goals we share
with Congress and the States.
plant closures and costs
Question. The DOE's closure sites are dependent upon an integrated
plan whose success depends on the interaction of multiple sites for
storage and shipment of waste material. What are your views on the
integrated plan and the technical, policy, and other barriers to
accelerating closure?
Answer. The Department has formulated an extensive baseline for the
Rocky Flats closure project, which has been an important element in
evaluating the technical, policy, and logistical challenges facing the
Department in its Rocky Flats closure effort. This baseline is
currently undergoing an external validation. If confirmed, I hope to
expand upon this approach by making visible the interdependencies and
required integration of all sites to achieve cleanup. The complex was
operated in an integrated fashion when these issues occurred and must
be operated in an integrated way to achieve a stepwise, but progressive
cleanup.
Question. An integrated and cooperative system across the EM
complex must be maintained for the closure sites to remain on schedule.
For example, to stay on their closure schedule, Rocky Flats needs to
ship all of their plutonium metals and oxides to the K-Area at the
Savannah River Site for storage. What would you do to ensure compliance
and cooperation continue so there will not be a slow down in cleanup or
delays in closure, at Rocky Flats, or any of the other closure sites?
Answer. First, the DOE needs to ensure a greater level of
integration of its activities, both within the EM program and among
different departmental elements. Second, we need to demand
accountability from the DOE's field managers and contractors to
proactively identify problem areas earlier so that actions can be
taken. Finally, the DOE needs a robust process to ensure that problems
and challenges are addressed at an early stage, with less financial and
schedule impact.
Question. What can Congress do to make sure Rocky Flats and the
Ohio sites are cleaned up and closed down according to their closure
plans by 2006 or sooner?
Answer. Congress' strong support of the DOE's efforts to close
Rocky Flats and the Ohio sites have been key to keeping them on track.
Your support for the President's fiscal year 2002 budget request for
these sites will be critical.
Question. Former Secretary Richardson implemented the notion of
stable environmental funding applied to each site. Because this was
done without regard to whether a site is an enduring site or a closure
site it appears to lack an objective appreciation of complex-wide
priorities. What is your long-term vision for the DOE complex regarding
those sites with enduring missions as compared to closure sites?
Answer. Every activity within the EM program should, at its core,
be considered a closure project. Closure consists of three phases:
first, stabilization and material removal; second, remediation and
restoration; and third, stewardship. As I stated earlier, cleanup of
these sites must be integrated and progress in a stepwise manner.
Integration must include consideration of cleanup activities and their
relationship to enduring missions. Our role is to reduce or eliminate
the environmental risks and ensure long-term stewardship of the sites
by meeting Federal and State requirements.
Question. Does the decision to suspend plutonium immobilization
activities at the Savannah River Site have any impact on the DOE's
ability to ship plutonium from Rocky Flats to Savannah River, and thus
the closure schedule for Rocky Flats?
Answer. There is no issue delaying or impacting the shipment of
waste to Savannah River. Nevertheless, I recognize and appreciate the
concerns of the State of South Carolina regarding the status of this
important activity. In this case, shipment of plutonium from Rocky
Flats to Savannah River is an EM activity while plutonium
immobilization is an NNSA activity. If confirmed, I would look forward
to working with my counterparts in NNSA, as well as working closely
with the State of South Carolina, to ensure that these activities are
fully integrated.
workforce issues
Question. There has been some indication that the DOE, in its
efforts to achieve savings, may be looking at reducing requirements for
worker safety. If confirmed, would you work to ensure that the safety
of the workforce is never compromised?
Answer. Yes.
Question. As the DOE gets closer to the point in time when it will
actually close sites, how would you propose to keep the workforce
needed to close on schedule?
Answer. The DOE needs to focus on policies aimed at retention and
transition in order to keep the workforce we need. We need greater
integration among the sites to ensure that we can optimize critical
skills throughout the complex. It is my experience that retention and
transition policies are not one size fits all. Different strategies are
needed at different sites.
Question. Do you believe some type of incentive system is
appropriate, and if so, do you have any proposals for such incentives?
Answer. Yes. It is my understanding that there are incentives in
place at some sites for these purposes. If I am confirmed, I will
review these programs carefully. I will also review the existing
authority available to me to implement further incentives.
environmental management strategic review
Question. When the Secretary of Energy unveiled the budget for
fiscal year 2002, he mentioned his plan to implement a top-to-bottom
review of the Environmental Management (EM) program, also known as the
EM Mission Assessment. If confirmed, what general outcomes and
recommendations do you anticipate will come out of the Secretary's EM
Mission Assessment?
Answer. It would be premature to speculate or attempt to prejudge
the outcomes of the review. The review will look for opportunities to
improve the effectiveness of the EM program by identifying
opportunities for greater integration within EM, opportunities to apply
new technologies, efficiencies in our operations, eliminating redundant
or unnecessary DOE requirements, and working with regulators and
communities to prioritize activities.
Question. If confirmed, would you commit to provide this committee
with interim and final reports and recommendations from this review?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I commit to informing and consulting
with Congress as the review progresses.
funding
Question. Over the course of the past year, the DOE has
renegotiated or entered into new contracts at almost all EM sites.
These contracts were designed to provide incentives to the contractors
to do more work with less money, but were all predicated on a
predetermined funding profile. Is the fiscal year 2002 budget request
adequate to meet this funding profile, or will the DOE be forced to
modify the terms and conditions of these contracts?
Answer. At this time, I do not know if the fiscal year 2002 budget
request will require modifying any DOE contracts. If confirmed, I will
review these contracts and take the necessary steps to ensure that the
impacts are minimized. The budget process for fiscal year 2002 is still
ongoing, so it would be premature for me to speculate on the final
outcome. I will keep this committee informed of any actions I consider
necessary as a result of the final 2002 budget.
Question. Must you renegotiate the various agreements and consent
orders with the states and the EPA if the funding requested by the DOE
for fiscal year is the amount authorized and appropriated for fiscal
year 2002?
Answer. The DOE is committed to meeting its legal obligations, and
it is my commitment to find a way to do so. I also am committed to
looking at all sites in the complex to find better ways to achieve the
goals we share with Congress and the States. It is my hope that we can
find more effective and more cost-effective ways to satisfy our cleanup
obligations and to make concrete progress towards cleanup at all sites.
Question. In the past, the Department of Justice (DOJ) took the
position that all sums available to the Department were available to
the Department's cleanup effort before the Department could claim that
it had no funds to comply with enforceable orders and agreements. Do
you believe that is still the view of the DOJ?
Answer. I will work closely with the Department's General Counsel
to ensure a coordinated strategy for complying with regulatory
agreements.
Question. Do you have any plans to stop taking surplus buildings
and facilities from other components of the DOE?
Answer. The EM's mission makes it the logical program to manage
surplus DOE facilities. However, to maintain focus on cleanup and
closure work, a more structured and disciplined transition process may
be necessary to provide for more timely characterization, cleanup, and
funding plans. Any specific change in policy on this issue would have
to come from Secretary Abraham.
Question. What requirements would you place on the other DOE
programs before you take additional facilities and buildings?
Answer. Before contaminated excess facilities are transferred to
the Environmental Management program, I would want to ensure that the
current requirements for such transfers are met. If confirmed, I would
like to examine this issue more fully to determine whether we are
implementing the most effective program and that sufficient funding is
available to ensure that we are not merely shifting a problem from one
part of the Department to another.
management issues
Question. There are a variety of complex issues facing the
Environmental Management program, but one of the issues which has
received criticism over the years is management. What are your views on
the roles and responsibilities of Environmental Management field
managers relative to those of Environmental Management headquarters
managers? Do you favor more delegation of authority to field managers
or less? What is your view of EM's organizational structure? Is there a
smooth and consistent chain of command and reporting structure from the
field staff to headquarters staff, from the contractors to DOE
officials, and from the Office of Environmental Management to the
Secretary of Energy and other DOE officials? Do the field offices have
enough autonomy and flexibility to work with the contractors at the
sites to get the cleanup finished in a safe and efficient manner?
Should the field offices have more autonomy than they currently have?
Answer. As a former field office manager, I am very familiar with
the dynamics between the field offices and DOE headquarters. Both
elements are important. However, it is important to balance autonomy
with integration and authority with responsibility. The cleanup of the
sites in the EM program will achieve mission success only if it is
managed and carried out in an integrated fashion. The key to
maintaining this healthy balance is in clearly defining the authorities
and responsibilities of both elements, and avoiding overlapping work
and a confusing command structure. I do believe strongly in a corporate
approach to the EM program, and I intend to manage this program
accordingly, if confirmed. The effectiveness of the current EM
organization is something I can only determine and address after a
period of daily observation.
Question. The Environmental Management program has used a variety
of contracting methods, including Management and Operating (M&O)
contracts, performance-based or fixed-priced contracts, and
privatization contracts. What is your view of these, or other,
contracting methods, and what principles should the DOE follow when
entering into EM contracts in the future?
Answer. Different contracting models have different applications,
and what works in one instance may fail in another. Success in EM is
not dependent on a specific contract structure, but on competent DOE
oversight and management of technically competent and capable
contractors. Integral principles include a clearly defined and well-
understood scope of work, a defined duration for the accomplishment of
that scope, a clear understanding of the expected result, sufficient
understanding of the nature and depth of the problem, and technical
sophistication on the part of the DOE officials charged with contract
oversight.
closure projects
Question. You were in charge of the Rocky Flats Field Office, when
enormous progress was made towards its closure by 2006. What are your
plans for implementing a closure strategy for the entire Environmental
Management complex?
Answer. I believe that the strategies that were successful at Rocky
Flats are instructive for other sites, but are not necessarily
solutions that will apply everywhere. However, I also believe that
there are a number of factors that should be considered as the
Department develops its cleanup strategies. First, cleanup priorities
should be risk-based, ensuring that the highest risks receive priority
attention. Second, it is important to establish and reach agreement on
the end goals. These goals will focus activities and help to prevent
disagreements on a small number of issues from hampering progress on
the majority of issues. Third, contracts and contractors that are
dedicated and properly incentivized and focused on achieving results
must be in place at every site. Fourth, the Department's regulators and
stakeholders must be fully involved in the Department's cleanup
decision-making processes. Compliance is important but needs to be
results-oriented, flexible, and recognize the constraints on the
Federal budget. Short-term, enforceable milestones with long term
policy goals for site cleanup are a way to achieve this. Fifth,
building trust is critical to successful relationships. The Department
needs, through its actions and by keeping its commitments, to earn the
trust of its regulators, stakeholders, and Congress. At first, trust
will have to be earned slowly. But over time, this will lead to
productive and cooperative relationships with the regulators and
stakeholders.
Question. At Rocky Flats, the contractor implemented a plan which
incorporated environmental, safety, and health (ES&H) responsibilities
and accountability directly to the line workers themselves. This
removed a separate group of DOE staff who had previously provided ES&H
oversight at Rocky Flats and who currently provide such oversight at
other EM sites. Please describe the benefits or detriments of assigning
ES&H responsibilities directly to the cleanup workers.
Answer. A strong safety culture must be infused through every layer
of DOE and contractor employees, and direct ES&H responsibilities help
create this culture. The workers themselves are the first line of
defense for safety, balanced by independent oversight and enforcement.
A key challenge for managing each site and the overall program is
striking the appropriate balance between empowering the frontline and
maintaining sufficient independent oversight.
regulatory framework
Question. Numerous laws, DOE rules, DOE orders, and DOE policy
guidance have created an enormous body of law and policy with which the
EM sites must comply. Many of these laws and policies have become
outdated, obsolete, or inconsistent due to technical errors. Do you
believe these existing laws and policies are harmful to the goals of
the closure projects and the broader EM program? What plan could be put
in place by the DOE to catalogue outdated or inconsistent laws and
policies? Is this issue being addressed in the top-to-bottom review of
the EM program?
Answer. Technology developments, research advancements, work
control improvements, and changing site missions are a few of the
factors constantly modifying the activities at DOE sites. It is
essential for the Department and its contractors to review the
applicability and relevance of both formal and informal requirements to
keep pace with these changes. This important matter will be addressed
in the top-to-bottom review.
environmental management technology development
Question. Please give us your views on the importance of a
vigorous, national technology development effort within EM?
Answer. Sound science and innovative technology are critical to
solving the complex technical problems the Department faces in cleaning
up the DOE complex. The Department needs to bring the best scientific
and technological information and expertise to bear to solve these
problems. This science and technology must be focused on the specific
obstacles to achieving progress. The Department will need technological
breakthroughs in order to get the job done, to improve system
productivity, and to reduce the costs of many of the projects. The
Department must use the considerable technological talent and resources
available to better link research with ``on-the-ground'' cleanup needs.
Question. Do you believe that EM can effectively meet its proposed
cleanup and closure goals without a viable EM technology development
program?
Answer. No. Some of the challenges facing EM do not currently have
solutions. New technologies must be developed to address these
challenges in a responsible manner.
Question. Please give us your views on the effectiveness of the EM
Technology Development program and its current management?
Specifically, do you believe that this program has been effective in
transferring cutting-edge research to DOE cleanup and waste management
sites?
Answer. I believe that the EM Technology Development Program has
experienced legitimate criticism. My impression is that the program is
now beginning to realize the benefits of the investment. It is
premature for me to offer an overall assessment of this program at this
time. If confirmed, I will carefully review this program and identify
ways to make it more effective in helping EM achieve its mission more
effectively.
low-level waste disposal
Question. What are your views on the use of commercial disposal
options for DOE-origin low-level radioactive waste?
Answer. There is great potential in using commercial facilities for
low-level waste disposal, when it is cost-effective for the Department
and is protective of public health and the environment. At Rocky Flats,
the DOE made extensive use of such facilities during my tenure as Field
Office Manager.
Question. Do you support increased competition for low-level waste
disposal contracts?
Answer. I support any policies that will lead to the lowest cost
for the taxpayer and that will provide for the DOE greater stability
and diversity of disposal options. In this context, I believe that
increased competition can play an important role.
Question. Do believe the current policy encourages the DOE facility
contractors to seek the lowest cost option, even if that option is
utilization of a commercial disposal facility?
Answer. It is my understanding that current policies do enable the
DOE to choose the lowest cost option. If confirmed, I will review these
policies and review how they are implemented to ensure that the DOE's
overall waste management program is using the best mix of government
and commercial facilities.
waste disposal
Question. Are there any remaining issues with maintaining shipments
of transuranic (TRU) waste or mixed-TRU waste to the Waste Isolation
Pilot Plant (WIPP) which will delay or prevent completion of the
closure sites by 2006?
Answer. Based on my understanding of the WIPP program, I believe
that the Energy Department can promote its efforts to accelerate waste
disposal and close sites by streamlining the work that is being
conducted under WIPP permits and regulatory requirements. I understand
that the Energy Department and the WIPP program managers are also
working with both the State of New Mexico and the Environmental
Protection Agency to review the proposed permit as well as requirement
modifications that could be made without compromising safety in order
to promote effciency--and reflect the experience and knowledge gained
from WIPP operations conducted to date. If confirmed, I will examine
whether there are any additional steps the Department can take to
support accelerated closure at the Department's sites.
compliance
Question. Are there compliance issues at any of the EM or closure
sites which will prevent the DOE from maintaining a focus on cleanup
and closure?
Answer. At this time, I am unaware of any particular compliance
issue at any specific site that may be hindering a focus on cleanup. If
confirmed, I will work closely with regulators, communities, and
Congress to ensure that there is no conflict between compliance and
progress towards closure.
Question. The DOE's poor record on compliance has resulted in some
states going or planning to go to court to enforce cleanup agreements.
Subsequent orders have compelled the DOE to proceed with cleanup, but
this process has resulted in the cleanup occurring in a costly and
inefficient manner. The 3100 TRU waste issue at the Idaho National
Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) is an example where
the State of Idaho felt compelled to assert its right to compel the DOE
to proceed with shipments of TRU waste out of Idaho. While this legal
process was effective in getting the DOE to act, it did so with a much
larger cost than it should have. What would you do to make sure the DOE
remains on time and within compliance, to avoid these costly and
potentially inefficient court-ordered schedules?
Answer. I share your concern that litigation and court-ordered
schedules are not productive ways to do business. My experience as a
field office manager has taught me the importance of working closely
with the regulators and citizens at the site. Consulting with them and
keeping them informed about policies, issues, and decisions will not
only help the Department make better decisions that are more likely to
hold up over time, it increases the chances that they will afford the
Department needed flexibility when the time comes to make the tough
decisions. A second key element is to do a better job of planning up
front--to clearly define from the outset what is to be accomplished,
when, how, and at what cost. This is a critical element for building
credibility to support needed flexibility.
price-anderson act
Question. The Department of Energy's Price-Anderson Act authority
to provide indemnity protection for nuclear hazards expires on August
1, 2002, unless again renewed by Congress. In 1999, the Department
submitted a report to Congress indicating the Act should be extended
again in substantially its present form. Does the Department continue
to support reauthorization of this important Act?
Answer. Yes. I understand that the Act is important to the
Department's operations.
Question. Is Price-Anderson Act reauthorization a priority of the
Department's legislative agenda for 2001?
Answer. Yes. I believe it is important for the Department's nuclear
operations.
Question. The current indemnification authority under Price-
Anderson expires in 2002. Should this authority be extended this year
or can it wait until next year? What are the consequences of waiting
until next year?
Answer. I believe that reauthorizing this legislation needs to be
assigned a high priority by Congress to prevent it from expiring and
potentially disrupting DOE nuclear program activities.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information. Do you agree, if
confirmed for this high position, to appear before this committee and
other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, when asked, to give your personal views,
even if those views differ from the administration in power?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as the Assistant Secretary of
Energy for Environmental Management?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings and
other communications of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Jean Carnahan
1. Senator Carnahan. Could you explain what you believe is an
appropriate method for the Department to evaluate alternative routes
for cross-country nuclear waste shipments?
Ms. Roberson. I believe it is critical that the Department complies
with regulations and guidance provided by the Department of
Transportation and Nuclear Regulatory Commission for routing of
shipments of spent nuclear fuel. Those regulations establish interstate
highways as ``preferred routes'' for spent fuel shipments, and provide
criteria for evaluating and selecting potential routes, including
limiting the time in transit.
It is my understanding that the Department not only adheres to such
regulations, but, in addition, participates in a working group of State
and Tribal Nation representatives to identify and evaluate potential
shipping routes.
2. Senator Carnahan. Would you commit to conducting a thorough,
scientific analysis that compares the safety of 1-70 with other
alternative routes?
Ms. Roberson. It is my understanding that the Department of
Transportation is the Federal agency responsible for conducting safety
analyses of interstate highways. If confirmed, I am committed to
working with you to address the process used by the Department of
Energy to evaluate potential shipping routes consistent with Federal
regulations, and I also will ensure the involvement of other
appropriate agencies to address interstate highway safety issues.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Strom Thurmond
3. Senator Thurmond. The Nation is spending over $6 billion per
year on DOE environmental cleanups. I am concerned that DOE spending
plans are determined by the most vocal outside groups, or by compliance
agreements made years ago, and not by the urgency of the work.
Under the current criteria, is the Department focused on cleaning
up the worst problems and are we getting the best return for our
investment?
Ms. Roberson. I share your concern that the Department's cleanup
activities need to be properly aligned to focus on cleaning up the
worst problems and getting the best return for our investment. As you
are aware, Secretary Abraham has called for a complete top-to-bottom
review of the Environmental Management (EM) program. If confirmed, one
of the first tasks I will undertake is this evaluation of the EM
program with the aim of ensuring the EM programs are aligned to safely
cleanup our worst problems in the most efficient manner. As a part of
this review, we will examine our compliance agreements to ensure that
they are properly aligned to address our worst problems and work with
the necessary parties to ensure that they reflect current cleanup
priorities.
4. Senator Thurmond. The President's budget reduces environmental
remediation activities by approximately 60 percent. A reduction of this
magnitude could result in SRS violating cleanup program commitments to
the State of South Carolina and the Environmental Protection Agency.
Many of the reductions are associated with cleanup of the SRS
groundwater.
What steps do you plan to take in regard to the environmental
remediation account at SRS in light of the decreased funding for
Environmental Management?
Ms. Roberson. The budget process for fiscal year 2002 is still in
progress. The President has proposed a budget; Congress is now
considering that budget. It is inappropriate for me at this time to
comment on the budget status or prognosis of individual projects at
specific sites. If I am confirmed, I will work closely with Congress to
align the budget with cleanup priorities and obligations. In the long
run, it is incumbent on the EM program to develop ways to achieve
progress faster at all of our sites. This will be one of my principle
commitments, if confirmed.
5. Senator Thurmond. In response to the recent tank 6 leaks in the
SRS high level waste tank farm, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety
Board issued a highly critical report. Although I agreed with many of
the recommendations in the report, I am concerned with the
recommendation to empty tank 6 by pumping the waste into other tanks. I
believe the right course of action is to get the waste out of the
ground and make glass through the vitrification process as fast as
possible.
Are you committed to vitrification? What is the best solution to
resolve the high level waste tank farm problems?
Ms. Roberson. I am committed to vitrification of high level wastes
at the Defense Waste Processing Facility. The high-level waste tank
farm is but one part of the system through which wastes are processed.
The current problems affecting the high-level wastes tank farm must be
addressed in the full context of the waste processing system without
compromising safety margin in the short term. If confirmed, I will work
to ensure that we resolve the tank farm problems in the most efficient
manner.
6. Senator Thurmond. I recognize that the cleanup of Rocky Flats is
extremely important for the Department and the Environmental Management
program. The removal of plutonium from Rocky Flats to permit further
cleanup is largely dependent on the support of the Savannah River Site,
which is expected to receive that plutonium for interim storage pending
ultimate disposition. Without that support, Rocky Flats closure cannot
be successful. I have stated on a number of occasions that SRS agreed
to accept waste and materials from other sites based on assurances that
a ``path out'' of South Carolina will exist. The EM budget and many of
the new missions scheduled for SRS represent that ``path out.'' If the
``path out'' becomes cloudy, the ``path in'' may become a ``road
closed.''
Will you serve as an advocate for proper funding for EM at SRS?
Ms. Roberson. I am keenly aware of the interdependency between the
cleanup of Rocky Flats and the missions at SRS. In fact, there are
interdependencies like this throughout the complex. None of the EM
sites can be successful without the cooperation and active support of
many sites. One of my chief priorities, if confirmed, will be to manage
the EM complex as a unified complex with a corporate philosophy.
Success will not occur anywhere if they are operated as islands unto
themselves. I can commit that I will be a visible advocate for the
overall EM mission and cleanup priorities. At the same time, I
recognize that EM has many crucial activities at SRS that will require
significant management support. If confirmed, I will work closely with
the State of South Carolina and Congress to ensure that EM activities
are adequately supported and that the DOE meets its obligations at SRS.
7. Senator Thurmond. It has come to my attention that the position
of assistant manager for high level waste at the Savannah River Site
has been vacant for the past 8 years. Please review this situation and
provide me the following information: what are the plans for filling
this position and is this an appointed or civil service position?
Ms. Roberson. In general, it is not appropriate for me to comment
on specific departmental personnel matters. It is my understanding that
this position is a civil service position. It is my understanding that
at this time there is a permanent assistant manager for high-level
waste. I can assure you that I am committed to filling vacancies and
retaining the technical and managerial expertise needed to manage this
program.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Rick Santorum
8. Senator Santorum. The steel and metals industry, along with
others, have been very concerned about the release of scrap steel and
metal from radioactive areas of DOE facilities. A policy allowing
release of scrap metal from radioactive areas into the general stream
of recycled scrap metal in this country essentially shifts the costs--
both financial and health costs--of removing and dealing with
radioactive contamination from the DOE to the steel mills and metal
recyclers which have to make certain that no contaminated metal gets
into new products. In addition, a policy allowing release by the
government raises fears of the consuming public about the safety of
steel and metal products, even if those industries are taking
precautions to make sure the products in fact are safe. I think we all
know of the condition of the U.S. steel industry. It certainly does not
need the Federal Government working against it by allowing the release
of scrap metal and steel.
In light of concerns about the effect of releasing scrap steel and
metal from DOE facilities, last year the Department of Energy
instituted a moratorium on release of scrap steel and other metals from
radioactive areas in DOE facilities.
First of all, have you had an opportunity to review this issue and
will you support a continuation of the moratorium on release of scrap
steel and metal from radioactive areas?
Second, can you assure us that a waiver will not he used to
undermine the moratorium?
Third, I would like your assurance that prior to making any changes
in policy regarding release of scrap steel and metal from DOE
facilities, that the Department will inform members of Congress who are
concerned about this issue, to make sure that our concerns are
addressed before any changes are made to the current moratorium on
release?
Ms. Roberson. I have not yet been briefed on this issue, but share
your interest in ensuring the safe disposition of metal products.
However, I am not able at this time to comment on this issue in depth
nor to comment on the current moratorium, or on the possibility of
granting individual waivers. If confirmed, I will work closely with
interested members of Congress and the public prior to making any
policy changes on release or recycling of scrap metal. Further, I can
commit that the DOE will not take any steps that will endanger public
health and the environment.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Susan Collins
9. Senator Collins. In your advance questions, you stated that
``there are two major fundamental challenges facing the Energy
Department's environmental programs; the pace and cost of cleanup.''
While I understand that the Department will be undergoing a top-to-
bottom review, known as the Environmental Management Strategies Review,
or EM Mission Assessment, how do you plan in the immediate future to
confront these challenges?
Ms. Roberson. I do not believe there are any quick fixes to these
challenges. It is my goal, if confirmed, to make changes that have
lasting and permanent impact on this program. Changes like that are not
made lightly or casually. If confirmed, I commit to consult with
Congress on any steps and initiatives necessary in the short-, medium-,
and long-range to help us improve the pace, cost, and performance of
the EM program.
______
[The nomination reference of Jessie Hill Roberson follows:]
Nomination Reference
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
April 30, 2001.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Jessie Hill Roberson of Alabama, to be Assistant Secretary of
Energy (Environmental Management), vice Carolyn L. Huntoon, resigned.
______
[The biographical sketch of Jessie Hill Roberson, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Jessie Hill Roberson
In September 1999, President Bill Clinton nominated Ms. Jessie Hill
Roberson, of Evergreen, Alabama, to the Defense Nuclear Facilities
Safety Board. After confirmation by the United States Senate, Ms.
Roberson began her duties as a Board Member on January 18, 2000.
She has more than 17 years of experience in the nuclear field, with
in-depth experience in low level waste management, environmental
restoration, reactor operations, and project management.
Prior to her appointment to the Board, Ms. Roberson served with the
Department of Energy (DOE) in a variety of responsible and challenging
positions. In 1996, she became the Manager of the DOE's Rocky Flats
Field Office at the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site in
Colorado, with the responsibility for integration and performance of
all environmental cleanup activities on the Site. She served with
distinction in this position until December 1999. In her 10 years with
the Department of Energy, she has held numerous technical and
managerial positions at the DOE's Rocky Flats Environmental Technology
Site and the Savannah River Site in Aiken, South Carolina, including
environmental cleanup, waste management, safeguards and security, as
well as nuclear reactors and weapons.
Before joining the Department of Energy, she worked with Georgia
Power Company as a system engineering specialist from 1987 to 1989. At
Georgia Power, Ms. Roberson focused on maintenance, testing, upgrades,
and performance reliability of electrical and mechanical plant systems
and equipment. She has extensive experience in nuclear reactor
operations and successfully completed the testing requirements for
reactor operations with E.I. DuPont in 1982. Later with DuPont she
trained nuclear reactor operators and supervisors in both nuclear and
field operations. Before leaving DuPont in 1987, Ms. Roberson worked as
a nuclear reactor operations manager at several sites.
From 1977 to 1980, Ms. Roberson completed work assignments as a
student engineer for Westinghouse at the Clinch River Breeder Reactor
in Oak Ridge, Tennessee and the Nuclear Center in Monroeville,
Pennsylvania. Ms. Roberson received a B.S. in Nuclear Engineering from
the University of Tennessee in Knoxville, Tennessee.
______
[The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
form that details the biographical, financial and other
information of the nominee. The form executed by Jessie Hill
Roberson in connection with her nomination follows:]
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Room SR-228
Washington, DC 20510-6050
(202) 224-3871
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation
of your answer applies.
Part A--Biographical Information
Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.
1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
Jessie Hill Roberson.
Jessie Mae Roberson.
Jessie Mae Hill.
2. Position to which nominated:
Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management, Department of
Energy.
3. Date of nomination:
April 30, 2001.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
5. Date and place of birth:
October 8, 1958; Escambia County, Alabama.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Divorced.
7. Names and ages of children:
Jessica Whitney Roberson--Age 12.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received and date degree granted.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dates Dates of
Institution attended Degrees received degrees
------------------------------------------------------------------------
University of Tennessee, 8/77-6/81 Bachelor of 6/81
Knoxville. Science.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dates of
Title/job description Employer Work location employment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sr. Reactor Manager.................... E.I. DuPont de Nemours.... Aiken, SC................. 1981-1987
Lead Systems Engineer.................. Georgia Power Company..... Baxley, GA................ 1987-1989
Dep. Asst. Manager for Environmental U.S. Department of Energy. Aiken, SC................. 1989-1994
Restoration and Waste Mgt.
Site Manager........................... U.S. Department of Energy. Golden, CO................ 1994-1/2000
Member................................. Defense Nuclear Facilities Washington, DC............ 1/2000-Present
Safety Board.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative,
honorary or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State,
or local governments, other than those listed above.
None.
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational or other institution.
None.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
None.
13. Political affiliations and activities:
(a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or
any public office for which you have been a candidate.
None.
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5
years.
None.
(c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $100 or more for the past 5 years.
I have made approximately four contributions of $100 or less to the
Colorado Democratic Party and the National Democratic Party in the last
5 years.
14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals, and any other special
recognitions for outstanding service or achievements.
University of Tennessee Minority Engineering Scholarship.
Honorary member of Rocky Flats African American Alliance.
Small Business Administration (8A) Business Development Support
Award--1999.
Engineering New Record Newsmaker Award--1997.
National Baptist Convention CHRISTAR Award--1997.
American Association of University Women Trailblazer Award--1997.
Girl Scouts Women of Distinction Award--1997.
Denver Business Journal's Up and Comers Award--1997.
Urban Spectrum Certificate of Honor--1997.
U.S. Black/Hispanic Engineers Merit Award--1996.
Blacks in Government Excellence in Leadership Award--1996.
Environmental Protection Agency Certificate of Appreciation--1996.
NAACP Scientific Achievement Award--1996.
Award for Achievement in Equal Employment Opportunity--1996.
Notable Women in Energy--1996.
Black Engineer of the Year-Professional/Government--1995.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
``Environmental Restoration Strategy for DOE''--Rocky Flats
Environmental Technology Site, Published in 1995, co-authored with
Robert Card.
16. Speeches: Provide the committee with two copies of any formal
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have
copies of and are on topics relevant to the position for which you have
been nominated.
In the past 10 years, I have given a wide variety of speeches
related to nuclear cleanup of facilities and cleanup plans and
progress. I have also frequently given speeches or participated in
panel discussion for women, minorities, high school students, and
college students related to continuing education, academic subject
matters, engineering careers, managing changing culture and missions in
the government, and leadership and professional development. I do not
keep copies of my speeches and in most cases I do not have a prepared
statement.
17. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree,
if confirmed, to respond to requests to appear and testify before any
duly constituted committee of the Senate?
Yes.
______
[The nominee responded to the questions in Parts B-F of the
committee questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set
forth in the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to
Parts B-F are contained in the committee's executive files.]
------
Signature and Date
I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate,
and complete.
Jessie Roberson.
This 21st day of May, 2001.
[The nomination of Jessie Hill Roberson was reported to the
Senate by Senator Warner on July 11, 2001, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on July 12, 2001.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to Thomas P. Christie by
Chairman Warner prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
June 6, 2001.
Chairman,
Committee on Armed Services,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Enclosed are the answers to the advance
questions the Senate Armed Services Committee asked me to complete.
Yours truly,
Thomas P. Christie.
cc: Ranking Minority Member.
______
Questions and Responses
defense reforms
Question. More than a decade has passed since the enactment of the
Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and
the Special Operations reforms.
Do you support full implementation of these defense reforms?
Answer. Yes, I support the implementation of these reforms. The
focus on ``jointness'' outlined in the Defense Reorganization Act of
1986 has significantly enhanced the readiness and warfighting
capabilities of the U.S. armed forces.
Question. What is your view of the extent to which these defense
reforms have been implemented?
Answer. These reforms have fundamentally changed the way the
Department of Defense works by strengthening civilian control of the
DOD, improving military advice given to the President and Secretary of
Defense, and advancing the ability of the Department to carry out its
fundamental mission--protecting America's security and furthering its
vital interests.
Question. What do you consider to be the most important aspects of
these defense reforms?
Answer. From my point of view, the most important aspects are the
clear responsibilities and authorities given the CINCs for mission
accomplishment, and the increased attention to formulation of strategy
and contingency planning.
Question. The goals of Congress in enacting these defense reforms,
as reflected in section 3 of the Goldwater-Nichols Department of
Defense Reorganization Act, can be summarized as strengthening civilian
control; improving military advice; placing clear responsibility on the
combatant commanders for the accomplishment of their missions; ensuring
the authority of the combatant commanders is commensurate with their
responsibility; increasing attention to the formulation of strategy and
to contingency planning; providing for more efficient use of defense
resources; and enhancing the effectiveness of military operations and
improving the management and administration of the Department of
Defense.
Do you agree with these goals?
Answer. Yes, I support the goals of Congress in enacting the
reforms of the Goldwater-Nichols legislation.
Question. Recently, there have been articles which indicate an
interest within the Department of Defense in modifying Goldwater-
Nichols in light of the changing environment and possible revisions to
the national strategy.
Do you anticipate that legislative proposals to amend Goldwater-
Nichols may be appropriate? If so, what areas do you believe it might
be appropriate to address in these proposals?
Answer. I am unaware of any proposals to modify Goldwater-Nichols.
The Department should consult closely with Congress, especially this
committee, on any changes that might be appropriate.
duties
Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation?
Answer. I understand that, if confirmed, my duties as Director,
Operational Test and Evaluation will be to serve as the principal
advisor to the Secretary of Defense and Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics as to the conduct of test and
evaluation within the Department and in formulating and implementing
test and evaluation policy. Equally so, I am required to provide to
Congress an annual report to Congress summarizing operational test and
evaluation activities, to include comments and recommendations on test
and evaluation resources and facilities, levels of funding required for
operational test and evaluation activities, beyond low rate initial
production reports, and specific requests from Congress for information
relating to operational test and evaluation in the Department of
Defense. If confirmed, my duties will include responsibility for
prescribing policies and procedures for the conduct of operational test
and evaluation, providing guidance to and consultation with the
Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, and for monitoring and
reviewing all operational and live fire test and evaluation within the
Department. I will also be responsible for coordinating joint
operational testing, review of and recommendations to the Secretary of
Defense on all budgetary and financial matters relating to operational
and live fire test and evaluation, including test facilities.
I believe my role is to provide information on a continuous basis
to the decision maker, assist in the learning needed in the development
of new systems, and to provide an objective evaluation for the user of
the system's capabilities and limitations early, or as it evolves or is
upgraded. I also believe operational testers should assist in the
development of tactics, techniques, and procedures for the system's
employment and should provide evaluations on whether the systems are
effective and suitable before full rate production or deployment.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what duties and functions do
you expect that Secretary Rumsfeld would prescribe for you?
Answer. I would expect Secretary Rumsfeld to look to the Director,
Operational Test and Evaluation to fulfill all the duties assigned to
that office by statute and regulation--in particular, advice and
proposed policies on all test and evaluation activities, and funding/
management of operational test facilities, test ranges, and other
related issues.
major challenges and problems
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will
confront the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation?
Answer. I believe that testing needs to be conducted more
adequately, and requires better funding, both in phasing and magnitude.
Funding for operational and live fire testing, test ranges, test
facilities, and the test infrastructure--as a whole needs to be
improved. I also feel that the state of the testing infrastructure, to
include the physical plant, range real estate, instrumentation, data
reduction and analysis, targets, and personnel, is in need of near-term
investment and high-level emphasis. I am also concerned with the use of
waivers to defer testing of key performance parameters and the lack of
resources available to the service operational test agencies for
testing smaller acquisition programs.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. To meet the above challenges, if confirmed, I plan to
reinforce the initiatives of early involvement of operational testers
during system development. I would also establish a system to track the
problems identified by that early involvement to highlight them until
they are resolved. If confirmed, I will engage the budget process and
will institute effective long-range planning to link approval of TEMPs
to the commitment of infrastructure investment. I will also give
serious consideration to recent Defense Science Board recommendations
on infrastructure management. On the issue of waivers, I would continue
the DOT&E practice of ignoring waivers or deferrals in my assessment
unless they reflect requirements changes approved by the JROC.
adequate operational testing
Question. Section 2399 of Title 10 requires a report from the
Director of Operational Test and Evaluation on whether the operational
test and evaluation of each major defense acquisition program has been
adequate and whether the results of such testing ``confirm that the
items or components actually tested are effective and suitable for
combat.''
Can you assure the committee that, if confirmed, you will meet this
statutory requirement and that you will require adequate operational
test and evaluation of all major defense acquisition programs?
Answer. If confirmed, I promise to fulfill to the best of my
ability my responsibilities with regards to Section 2399 of Title 10. I
will ensure that adequate testing is conducted by the Department and
will vigorously assess the effectiveness and suitability of defense
acquisition programs under DOT&E oversight.
independence and objectivity
Question. Congress relies on the Director of Operational Test and
Evaluation to be an independent and objective evaluator of the
performance of major systems.
Can you assure the committee that, if confirmed, you will be
independent and objective in your evaluations, and that you will
provide your candid assessment of major defense acquisition programs to
Congress, regardless of the consequences?
Answer. Yes. I strongly believe independence to be crucial to
objective testing and reporting. If confirmed, I intend to be
independent and to provide candid assessments of all oversight programs
to Congress.
Question. Section 2399 of Title 10 establishes certain requirements
regarding the impartiality of contractor testing personnel and
contracted advisory and assistance services utilized with regard to the
test and evaluation of a system.
What is your view of these requirements?
Answer. It is my view that Section 2399 of Title 10 prohibits
persons employed by the contractor for the system being tested from
being involved in the conduct of the operational test and evaluation
and restricts the DOT&E from contracting any person for advisory and
assistance services with regard to the operational test and evaluation
of a system if that person participated in the development, production,
or testing of such system. These sections appear to me to strike a good
balance in maintaining objectivity and independence without impacting
the ability to conduct OT&E.
Question. Will you comply with them?
Answer. Yes.
modeling and simulation
Question. Advances in modeling and simulation have provided an
opportunity to streamline the testing process, saving time and expense.
What do you believe to be the proper balance between modeling and
simulation and actual testing of the developed product?
Answer. I believe modeling and simulation can be effective in
supporting test and evaluation in the test design and planning process.
Another potentially high payoff area is in the logistics support area.
I believe it is extremely difficult to measure the cost and time
benefit associated with the use of modeling and simulation in the test
and evaluation process and that most attempts so far have lacked the
up-front funding needed for success. Modeling and simulation in not a
substitute for testing, but there are situations where field-testing
alone cannot represent the realistic situation. This is the case in
some missile defense and chemical-biological defense scenarios. In
those cases, modeling and simulation can help in the evaluation of what
has been learned from field-testing.
Question. How is the amount of this actual testing determined to
ensure reliability and maintainability thresholds are met with
sufficient statistical confidence?
Answer. I am not aware of any standard or DOD guidance in this
area. When the National Academy of Sciences looked at OT&E in 1998,
they found that ``Our assessment is that the current level of test
planning and experimental design for operational testing in the
Department of Defense is neither representative of best industrial
practices, nor takes full advantage of the relevant experimental design
literature.'' If confirmed, I plan to review this situation.
developmental testing
Question. During the past several years, a number of changes have
been made to the historical divisions between developmental and
operational testing activities. Largely, these have involved providing
for earlier involvement of the operational testing community in
developmental testing in order to increase the confidence that weapons
systems will be ready for operational testing and reduce the need to
repeat testing during the operational evaluation phase that has already
been demonstrated satisfactorily during developmental testing.
Do you believe that the current relationship between developmental
and operational testing activities is appropriate?
Answer. I believe the relationship between developmental test
activities and operational test activities within the Department is
appropriate. Developmental testing is intended to verify the status of
engineering development, verify that design risks have been minimized,
verify technical performance, and certify readiness for operational
test. Operational test and evaluation is to determine if a system is
operationally effective and operationally suitable for use by intended
users before production or deployment.
There is growing evidence that there is a need to conduct more
thorough developmental testing to preclude weapon systems from entering
operational testing before the systems are ready.
Question. Do you believe that the Department should make additional
changes in this arena?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to promote the value
of developmental testing and, if appropriate, to strengthen the
readiness for operational test and evaluation certification process. I
also intend to review the current practices of the services to
``waive'' or ``defer'' requirements.
Question. Are you concerned that the increased involvement of the
operational testing community in developmental testing could undermine
the confidence we need in the independence and objectivity of our
operational testers?
Answer. I believe that experience has shown that increased
operational testing involvement has not compromised the independence
and objectivity of operational testing and evaluation. DOT&E and
Operational Test Agency independence is absolutely vital. I believe
that operational testers must always retain a clear view of their
primary responsibilities--to ensure that the weapon systems are
operationally effective and operationally suitable before those systems
are acquired for our operational forces. If confirmed, I will reinforce
that responsibility.
Question. There has been concern that some programs are not being
adequately tested during the developmental testing phase.
What do you propose to do, if confirmed, to ensure adequate
developmental testing is taking place?
Answer. I share the concern that some programs are not being
adequately tested during developmental testing. I believe that the
readiness for operational test certification process needs to be
reviewed and strengthened.
I also recognize the Director's responsibility to offer advice to
those who are responsible for developmental testing. I place high
importance on thorough developmental testing before initiation of
operational testing. I fully support the need for operational testers
to be involved early in the program, with emphasis on understanding the
developmental testing that has occurred and the results of that
testing. If confirmed, I would vigorously make known my advice if I
perceive that developmental testing was insufficient.
Question. Do you feel that operational testers should have earlier
insight into the developmental testing process?
Answer. Yes.
Question. When is it appropriate for developmental and operational
testing to be combined?
Answer. Combining developmental, operational test, and live fire
test and evaluation is appropriate when test objectives are similar or
overlapping and makes sense when a test event can meet multiple test
objectives, including being conducted in an environment or scenario
that is relevant to all. Depending on the test, either the
developmental, live fire, or operational testers may conduct the test,
with the data from the test available fully to all. I believe that the
evaluation of the results of such combined testing is then best done
independently in accordance with the differing objectives and
perspectives of the evaluators.
streamlining the acquisition process
Question. Both Secretary Rumsfeld and Under Secretary Aldridge have
indicated that they believe that there is a compelling need to
streamline the acquisition process to reduce the fielding times for new
weapons systems and capabilities.
If you are confirmed as the Director of Operational Test and
Evaluation, how would you propose to achieve an appropriate balance
between the desire to reduce acquisition cycle times and the need to
perform adequate operational testing?
Answer. The time to conduct operational testing is only a small
percentage of the overall acquisition cycle time. Delays in entering
operational testing usually are much longer than the time frame of the
operational test itself. Because the operational tests supporting full
production occur near the end of the acquisition cycle, there is
greater pressure to rush such tests. I feel that the operational
testers can contribute to reducing cycle time by identifying problems
early in the development cycle when the problems can be solved with
less impact on the program.
Question. There has been an initiative toward evolutionary
acquisition, or spiral development, to field weapons systems sooner and
then to evolve them once fielded.
What is the impact of this initiative on the testing process?
Answer. The operational testers will need to remain intimately
involved with a weapons system program well beyond the full-rate
production decision.
Question. What requirements and criteria would you propose to
ensure an effective test program is established for an evolutionary
acquisition program?
Answer. Spiral development requires a time-phased requirements
process with a distinct set of requirements for each development
spiral. Each spiral can then be operationally tested and evaluated
against appropriate requirements.
Question. Do you foresee that follow-on operational testing will be
required for each program ``spiral''?
Answer. Yes. The first spiral that represents a fieldable
configuration will undergo initial operational test and evaluation
supporting the beyond low-rate initial production decision. Subsequent
spirals will undergo follow-on operational test and evaluation.
``system of systems'' testing
Question. Many programs are now developing what is called a
``system of systems'' approach.
What challenges to operational testing are inherent for DOD
programs that are a part of an overall ``system of systems''?
Answer. I believe the most significant challenge to operational
testing of systems deployed in an integrated ``system of systems'' is
to adequately assess interoperability in terms of the system's
contribution to the integrated ``system of systems'' effectiveness and
efficiency. This challenge is becoming more complex due to the
modernization and automation of the integrated battlefield where most
all systems must function to some degree in a ``system of systems''
architecture. Multiple factors contribute to the challenge of
operationally testing interoperability.
Since acquisition programs are typically managed in a ``stovepipe''
manner, the system program managers are neither chartered nor funded to
ensure the individual system's contribution to the ``system of
systems.'' The challenge is made more difficult by the expense and
logistics in pulling all the members of a ``system of systems''
together for adequate interoperability testing of a new acquisition
program.
Question. How should a ``system of systems'' be tested to assess
the effectiveness of the whole?
Answer. I believe that prior to the production decision for a new
acquisition program, the new system should be operationally tested in
the ``system of systems'' architecture. ``System of systems'' testing
should be integrated and conducted with the Initial Operational Test
and Evaluation (IOT&E) prior to the production decision. All ``system
of systems'' testing should be planned and detailed in the Test and
Evaluation Master Plan. Final evaluation of the system's performance
and contribution to the ``system of systems'' should be in the IOT&E
where systems are deployed with trained operators and operated in
accordance with approved tactics and doctrine. This substantially
increases the scope of OT as systems become more interoperable.
advanced concept technology demonstrations (actd)
Question. ACTDs have been viewed as a method to get promising
technology into the hands of the operational forces in an expeditious
manner.
How do you view DOT&E's role in the execution of ACTDs, especially
for those demonstrations where the system is to be fielded
operationally upon completion of the ACTD?
Answer. Although most of the ACTDs do not reach the dollar value of
a major defense acquisition program, several--because of their
significant impact on combat operations--have been placed under DOT&E
oversight. In those cases, it is my understanding that DOT&E conducts
independent early operational assessments of the ACTD and includes
assessment reports in the DOT&E annual report to Congress. These
assessments also provide the operational user with an understanding of
the capability and weaknesses of the systems if they are deployed
before they go through test and evaluation of a normal acquisition
program. If confirmed, I will encourage the service operational test
agencies to do the same for ACTDs that are not under DOT&E oversight,
but this requires additional resources.
funding for testing and evaluation
Question. Over the past 12 years, we have cut the operating and
investment budget for our major range and test facility bases by more
than a billion dollars. At the same time, a number of major programs
have reduced their test and evaluation budgets.
Do you believe that the test and evaluation function is adequately
funded in the Department of Defense today?
Answer. No. I agree with the DSB finding that ``the T&E process is
not funded properly--in phasing or magnitude. Funds are not available
early enough, [and] corners are cut in the testing that is done.'' As a
consequence, there is an aging workforce, skills imbalances, and few
military left in the T&E organizations. The age of the facilities and
capabilities average over 35 years, with some over 50 years old.
Question. What, in your view, are the likely consequences of
underfunding testing and evaluation?
Answer. The recent DSB found that ``the T&E process is not funded
properly in phasing or magnitude.'' As a result, the report went on to
conclude that ``testing is not being conducted adequately--if systems
are not adequately tested they enter the inventory with latent defects
that can be very costly and can impact operational effectiveness.'' I
agree with that assessment.
live fire testing
Question. The live fire testing program is a statutory requirement
to assess the vulnerability and survivability of platforms, while also
assessing the lethality of weapons against the required target sets.
Do you believe that the Department's current live fire testing
program is accomplishing its purpose?
Answer. Yes. I believe the Department's live fire testing program
is accomplishing its purpose, and I strongly support the intent of
Congress when it passed the statutory requirement to assess the
vulnerability, lethality, and survivability of platforms with realistic
testing. In virtually every live fire program conducted to date, there
have been unexpected lessons learned that have resulted in design
corrections to improve the survivability (or lethality) of the systems
under test.
combination of testing with training exercises
Question. Some hold the view that the most representative
operational testing would be to allow operational forces to conduct
training exercises with the system under evaluation.
Should testing be combined with scheduled training exercises? What
are the barriers, if any, to doing so?
Answer. The Department has combined testing and training events
since the 1960s, with combined testing and training as one of the
themes for operational test and evaluation articulated by Secretary
William Perry in 1995. I favor combined test and training events when
they provide increased test realism, more realistic friendly and threat
forces, and provide a broader operational context, but still allow for
the necessary collection of data.
On the other hand, I recognize there may be differing testing/
training philosophies--and objectives, data collection intrusiveness
requirements, ability to control events, and flexibility of schedule
are potential barriers that require close cooperation between the
tester and trainer in order to be successful.
science and technology for test and evaluation
Question. In fiscal year 2002, the Office of Operational Test and
Evaluation will initiate a Science and Technology for Test and
Evaluation program in coordination with the Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense for Science and Technology. The program is intended to
accelerate the development of critical technologies for test and
evaluation, provide the essential knowledge base, and build test and
evaluation capabilities for the future.
If confirmed, what actions will you take to ensure that this
initiative meets the stated objectives?
Answer. If confirmed, I will continue to work with all appropriate
organizations to establish the initial framework for this program. For
the first time, the Department has a structured program that fosters a
robust T&E/S&T planning process. This program will allow test
technologies to pace evolving weapons technology, and is absolutely
critical to ensuring that the Department has the capability to fully
and completely test the advanced systems that will be fielded in 2010-
2020.
I will continue to work with all the stakeholders to develop a
comprehensive test technology roadmap that is consistent with other
departmental planning documents such as Joint Vision 2020. This entails
working intimately with the test capability developers and leveraging
heavily from technology that emerges from academia, the DOD S&T
community, and industry. If confirmed, I will attempt to identify and
invest in the critical, leap-ahead technologies that are required to
test tomorrow's advanced weapons systems.
operational test agencies (ota)
Question. There is currently an OTA for each of the services and
the Marine Corps. The OTA provides testing for new and evolving
systems, however, each service has a unique funding process for this
testing. For example, testing within Navy programs is funded through
program managers, but testing within the Air Force is funded through
the OTA.
What benefit, if any, would be realized through a single funding
structure within the OTA and would you recommend funding testing
through OTAs or program managers?
Answer. I believe that funding of OT&E through the OTAs has led to
problems in the past, creating internal pressures within the OTAs to
limit the amount of operational testing based on their budgets. There
have also been difficulties due to substantial development delays that
move OT&E from fiscal year to fiscal year. When the funding for OT&E is
the responsibility of individual programs, as required by 10 U.S.C.
2399, the Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP) becomes the basis for
OT&E test resources and the program manager must plan for, budget, and
provide those resources at the time of OT&E.
Question. Do you have any concerns about the independence of the
OTAs?
Answer. Yes, I am concerned that there will always be pressures on
the OTA commanders to support service acquisition strategies. I think
that it is important that they continue to report to the top level of
their respective services, independent of the service acquisition
organizations.
Question. Should the policies and procedures of the OTAs be
standardized?
Answer. Each of the service OTAs has unique processes for the
conduct of OT&E. As long as these processes lead to a robust
operational test and evaluation of weapon systems, I believe DOT&E does
not need to standardize those processes. I also feel that the area of
OT&E funding is an area where some standardization may be appropriate.
Question. Can you describe DOT&E's role and oversight of the use of
waivers to operational testing requirements by the OTAs?
Answer. DOT&E does not recognize waivers that services may apply to
the conduct of OT&E. I believe that operational tests conducted by the
OTA must adequately address all required capabilities regardless of
waivers.
Question. What are your thoughts on the establishment of a joint
testing agency?
Answer. My major concern is that the OTAs receive adequate funding
and manning to carry out their missions. Only if the OTAs were not
adequately resourced would I consider a joint testing agency.
data sharing during operational testing
Question. Recent experience during operational testing on the V-22
program indicated that there may be problems with sharing important
data with responsible officials outside the testing chain of command
generated during operational evaluation. It is clear that there need to
be limits on the ability of the program office to influence the testing
results. However, it is less clear why the program office should not
have clear visibility of data generated during testing.
Are you aware of current limitations on program office visibility
into the activity and results of operational testing?
Answer. Yes. I understand that one service does limit access to
test data during the conduct of the operational test.
Question. If so, do you agree with those limitations?
Answer. No. I believe that the deficiency data during an
operational test should be readily accessible to all organizations that
have a legitimate need for such data. On the other hand, this is a two-
way street as data from the program offices and other organizations
should be shared on a routine basis to provide greater insight to
operational testers throughout the acquisition cycle.
Question. Should there be appropriate differences of access between
contemporaneous access and subsequent access?
Answer. I believe that the deficiency data should be available as
soon as practicable with expedited availability for potential safety
deficiencies. Access to the deliberative information associated with
the evaluation process, such as scoring, should be released with the
final test report. I believe the specific timing of the release of data
needs to be developed as a matter of policy over the near term.
v-22
Question. Over the last year, substantial questions have been
raised about the viability of the V-22 program as a result of two fatal
crashes and allegations that key maintenance data on the program may
have been falsified. As a result of these problems, a decision to
proceed beyond low rate initial production has been delayed.
Can you assure the committee that you will ensure that adequate
operational testing and evaluation is conducted on the V-22 program,
and that you will make a determination whether the items or components
actually tested are effective and suitable for combat?
Answer. It is my understanding DOT&E will continue involvement with
the V-22 program test and evaluation planning activities for the next
several years, as well as with longer-term investigations into the
unique qualities of tilt-rotors in general and the V-22 in particular.
The planned experimental, developmental, and operational test activity
to support a resumption of operational flying and eventual full-rate
production will be documented in a revision to the Test and Evaluation
Master Plan, which I will review, if confirmed.
Question. If the operational testing and evaluation on the V-22
program does not demonstrate that the items and components tested are
effective and suitable for combat, will you recommend against
proceeding beyond low-rate initial production on the program?
Answer. The decision to proceed beyond low-rate initial production
is properly the responsibility of the Defense Acquisition Executive. If
confirmed, I will issue a DOT&E report to the Defense Acquisition
Executive, Secretary, and congressional defense committees at the time
the decision is proposed. In that report, I will provide my opinion
regarding test adequacy, operational effectiveness, operational
suitability, and survivability of the V-22.
national missile defense
Question. The United States has been developing a land-based
National Missile Defense (NMD) system that has an approved operational
requirement for defeating all incoming ballistic missile reentry
vehicles from a limited ballistic missile attack, with a very high
degree of confidence.
Can you assure the committee that you will ensure that adequate
operational testing and evaluation is conducted on any National Missile
Defense system, and that you will make a determination whether the
items or components actually tested are effective and suitable for
combat?
Answer. If confirmed, my intention is to have an operational test
and evaluation program developed that adequately addresses the approved
system operational requirements. Upon completion of the initial
operational test and evaluation, I will provide an assessment of the
effectiveness and suitability of the tested system.
Question. If the operational testing and evaluation of a National
Missile Defense system does not demonstrate that the items and
components tested are effective and suitable for combat, will you
recommend against the acquisition or deployment of the system?
Answer. The decision to proceed is that of the Secretary of Defense
or his designated executive. I would not recommend the acquisition or
deployment of an ineffective or unsuitable system.
Question. Do you believe that a program of operational testing and
evaluation for a National Missile Defense system can be considered
adequate if it does not include the use of countermeasures?
Answer. I feel that an adequate test and evaluation must include
the use of countermeasures.
Question. The previous Director of Operational Test and Evaluation
recommended additional and more realistic testing of the ground-based
National Missile Defense system. The Bush administration may revise the
architecture and requirements of the ground-based NMD proposed by the
Clinton administration.
Can you assure the committee that, if confirmed, you would work
with Secretary Rumsfeld and the Director of the Ballistic Missile
Defense Organization (BMDO) to determine a reasonable test and
evaluation program for any revised missile defense program proposed by
the Department of Defense?
Answer. If confirmed, I intend to work with the Secretary of
Defense, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology,
and Logistics, and the Director, Ballistic Missile Defense Organization
to assure an adequate test and evaluation program is developed to
determine that the selected architecture satisfies the approved
operational requirements.
Question. The previous Director of Operational Test and Evaluation
recommended an expansion of the NMD range and infrastructure to provide
for more realistic testing.
Do you agree with this recommendation?
Answer. Yes. I would always agree to range and infrastructure
improvements to provide more realistic testing. If confirmed, I will
need time to review the program before I can offer any specific
recommendations.
Question. The missile defense community, as well as many other
development and acquisition communities, makes extensive use of
modeling and simulation.
What role should modeling and simulation play in the test and
evaluation process?
Answer. I believe that modeling and simulation is indispensable to
modern test and evaluation and can help the process in many ways.
Simulations can help identify critical operational issues and key
performance parameters to help focus test objectives. They can help
develop test scenarios and otherwise assist in detailed test planning.
Simulations can examine performance under conditions that cannot be
replicated on a test range. I expect that simulations will evaluate
missile defense performance for larger scale scenarios than planned for
flight test and for numerous countermeasure variations that might be
conceived.
Question. Can modeling and simulation streamline or reduce BMD
operational test requirements? If so, to what extent?
Answer. I cannot speak to specific reductions modeling and
simulation could bring, and until I fully understand program specifics
and the NMD acquisition strategy, I am not prepared to elaborate on any
specific BMDO test requirements.
Question. Countermeasures deployed by rogue nations could pose a
challenge to BMD systems, but if and when such countermeasures would be
deployed remains open to question.
If confirmed, how do you intend to address the challenge of BMD
testing against countermeasures?
Answer. If confirmed, I intend to work with all the interested
organizations to develop a broad program of flight tests, hardware-in-
the-loop ground tests, and simulations to confirm that the system has
sufficient performance margins to handle likely countermeasures.
Question. The DOT&E Fiscal Year 2000 Annual Report recommended that
the NMD program office ``should consider a much more parallel approach
whereby flight testing can continue at an aggressive pace in the wake
of a possible failed intercept.''
Do you agree with this recommendation?
Answer. Until I fully understand program specifics and the NMD
acquisition strategy, I am not prepared to elaborate on any specific
BMDO test requirements.
army transformation
Question. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2001 requires the Secretary of the Army to conduct a comparative
evaluation of interim armored vehicles selected for the fielding of
interim brigade combat teams with equipment already in the inventory.
The intent of this law is to carry out a side-by-side comparative
operational evaluation of units similarly organized, trained, and
equipped, other than for the differences in medium armored vehicles.
The law further requires that the evaluation plan, including the
size of the units involved in the evaluation, be approved by the DOD
Director of Operational Test and Evaluation. Last month the acting
Director of Operational Test and Evaluation approved an evaluation
plan, which examines platoon level missions in accordance with the
interim brigade combat team organizational and operational concept.
Do you agree that an evaluation of platoon level missions is
sufficient for such a new and unique unit designed primarily for
operations at brigade level?
Answer. I believe that platoon level missions carried out at the
company level in terms of vehicles and manpower are appropriate with
robust technical testing. I think the test strategy is sufficient for
an adequate vehicle level comparison. In contrast to the vehicle
comparison, the interim armored vehicle IOT&E, currently scheduled for
fiscal year 2002, will be a much larger test and evaluation of the
capability of an interim brigade combat team equipped with medium
armored vehicles to accomplish its missions. The IOT&E is currently
designed to be conducted with an interim brigade combat team battalion
and a brigade headquarters.
Question. Do you intend to review that decision?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I will work closely with the committee
and the Army to ensure the intent of the law is met. The Army will be
submitting a detailed comparative evaluation test plan to DOT&E for
approval this month. If confirmed, I will review the plan for the
comparison evaluation.
Question. Will you assure the committee that you will take a
personal interest in providing oversight for the conduct of that
operational comparison to ensure that this evaluation is valid and
fulfills the intent of the congressional language?
Answer. Yes.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, when asked, to give your personal views,
even if those views differ from the administration in power?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as the Director of Operational
Test and Evaluation?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings and
other communications of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Strom Thurmond
1. Senator Thurmond. With the greater reliance on the use of
computer simulations in virtually all aspects of military training and
testing, is there a continuing need for the extensive and costly live
fire test and evaluation program?
Mr. Christie. There is a continuing need for an adequate and
thorough Live Fire Test and Evaluation (LFT&E) program. Congress
established the LFT&E program as a mechanism for reducing the
vulnerability of American military personnel using our combat equipment
and increasing the lethality of their weapons.
The current (and foreseeable) state-of-the-art in modeling and
simulation (M&S), does not support the exclusive use of M&S predictions
for system vulnerability or weapon lethality evaluations in lieu of
live testing. The final product of an LFT&E program is a comprehensive
evaluation of a system's vulnerability or lethality under operationally
realistic conditions. This evaluation, which supports the decision to
proceed beyond low-rate initial production, is based on realistic
testing complemented by the best analytical tools available, to include
M&S.
These M&S tools have proven both useful and necessary in the design
of military systems and their test programs. Significant advances have
been made in certain kinds of vulnerability and lethality modeling,
such as physics-based modeling in support of ballistic missile
programs. Such models help us identify munition-target interactions
with uncertain or mixed results, allowing us to focus testing on areas
where we are unsure of the outcome.
DOD regulations require each live fire test to be preceded by a
prediction of results, using M&S. In part, this is intended to help
validate those aspects of the model that appear to have predictive
capability. Frequently, however, we have found that the predictive
capabilities are severely limited or are inadequate. Model-test
comparisons have assisted us in determining the appropriate role of M&S
in our evaluations, and have helped the model developers to identify
priorities for M&S improvements.
Finally, I should note that LFT&E involves a relatively modest cost
to the program. Typically, the cost of LFT&E has not exceeded three-
tenths of 1 percent (0.3 percent) of program costs and, in most cases,
the cost has been much less. This includes the cost of testing as well
as the M&S applications in support of the LFT&E.
2. Senator Thurmond. One of the goals of the Live Fire Testing and
Training Program is to bring together the testing and training
communities in the fielding of a weapons system. I personally believe
that this must be a priority and that it should be done at the earliest
possible time in system development.
Based on your earlier tour in the Operational Test and Evaluation
office, are the services and OT&E doing enough in this area and what
changes would you advocate, if confirmed?
Mr. Christie. I agree that priority should be given to achieving
greater cooperation between the testing and training communities to
better serve the Department's goal of fielding weapon systems with
demonstrated operational capability in a more timely manner. If
confirmed, I will advocate and support initiatives to share
technologies and data between the two communities and to foster early
collaboration that is crucial to lower cost and speedier acquisition of
new weapon systems.
For example, I believe up-front investment in the training package
for new systems can speed the process of fielding new capabilities, not
merely passing a contractual milestone such as full-rate production.
Early development of the training package could also allow more
meaningful consideration of how the system will be used by our combat
forces and that, in turn, could facilitate the design of a more robust
and productive operational test and evaluation. Another initiative
would involve the early development of man-in-the-loop training
simulators containing the same software as the actual system that could
then serve early on as effective software test beds.
3. Senator Thurmond. Many so-called experts believe that the
solution to all problems in the Department of Defense can be resolved
by adopting commercial practices. After all, Boeing and other
corporations have their test and evaluation programs for commercial
projects and they seem to get their products in the hands of customers
much faster than the Department of Defense.
How is the civilian testing program different from that within the
Department of Defense and should we be looking at commercial practices
in the testing area?
Mr. Christie. There are a number of differences between the
business practices of the Department of Defense and those of the
commercial sector. In the main, commercial product development
practices place much greater emphasis on testing than does defense.
Commercial products that do not perform up to expectations suffer
severe consequences in the marketplace. Of the thousands of new
commercial products introduced each year, most fail to be profitable
and soon disappear from the marketplace. Thus, there is a very strong
incentive to ensure product effectiveness and suitability through
robust testing. On the other hand, while defense weapons systems are
not subject to the discipline of the marketplace, it is imperative that
they be operationally effective, suitable, and survivable when employed
by our soldiers, sailors, and airmen across a spectrum of demanding
combat scenarios.
In many commercial cases, testing can be the largest single effort
in development and, for the most part, it is an integral part of the
development process. Commercial testing capability is planned,
resourced, and conducted early to ensure that product development is
well-focused on meeting product objectives. Achieving that same early
emphasis for weapons systems testing will be one of my major goals, if
I am confirmed.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Bob Smith
4. Senator Smith. Congress has funded the Live Fire Testing and
Training Initiative for the last 7 years. This has been a successful
program which has saved lives and taxpayer dollars.
Can you assure me that as the Director of Operational Test and
Evaluation you will advocate this initiative and that you will ensure
it is included in the President's defense budget submitted to Congress?
Mr. Christie. I agree that the Live Fire Testing and Training
Initiative has been a successful program that has saved lives and
taxpayer dollars over the years that it has been funded by Congress. If
confirmed, I will use my position as the Director, Operational Test and
Evaluation to advocate funding this program in the President's defense
budget, but could not ensure that any particular program or its level
of funding will be included in the budget. That decision will be made
by the Secretary of Defense who must balance a host of competing
demands for scarce resources in his deliberations on the defense
budget.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Rick Santorum
5. Senator Santorum. In an answer to advance questions, you state
that you intend to promote the value of developmental testing and, if
appropriate, to strengthen the readiness for operational test and
evaluation certification process. During the past 2 years as Chairman
of the Airland Subcommittee, I have expressed concern over migration of
developmental test content out of the F-22 Raptor program. It seemed as
if every time cost or schedule difficulties loom, more ``testing
efficiencies'' had been discovered.
As the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, how will you,
if confirmed, and how are we, in our oversight role, to gain confidence
that an appropriate level of developmental test has occurred before a
program enters its operational test and evaluation?
Mr. Christie. I am also concerned with the ``migration'' and
reduction in content of early developmental testing across the
Department. If confirmed as the Director of Operational Test and
Evaluation, I will work with the Under Secretary of Defense
(Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics) and the service secretaries to
reverse this disturbing trend. Consistent with statutory limitations on
my involvement in developmental test issues, if confirmed, I will
strive to ensure that the services implement a process whereby new
systems must demonstrate sufficient maturity through developmental
testing prior to entering operational test and evaluation.
Additionally, I would continue to closely monitor system performance in
early testing, conduct early operational evaluations, and provide
independent advice and assessments to senior decision-makers and work
to eliminate ``migrations,'' ``waivers,'' and ``deferrals''.
You refer to the problem of cost and schedule difficulties leading
to test ``efficiencies'' that reduce testing. The most efficient test
capability is one that accomplishes all the required testing within a
schedule that is reasonable for the program. Certainly, the funding cap
has been a major problem leading to the changing F-22 Raptor test
program, but the test and evaluation infrastructure has had some
problems accommodating all the flight test sorties the Air Force needs
to accomplish in the time remaining on the schedule. If confirmed, I
will seek to enhance the capabilities and responsiveness of our T&E
infrastructure so that adequate testing is not perceived as a threat to
the program manager's schedule.
6. Senator Santorum. The National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2001 directed the Director of Operational Test and
Evaluation to approve the Secretary of the Army's plan to conduct a
side-by-side comparison of the infantry carrier variant of the interim
armored vehicles selected for the interim brigade combat teams and the
troop-carrying medium armored vehicles currently in the Army inventory.
This committee directed this test because of its concern that the
Department of the Army had selected a vehicle for its interim brigade
combat team that was more costly than medium armored vehicles currently
in the inventory but not operationally more effective.
Do you agree that a side-by-side test be conducted before the
Department obligates funds for acquisition of medium armored combat
vehicles for the third interim brigade?
Mr. Christie. I understand the requirement to conduct a side-by-
side test prior to obligation of funds for the third interim brigade
combat team by the Department of the Army. In addition, a cost and
operational effectiveness comparison, using the results from that test,
will also be conducted before release of that funding. In addition, I
understand that the Secretary of Defense must certify his approval of
the obligation of funds and that the resulting force structure will not
diminish the combat power of the Army.
The Army concept for the Medium Armored Vehicle Comparison
Evaluation, as briefed to DOT&E this past spring, appears adequate to
address operational effectiveness, suitability, and survivability
issues. However, I understand the DOT&E office is awaiting more details
on this concept that will be available when the Army submits its formal
plan for DOT&E approval later this July. Overall, the Army's evaluation
concept relies on both developmental and operational testing, the use
of existing data, and modeling and simulation. The operational test
event consists of side-by-side military operations of an infantry
company equipped with the interim armored vehicle equipped with Force
XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below (FBCB2) and an infantry company
with M113A3 Armored Personnel Carriers (APCs) with FBCB2. Developmental
testing includes performance envelope testing to measure payload,
mobility, survivability, and suitability.
______
[The nomination reference of Thomas P. Christie follows:]
Nomination Reference
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
May 24, 2001.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Thomas P. Christie of Virginia, to be Director of Operational Test
and Evaluation, Department of Defense, vice Philip Edward Coyle III,
resigned.
______
[The biographical sketch of Thomas P. Christie, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Thomas P. Christie
Thomas P. Christie most recently served as the Director of the
Operational Evaluation Division for the Institute for Defense Analyses,
a position he held from 1992 to 2001. With IDA, he previously served as
the Assistant Director of the Operation Evaluation Division from 1989
to 1992.
Mr. Christie has had a long and distinguished career in public
service. From 1987 to 1989, he was the Director, Program Integration,
in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition). Prior to
that, he was the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Programs and
Resources) in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense
(Acquisition and Logistics) from 1986 to 1987, the Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense/Deputy Director (General Purpose Programs) in the
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Program Analysis and
Evaluation) from 1979 to 1986, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Defense (Operational Test and Evaluation) in the Office of the
Assistant Secretary of Defense (Program Analysis and Evaluation) from
1977 to 1979, and the Director, Tactical Air Division, in the Office of
the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (General Purpose Programs),
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Program Analysis and
Evaluation) from 1973 to 1977.
Prior to his service at the Pentagon, Mr. Christie served at the
Air Force Armament Laboratory, Eglin AFB, Florida, first as an Analyst
in the Special Studies Branch from 1962 to 1965, then as the Chief of
the Analysis Branch from 1965 to 1970, and finally as the Director of
the Weapon System Analysis Division from 1970 to 1973. Prior to this,
he began his professional career as an Analyst in the Ballistics
Division at the Air Proving Ground Center, also at Eglin AFB, Florida.
Mr. Christie graduated from Spring Hill College in 1955 with a B.S.
degree in Mathematics and from New York University in 1962 with an M.S.
degree in Applied Mathematics. Over the years, Mr. Christie has
received numerous awards and citations for his outstanding performance.
These awards include the Presidential Rank, Distinguished Executive
Award (1983), the Presidential Rank, Meritorious Executive Award (two
awards-1980 and 1987), the Department of Defense Distinguished Civilian
Service Award (four awards--1979, 1981, 1983, and 1989), and the Air
Force Scientific Achievement Award (two awards--1965 and 1970).
______
[The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
form that details the biographical, financial, and other
information of the nominee. The form executed by Thomas P.
Christie in connection with his nomination follows:]
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Room SR-228
Washington, DC 20510-6050
(202) 224-3871
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation
of your answer applies.
Part A--Biographical Information
Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.
1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
Thomas Philip Christie.
2. Position to which nominated:
Director, Operational Test and Evaluation, Office of the Secretary
of Defense, Department of Defense.
3. Date of nomination:
May 24, 2001.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
5. Date and place of birth:
May 28, 1934; Pensacola, Florida.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Kathleen Ann Lawson.
7. Names and ages of children:
Son, Kevin Patrick Christie--29 years old.
Daughter, Stephanie Marie Christie--26 years old.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received and date degree granted.
Attended Pensacola Catholic high School 1947-1951; graduated May
27, 1951.
Attended Spring Hill College in Mobile, Alabama 1951-1955; received
Bachelor of Science Degree on May 24, 1955.
Attended Courant Institute of Applied Mathematics, New York
University 1961-1862; received Master of Science Degree in Applied
Mathematics in September 1962.
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
1989-1991: Research Analyst--responsible for evaluations of weapon
system performance.
Operational Evaluation Division, Institute of Defense Analyses,
1801 N. Beauregard Street, Alexandria, VA 22311.
1992-2001: Director, Operational Evaluation Division--responsible
for managing and directing staff of about 100 research analysts in the
evaluation of weapon system performance.
Institute for Defense Analyses, 1801 N. Beauregard Street,
Alexandria, VA 22311.
10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative,
honorary or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State,
or local governments, other than those listed above.
1955-1973: Series of increasingly responsible
positions as federal employee working for the U.S. Air Force
Armament Laboratory at Eglin AFB, FL.
1973-1977: Director, Tactical Air Forces; Office of
the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Program Analysis and
Evaluation (ASD/PA&E); Office of the Secretary of Defense
(OSD).
1977-1979: Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Operational Test and Evaluation; ASD/PA&E; OSD.
1979-1985: Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for
General Purpose Programs; ASD/PA&E; OSD.
1985-1987: Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Programs and Resources; ASD (Production and Logistics); OSD.
1987-1989: Director, Program Integration; Office of
the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition; OSD.
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational or other institution.
As Director of Operational Evaluation Division, I was a member of
IDA's Board of Directors. I resigned from this position when the
President nominated me for the position of Director, Operational Test
and Evaluation. I have no other business relationships.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
I am a member of the organizations listed below. I hold no office
in any of these.
National Defense Industrial Association.
National Historic Preservation Trust.
13. Political affiliations and activities:
(a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or
any public office for which you have been a candidate.
I have never held any office with a political party nor have I ever
been a candidate for any public office.
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5
years.
I have not been a member, held any office in or rendered any
services to a political party or election committee during the last 5
years.
(c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $100 or more for the past 5 years.
During the past 5 years, I have not made a political contribution
of $100 or more to any individual, campaign organization, political
party, PAC, or similar entity.
14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals and any other special recognitions
for outstanding service or achievements.
Four-year scholarship to Spring Hill College, 1951-1955.
Air Force Scientific Achievement Award, 1965 and 1970.
DOD Distinguished Civilian Service Award, 1979.
Presidential Rank, Meritorious Executive Award, 1980 and 1987.
First Oak Leaf Cluster to DOD Distinguished Civilian Service Award,
1981.
Second Oak Leaf Cluster to DOD Distinguished Civilian Service
Award, 1983.
Presidential Rank, Distinguished Executive Award, 1983.
Third Oak Leaf Cluster to DOD Distinguished Civilian Service Award,
1989.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
Other than several technical reports authored during my time as a
weapon analyst at Eglin AFB in the 1955 to 1973 time frame and a few
technical reports I co-authored as an IDA research staff member in
1990, I have authored no other books, articles, or other published
materials.
16. Speeches: Provide the committee with two copies of any formal
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have
copies of and are on topics relevant to the position for which you have
been nominated.
None.
17. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree,
if confirmed, to respond to requests to appear and testify before any
duly constituted committee of the Senate?
Yes.
______
[The nominee responded to the questions in Parts B-F of the
committee questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set
forth in the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to
Parts B-F are contained in the committee's executive files.]
------
Signature and Date
I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate,
and complete.
Thomas P. Christie.
This 29th day of May, 2001.
[The nomination of Thomas P. Christie was reported to the
Senate by Senator Warner on July 11, 2001, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on July 12, 2001.]
NOMINATIONS OF ALBERTO J. MORA TO BE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE NAVY; DIANE
K. MORALES TO BE DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR LOGISTICS AND
MATERIAL READINESS; STEVEN J. MORELLO, SR., TO BE GENERAL COUNSEL OF
THE ARMY; WILLIAM A. NAVAS, JR., TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY
FOR MANPOWER AND RESERVE AFFAIRS; AND MICHAEL W. WYNNE TO BE DEPUTY
UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR ACQUISITION AND TECHNOLOGY
----------
FRIDAY, JUNE 22, 2001
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Armed Services
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:37 a.m. in room
SR-222, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator Carl Levin
(chairman) presiding.
Committee members present: Senators Levin, Reed, Warner,
and Inhofe.
Committee staff members present: David S. Lyles, staff
director.
Majority staff members present: Daniel J. Cox, professional
staff member; Creighton Greene, professional staff member;
Gerald J. Leeling, counsel; Peter K. Levine, general counsel;
and Michael J. McCord, professional staff member.
Minority staff members present: Romie L. Brownlee,
Republican staff director; Judith A. Ansley, deputy staff
director for the minority; Brian R. Green, professional staff
member; William C. Greenwalt, professional staff member;
Ambrose R. Hock, professional staff member; George W. Lauffer,
professional staff member; Thomas L. MacKenzie, professional
staff member; Ann M. Mittermeyer, minority counsel; Suzanne
K.L. Ross, research assistant; Cord A. Sterling, professional
staff member; Scott W. Stucky, minority counsel; and Richard F.
Walsh, minority counsel.
Staff assistants present: Kristi M. Freddo, Jennifer L.
Naccari, and Michele A. Traficante.
Committee members' assistants present: Barry Gene (B.G.)
Wright, assistant to Senator Byrd; Elizabeth King, assistant to
Senator Reed; Eric Pierce, assistant to Senator Ben Nelson;
John A. Bonsell, assistant to Senator Inhofe; George M. Bernier
III, assistant to Senator Santorum; and Douglas Flanders,
assistant to Senator Allard.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN, CHAIRMAN
Chairman Levin. The committee will come to order. The
committee meets today to consider the nominations of Alberto
Jose Mora to be General Counsel of the Department of the Navy;
Diane K. Morales to be Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for
Logistics and Material Readiness; Steven John Morello, Sr. to
be General Counsel of the Department of the Army; William A.
Navas, Jr. to be Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Manpower
and Reserve Affairs; and Michael W. Wynne to be Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology.
On behalf of the entire committee I would like to welcome
you and your families and friends to the Armed Services
Committee. We have a tradition on this committee of asking the
nominees if they would like to introduce family members who
might be present. Mr. Morello, I am going to start with you.
Mr. Morello. I would be very pleased and proud to introduce
to you this morning my daughter, Rebecca, who traveled here
from Michigan. Rebecca is a recent graduate of Ladywood High
School in Livonia. She had a 4.0 and has been admitted to the
University of Michigan this fall to study electrical
engineering. Also with me this morning, Mr. Chairman, is a very
distinguished citizen of Michigan and a friend and mentor of
mine, Mr. Heinz Prechter.
Chairman Levin. We know Mr. Prechter well and I've been an
admirer of his for a long time. We welcome him and your
daughter.
Mr. Wynne.
Mr. Wynne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is my pleasure to
acknowledge the support of my spouse of 35 years, Barbara. I
appreciate that.
Chairman Levin. Ms. Morales.
Ms. Morales. My family is in Texas, but I am surrounded by
friends; Mr. Jim Guerin is with me, as is Mr. Maurice Henri,
and Mr. and Mrs. Kenney.
Chairman Levin. Welcome everybody.
Mr. Navas.
Mr. Navas. Mr. Chairman, Senator Warner, I would like to
introduce my spouse of 36 years, Wilda. She is here to give me
the support she has given me throughout our careers.
Chairman Levin. Welcome.
Mr. Mora.
Mr. Mora. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
introduce my wife Susan Talalay; my son Alexander and his pet
flamingo, whom you recognized earlier; my in-laws Dr. Paul
Talalay and his wife Dr. Pamela Talalay.
Chairman Levin. We welcome them all, particularly the
flamingo. I do not think we have ever had a flamingo here.
Chairman Warner. Well, they had an alligator in New York
City. [Laughter.]
We welcome you all and your family and friends and pets.
The presence of families reminds us of the sacrifices that
family will be asked to make on your behalf. Each of you has a
previous record of public service so your families I think have
some idea of what they are in for. Certainly the members of
this committee know the strain public service puts on normal
family life. None of our nominees would be able to serve in
these positions without the support of their families. We thank
you in advance for the hardships that you will put up with
during the service of your loved ones.
I would like to extend a particularly warm welcome to Mr.
Morello who grew up in Michigan as he indicated. His dad worked
for General Motors for 43 years. Mr. Morello went to the
University of Detroit Law School. He currently works as vice
president and general counsel and secretary of Prechter
Holdings in South Gate. Heinz Prechter is here this morning and
many of us know Mr. Prechter.
Mr. Morello also serves as a Roman Catholic Deacon in the
Archdiocese of Detroit and he also, I believe, worked as a
staff assistant many years ago for Senator Phil Hart, who was a
great friend of all of his colleagues and a mentor of mine; and
the person, of course, for whom the Hart Senate Office Building
was named.
Mr. Wynne also has a strong Michigan connection, having
served as vice president of General Dynamics Land Systems in
Sterling Heights, Michigan for about 10 years.
Mr. Moore, if I can say so, although he doesn't have a
Michigan connection, I believe, is a graduate of my alma mater,
Swarthmore College. It's obvious that the Department decided
that it is a good idea to butter up the new chairman of the
committee. [Laughter.]
I just want to encourage them to continue that practice.
Mr. Mora, Ms. Morales, Mr. Navas may not have had the good
fortune of these connections but all three have previously held
important positions in the Federal Government and they are
well-qualified for the positions to which they have been
nominated. The General Counsels of the Army and Navy are among
the top legal officials in the Department of Defense. The
Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Manpower and Reserve
Affairs is charged with the well-being of our men and women in
uniform. The two nominees for Deputy Under Secretary positions
will have important responsibilities for the management of the
Pentagon's huge and complex acquisition and logistics systems.
The committee has a responsibility to get a clear
understanding of our nominees' views on the national security
issues which they are going to face and we look forward to
their testimony.
Senator Warner, do you have a opening statement?
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN WARNER
Senator Warner. Mr. Chairman, I commend you for the manner
in which you have opened today's hearing. The Chairman and I
are classmates. We came to the Senate at the same time. We
consider ourselves very valued friends and yet there are times
at which we have to differ. But this is not one of those times.
This is family day before our committee and it is very
heartening to have so many friends and families come long
distances. We thank you for doing that.
This is an important day in your life. Some have been
before the Senate on confirmation before. I have a piece of
paper which is 32 years old when I sat in that seat seeking to
get the advice and consent of the Senate. It is one of my more
valued possessions. More importantly, my children treasure
copies of it. Fortunately I kept a few copies of the official
record of that hearing. To see the young people here, they will
in years forth take great pride in what you have done.
I interviewed all of you yesterday and in every case you
are leaving more lucrative positions in the private sector to
take on that responsibility known as public service. As a
taxpayer I thank you.
I also wish to encourage you to avail yourself of this
committee and I say that we have the most remarkable
professional staff, I think, of any committee on Capitol Hill.
It is not just because I have been privileged as has my good
friend Senator Levin, to be chair and co-chair of this
committee. But it really goes back decades. Our predecessors
have always been able to attract eminently qualified young men
and women to come here and serve on our staff.
You will find in your assignments more opportunity and need
to work with our staff. You will find they are by and large bi-
partisan. Their sole objective is to strengthen and keep strong
America's defenses, and the well-being of the men and women who
wear the uniform and the civilian force that work with them.
I congratulate our President and the Secretary of Defense
and others who were able to persuade you to come into public
service again. I wish you well and I think you will look back
on this as I have as one of the high points of your
distinguished career.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you.
Senator Warner. I will put the balance of my statement in
the record which is exactly parallel to everything you said in
your opening statement. At this time, I also place in the
record the opening statement of Senator Strom Thurmond.
[The prepared statements of Senator Warner and Senator
Thurmond follow:]
Prepared Statement by Senator John Warner
Thank you, Senator Levin.
I join you in welcoming the nominees and their families. We have a
distinguished group of nominees before us this morning.
Mr. Michael W. Wynne is a graduate of the United States Military
Academy at West Point and served for 7 years on Active Duty in the Air
Force. He has an impressive record of achievement in industry, retiring
as a Senior Vice President from General Dynamics with responsibility
for International Development and Strategy. During the course of his
career, he was instrumental in the development of various complex and
vital programs, including the F-16, Main Battle Tank, and Space Launch
Vehicles including the Atlas and Centaur.
Ms. Morales has an impressive record of government and private
accomplishments. From 1990 to 1993, a period encompassing United States
military operations in Desert Shield/Desert Storm, she served as Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Logistics and played a substantial
role in meeting the challenging airlift and sealift requirements
associated with those operations. Ms. Morales has previously served as
a board member on the Civil Aeronautics Board, with OMB, and in the
Department of the Interior as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy.
She has also been successful in business, and, if confirmed, will bring
her extensive experience to bear in this important position.
William Navas--Major General Navas--is no stranger to this
committee. He has had a distinguished career in the Army, with Active
Duty service in Vietnam and Germany. More recently, from 1995 to 1998,
General Navas was Director of the Army National Guard, and, prior to
that, served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve
Affairs, Vice Chief of the National Guard Bureau, and in various other
highly responsible positions. If confirmed, he will undoubtedly adjust
quickly to the Navy and its unique ways of doing business.
Steven J. Morello is also a product of Army training, having served
on Active Duty in the Judge Advocate General's Corps from 1978 to 1982
with service in Germany and at Fort Sheridan. He has worked for the
Northrop Corporation, and has assembled an impressive record of
professional and personal achievements. Thank you for your willingness
to serve in this important capacity.
Finally, Alberto J. Mora, the nominee for General Counsel of the
Navy, has prior government experience as a Foreign Service Officer in
the Department of State and, from 1989 to 1993, as General Counsel of
the U.S. Information Agency. He too has had an impressive legal career
and is also highly qualified for the position to which he has been
nominated.
Our nominees have a wealth of experience and accomplishments. I
believe they will excel in the position to which they have been
nominated. We welcome them and their family members and look forward to
their comments and responses today.
______
Prepared Statement by Senator Strom Thurmond
Thank you, Mr. Chairman: Mr. Chairman, I join you and our Ranking
Member, Senator Warner, in welcoming this distinguished group of
nominees. I want to congratulate each of them on their nomination and
thank them for their willingness to serve our Nation in the challenging
positions for which they have been selected.
Mr. Chairman, I especially want to recognize General Navas. As the
former Director of the Army National Guard and his distinguished
service in various positions associated with the Reserve components, he
will bring a unique perspective to the Office of the Assistant
Secretary of the Navy for Manpower and Reserve Affairs. Our Nation is
fortunate to have individuals of his caliber willing to serve.
I am confident that each of you will provide a valuable
contribution to the security of our great Nation and especially to the
men and women who wear the uniform of our military services. Good luck
as you take on your new responsibilities.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you for your warm and perceptive
words. Our nominees have all responded to the committee's pre-
hearing policy questions and our standard questionnaire.
Without objection these responses are going to be made a part
of the record. The committee has also received the required
paperwork on each of the nominees and we will be reviewing that
paperwork to make sure it is in accordance with the committee's
requirements.
The first round of questions will be limited to 6 minutes
on the usual basis, which is the early-bird rule. I think we
have a vote at 10:30 this morning, so we'll see if we cannot
get a least one round in before that vote. There are certain
standard questions which we ask every nominee who comes before
the committee and you also have submitted responses to advance
policy questions. You agreed to appear as witnesses before
congressional committees when called and to ensure that
briefings, testimony, and other communications are provided to
Congress.
I will now ask you the following questions. Have you
adhered to applicable laws and regulations governing the
conflict of interest?
Mr. Morello. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wynne. Yes sir, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Morales. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Navas. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mora. Yes, sir.
Chairman Levin. Have you assumed any duties or undertaken
any actions, which would appear to presume the outcome of the
confirmation process?
Mr. Morello. No, sir, I have not.
Mr. Wynne. No, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Morales. No, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Navas. I have not, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mora. No, sir.
Chairman Levin. Will you ensure that the Department
complies with deadlines established for requested
communications including prepared testimony and questions for
the record and hearings?
Mr. Morello. Yes, sir, I will.
Mr. Wynne. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Morales. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Navas. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mora. Yes, sir.
Chairman Levin. Will you cooperate and provide any
witnesses and briefers in response to congressional requests?
Mr. Morello. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wynne. Yes, sir.
Ms. Morales. Yes, sir.
Mr. Navas. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mora. Yes, sir.
Chairman Levin. Will those witnesses be protected from
reprisal for their testimony?
Mr. Morello. Yes, sir, to the fullest extent of the law.
Mr. Wynne. Yes, sir.
Ms. Morales. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Navas. Yes, they will.
Mr. Mora. Absolutely.
Chairman Levin. Let me now call upon our nominees for any
opening remarks they would like to make. Mr. Morello, let me
start with you.
Senator Warner. Mr. Chairman, might I indulge the chair and
the members of the committee. I would like the record to
reflect that I am now going to speak on behalf of the nominee,
Ms. Morales. I am pleased to do so. She is a Virginian, having
come from Texas 20 years ago. She came to serve in the Reagan
administration as the Department of Interior's Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Policy and later as a member of the Civil
Aeronautics Board. After leaving government for several years
to work in private industry, she returned to serve with
distinction in the Bush I administration as the Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Logistics. I will put the
balance of the statement in the record, Mr. Chairman, given
that our vote is upon us here momentarily.
I take great pride in introducing my constituent and indeed
one that I have great admiration for. Thank you very much.
Prepared Statement by Senator John Warner
Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to introduce Ms. Morales to the
committee as the nominee for this important position.
Ms. Morales has an impressive record of government and private
accomplishments. From 1990 to 1993, a period encompassing United States
military operations in Desert Shield/Desert Storm, she served as Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Logistics and played a substantial
role in meeting the challenging airlift and sealift requirements
associated with those operations. Ms. Morales has previously served as
a board member on the Civil Aeronautics Board, with OMB, and in the
Department of the Interior as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy.
She has also been successful in business, and, if confirmed, will bring
her extensive experience to bear in this important position. She has my
strongest endorsement.
Chairman Levin. Thank you very much, Senator Warner. I
wonder if either Senator Reed or Senator Inhofe might have an
opening comment?
Senator Inhofe. No. I do have some questions.
Chairman Levin. Mr. Morello.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN J. MORELLO, SR., NOMINEE TO BE GENERAL
COUNSEL OF THE ARMY
Mr. Morello. Good morning Mr. Chairman, distinguished
members of the committee. It is indeed a high honor and great
privilege for me to be here before you this morning. I thank
you for giving me this honor of a hearing. I am also very
grateful to the President of the United States, Secretary
Rumsfeld, and Secretary White for giving me this opportunity
and for reposing the trust in me that they have. I have
prepared remarks, which I have brought. I would like to ask
with your kind permission that they be inserted in the record.
Chairman Levin. They will be made part of the record as
will be the other opening comments which our nominees might
wish to place there.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Morello follows:]
Prepared Statement by Steven J. Morello
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee.
It is a great honor and privilege to appear before this committee as
the nominee to be the General Counsel of the Army. I am very grateful
to the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of the
Army for the trust and confidence that they have placed in me. If
confirmed, I pledge that I will work as hard as I possibly can to serve
the soldiers, civilians, and families that make the United States Army
the most powerful and professional army in the world.
When I joined the Army on active duty in 1978 as an officer in the
Judge Advocate General's Corps, I could never have imagined that I
would be joining it again, albeit in a different capacity, at this time
in my life. I thoroughly enjoyed my assignments in Germany as a young
captain in the late seventies and early eighties; I'll never forget the
pride I felt while serving in the Berlin Brigade when it was the symbol
of this country's commitment to freedom. After returning to the United
States for a subsequent assignment with the United States Army
Recruiting Command, I stayed in the Army Reserve until my civilian
career made it impossible for me to continue my military service at
that time.
When I was serving in the Berlin Brigade, I could hardly have
imagined that so much change in the world could occur in such a
relatively short period of time. Just as the international security
environment has changed, I am keenly aware that the Army has changed to
continue to meet the needs of the Nation. I understand that the
Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Army are committed to
developing a strategy and to setting forth a program that will meet
those needs well into the future.
Should I be confirmed, I look forward to serving on their team as a
way of once again joining the Army to continue serving the Nation
during this landmark era of change and transformation. By serving on
their team, I would also be serving with the Army team of Active,
Reserve, and National Guard soldiers who distinguish themselves every
day by their dedication and hard work. Finally, I would look forward to
continuing my relationship with the members of The Judge Advocate
General's Corps with whom I once proudly served. Alongside outstanding
civilian lawyers, they provide legal services on a wide range of legal
and policy issues that confront the Army around the nation and the
world.
I believe that my prior military service, my experience in the
legislative branch, and my extensive corporate background have prepared
me for assuming the position of Army General Counsel. If confirmed, I
pledge my best effort every day to be worthy of the trust placed in me
and to uphold the proud tradition of selfless service that
characterizes the dedicated soldiers, civilians, and families of the
United States Army who protect and defend our Nation around the world.
Mr. Chairman, if confirmed, I look forward to a strong working
relationship with you and this committee. I would be pleased to answer
any questions at this time. Thank you.
Chairman Levin. Mr. Wynne.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL W. WYNNE, NOMINEE TO BE DEPUTY UNDER
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR ACQUISITION AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Wynne. Mr. Chairman, members of this committee, I am
honored to appear before you today as a candidate for the
position of Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition
and Technology. I would also like to thank President Bush,
Secretary Rumsfeld, Under Secretary Aldridge for their
confidence in me for this nomination that you are considering.
I look forward to joining this very vibrant Department and
working with Congress and this committee on the many challenges
facing the Department. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to thank
you for acknowledging my spouse and I would like to submit the
rest of my remarks for the record.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wynne follows:]
Prepared Statement by Michael Wynne
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am honored to appear
before you today as a candidate for the position of Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology.
I would like to thank President Bush, Secretary Rumsfeld and Under
Secretary Aldridge for their confidence in me, and for this nomination
that you are considering. I look forward to joining this very vibrant
Department of Defense team and working with Congress and this committee
on the many challenges facing the department. I look forward to
applying the skills that I have learned in many differing assignments
in and out of the military and Defense Industry to the noble cause of
the defense of my county in support of the warfighters. I acknowledge
the presence and support of my wife, Barbara, who has stood by me
throughout all of those assignments in addition to raising our
wonderful daughters.
There is much work to be done. Mr. Aldridge has laid down some
challenging goals, and I look forward to working with him and the rest
of the Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics team to achieve these
goals. I look forward to my own portfolio as well, as it is important
to make the most use of our time to more effectively confront the major
issues and give each their proper attention. I'm certain that I will be
creating some of my own subordinate goals as I meet my new team and
become familiar with the problems they face on a daily basis.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to appear here today
to introduce myself and provide you insight into my approach to the
challenging post that I have been nominated for. If I am confirmed, I
look forward to working with Congress and especially with this
committee. I know that this committee has been a leader and partner in
many defense acquisition initiatives, and I appreciate your interest in
continuing to improve defense management. I will be happy to answer any
questions you might have.
Chairman Levin. Ms. Morales.
STATEMENT OF DIANE K. MORALES, NOMINEE TO BE DEPUTY UNDER
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR LOGISTICS AND MATERIAL READINESS
Ms. Morales. Mr. Chairman, I have no opening statement
other than to express my appreciation to you, Senator Levin,
for your prompt consideration of our nominations. I am
confident that President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld appreciate
these efforts. I would also like to thank Senator Warner for
his kind introduction, and members of the Armed Services
Committee.
It is an honor and a privilege to appear before this
committee today. I am grateful to the President and the
Secretary of Defense for their confidence and trust in
nominating me for this important position; one entrusted with
ensuring that the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines have
the logistics and material support necessary to carry out their
mission. If confirmed, I look forward to returning to the
Department and to working with this committee. Mr. Chairman,
thank you, and Senator Warner, thank you and I am prepared to
answer your questions.
Chairman Levin. Thank you.
Mr. Navas.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM A. NAVAS, JR., NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF THE NAVY FOR MANPOWER AND RESERVE AFFAIRS
Mr. Navas. Mr. Chairman, Senator Warner, members of the
committee, it is my distinct honor to appear before you today
seeking confirmation for the Assistant Secretary of the Navy
for Manpower and Reserve Affairs. I also want to express my
appreciation to President Bush, Secretary Rumsfeld and
Secretary England for this opportunity to continue serving our
Nation at this time in a civilian capacity in support of our
sailors and marines, active and Reserve, civilians and their
families. I fully support the Secretary of the Navy and his
strategic thrusts to support the President's vision. These
center on combat capability, people, technology, and business
practices.
If confirmed, I plan to concentrate our efforts on building
a team that would focus primarily on the people thrust that
would make the Secretary's vision a reality. Our goal will be
to create an environment where our men and women can excel at
their chosen profession unimpeded by factors that divert their
attention from work and sap their morale. Should I be
confirmed, we will create definite objectives and establish a
plan of action that will develop appropriate metrics to measure
our progress.
I plan to work in close cooperation and coordination with
the Under Secretary of the Navy, the Assistant Secretaries, the
Service Chiefs and the commanding officers to achieve our
primary purpose of combat readiness, understanding that people
are our most important resource and accepting that premise as
our core value. If confirmed, I will strive to provide our
sailors and marines competitive compensation, quality housing,
sufficient workplace resources, adequate health care and
challenging training and a reasonable OPTEMPO.
To close, Mr. Chairman, with the committee's indulgence, I
would like to thank my wife of 36 years--Wilda--who is here
supporting me today as she has done throughout the years. She
represents our children, their spouses, and our granddaughter.
Thank you again for your kind attention and I look forward to
your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Navas follows:]
Prepared Statement by William A. Navas, Jr.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, it's my distinct honor to
appear before you today in seeking confirmation as the Assistant
Secretary of the Navy for Manpower and Reserve Affairs. I also want to
express my appreciation to President Bush and to Secretary England for
this opportunity to continue serving our Nation, this time in a
civilian capacity. I fully support the Secretary of the Navy in his
four strategic thrusts in support of the President's vision.
If confirmed, I plan to concentrate our efforts in building a team
that will focus primarily on the ``people'' thrust to make the
Secretary's vision a reality. Our goal will be to create an environment
where our men and women can excel at their chosen profession unimpeded
by factors that divert their attention from work and sap their morale.
Understanding that people are our most important resource, and
accepting that premise as our core value, if confirmed, we will strive
to provide our sailors and marines competitive compensation, quality
housing, sufficient workplace resources, adequate health care,
challenging training, and reasonable OPTEMPO.
Should I be confirmed, we will clearly define these objectives,
establish a plan of action and develop the appropriate metrics to
measure our progress. We will work closely with the Department of
Defense, the Service Staffs and Congress to achieve our primary purpose
of combat readiness.
Thank you for your kind attention. I look forward to your
questions.
Chairman Levin. Thank you very much.
Mr. Mora.
STATEMENT OF ALBERTO J. MORA, NOMINEE TO BE GENERAL COUNSEL OF
THE NAVY
Mr. Mora. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a distinct honor
to appear before you this morning to be considered by committee
for possible confirmation as the 20th General Counsel of the
Department of the Navy. I want to thank you personally, Mr.
Chairman, for your gracious recognition of my wife and family.
I want to thank you and the members of the committee, as well
as the majority and minority staffs, for the many courtesies
you have extended to me during the confirmation process.
In particular, I wish to express my appreciation for the
committee's decision to schedule this hearing so rapidly
following my nomination by the President. This gesture
constitutes yet another example of the committee's long support
of the military services.
I would not be here, Mr. Chairman, but for the decision
made by President Bush and Secretary of the Navy England to
entrust me with this responsibility. I am grateful to them both
for the opportunity to add my name to the list of those men and
women who serve or have served in the Navy and Marine Corps.
My debt to the President and the Secretary can only be
repaid by dedication to duty and the diligent discharge of my
responsibilities. If I am confirmed, I can pledge to you as I
have to them that I will exercise my stewardship of the office
of General Counsel to the fullest extent of my ability and
energies. I ask that the remainder of my remarks be included in
the record, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mora follows:]
Prepared Statement by Alberto J. Mora
It is a distinct honor to appear before you this morning and to be
considered by the committee for possible confirmation as the 20th
General Counsel of the Department of the Navy. I want to thank you
personally, Mr. Chairman, for your gracious recognition of my wife and
family, and I want to thank you and the members of the committee, as
well as the majority and minority staffs, for the many courtesies
extended to me during the confirmation process. In particular, I wish
to express my appreciation for the committee's decision to schedule
this hearing so rapidly following my nomination by the President--this
gesture constitutes yet another example of this committee's long
history of support for the military services.
I would not be here, Mr. Chairman, but for the decision made by
President Bush and Secretary of the Navy England to entrust me with
this responsibility. I am grateful to them both for the opportunity to
add my name to the list of those men and women who serve or have served
in the Navy and Marine Corps. My debt to the President and the
Secretary can only be repaid by dedication to duty and the diligent
discharge of my responsibilities. If I am confirmed, I can pledge to
you--as I have to them--that I will exercise my stewardship of the
Office of General Counsel to the fullest extent of my ability and
energies.
From America's War of Independence to Desert Storm and with
countless battles in between, our sailors and marines, along with their
sister services, have fought and won America's wars and guarded the
peace. They have helped our Nation achieve the security that has proven
such a necessary element in the development of our freedoms and our
prosperity. By helping also shield our allies and friends, they have
been instrumental as well in creating the conditions that have made
possible the dramatic growth and propagation of the democratic ideal
that has flowered worldwide since 1989.
The attack on the U.S.S. Cole reminds us that service in the
uniformed Navy and Marine Corps can and does entail risk and often
sacrifice. Those of us whom you may decide to confirm to serve on
Secretary England's team understand this sacrifice and accord it its
proper value. We recognize that this sacrifice may include loss of
life. We know, too, that sacrifice can take more subtle forms: for
example, separation from family and friends; distance from home; long
hours; financial sacrifice; the discipline to place duty and country
before self; and other types of hardship that can appear in many other
shapes and guises.
In my view, the willingness of the men and women of the Navy and
Marines to place themselves in harm's way and incur these sacrifices
imposes a moral obligation on the rest of us, particularly those who
would assume responsibility for the civilian leadership for the
Department of the Navy, to fully comply with our duty to ensure that
the Navy and Marine Corps are supported, trained, and equipped at a
level superior to any challenge that they may expect to encounter. That
obligation takes the form of a covenant that runs from the Department
in three directions: to the men and women who wear the uniform; to you
in Congress who help provide the guidance and resources needed to
properly deploy the Navy; and to the fathers and mothers who lend their
sons and daughters to the Navy and Marines with the expectation that
they will be sustained in the discharge of their duties.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to assuming these responsibilities and
honoring his covenant. If confirmed, I look forward to working closely
with you and this committee to meet the needs of the Navy and Marine
Corps and to meet the expectation of our Nation that we will do right
by them.
Chairman Levin. Thank you very much. Ms. Morales and Mr.
Wynne, let me ask you the following question. The President's
February budget blueprint states that ``with 23 percent in
estimated excess infrastructure, it is clear that new rounds of
base closures will be necessary to shape the military more
efficiently''. Do each of you agree or disagree that we have
excess infrastructure in the Department of Defense today? Ms.
Morales, let me start with you.
Ms. Morales. It intuitively can be argued that the force
structure has been drawn down further than the infrastructure,
but I believe that both Secretaries Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz are
deferring comment on this issue until the Defense Review has
been completed.
Chairman Levin. OK. Mr. Wynne.
Mr. Wynne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am not as familiar
with base closure as I will be when I am confirmed and learn
more about this process. However, I believe that no opportunity
for efficiencies should be off the table. Everything should be
balanced against the future needs of the soldiers, sailors and
airmen. We should carefully review every opportunity for cost
efficiency and then judge it on its merits.
Chairman Levin. Mr. Navas, relative to Vieques, you are the
Chairman of the American Veterans Committee for Puerto Rico
Self Determination. I understand the committee has not taken a
position on the Navy's continued use of Vieques. However, there
was a press release that has been brought to our attention,
which was issued by the committee of which you are chair
earlier this year. It has the following statement: ``The
Vieques issue should not overshadow a century of commitment to
the United States by the American citizens of Puerto Rico.
Instead it should remind us that despite all their contribution
to the United States the people of Puerto Rico remain second-
class citizens. Vieques is a symptom of a relationship which
does not provide any mechanism for the people of Puerto Rico to
address their just grievances.''
Can you tell us what your own position is on the Navy's use
of Vieques? Also, would you comment on that situation, the law
which provides for a referendum of the people of Vieques, and
the recent events on Vieques?
Mr. Navas. Yes, Mr. Chairman. The issue is a very complex
one. On one side, as a combat veteran of 33 years in the Army,
I strongly support realistic training as a principal
underpinning of combat readiness. At the present time, Vieques
provides the Navy and the Marine Corps team with an ideal place
in which to conduct this training. That basically is the issue
on one side.
On the other hand, the work that I did with the committee
basically saw Vieques and the issue in Vieques as a symptom of
a broader issue, which is the fact that the relationship
between the United States and Puerto Rico for the last hundred
years has not been resolved to the point where the people of
Puerto Rico would have the right to self-determination and
sovereignty. There are basically two options at the extreme of
the spectrum; Puerto Rico becoming the 51st State of the Union
or Puerto Rico becoming an independent republic in its own
terms.
In those cases the relationship vis-a-vis the issues would
have been dealt differently. I am torn between basically two
issues. The issue at one hand of the requirement for combat
readiness which I strongly believe and I have supported. Then
on the other hand a more broader issue of resolving at some
point the hundred year history of disenfranchisement of over
3.8 million Puerto Ricans citizens who do not have the
opportunity to vote for the President or who do not have
representation in our system.
Chairman Levin. What role would you expect to playing with
regard to Vieques if confirmed?
Mr. Navas. Mr. Chairman, my portfolio obviously is
personnel issues. I have not been involved in any of the
issues. I would play whatever role the Secretary of the Navy
sees fit for me. I would say intuitively that I might be able
to provide him with some background, some insight on the
broader issues of Puerto Rico because of the fact that I was
born and educated and have been, except for the past 6 years,
an official resident of Puerto Rico.
Chairman Levin. Mr. Mora, if confirmed, what are your
objectives relative to Vieques and what role would you be
playing?
Mr. Mora. Sir, as chief legal counsel of the Department of
the Navy, my role would be as a legal advisor to the
Department. The Vieques issue has, of course, significant legal
dimensions, but it is fundamentally a policy issue centering on
the readiness and the training of the military. I will, of
course, advise the Secretary and other members of the
Department of the Navy and the Marine Corps on the legal issues
that may arise. Then beyond that I would cooperate with the
Secretary with whatever additional task or request for
information or support he might care to give me.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, my time is up.
Senator Warner.
Senator Warner. Mr. Chairman I will follow on with your
line of questions relative to Vieques. First an observation. In
the response you made to the chairman's questions, you
indicated that Puerto Rico has suffered and that well may be
the case because of the difference in the way it is treated as
a territory versus a state. But the record should reflect that
the people of Puerto Rico have never voted to express their
desire to become a state. Am I not correct on that?
Mr. Navas. Senator Warner, the issue is that we have never
had a congressionally-sanctioned referendum which defines very
clearly what are the options to the issue of Puerto Rico.
Actually there is a letter by the four congressional
committees, that have jurisdiction over Puerto Rico dated 1996,
stating that the question of Puerto Rico's political status
remains open and unresolved.
What we have had historically are referenda that have been
done locally. They are not binding with the U.S. Congress and
as such the Congress of the United States, who basically has
the authority over Puerto Rico under the territorial clause of
the Constitution, has never put some options there, binding
options, for the people of Puerto Rico. That was attempted last
year in the 106th Congress with the Young Bill that did not
progress.
Senator Warner. But in the meantime the laws of the United
States have a force and effect in Puerto Rico. Is this
committee to assume that you will respect and work to support
the laws of the United States as relate to the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico?
Mr. Navas. Most definitely, sir.
Senator Warner. I thank you very much. You have a
distinguished career and it may well be that your knowledge in
depth of the issues could be of help to the Department of the
Navy and indeed the Secretary of Defense as these critical
issues evolve.
Mr. Navas. Sir, I hope I can be a part of the solution.
Senator Warner. I hope that you give your objective
viewpoints to the Secretary of the Navy and Secretary of
Defense.
Mr. Navas. Yes, sir.
Senator Warner. Mr. Wynne, I want to ask you about
contracting out. The DOD contracted for approximately $54
billion worth of services last year, which is almost about as
much as DOD paid for the procurement of weapons systems. The
significance of this type of contracting has led this committee
to ask the GAO to identify private sector ``best practices'' in
services contracting, similar to what the GAO did for the
committee in the area of systems acquisition. Do you believe
that some changes are necessary to ensure that the DOD
effectively acquires services from the private sector? If this
is a bit technical, I would suggest you take that question for
the record.
Mr. Wynne. Thank you sir. I certainly will take that
question for the record. I am concerned about the disciplining
of services procurement.
[The information follows:]
Acquisition of Services
Mr. Wynne. As Senators Warner and Levin correctly noted, DOD has
steadily increased its investment in services over the last few years.
Given this increased investment, we believe it will be beneficial to
establish a process to better inform the Defense acquisition Executive
and the Service Secretaries of the approach being taken on these
significant investments. Our objective is to ensure that our approach
to the acquisition of services reflects sound acquisition practices and
capitalizes on industry best practices. Such a process is currently
under discussion and we expect to implement a new oversight process in
the near future.
Senator Warner. I think this is very important because it
is an ever-growing issue and we want to keep it in balance.
What we receive has got to measure up to what the private
sector receives. I want to ask a question of Ms. Morales. One
of the most challenging issues you will have to address is how
to effectively deliver the required equipment and maintenance
to our military forces. Maintenance is now performed by
uniformed personnel on the flight lines and in the motor pools,
by Federal and civilian employees at the depots, and by the
private sector in a number of locations.
Assuring we retain the capability to perform the required
maintenance in the most efficient and effective manner will be
one of your most important responsibilities. If confirmed, what
plans do you have to improve the entire equipment maintenance
system and what role do you envision for each of the elements
of that system?
Let me give you a case in point. The Navy at the moment has
an escalating problem with regard to the maintenance of its
aircraft because many are very old. Spare parts are lacking
simply because the manufacturers of those parts have gone on to
other business and some of these parts have to literally be
hand crafted. The cost of the maintenance of naval aircraft
each year is rising at an exponential rate. I hope that you can
turn to the spare parts and maintenance issue early on in your
responsibilities. To what extent have you given some thought to
that?
Ms. Morales. Senator, the number one concern and challenge
to material readiness throughout the Department is the rising
cost to maintain these older systems. In the newer weapons
systems reliability and sustainability are being engineered
into the systems. The first thing that I believe needs to be
done, if confirmed, is to review an end-to-end study of the
logistics systems and take apart each phase of it and see what
we can do to improve the situation. But the high cost of spare
parts for these older systems, the fact that suppliers are
limited, and that, as you have said, many have gone out of
business is going to be a continuing challenge.
Senator Warner. I thank the witness. I thank you, Mr.
Chairman. My time is up.
Chairman Levin. Senator Warner, thank you.
Senator Reed.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much Mr. Chairman and thank
you all for not only today but for your dedication to public
service throughout your careers. Let me first address a
question to Mr. Wynne and Ms. Morales. Both individually and
collectively you will make critical decisions that affect the
industrial base of the United States, the defense industrial
base through acquisitions, through procurement policies,
through logistic policies. Sometimes decisions appear in terms
of just bottom line analysis in favor of doing one thing, but
when you consider the nature of the industrial base the
decision could change.
My general question is to what extent do you think it is
important to consider the survivability of the industrial base
in terms of the whole range of issues, aircraft production,
submarine production, and even suppliers of uniforms? Mr. Wynne
first.
Mr. Wynne. Thank you, Senator. My feeling is that each case
has to be considered on its merits. There is right now a lull
in purchasing, which creates an overcapacity situation. The
questions are where do you want to be 15 years from now and
what are you going to do 15 years from now for industrial
support. So, yes, I agree with you that more things have to be
considered than just price. I think it is a best value
situation and that is the way I will do it if I am confirmed,
sir.
Senator Reed. Thank you, sir.
Ms. Morales.
Ms. Morales. I agree with Mr. Wynne and we have had several
conversations about this.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much. Mr. Mora and Mr.
Morello, you will be in the General Counsels of the Army and
Navy. Besides making a bet on the Army-Navy football game, you
will have a lot of other interesting things to do, one of which
is the ongoing concern about environmental issues affecting
both the Army and the Navy. This, I believe, will be amplified
by the Vieques situation because whatever resolution comes
about in Vieques, there will be additional pressure on training
areas throughout the Army and Navy by local community groups.
My general question is what is your position at this point
about the environmental laws? My specific question is what is
your position about a broadened appreciation of the interaction
between the local communities and military facilities? Mr.
Morello.
Mr. Morello. Thank you, Senator. In my preparation for
these hearings I was heartened to learn that the Army General
Counsel's office does indeed have a number of attorneys who
just specialize in environmental issues. I think that shows or
demonstrates to me at least the seriousness with which the
Secretary of the Army places upon environmental issues. Local
concern is always an important part of the input that would be
taken with regard to an appropriate environmental plan of
action regarding any kind of training or other base activity.
If confirmed, I would continue with that sensitivity based
upon some of my experiences in private practice. I know it is
very important, especially to the people who live anywhere
around areas that may be impacted, to make sure that we do the
best we can and be good environmental citizens.
Senator Reed. Thank you. Mr. Mora.
Mr. Mora. Thank you, Senator. In the week of briefings I
have had at the General Counsel's office, Senator, I would say
the preponderance of the issues have touched upon environmental
matters in one way or the other. It is clear that preoccupation
with environmental law and compliance is one of the principal
preoccupations of the Navy. In fact, from what I have seen, I
am not aware that there is almost any Navy operation or
activity that does not have some sort of environmental
consideration which the Navy takes into account.
Obviously, the Navy will obey the environmental laws and
wishes to be a good neighbor in all the communities in which it
is a member. By the same token, it is clear that environmental
restrictions which seem to be growing provide an ever-growing
restriction to training and readiness in the Navy. These are
difficult questions that have to be balanced, Senator. We can
promise our full attention to these issues.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Mr. Mora.
Mr. Navas, let me ask you a question with respect to
personnel policy, which I believe you will be involved with.
There have been some studies of the quality of life and
retention and one of them was completed by Admiral Jeremiah for
Secretary Rumsfeld. He suggested a complete overhaul of the
human resources architecture of the total force. He talked
about changes including doing away with the up-or-out promotion
policy and early investing in portability military retirement
benefits. I would add to that list probably consideration of
the overall evaluation system for both officers and non-
commissioned officers. What are your views about reforming the
system of both benefits and of evaluations within the Navy?
Mr. Navas. Senator, I have not had an opportunity to review
those proposals. Like I mentioned in my opening statement, one
of the thrusts of the Secretary of the Navy is people with what
that encompasses and we are looking at programs that would deal
with a quality of life and a quality of service of our sailors,
marines, and the civilians. So if confirmed, I see that as a
primary issue of priority for the Department and I will work
very diligently with the other elements of the Department of
Defense and Congress to try to provide that quality of life and
quality of service to our sailors and marines.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Navas. Thank you all
for your testimony and again for your service to the country.
Chairman Levin. Senator Reed, thank you.
Senator Inhofe.
Senator Inhofe. Mr. Chairman, are we going to have another
round after this?
Chairman Levin. As many rounds as we need.
Senator Inhofe. OK, fine. Let's go back to the question
that the answer that you gave, Mr. Navas, concerning your
background and this group that you are the chairman of. It has
the term self-determination in it, but specifically what is the
name of the group?
Mr. Navas. Sir, the group is a committee called the
American Veterans for Puerto Rico Self-Determination.
Senator Inhofe. You implied in the answer to Senator
Warner's question that while there have been several elections,
several referenda, there have not been any that had restricted
options. I would assume that you would support a referendum
that said statehood or independence. Is this accurate?
Mr. Navas. Sir, at the end of the day, the two pure options
for sovereignty or self-determination for Puerto Rico would be
either a State of the Union under the Constitution of the
United States or an independent republic. There might be a
third option. I have not studied that because every time you
look at that option it always remains as a transition option,
it's an option that could go beyond the two options. So the
ultimate two would be those two, yes, sir.
Senator Inhofe. Do you think that is what your governor
would like to see?
Mr. Navas. Sir, I cannot speak for the governor. I have not
been a resident, an official resident of Puerto Rico for the
last 6 years.
Senator Inhofe. Since you support self-determination would
you support self-determination for the citizens of Vieques as
is called for in the referendum that will come in November?
Mr. Navas. Sir, there is a law on the books based on a
referendum for a very specific issue. As long as that is the
law, I think we would support it. Of course, I am aware that
there is a thrust to try to get relief from that law, and I am
not at this point in the capacity to comment one way or the
other.
Senator Inhofe. Well, Mr. Mora. Do you have any comments on
that from a legal perspective? Do you see any problem with the
language in the law that we passed in the Defense Authorization
Bill last year?
Mr. Mora. Senator Inhofe, I have not had the opportunity to
analyze that legislation in any great detail.
Senator Inhofe. I don't think there is. I just wanted to
make sure that you didn't already have a predetermined opinion
on it.
Mr. Mora. I have no predetermined opinion on the law.
Senator Inhofe. OK, Ms. Morales, I am very interested. I
would like to have a courtesy call at some time in this process
so we can get into some of the issues. When you were working in
the two administrations back we had the 60-40 rule that would
address the core work in our depots. That is now 50-50.
However, we have changed the status of COS and ICS so that it's
really essentially the same as it was before.
Recently we have been operating, I think, for 2 consecutive
years, on national security waivers. Do you have any
suggestions for changing the law as it affects depot
maintenance?
Ms. Morales. Senator, I think it would be premature to have
any suggestions at this point.
Senator Inhofe. If it does not change, would you do
everything you could to get this out about operating on
national security waivers. It was pretty obvious to all of us
in advance that we are going to have some problems. A lot of it
is legitimate and that is the Kosovo and Bosnia operations and
the effects that they have had. But would you make a real
effort to comply with the law so that we don't have to go into
these waivers?
Ms. Morales. Senator, it is my intent to comply with the
law. If confirmed, I believe that we need to examine this issue
further. I would be most pleased to sit down with you and speak
about it.
Senator Inhofe. I look forward to that. Senator Warner
brought out the spare parts problems. You are going to be
shocked when you get around and see things like the spare parts
problem. Every installation you go to you are going to see the
same thing that we have seen. Across all the services. It is a
very serious problem and it is one that is going to surprise
you relative to the way it was some 10 years ago. I think that
is something that has to be addressed. We have helicopters that
are sitting out there for spare parts. It is a very serious
readiness problem.
Ms. Morales. A complete review of the depot maintenance
operations throughout this country is one of my highest
priorities.
Senator Inhofe. We have some pretty creative ideas on
things that we can do. A lot of times people are talking about
outsourcing. There are partnership programs and we have some
successful ones in my state, but I think we will respond to
some of these concerns that people will have about the costs. I
look forward to working with you on that. We have one
particular project I want to work with you on. So I look
forward to visiting with you.
My time is expired but on the second round I want to expand
a little bit on some of the concerns that were expressed by
some of the other Senators here on the environment and the cost
of complying with some of these environmental regulations.
There are at least three of you that will be dealing with that.
I look forward to the next round.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Inhofe. On that very
issue let me ask Ms. Morales this question. In your response to
our pre-hearing questions, you stated that you support the
basic principle of the Federal Facilities Compliance Act that
Federal facilities, including DOD facilities, should be subject
to the same standards as comparably-situated civilian
facilities. However, you also stated that there may be cases in
which environmental regulations or regulators should ``make
allowances'' for DOD facilities. I am just wondering how you
reconcile those two statements. Should DOD facilities be
subject to the same standards as comparably-situated civilian
facilities, or should they be given preferential treatment?
Ms. Morales. Environmental laws should apply to defense
facilities and I believe that is how the law is stated.
However, Congress did permit allowances for the President to
make special considerations of the application of compliance
for national security reasons. I don't believe that the
Department would take lightly its advice to the President to do
so, but that provision is there.
Chairman Levin. Mr. Mora, unlike other parties facing
substantial costs for the abatement and removal of asbestos,
the Navy has not sought to recover any of these costs from the
asbestos manufacturers. In your response to the pre-hearing
questions, you said that you had not yet been briefed on this
subject. If you are confirmed, will you look into this issue,
will you report back to the committee promptly on the
desirability of pursuing such a remedy?
Mr. Mora. Yes, sir, I would be happy to do so.
Chairman Levin. Mr. Wynne, you have spent much of your
career in weapons systems development and acquisition and the
priorities that you have established in your response to the
pre-hearing questions all deal with weapons systems. However,
the Department of Defense now spends almost as much purchasing
services as it does purchasing weapons systems. Do you agree
that the Department's acquisition, training and guidance need
to place a greater emphasis on best practices in the
acquisition of services?
Mr. Wynne. Sir, if confirmed, I will certainly look into
the acquisition of services. It is my belief that we need to
bring a little more discipline to that practice as it grows to
a larger percentage of the defense budget.
Chairman Levin. Should the Department make a greater effort
to advance and reward acquisition personnel who play a
successful role in managing the acquisition of services?
Mr. Wynne. Sir, I am not familiar with all of the
attributes of the personnel contracting for services. We have a
very professional workforce and I am looking forward to working
with them. I do think we need to bring a little more attention
to the procurement of services as the committee is concerned.
Chairman Levin. Will you work with us to make sure that the
Department implements best practices in this area such as the
use of performance-based service contracting and the
competitive award of task orders.
Mr. Wynne. Sir, I have long admired the committee for their
work in partnership with the Department to achieve procurement
excellence and this would be no exception.
Chairman Levin. This is one example of what Senator Warner
was referring to in his opening statement of where the
committee staff can be very helpful. We look forward to you
working with that staff on these kind of issues.
Mr. Wynne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that
offer.
Chairman Levin. Ms. Morales, over the years the military
services have complained about the overhead fees the DLA
charges for the purchases out of inventory, which I understand
can exceed 20 percent. Do you believe it would cost more or
less for the services to purchase and stock these items
themselves?
Ms. Morales. Senator, that is a very interesting question.
I think I would like to take that under advisement.
Chairman Levin. Would you take a look at that after you are
confirmed, if you would, and then let us know what your
findings are?
Mr. Morello and Mr. Mora, although the Judge Advocate
Generals are primarily responsible for providing legal advice
and services regarding the UCMJ and the administration of
military discipline, the General Counsels have historically
played a role in civilian oversight of these programs. If
confirmed, how will you assist the Secretaries in providing
civilian oversight of these important functions. Either one of
you. Mr. Morello? Mr. Mora?
Mr. Morello. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for that
question. I already had an opportunity to have a brief
discussion with the Army's Judge Advocate General, Maj. Walt
Huffman. The discussions were very cordial and very friendly
and reminded me a lot of the days when I served on Active Duty
as a captain. I really admired the Judge Advocate General.
The General Counsel of the Army has statutory
responsibilities to provide professional guidance to all the
lawyers in the Department of the Army. I look forward to
working very closely with the Judge Advocate General, offering
professional guidance wherever it could be helpful and
providing advice to the Secretary of the Army with regard to
the kinds of needs that the Department might have from time to
time.
Chairman Levin. Thank you. Mr. Mora.
Mr. Mora. Mr. Chairman, in my briefings and in my
investigations on the Department of the Navy, I have found an
extremely close, cordial and cooperative relationship between
the JAG Corps and the Office of General Counsel. I too have met
with Admiral Guter who is the JAG and I fully anticipate to
continue to build on this relationship of collaboration and
cooperation.
Chairman Levin. Thank you. Senator Warner.
Senator Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
follow on that important question with two other observations
to our General Counsels, Mr. Mora and Mr. Morello. There is, in
my judgement, nothing more important to the integrity of the
men and women of the Armed Forces than the integrity of the
promotion system. Enlisted, yes, but perhaps more so because of
the complexity of the officer system.
Each of you will have a role in working with your
Secretaries and your Departments as a whole, as the case may
be, on preserving that integrity. From time to time it is
necessary to review it perhaps to change it. I just wish that
each of you would give the assurance that that will be right at
the top of your agendas.
In every system and every walk of life there is
imperfection. This committee, in its responsibilities to
preserve the integrity of the promotion system and in its
oversight and its advise and consent role, is the trustee for
the entire Senate in making our recommendations to the Senate
to vote affirmatively on the slates of officers that come here
from the President of the United States. It is necessary from
time to time to ferret out, root out those who somehow have
worked their way through the system, but have incidents or
chapters in their careers which could be viewed as adverse and
could well affect the judgment of this committee in its advise
and consent role.
Each of you have that responsibility for your respective
Secretaries or the Departments as a whole to make sure that
this committee is kept informed and given all the facts
necessary to discharge our constitutional function to advise
and consent in that promotion system. Do I have your assurance
Mr. Morello?
Mr. Morello. Yes, sir. Absolutely.
Senator Warner. Mr. Mora?
Mr. Mora. Yes, sir, you do.
Senator Warner. One further question for Mr. Wynne. The
acquisition workforce needs a little morale building. It has
sort of been downplayed through the years. Regrettably, for a
decade or more we have had to put greater emphasis on expending
funds for deployments rather than those necessary to get our
new systems and weapons adequately maintained, a steady
improvement in that infrastructure.
I just hope that you will, having visited with you at
length yesterday, instill in this workforce a sense of real
importance to modernize the Armed Forces of our United States.
Instill in those in the civil service system, and indeed the
uniform side, a sense of the importance of modernizing the
Armed Forces of the United States under this administration.
Will you do that?
Mr. Wynne. Thank you for your concern, Senator. I think
that is a marvelous attribute and I will certainly pursue that,
if confirmed.
Senator Warner. I thank the chair.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Warner.
Senator Inhofe, Senator Reed passes.
Senator Inhofe. Mr. Mora and Morello, and perhaps also Ms.
Morales. You should form a law firm. [Laughter.]
Getting back to the question that was asked by the chairman
on the BRAC process and the need for further rounds. It happens
I don't fully agree with the chairman in this area, but there
is one area where we might agree. I was elected to the House of
Representatives the year that the BRAC process passed into law,
and it was a very good one because its been very effective for
four rounds.
There is one problem that I see with it, and that is
anytime you start one, every city located near any type of an
installation goes out and pays $100,000 or more to consultants,
and everybody comes here to try to influence their case. We
refer to this as municipal purgatory.
It would seem to me that with the combined brilliance of
the three of you working on this problem, there ought to be a
way of taking categories, maybe something like primary training
and flight training, and say there is not a problem in this
area. There is not excess capacity in this area and at least
let some installations go out. You could do the same thing with
the our logistics centers where we went down from five working
at 50 percent capacity to three now working at close to 100
percent capacity. Because that problem has been taken care of
they would be excluded from the future system. Do any of you
have any ideas on how this could be done? Would this be
desirable?
Mr. Morello. Senator, I would be happy to address that. I
have not had an opportunity to study the base closing and
realignment statute in any kind of detail. I do understand that
it is a statute that works well and I am sensitive to the
concern which you have raised. I do believe that if I am
confirmed I would look forward to working with my colleagues in
coming up with a way to deal with the issue that you raised and
get back and work with yourself and other members of the
committee who might have similar concerns.
Senator Inhofe. Mr. Mora.
Mr. Mora. Sir, let me echo what Mr. Morello just indicated.
I too would hope that we could work, and I am confidant we can
work cooperatively with the other services to ensure uniform
procedures that are efficient in this process.
Senator Inhofe. Ms. Morales.
Ms. Morales. I would agree that we could certainly look at
opportunities.
Senator Inhofe. It is a huge problem and I am sure you are
aware of it down in Texas. They have the same problem.
Ms. Morales. I actually worked in the 1993 BRAC session for
the NADEP at Pensacola. I am aware of all of the emotions that
the communities and workers go through. It is very disruptive,
yet I believe there are times when you have to focus on the
overall goal, which is to align the infrastructure with the new
force structure. It's definitely going to be a challenge to
everyone.
Senator Inhofe. I would only ask, and I don't expect to
have an answer, that you explore ways that this can be done. It
would provide a great service for an awful lot of communities.
When you mention that there is some latitude in terms of
the enforcement of the environmental laws in military
installations, were you referring to the fact that you can have
Presidential waivers? Is this what you were referring to? I had
not heard this before.
Ms. Morales. It is my understanding, without having gone
into great study of the environmental laws that Congress has
provided, that the President can make certain waivers in
compliance.
Senator Inhofe. I was a little embarrassed and had to check
because I was not aware of that. I don't believe they have ever
done that before. Let's discuss the Fort Bragg/Camp Lejeune
red-cockaded woodpecker issue. Because of the efforts that were
made by the military, they are creating more serious problems
for themselves.
On two different visits down there they had these red areas
that were excluded from training purposes because they are
suspected habitats for the red-cockaded woodpecker. Now they
have done such a good job, Mr. Chairman, that those are now
expanding. They are taking more and more of the training area
that was there. This needs to be addressed in some way because
they are creating a greater problem for themselves.
At Camp Pendleton they came close to losing 70 percent of
their training area. In training areas, whether they be live
ranges, such as Vieques, or training areas such as those at
Fort Bragg and Camp Lejeune, this is a very serious problem. I
would like to ask that you look into these to see if there is
something that can be put in place. If we don't do it, we are
using up our training areas by the good job that we are doing.
Ms. Morales. I agree with you, Senator, and if confirmed I
look forward to finding common sense approaches to training and
supporting training.
Senator Inhofe. That would be a very good thing to do and I
look forward to that. I would like to be in on that with you. I
happened to be exposed to this. The tortoise watchers between
Yuma and Twentynine Palms. It really is a pretty good job. It
is one I am sure is sought after.
Ms. Morales. I think the services do their very best to
comply with the law.
Senator Inhofe. That is an area that is very much a concern
to all of us. Last, if I could, Mr. Chairman, just go back to
the Vieques issue. The problem we are having there is that it
is a unique place. While I make the statement that I have
examined every possible alternative, I think that's an
exaggeration because there might be some that we don't know
about.
Of those that were in the Grace-Fallon Report and the Rush
Report, I have had occasion to see the problems that are there.
We are dealing with a very unique situation. We're dealing with
a situation that when we deploy someone from the East Coast
that ultimately goes to the Persian Gulf, the chances are
better than 50-50 that they will find themselves in a combat
environment and they must have integrated training. Of course,
the battlegroup includes aircraft carriers and F-18s and F-14s
doing their thing.
We had a very unfortunate thing that happened on March 12th
on the range in Kuwait where five of our troops were killed.
After reading the report, I believe that it was because they
did not have live training. That was right at the time when
they said you could do inert training instead of live training.
I would hope all of you, particularly you, Mr. Navas, with your
background, would have a chance to really talk about the
seriousness of this.
I want to make sure that you keep in mind that paramount is
young Americans who are going into combat environments. We
shouldn't be talking about this as a political issue. It is my
understanding that there are even some, Mr. Navas, that feel so
strongly about it that they have signed petitions to secede
from Puerto Rico. Maybe Mr. Chairman, that is the answer. I
don't know. If you would keep us involved in your decisions and
your thinking as this thing progresses, I would appreciate it
very much.
Mr. Navas. I will, sir.
Chairman Levin. Do we know of any Senators on their way? If
not, what we will do then is adjourn now. We will not have to
come back after this vote. We thank you all. We thank your
families again. Alexander, your flamingo brought your daddy
good luck. [Laughter.]
Or is that a pelican? I can't see what that is. It's a
flamingo. Thank you all. Congratulations. We'll hope to bring
these to the floor as soon as we have a committee to vote on
them.
[Whereupon, at 10:42 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[Prepared questions submitted to Alberto J. Mora by
Chairman Levin prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
June 18, 2001.
Hon. Carl Levin, Chairman,
Committee on Armed Services,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Enclosed herewith are the answers to the advance
questions the Senate Armed Services Committee asked me to complete.
Sincerely,
Albert J. Mora.
cc: Hon. John Warner,
Ranking Member.
______
Questions and Responses
defense reforms
Question. More than a decade has passed since the enactment of the
Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and
the Special Operations reforms.
Do you support full implementation of these defense reforms?
Answer. Yes. I am committed to the complete and effective
implementation of these reforms.
Question. What is your view of the extent to which these defense
reforms have been implemented?
Answer. I believe these reforms have been fully implemented. It is
my understanding that the legislation has clarified the
responsibilities and authorities of the Secretary of Defense, the
Secretaries of the Military Departments, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. These reforms also clearly defined
the roles and responsibilities of the CINCs.
Question. What do you consider to be the most important aspects of
these defense reforms?
Answer. The most significant aspects of these Department of Defense
reforms have been the overall strengthening of the civilian leadership
and enhanced clarity of the chain of command. The enhanced ability of
staffs and the combatant commanders-in-chief to plan and execute their
assigned missions has been demonstrated both in peace and conflict.
Question. The goals of Congress in enacting these defense reforms,
as reflected in Section 3 of the Goldwater-Nichols Department of
Defense Reorganization Act, can be summarized as strengthening civilian
control, improving military advice; placing clear responsibility on the
combatant commanders for the accomplishment of their missions; ensuring
the authority of the combatant commanders is commensurate with their
responsibility; increasing attention to the formulation of strategy and
to contingency planning; providing for more efficient use of defense
resources; and enhancing the effectiveness of military operations and
improving the management and administration of the Department of
Defense.
Do you agree with these goals?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Recently, there have been articles, which indicate an
interest within the Department of Defense in modifying Goldwater-
Nichols in light of the changing environment and possible revisions to
the national strategy.
Do you anticipate that legislative proposals to amend Goldwater-
Nichols may be appropriate? If so, what areas do you believe it might
be appropriate to address in these proposals?
Answer. I am aware that, last year, the Services and OSD supported
changes to Goldwater-Nichols that would improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of Joint Officer Management while upholding the spirit
and intent of the original reforms. However, I understand that there is
currently consideration to initiate changes to last year's proposal
with which I am not completely familiar. If confirmed, I will be in
position to better understand and assess whether such proposals are
warranted. Implementation of Goldwater-Nichols has enhanced the ability
of the Services to act quickly and jointly. However, like all
innovative efforts, this may warrant review and assessment in light of
experience. If anything, the ``next level of jointness'' ought to be
ensuring that the Services and our allies are fully interoperable.
duties
Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
the General Counsel of the Department of the Navy?
Answer. The General Counsel is the chief legal officer of the
Department, and legal opinions issued by the General Counsel are the
controlling legal opinions within the Department. The General Counsel
provides legal advice, counsel and guidance to the Secretary, the Under
Secretary and the Assistant Secretaries, and their staffs. He is also
responsible for providing legal services throughout the Department in a
variety of fields, including business and commercial law, real and
personal property law, fiscal law, civilian personnel and labor law,
intellectual property law, environmental law, and litigation. In
addition, the General Counsel serves as the Debarring Official and
Designated Agency Ethics Official for the Department.
Question. What background and experience do you possess that you
believe qualifies you to perform these duties?
Answer. If confirmed, I believe my work as General Counsel for the
U.S. Information Agency (USIA), elsewhere in the Federal Government,
and in the private sector will serve me well as the General Counsel.
For 4 years from 1989 to 1993, as General Counsel for USIA, I advised
senior government officials in the USIA and had extensive dealings with
the White House, National Security Council, State Department and other
foreign affairs agencies, Office of Management and Budget, Government
Accounting Office, and Congress. I managed the legal staff serving the
USIA and dealt with a wide range of legal issues.
My experience in private legal practice has provided extensive
experience in problem solving, client counseling, dispute resolution,
and management. This experience has provided me a broad experience in
the law, with an emphasis on international litigation and transactions,
much of it in the foreign affairs context.
Lastly, my tenure for the past 6 years as a Governor on the
Broadcasting Board of Governors has provided significant, hands-on
experience in agency management and, notably, in the policy
formulation, budgetary, congressional, and inter-agency coordination
aspects of work in a federal foreign policy. This expanded on and
reinforced my prior experience, abroad and in the United States, gained
as a State Department Foreign Service Officer.
Cumulatively, this experience, I believe, has well prepared me to
take on the duties of General Counsel.
Question. Do you believe that there are actions you need to take to
enhance your ability to perform the duties of the General Counsel of
the Department of the Navy?
Answer. I believe I possess the essential legal expertise and
management skills to be the General Counsel. I continue to learn more
about the Department and the work of the General Counsel. Additionally,
I hope to benefit from the wisdom and knowledge of those who have
devoted themselves to service in the Navy and Marine Corps, as well as
the career civil servants in the Department. If confirmed, I will seek
out their advice.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what duties and functions do
you expect that Secretary England would prescribe for you?
Answer. If confirmed, I anticipate that Secretary England will
expect me to perform the duties noted above in response to the first
question in this section. I anticipate he will want my candid and
objective legal advice concerning issues, opportunities and problems as
they arise. I further anticipate he will want me to work closely with
the Judge Advocate General to ensure the faithful execution of the laws
throughout the Department of the Navy, with the General Counsel of the
Department of Defense and others on matters of mutual interest or
concern.
Question. In carrying out your duties, how will you work with the
Judge Advocate General of the Navy?
Answer. The General Counsel and the Judge Advocate General need to
have a relationship that includes full consultation, close cooperation
and careful coordination. This relationship is essential to ensure the
faithful execution of the laws throughout the Department. If confirmed,
I am confident that this close and collegial professional relationship
will continue.
Question. In carrying out your duties, how will you work with the
Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine Corps?
Answer. The position of Staff Judge Advocate for the Marine Corps
is established in Title 10, Sec. 5046. While the Staff Judge Advocate's
primary responsibility is advising the Commandant on military justice
matters, if confirmed, I expect that our respective offices will
consult and coordinate on any matters of mutual interest or concern
that may arise.
Question. How are the legal responsibilities of the Department of
the Navy allocated between the General Counsel and the Judge Advocate
General?
Answer. I understand that the Judge Advocate General has primary
responsibility for the administration of the military justice system.
If confirmed, I expect that he and I will consult and cooperate on
matters of mutual interest or concern relating to military justice,
bearing in mind his statutory duties and special expertise in this
area. With respect to civil law matters involving Navy and Marine Corps
components, my understanding is that primary responsibility is divided,
by major subject area, between the Office of the General Counsel and
the Office of the Judge Advocate General. From time to time, I expect,
there will arise matters in which responsibilities overlap. In such
instances, and particularly with regard to litigation, I believe that
cooperation and coordination between the two offices is imperative.
Question. Do you believe that this allocation--which differs from
that in the Army and the Air Force--serves the interests of the
Department of the Navy?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I will diligently monitor the division
of responsibilities for legal services and work to ensure that the
legal needs of the Naval Services are well served. If I detect any
deficiencies, I will address them.
Question. In carrying out your duties, how will you work with the
General Counsel of the Department of Defense?
Answer. While the General Counsel of the Department of the Navy
reports to the Secretary of the Navy, the General Counsel of the
Department of Defense is the chief legal officer of the Department of
Defense. If confirmed, I will work closely with the DOD General
Counsel, Jim Haynes, on matters of mutual interest or concern. I look
forward to a most productive working relationship.
major challenges and problems
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will
confront the General Counsel of the Department of the Navy?
Answer. Change is a fact of life for the Navy/Marine Corps team.
The single greatest challenge for me in this period of change and
transformation is to ensure sound legal advice and quality legal
services are available on a timely basis. Additionally, the General
Counsel must be prepared to meet the need for such advice and services
in connection with policy developments and other events, foreseen and
unforeseen, that may occur.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review the resources, organization and
operation of the Office of the General Counsel, and implement whatever
changes may be necessary to enhance its ability to confront these
challenges.
Question. What do you consider to be the most serious problems in
the performance of the functions of the General Counsel of the
Department of the Navy?
Answer. I am not aware of any serious problems.
Question. What management actions and time lines would you
establish to address these problems?
Answer. If confirmed, I will address any serious problems I
discover in as expeditious a manner as possible.
priorities
Question. What broad priorities will you establish in terms of
issues, which must be addressed by the General Counsel of the
Department of the Navy?
Answer. My foremost priority will be to ensure that the Department
is provided the highest quality of legal advice and services and that
uniformed and civilian attorneys work together to accomplish that goal.
If confirmed, I will explore this issue and develop more defined
priorities.
recruiting and retention issues
Question. How do you assess your ability to hire and retain top
quality civilian attorneys and provide sufficient opportunity for
advancement?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Department has been able to
hire top quality civilian attorneys but that the increasing financial
disparity between Government attorneys and privately employed attorneys
has made this more difficult in certain areas of expertise. At this
time, I am not able to judge independently the long-term ability of the
Department to hire, retain and advance civilian attorneys. If
confirmed, I will work with the senior staff of the Office of the
General Counsel to address these issues.
Question. Does the Department of the Navy, in your view, have a
sufficient number of Navy and Marine Corps judge advocates on active
duty to perform the missions assigned to the Judge Advocate General's
Corps?
Answer. Based on an informal discussion with the Judge Advocate
General, I understand the demand for judge advocates has grown
significantly, both in commands desiring judge advocates and in
emergent taskings on important issues. In this era of intense media
scrutiny, complexity of domestic and international law in national
security issues, environmental concerns and the penchant by many to
litigate, there is an increasing demand for sophisticated, specialized
legal services. If confirmed, I will work with the Judge Advocate
General to address this issue.
Question. In your view, what incentives to successful recruiting
and retention of judge advocates need to be implemented or established?
Answer. The Judge Advocate General Corps clearly must be able to
attract and keep quality judge advocates. As a civilian practitioner, I
know the competition for legal talent is intense. I understand recent
initiatives by Congress and the Navy have helped alleviate some of the
financial pressures facing our young judge advocates and have improved
retention. I support these efforts and if confirmed will support others
in the future.
military justice matters
Question. Since Article 6 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice
gives primary jurisdiction over military justice to the Judge Advocates
General, how do you see your functions in this area with regard to the
Judge Advocate General of the Navy?
Answer. In Article 6, Congress gave the Judge Advocates the
responsibility to ``make frequent inspections in the field in
supervision of the administration of military justice.'' If confirmed,
as the senior legal official within the Department of the Navy, I will
have an interest in the administration of military justice within the
Department of the Navy. I am certain that the Judge Advocate General
will keep me informed on matters of interest in military justice.
Question. In your view, how should the General Counsel approach
military justice matters--both in terms of specific cases and general
policy issues to provide useful advice without generating problems of
unlawful command influence?
Answer. If confirmed, I envision a close working relationship with
the Judge Advocate General in which we share information and work
collaboratively when necessary to resolve issues, whether they are
policy issues or issues arising from a specific case. I believe that a
close working relationship with the Judge Advocate General and reliance
on his special expertise will avoid any potential issues of command
influence.
Question. In recent years, there have been a number of cases in
which military members have been accused of adultery. Concerns have
been raised about the consistency with which these cases have been
handled.
What do you see as the role of the General Counsel of the
Department of the Navy in ensuring the Uniform Code of Military Justice
is enforced in a fair and consistent manner?
Answer. If confirmed, as the senior legal official within the
Department of the Navy, I will have an interest in the fair and
consistent administration of military justice within the Department of
the Navy. The Judge Advocate General and I will share information and
work collaboratively when necessary to resolve issues.
Question. Do you see a need for any changes in either the law or
its implementation in this area?
Answer. I have not had the opportunity to be fully briefed on this
subject. If confirmed, I intend to work with the committee, the Judge
Advocate General, and my staff to develop an informed opinion on this
matter.
Question. In a recent Navy military justice case, charges alleging
serious national security violations against a petty officer were
dismissed with prejudice. Both the Article 32 Investigating Officer and
the defense attorneys were critical of the government's handling of the
investigation and case preparation. Congressional scrutiny of the case
raised serious issues about the complexities of espionage and national
security cases, and an investigation was initiated by the Department of
Defense Inspector General to examine the processing of the case.
If confirmed will you assure the committee you will examine the
processing of this case and ensure that the Department of the Navy is
fully prepared to investigate and prosecute national security cases in
an appropriate manner?
Answer. Yes. I look forward to the results of the investigation and
reviews initiated by the Department of Defense Inspector General and
the Judge Advocate General. If confirmed, I will support the
implementation of necessary improvements to the process.
whistleblower protection
Question. Section 1034, Title 10, United States Code, prohibits
taking retaliatory personnel action against a member of the armed
forces as reprisal for making a protected communication. By definition,
protected communications include communications to certain individuals
and organizations outside of the chain of command. We continue to see a
lack of understanding in the senior military leadership of the policy
that it is appropriate and necessary to protect service members who
report misconduct to appropriate authorities outside of the chain of
command.
Do you support prohibiting retaliatory personnel actions for making
protected communications?
Answer. Yes.
Question. If confirmed, what actions would you take to ensure that
senior military leaders understand the need to protect service members
who report misconduct to appropriate authorities within or outside the
chain of command?
Answer. If confirmed, I will act to ensure that military members
whose actions are protected by the Act are not subject to illegal
reprisals or retaliation. I also understand that the current Department
of the Navy practice is to brief the requirements of the Act to all
prospective commanding officers and executive officers, and address the
requirements of the Act in the curriculum of eight separate courses of
instruction for Navy and Marine Corps personnel. If confirmed, I will
ensure that this emphasis on the Act in formal Navy training courses
will continue.
judicial review
Question. What is your understanding of the appropriate role of the
Article III courts in the review of military activities?
Answer. The courts have recognized that they are ill suited to
standing in judgment on military matters and would argue that for most
military matters there is little, if any, role for the Article III
courts to play. The Constitution provides that Congress and the
President have the power to control the military. The nature of this
power, and the role of the Article III courts in defining or limiting
it, have been addressed repeatedly by the Supreme Court. As a general
proposition, the Court has explained, ``it would be difficult to think
of a clearer example of the type of governmental action that was
intended to be left to the political branches directly responsible--as
the judicial branch is not--to the electoral process.'' Gilligan v.
Morgan, 413 U.S. 1,4(1973).
client
Question. In your opinion, who is the client of the General Counsel
of the Department of the Navy?
Answer. In my opinion, the client of the General Counsel of the
Department of the Navy is the Department of the Navy. The Department
speaks through its senior officials, chiefly the Secretary of the Navy.
While I do not anticipate any conflict between the Department's
interests and those of a Department of the Navy official, my duty in
such a case would be to the Department.
legal ethics
Question. What is your understanding of the action a Department of
Defense attorney should take if the attorney becomes aware of improper
activities by a Department of Defense official who has sought the
attorney's legal advice and the official is unwilling to follow the
attorney's advice?
Answer. If an attorney is aware that a Department official intends
to engage in improper activities despite the attorney's legal advice,
the attorney should immediately report the situation to his or her
professional supervisor and, if necessary, further up the professional
chain of command until the matter is resolved.
Question. In your view, do the laws, regulations and guidelines
that establish the rules of professional responsibility for attorneys
in the Department of Defense provide adequate guidance?
Answer. Yes. Every lawyer must be an active member in good standing
of the Bar of a State or the District of Columbia, and is subject to
the professional responsibility rules of that jurisdiction. Lawyers
conducting litigation are subject to the rules of the forum in which
they appear. In addition, lawyers within the Department are also
subject to the same rules of ethical conduct as all executive branch
employees. Finally, Navy and Marine Corps judge advocates are bound by
professional responsibility rules promulgated by the Judge Advocate
General. I believe that adequate guidance is provided under this
regime. Department attorneys, civilian and military, have a long
history of ethical practice, and I aim to see that it continues. If
confirmed, I will be alert to the need for adequate guidance and, if I
detect any deficiencies, I will act to address them.
role in the officer promotion and confirmation process
Question. In your view, what is the role of the General Counsel of
the Department of the Navy in ensuring the integrity of the officer
promotion process?
Answer. My understanding is that the Judge Advocate General has
primary responsibility for providing legal advice in the conduct of the
officer promotion selection process. If confirmed, my role will be as
directed by the Secretary. If so directed, I would review the process
and governing procedures, and provide the Secretary with my candid and
objective advice concerning compliance with the law, fairness and
impartiality.
Question. What is the role of the General Counsel of the Department
of the Navy in reviewing and providing potentially adverse information
pertaining to a nomination to the Senate Armed Services Committee?
Answer. If confirmed, my role will be as directed by the Secretary.
I expect that I will be called upon from time to time to review a
nomination or a candidate's record, as in the case of past misconduct
or alleged misconduct on the part of the candidate. In those instances,
I would expect to consider the completeness and regularity of the
package as a matter of both substance and form, to evaluate the
significance of the adverse or alleged adverse information (if any),
and to provide the Secretary with my candid and objective advice
concerning the same.
litigation involving the department of defense
Question. In your opinion, what is the relationship between the
Department of Defense and the Department of Justice with respect to
litigation involving the Department of Defense?
Answer. Navy and Marine Corps attorneys work directly with the
Department of Justice counsel in cases in which the Department is a
party or has an interest. The Department of Justice has the primary
responsibility to represent the United States in all litigation
matters. (28 U.S.C. Sec. 516.) Nonetheless, attorneys representing DOD
review pleadings before they are filed with the courts, conduct and
direct discovery, participate in making major litigation decisions, and
in some cases become part of the trial team. It has been my experience
that attorneys from the Department of Defense and Justice work closely
to represent the agency and the United States in all substantive
matters.
Question. Is the present arrangement satisfactory, or does the
Department need more independence to conduct its own litigation?
Answer. To my knowledge, the present arrangement seems to be
working well, and I see no need for more independence.
court of appeals decision
Question. On January 4, 2000, the United States Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit decided the case of National
Center for Manufacturing Sciences v. Department of Defense, 199 F.3d
507 (D.C. Cir. 2000). The court concluded that ``Because of the
existence of 10 U.S.C. Section 114, it is clear than any monies
appropriated for NDMS by Congress for research must be authorized
before they can be appropriated and distributed''; and ``Because 10
U.S.C. Section 114(a)(2) requires authorization of these funds before
they become available, appropriation alone is insufficient.''
What is your view of the court's decision in this case and its
implications regarding the obligation of funds that are appropriated,
but not authorized?
Answer. The case in question affirmed the district court's decision
to grant the government's motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim. The basis for the decision was the fact that in the Department's
Fiscal Year 1995 Authorization Act, Congress effectively rescinded the
unreleased portion of Fiscal Year 1994 funding earmark for the National
Center for Manufacturing Sciences (NCMS). Accordingly, the court
concluded that NCMS had no legal entitlement to the funds claimed.
Parties to this litigation, and the court, viewed the funds in
issue to have been authorized by Congress. Thus, the question regarding
the obligation of funds not authorized was not squarely presented for
decision in this case, but was addressed only as a collateral matter.
Situations where funds have been appropriated but not authorized are
often complex and may involve unique statutory language. If confirmed,
I will continue the practice of working closely with our oversight
committees whenever these issues are presented.
role in military personnel policy matters
Question. What role, if any, should the General Counsel play in
military personnel policy and individual cases, including cases before
the service boards for the correction of military records?
Answer. I am advised that attorneys within the Office of the
General Counsel do become involved with policy issues pertaining to
military personnel, both with regard to individual cases and to the
application of the Department's personnel policies. I believe that the
General Counsel should, in appropriate cases, make his or her views
about individual cases and the development and application of personnel
policies known to the Department's senior leadership, so that
individual cases are resolved fairly and that overall policies are
developed uniformly, fairly and in conformance with law.
ship scrapping
Question. The Navy has a growing number of inactive ships that have
been designated for scrapping. In September 1999, the Navy began
conducting ship disposal through the Ship Disposal Project. Within that
project there are four ship disposal contractors--two that compete for
ships on the west coast and two that compete for ships on the east
coast.
Given the potential for cost efficiencies, would it be appropriate
to allow all four contractors to compete for disposal of ships on both
coasts?
Answer. I have not had the opportunity to be fully briefed on this
subject. If confirmed, I intend to work with this committee and my
staff to develop an informed opinion on this matter.
Question. What is the basis for your position?
Answer. I have not had the opportunity to be fully briefed on this
subject. If confirmed, I intend to work with this committee and my
staff to develop an informed opinion on this matter.
Question. Asbestos remediation is one of the cost drivers for the
Navy's ship scrapping program. Other entities facing substantial costs
for the abatement and removal of asbestos have been able to recover a
portion of these costs from asbestos manufacturers, including companies
that are currently in bankruptcy. The Navy, unlike other affected
parties, has not generally pursued this course.
What is your view of the availability of this remedy and the
desirability of the Navy pursuing it?
Answer. I have not had the opportunity to be fully briefed on this
subject. If confirmed, I intend to work with this committee and my
staff to develop an informed opinion on this matter.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as the General Counsel of the
Department of the Navy?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings and
other communications of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Strom Thurmond
the military justice system
1. Senator Thurmond. Mr. Mora, we all have read stories in the
press criticizing the military justice system and the Uniform Code of
Military Justice. Often these articles are sensationalized and written
by people who have no understanding of the system.
How would you characterize the military justice system?
Mr. Mora. The military justice system is modeled after the Federal
judicial system and is specifically tailored for the Armed Forces. It
balances Constitutional guarantees of fairness with the need to
maintain good order and discipline. Congress and the courts have long
recognized that well-disciplined, combat-ready Armed Forces mandate a
separate system of justice. To this end, the Uniform Code of Military
Justice (UCMJ) was enacted by Congress to strike a balance between the
military's mission, the desire to preserve the constitutional rights of
a service member, and the need to maintain civilian oversight over the
military justice process. Military defendants are afforded a number of
procedural benefits not typically available to civilian criminal
defendants. For example, military defendants are assigned qualified
military defense counsel at no cost, regardless of financial ability,
and may request assignment of a specific military defense counsel if
reasonably available. Additionally, discovery by the defense is far
more extensive for military defendants, and investigative and expert
assistance is provided at government expense, again, without regard to
a defendant's ability to pay for such resources. Military defendants
who receive a punitive discharge or confinement for at least a year
have an automatic, cost-free right of appeal to a court of criminal
appeals, even if they pled guilty.
A trial by court-martial is substantially similar to a civilian
criminal trial. Courts-martial are presided over by military judges and
are subject to uniform rules of evidence patterned after the Federal
Rules of Evidence. The court-martial is presented evidence and must be
persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt to return a finding of guilty. The
Manual for Courts-Martial, which contains the specific substantive and
procedural rules that form the basis of the military justice system, is
reviewed annually to ensure that it continues to fulfill its
fundamental purpose to ensure justice in a unique military environment.
2. Senator Thurmond. Mr. Mora, the Navy empowers the captain of a
naval vessel with a great deal of authority in regard to maintaining
discipline aboard his ship. Many of these are based on old and
traditional roles of the ship captain.
Considering that we now have almost instant communication and
shorter deployments, is it time to review the role of the captain to
impose judicial actions aboard his ship?
Mr. Mora. Nonjudicial punishment is authorized by Article 15, UCMJ
and is administered by a unit's commander. Nonjudicial punishment
provides commanders with a prompt and efficient means of maintaining
good order and discipline. It also encourages positive behavior changes
in sailors/marines without the stigma of a court-martial conviction.
Nonjudicial punishment (NJP) is appropriate when simple administrative
corrective measures such as extra military instruction are inadequate
due to the nature of the minor offense or the record of the sailor/
marine, unless it is clear that only a trial by court-martial will
satisfy the needs of justice and discipline. The imposition of
nonjudicial punishment (NJP) pursuant to Article 15, UCMJ aboard naval
vessels is a time-honored, well-conceived process for maintaining the
Navy's fighting strength and preserving the national security of the
United States. Afloat commanders must be able to resolve disciplinary
problems while underway or in hostile waters. Extending service members
assigned to afloat units the right to refuse NJP would place commanding
officers in the unenviable position of transferring the accused and
prospective witnesses ashore for trial by courts-martial; embarking a
trial team composed of attorneys, a military judge, and court reporter;
or delaying disciplinary action pending completion of the afloat
mission. Unfortunately, improved technology does not mitigate the
difficulties inherent in these options or relieve a commanding officer
of the responsibility to maintain good order and discipline while
underway. If a commanding officer cannot resolve minor misconduct
quickly through the imposition of NJP, a delay in taking disciplinary
action could adversely impact combat readiness, mission effectiveness,
and crew morale.
Numerous safeguards ensure Article 15 is used by afloat commanding
officers appropriately. Service members who receive NJP may appeal to
the next superior commander. They may also petition to have the record
and consequences of the NJP removed by the Board for Correction of
Naval Records. Finally, oversight by the Federal judiciary of the Board
for Correction of Naval Records ensures service members receive fair
adjudication. The safeguards of Article 15 ensure basic procedural
fairness and protect the rights of accused service members.
the inspector general
3. Senator Thurmond. Mr. Mora, if confirmed, what will be your
relationship with the Inspector General? What oversight will you have
in regard to inspector general investigations?
Mr. Mora. If confirmed, I anticipate that I will have an excellent
working relationship with VADM Haskins and his staff. Historically, the
Office of the General Counsel has worked closely with the Office of the
Naval Inspector General, and I anticipate that practice will continue
unchanged under Secretary of the Navy England.
By law, the Naval Inspector General reports to, and receives
direction from, the Secretary and the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO).
There is no statutory or regulatory provision for any specific form of
interaction between the General Counsel of the Navy and the Office of
the Naval Inspector General. By regulation, the Navy has given the
Naval Inspector General that degree of independence necessary to ensure
the Navy, through the Office of the Naval Inspector General, is fully
capable of critical internal introspection, self-evaluation and
improvement. A formal provision for General Counsel oversight of
inspector general investigations or inspections could be construed as
an attempt to dilute the Naval Inspector General's independence and
access to the Secretary or the CNO.
At the same time, the Navy has taken steps to ensure the Naval
Inspector General has access to the best legal advice the Navy can
provide. The Naval Inspector General legal staff includes two senior
civilian attorneys (GS-15) and two officers of the Judge Advocate
General (JAG) Corps (0-6 and 0-4). Each of the civilian attorneys has
been with the office for over 10 years. The civilian attorneys report
directly to a senior lawyer on my immediate staff, and have unfettered
direct access to me when they deem necessary. They participate in
monthly OGC staff meetings and brief my staff or me on matters of legal
interest. The four attorneys in the office are authorized to, and
frequently do, obtain the legal opinions of senior JAG and OGC
attorneys who may be regarded as subject matter experts in various
legal fields. On occasion, they will recommend the Naval Inspector
General obtain a formal legal opinion from the General Counsel in
support of an investigation or other inquiry.
At least one of the attorneys in the office reviews every report of
investigation before the Naval Inspector General signs it. At a
minimum, the attorney informs the Naval Inspector General whether the
report is legally sufficient. Often, the attorney provides additional
advice. The attorneys discuss most cases with the investigators and
provide advice as the investigation progresses. Before the Naval
Inspector General issues his final reports of investigation, attorneys
in his office may discuss the legal issues in them with the General
Counsel or the Judge Advocate General as they deem appropriate.
However, in order to protect the independence of the Naval Inspector
General, they are not required to do so in any specific case.
I anticipate that my personal involvement in Naval Inspector
General investigations will be similar to that of my predecessors. The
Naval Inspector General, the General Counsel, and the Judge Advocate
General attend weekly staff meetings with the Secretary. The Naval
Inspector General meets with the Under Secretary of the Navy on a
regular basis to discuss pending investigations; the General Counsel
attends those meetings at the request of the Under Secretary or the
Naval Inspector General. When the nature of an investigation warrants,
the Naval Inspector General meets with the Under Secretary or the
Secretary to brief the status of the investigation on a more frequent
basis; the General Counsel and/or the Judge Advocate General frequently
participate in those meetings.
work force
4. Senator Thurmond. Mr. Mora, a significant issue throughout the
Department of Defense is its aging workforce and the looming loss of
expertise because of retirements.
What are your concerns regarding this issue as it related to the
Office of the General Counsel?
Mr. Mora. The Navy's Office of the General Counsel is facing
challenges that are very similar to those facing the Department of the
Navy as a whole. Approximately 35 percent of OGC's attorneys, both
general and patent, are age 50 or older. The number of attorneys under
age 40 is about 25 percent. Among our career senior executives, over
half will become retirement eligible within the next 5 years, and 72
percent of our 46 patent attorneys are now over age 50. These
statistics are a clear signal that OGC is facing important force
structure challenges similar to those faced by the Navy Department and
the Federal Government as a whole.
What we do today to manage our workforce will determine the ability
of OGC to provide first-rate legal services to the Department of the
Navy in the 21st century. As the head of OGC, recruiting and retaining
the best legal talent are top management priorities, but it is even
more important that we shape our workforce to ensure both continuity of
specialized expertise and the development of the next generation of
senior leaders. I intend to give these matters my personal attention
and to provide the corporate level guidance and direction necessary to
achieve these goals.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Wayne Allard
clean-up at the colorado state fairgrounds
5. Senator Allard. Mr. Mora, I would like to call your attention to
a matter between the Navy and the Colorado State Fair Authority. The
Navy leased land at the Colorado State fairgrounds in Pueblo and in
1946 they had two Reserve Center buildings constructed. Now there is
some dispute as to the environmental clean-up of the site, specifically
regarding the asbestos contained in the building and who will be paying
for clean up. I would certainly appreciate it if you could look into
the matter, and ensure the Navy is giving all due accommodations to the
matter. The Colorado State Fair is a great institution, but not a rich
one, and I would hate for them to be put at a disadvantage.
Mr. Mora. I have inquired into the matter regarding the lease
between the Colorado State Fair Authority and the Navy for Reserve
Center property at the Colorado State fairgrounds in Pueblo. The Navy
is very appreciative of the support and cooperation it received from
the Colorado State Fair Authority during the approximate 50-year lease
period. It is the Navy's goal to be both a good neighbor in the
communities we are located as well as a good steward of the
environment. In this regard, I am told that in 1998, prior to
expiration of the lease at issue, the Navy spent approximately $78,000
to remove underground storage tanks, clean up a small arms range, and
remove friable asbestos on the leased property. As a result of these
actions, the Navy believes the Colorado State Fair Authority received
commercially viable and marketable buildings when the lease ended.
Apparently, the present issue stems from the request of the Colorado
State Fair Authority that the Navy entirely demolish the structures on
the formerly leased property so that a parking lot can be built. It is
this requested demolition of the buildings by the Colorado State Fair
Authority that has raised a question as to whether further remediation
is necessary with regard to asbestos containing roofing material that
is otherwise in good condition. The roofing material in its present
state poses no environmental hazard or risk. Since there is no
contractual or legal obligation to demolish the buildings, there is no
further remediation the Navy need undertake in this case. It appears
the Navy has fully complied with the terms and conditions of the lease
and its obligations under applicable law and there is nothing further
the Navy can do to assist the Colorado State Fair Authority in their
desire to demolish the buildings.
______
[The nomination reference of Alberto J. Mora follows:]
Nomination Reference
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
June 12, 2001.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Alberto Jose Mora, of Virginia, to be General Counsel of the
Department of the Navy, vice Stephen W. Preston.
______
[The biographical sketch of Alberto J. Mora, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Alberto J. Mora
Alberto J. Mora is currently Of Counsel at the Greenberg
Traurig law firm where he specializes in international law.
Concurrently, he is the Governor of the Broadcasting Board of
Governors and has been in that capacity since 1995.
Mr. Mora was a Partner at the firm of Holland & Knight from
1993 to 1997. Before that he was the General Counsel for the
U.S. Information Agency from 1989 to 1993. From 1984 to 1989 he
was a Partner at the law firm of Hornsby & Whisenand. Before
that he was an Associate at the law firm of Frates, Bienstock,
and Sheehe from 1981 to 1984. From 1975 to 1978 he was a
Foreign Service Officer in the U.S. Department of State serving
in Lisbon, Portugal.
Mr. Mora graduated from Swarthmore College with a B.A.
degree in 1974. In 1981 he received his J.D. from the
University of Miami School of Law.
------
[The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
form that details the biographical, financial and other
information of the nominee. The form executed by Alberto J.
Mora in connection with his nomination follows:]
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Room SR-228
Washington, DC 20510-6050
(202) 224-3871
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation
of your answer applies.
Part A--Biographical Information
Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.
1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
Alberto Jose Mora. I was also called ``Albert'' during my school
years.
2. Position to which nominated:
General Counsel, Department of the Navy.
3. Date of nomination:
June 12, 2001.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
5. Date and place of birth:
April 11, 1952, in Boston, MA.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
I am married to Susan J. Talalay (which is both her married and
maiden name).
7. Names and ages of children:
Alexander L. T. Mora, age 5.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received and date degree granted.
(a) St. Joseph High School Jackson, MS, 9/66 to 6/70. I received my
high school diploma in June 1970.
(b) Swarthmore College Swarthmore, PA, 9/70 to 6/74. I received my
B.A. degree in June 1974.
(c) The University of Miami School of Law Coral Gables, FL, 9/78 to
6/81. I received my J.D. in June 1981.
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
(a) Attorney (Of Counsel), Greenberg Traurig, Of Counsel, 800
Connecticut Ave., NW., Suite 500, Washington, DC 20006, 5/97 to
present.
(b) Attorney (Partner), Holland & Knight, 2100 Pennsylvania Ave,
NW., Suite 300, Washington, DC 20006, 4/93 to 4/97.
(c) Attorney (General Counsel), United States Information Agency,
301 4th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20547, 8/89 to 1/93.
10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative,
honorary or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State,
or local governments, other than those listed above.
(a) Governor, U.S. Broadcasting Board of Governors, 330
Independence Avenue, SW., Cohen Building, Room 3360, Washington, DC
20547, 8/95 to present.
(Three times nominated by the President and confirmed by the
Senate.)
(b) Foreign Service Officer (Economist), U.S. Department of State,
Agriculture Directorate, International Organization Bureau, 2201 C
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20520, 8/77 to 8/78.
(c) Foreign Service Officer (Political Officer), U.S. Department of
State, U.S. Embassy, Lisbon, Portugal, 4/75 to 7/77.
(d) Foreign Service Officer Trainee, U.S. Department of State,
Foreign Service Institute, Rosslyn, VA, 1/75 to 3/75.
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational or other institution.
(a) Greenberg Traurig, LLP Of Counsel.
(b) U.S. Broadcasting Board of Governors, Governor.
(c) Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Inc., Director.
(d) Radio Free Asia, Inc., Director.
(e) Farragaut Media Group, Inc., Director.
(f) As an attorney, I serve as legal consultant to numerous
clients.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable and
other organizations.
(a) The Bar of the District of Columbia.
(b) The Bar of the State of Florida.
(c) The Bar for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida.
(d) The Bar for the Federal District Court of Federal Claims.
(e) The Council on Foreign Relations.
(f) The USIA Alumni Association.
(g) The Appalachian Society.
(h) The Air Force Association.
(i) The Bush/Quayle Association.
(j) U.S.--Croatia Friendship Association.
(k) Phi Beta Delta, Honorary Society for International Scholars.
13. Political affiliations and activities:
(a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or
any public office for which you have been a candidate.
Vice-Chair, Republican National Committee, Catholic Task Force
(1997-present).
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5
years.
Bob Dole for President, Foreign Policy Advisory Group (1996); The
Bush/Quayle Association (1993-present); Republicans Abroad Ambassadors
Forum, General Counsel (1995-97).
(c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $100 or more for the past 5 years.
Dole for President, 1996--$1,000.
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen for Congress, 1996--$100.
Bill McCollum for Congress, 1997--$100.
Tom Davis for Congress, 1997--$250.
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen for Congress, 1997--$100.
George W. Bush Presidential Exploratory Committee, 1999--$1,000.
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen for Congress, 1999--$100.
14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals and any other special recognitions
for outstanding service or achievements.
USIA's Distinguished Honor Award, 1993.
Election to Phi Beta Delta, the Honorary Society for International
Scholars, 1992.
Election to the Bar and Gavel Honorary Society, University of Miami
School of Law, 1981.
Selection as Editor-in-Chief, The Lawyer of the Americas, the
University of Miami Journal of International Law, 1981 (a scholarship
was also provided along with this selection).
Awarded an Organization of American States Fellowship for the OAS's
Seventh Course on International Law, Rio do Janeiro, Brazil, 1980.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
``Statement of Alberto J. Mora on the Cuban Liberty and Democratic
(Libertad) Act of 1996, before the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee,'' 104th Cong., 2nd Sess. (July 30, 1996).
The Revpower Dispute: China's Breach of the New York Convention?,
Dispute Resolution in the PRC (Asia Law & Practice Ltd, 1995).
Cuba Transition Resource Guide, International Republican Institute
Cuba Transition Committee (Dec. 1995) (collaborative report).
The Case for Strengthening the New York Convention, International
Commercial Litigation (Oct. 1995).
Saving Fidel, Comint (Mar. 1994).
International Exchange Visitor Program Regulatory Reform,
International Educator (Spring 1993).
Arbitraje Comercial en America Latina, collaborative paper
published by the OAS in the Proceedings of the VII Course on
International Law (Rio do Janeiro, Brazil, 1981).
Judicial Review of Shipowners and Stevedore Liability Under the
Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation, Act, 12 Law Amer. 487
(1980).
16. Speeches: Provide the committee with two copies of any formal
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have
copies of and are on topics relevant to the position for which you have
been nominated.
The nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.
17. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree,
if confirmed, to respond to requests to appear and testify before any
duly constituted committee of the Senate?
Yes.
______
[The nominee responded to the questions in Parts B-F of the
committee questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set
forth in the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to
Parts B-F are contained in the committee's executive files.]
------
Signature and Date
I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate,
and complete.
Alberto J. Mora.
This 18th day of June, 2001.
[The nomination of Alberto J. Mora was reported to the
Senate by Senator Warner on July 11, 2001, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on July 19, 2001.]
------
[Prepared questions submitted to Diane K. Morales by
Chairman Levin prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
June 15, 2001.
Hon. Carl Levin, Chairman,
Committee on Armed Services,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Enclosed are my answers to the advanced
questions that the Senate Armed Services Committee asked me to
complete.
Sincerely,
Diane K. Morales.
cc: Hon. John Warner,
Ranking Member.
______
Questions and Responses
defense reforms
Question. More than 10 years have passed since the enactment of the
Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and
the Special Operations reforms. From your close association with
defense issues, you have had an opportunity to observe the
implementation and impact of those reforms.
Do you support full implementation of these defense reforms?
Answer. If confirmed, I will fully support the intent of the
reforms and advocate policies that will facilitate accomplishment of
joint operations, streamline acquisition management and oversight, and
enhance the department's ability to respond to our 21st century
national security.
Question. What is your view of the extent to which these defense
reforms have been implemented?
Answer. The enactment of Goldwater-Nichols significantly improved
the organization of the Department of Defense, focused our joint
warfighting capabilities, and enhanced the military advice received by
the Secretary. However, given the passage of time, I support Secretary
Aldridge's view that it is worthwhile to review the department's
implementation and make appropriate adjustments if needed. In
particular, I will emphasize a closer partnership between the
acquisition, operations, and support communities and better integration
of logistics support throughout the Department.
Question. What do you consider to be the most important aspects of
these defense reforms?
Answer. The goals of Congress in enacting these defense reforms, as
reflected in section 3 of the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense
Reorganization Act, can be summarized as strengthening civilian
control; improving military advice; placing a clear responsibility on
the combatant commanders for the accomplishment of their missions;
ensuring the authority of the combatant commanders is commensurate with
their responsibility; increasing attention to the formulation of
strategy and to contingency planning; providing for more efficient use
of defense resources; and enhancing the effectiveness of military
operations and improving the management and administration of the
Department of Defense.
Question. Do you agree with these goals?
Answer. Yes, I support full implementation of the Goldwater-Nichols
reforms and agree with its goals.
duties
Question. Section 133b of Title 10, United States Code, describes
the duties of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Logistics and
Materiel Readiness.
Assuming you are confirmed, do you expect that Secretary Rumsfeld
will prescribe additional duties for you?
Answer. I do not know of additional duties Secretary Rumsfeld might
assign to me.
Question. What background and experience do you possess that you
believe qualifies you to perform these duties and those outlined in the
law and applicable DOD directives?
Answer. As President of DMS, Inc. since 1993, I have headed a
management services firm focused primarily on defense and commercial
logistics. Those management services include policy and program
analysis, net assessments, strategic planning, and government
relations/legislative analysis. Recent activities include Department of
Defense strategic planning (Logistics 2010), information support
systems, and best commercial logistics practices.
From 1990 to 1993, I served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Logistics. I managed DOD logistics operations, including
the functions of supply/materiel management, maintenance,
transportation, energy, international logistics, and all support
information systems, commissaries and exchanges. My key accomplishments
involved the following: (1) resized DOD inventories, reduced operating
costs, and introduced commercial business practices; (2) standardized,
streamlined, and integrated logistics policies and procedures for
standard systems development; (3) consolidated DOD organizations and
missions; and (4) began changing the business culture with total
quality management.
In the area of supply/materiel management, we rewrote 80 separate
policy documents regarding the supply system life cycle into a single,
integrated policy and developed the Inventory Reduction Plan as the
vehicle to implement the new policy and save $18 billion. In
maintenance, we developed a business plan to reduce business operations
costs from $13 billion annually in 1990 to $6.4 billion in 1997 by
streamlining processes, personnel, and infrastructure. In
transportation, we consolidated wartime and peacetime, common-user and
Service-unique transportation functions under a single command. I also
revised requirements for lift assets, the appropriate mix of strategic
lift, and the augmentation of military assets with commercial assets
under the DOD Mobility Requirements Study. In international logistics,
I worked with NATO in developing cooperative logistics programs to
reduce U.S. costs and to increase ``burden-sharing'' among other
members. I also prepared a Host Nation Support Model Agreement to
accelerate logistics support agreements in countries where potential
conflicts involving the U.S. might develop.
I believe my experience in both the public and private sectors
qualifies me to perform the duties of this position.
Question. Do you believe there are any additional steps that you
need to take to enhance your expertise to perform these duties?
Answer. Mr. Aldridge has realigned responsibilities within his
office to create a Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations and
Environment) position that would report to the position for which I
have been nominated. In my previous tour at the Pentagon, I had limited
involvement in installations and environmental issues. If confirmed, I
intend to work closely with Mr. DuBois to fully familiarize myself with
these issues.
relationships
Question. If confirmed, what would your relationship as Deputy
Under Secretary of Defense for Logistics and Materiel Readiness be with
each of the following:
The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics?
Answer. If confirmed, I would, as established in DOD Directive
5134.12, serve as the principal staff assistant and advisor to the
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics
(USD(AT&L)) on logistics and materiel readiness in the Department of
Defense.
Question. The Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installation and
Environment)?
Answer. Under the May 29, 2001, realignment within Mr. Aldridge's
office, this position would report to the position for which I am
nominated. If confirmed, I would work with Mr. Aldridge to
appropriately revise DOD Directive 5134.12 to formalize this reporting
relationship.
Question. The Director of the Defense Logistics Agency?
Answer. If confirmed, I would, as established in DOD Directive
5134.12, exercise authority, direction, and control over the Director,
Defense Logistics Agency.
Question. Elements of the Military Departments including the Army
Materiel Command, the Naval Aviation Systems Command, and the Air Force
Materiel Command?
Answer. If confirmed, my relationship with the Military
Departments, including those elements specified, would be governed by
the duties assigned to the position to which I have been nominated by
DOD Directive 5134.12. I would, if confirmed: (1) prescribe policies
and procedures for the conduct of logistics, maintenance, materiel
readiness, and sustainment support in the Department of Defense, to
include supply and transportation; (2) advise and assist the USD(AT&L)
in providing guidance to the Secretaries of the Military Departments
with respect to logistics, maintenance, materiel readiness, and
sustainment support in the Department of Defense; (3) monitor and
review all logistics, maintenance, materiel readiness, and sustainment
support programs within the Department of Defense; (4) participate in
the DOD Planning, Programming, and Budgeting System with respect to
assigned areas of responsibilities; and perform such other duties as
the USD(AT&L) may prescribe.
major challenges
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges confronting
the next Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Logistics and Materiel
Readiness? If confirmed, what plans do you have for addressing these
challenges?
Answer. As I understand it, the major challenge is to continue to
increase the performance of the logistics system while reducing costs
and improving the readiness of our forces. If confirmed, I will conduct
a comprehensive analysis of the logistics system, from the ``foxhole to
the factory,'' to identify those capabilities and policies that are
required to deliver and sustain the necessary combat capability
required by the new military strategy. The capability analysis would
include our mobility assets, depot maintenance assets, and the use of
modern commercial technology. My policy review would include supply
chain integration operations at the national level and include end to
end distribution management responsibility for both the sustainment and
deployment of our forces. The focus of the review would be to identify
those investments and policy changes required to counter any threat to
our Nation during the 21st century.
responsibility for installations and environmental issues
Question. On May 29, 2001, the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics realigned responsibilities in his
office and created a Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations
and Environment) position that would report to the Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense (Logistics and Materiel Readiness) position for
which you have been nominated.
If confirmed, will you be responsible for oversight of
installations and environmental issues?
Answer. Yes, if confirmed, oversight of installations and
environmental issues would be part of my portfolio. The Under Secretary
of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, Mr. Aldridge,
envisions his organization operating with two direct reporting Deputy
Under Secretaries, one for Acquisition and Technology issues and one
for Logistics, Installations, and Material Readiness issues. Mr. Wynne
has been nominated for the Acquisition and Technology portfolio and I
have been nominated for the Installations and Logistics portfolio.
Question. What role do you expect to play in issues such as family
housing privatization, military construction, base closure policy,
environmental policy, and policies for resolving conflicts over the use
of land, water and airspace between military bases and the surrounding
civilian populations?
Answer. I envision my role in overseeing installations and
environmental issues as one of providing broad general guidelines to
the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and
Environment, Mr. DuBois, and reviewing policy and work products from
Installations and Environment which require higher level review. I
anticipate that over the course of time that would involve the broad
spectrum of installations and environmental issues, as all of the
functions you listed have important national implications.
achieving best business practices
Question. What is your assessment of the progress the Department of
Defense has made since you last served in the Department in 1993 in
improving its business practices in the areas for which the Deputy
Under Secretary of Defense (Logistics and Materiel Readiness) is
responsible, such as supply management, logistics systems, and
maintenance procedures, and in the application of information
technology to these functions?
Answer. My assessment is that the Department of Defense has made
considerable progress since 1993 in improving its business practices.
For example, I am impressed by the degree to which ``best practices''
from the private sector have been applied to commercial items such a
medical supplies, clothing and subsistence, and common hardware items.
The adoption of commercial logistics vehicles such as prime vendor,
combined with the application of modern information technology in the
form of electronic ordering, has resulted in better customer support
(faster with a greater variety of state-of-the-art commercial items)
without reliance on unnecessary DOD infrastructure (warehouses, etc.).
Question. Where do you believe additional improvements are most
needed and what steps would you plan to take to bring about change in
those areas?
Answer. My view is that the Department is at a crucial point in
improving its business practices. If confirmed, I would undertake, in
consultation with the Military Departments and the Director of the
Defense Logistics Agency, an intensive assessment of the ``lessons
learned'' from the progress of the past decade in improving the
Department's business practices, and developing a plan to build on that
progress and expand the successes in commodities such as subsistence,
medical items, and common hardware items to more complex areas such as
fighter aircraft parts.
defense acquisition regulations
Question. Are you familiar with the recent revisions of DOD
Directive 5000.1 and DOD Instruction 5000.2 that set forth DOD policy
on acquisition and support of major weapons systems, and if so, what
are your views on these policies as they relate to the areas for which
the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Logistics and Materiel
Readiness is responsible including logistics, weapons system support,
and supply chains?
Answer. Yes, I am familiar with the recent revisions of DOD
Directive 5000.1 and DOD Instruction 5000.2.
Question. Do you support these revisions?
Answer. I strongly support the recent revisions, particularly the
increased emphasis on development of effective sustainment strategies
for life cycle support. Section 2.8 of DOD 5000.2 Regulation contains
guidance on planning for full life-cycle product support management
that is built upon appropriate best practices and is focused on
outcomes, such as mission availability and readiness.
Question. Are there any additional changes that you recommend in
the current policies?
Answer. At this time, I would not offer any recommendations for
changes to current policy. If confirmed, I will evaluate the
effectiveness of current policy through program oversight on the
Defense Acquisition Board and offer potential adjustments to Under
Secretary Aldridge, if appropriate.
pricing issues
Question. Over the last several years, the Department of Defense
Inspector General has issued a number of reports that have been
critical of the pricing of spare and repair parts purchased by the
Defense Logistics Agency.
Are you aware of these reports and the concerns that they have
raised about the pricing of spare and repair parts?
Answer. I am aware of the concerns raised by the Inspector General
about the pricing of spare and repair parts under vehicles such as the
Defense Logistics Agency's ``corporate contracting'' initiative. My
understanding is that challenges were identified in terms of item
pricing and the value of inventory management services.
Question. What are your views as to how these concerns should be
addressed?
Answer. My view is that the Department of Defense should use the
``lessons learned'' from these test programs to improve future efforts
before expanding commercial logistics practices into more challenging
areas such as aircraft.
logistics and materiel readiness
Question. The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics will be responsible for developing plans for
the complete life cycle of military weapon systems from initial
procurement to the maintenance of those systems decades later. There
has been some concern expressed that this leads to decisions where
long-term maintenance quality and efficiency are sacrificed to achieve
reduced initial procurement costs. As a result of this concern, the
position of Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Logistics and
Materiel Readiness was created to ensure that life cycle maintenance
was given proper consideration during the acquisition process.
If confirmed what actions will you take to ensure that logistics
and materiel readiness are adequately considered and protected when
acquisition decisions are made on all of the Departments weapon
systems?
Answer. The issue of trading off logistics life cycle
considerations during weapon system design and development is still a
challenge, although initiatives in recent years have enhanced attention
to long-term logistics considerations. Much of this improvement is
associated with the strengthened integration of acquisition and
logistics functions within the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and
particularly in the Military Departments. Today, emphasis on life cycle
cost reduction is greater than ever. Logistics is now viewed as a
performance element during the systems engineering process. Finally,
the integrated process team (IPT) structure of managing the diverse
elements of weapon system acquisition and sustainment has provided a
very effective environment for improved attention to life cycle
logistics requirements and issues.
It is in this last area of IPT involvement where, if confirmed, I
will most vigorously take action to insure that logistics, sustainment,
and readiness priorities are maintained. The most recent DOD 5000
series acquisition policy, just signed by Under Secretary Aldridge on
June 10, 2001, for the first time makes the Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense for Logistics and Materiel Readiness a mandatory member of the
Defense Acquisition Board (DAB). The office of the DUSD(L&MR) is also
represented by an executive on the Overarching IPT (OIPT), which
prepares for the DAB decision. Recently, the Office of the Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense for Logistics and Materiel Readiness has
established an office that engages in all weapon system program IPT
efforts to insure that life cycle logistics requirements are fully
addressed.
impact of logistics decisions on readiness
Question. If confirmed, what steps do you plan to take to
coordinate logistics decisions with the Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness and the military services to make sure that the
potential impact on readiness is taken into account when decisions on
logistics policies are made?
Answer. Readiness is the highest priority of the Department of
Defense and is the product of a complex interaction of inputs, i.e.,
materiel readiness, personnel readiness and training readiness.
Materiel Readiness must be viewed in the total context and is impacted
by the availability of people to repair equipment, i.e., an element of
Personnel Readiness. Training Readiness is impacted by the availability
of equipment on which to train, i.e., an element of Materiel Readiness.
Personnel Readiness, i.e., the availability of trained people, is the
consequence of recruiting and retention.
Because of these interactions, a high state of Materiel Readiness
can only be realized by strong partnerships and interactions with
``stakeholders'' in the Services, Joint Staff, and elsewhere in the
Office of the Secretary of Defense. If confirmed, I will ensure there
are strong partnerships with the Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness and the Services so that logistics decisions
intended to maximize Materiel Readiness are considered within the
competing constraints of overall readiness.
acquisition workforce
Question. During the post-Cold War drawdown there has been
considerable pressure to reduce acquisition personnel. The Department's
Acquisition Workforce 2005 Task Force has reported that DOD will be
faced with a significant demographic challenge as 50 percent of the
acquisition workforce will be eligible to retire in the next 5 years.
In DOD maintenance depots, for example, the size of the workforce has
declined by approximately 50 percent over the past decade, while the
average age of the workforce that remains is now over 47 years.
Are you concerned that these reductions have created an unbalanced
workforce?
Answer. Yes, I am very concerned about the effects of the
reductions. During the decade of the 1990s the Acquisition, Technology
and Logistics workforce underwent significant reductions conducted in
accordance with Office of Personnel Management merit principles that
adversely impacted those with less seniority, largely the younger
workforce population. Additionally, there has been little recruitment
or hiring effort over the past 10 years due to downsizing efforts. One
consequence is that the workforce has become older and is no longer
evenly distributed across grades and year groups. As the Department
continues to emphasize contracting out and competitive sourcing, the
skills, training and experience of the acquisition workforce will be
critical in effectively managing acquisition, technology and logistics
efforts.
Question. What steps should the Department of Defense take to
revitalize the civilian acquisition workforce?
Answer. As I understand it, there are already plans in place within
the Department to revitalize the Acquisition, Technology and Logistics
workforce. These high priority initiatives were published in October
2000 in the Acquisition Workforce 2005 Task Force Final Report. I look
forward to studying this critical issue further if I am confirmed.
Question. Are there any additional steps that you would recommend
taking to enhance the workforce in DOD's maintenance, supply, and
distribution depots?
Answer. Prior to advocating any detailed proposals for individual
logistics functional specialties, if confirmed, I would want to be
thoroughly briefed on the specific issues and problems.
logistics transformation and prime vendor support
Question. Over the last 10 years, the Defense Logistics Agency has
placed an increasing emphasis on approaches such as prime vendor
agreements, virtual prime vendor agreements, and direct vendor delivery
to streamline the Department's logistics systems for commercial items
such as medical supplies, clothing and subsistence, and common hardware
items.
Do you support commercial practices such as these that rely
increasingly on the private sector to meet the Department's logistics
need?
Answer. I strongly support the use of commercial practices in
defense logistics, where it makes sense from a warfighter's perspective
and I look forward in working this issue upon confirmation.
Question. Do you support the expansion of such commercial logistics
practices to the delivery of non-commercial items, such as aircraft
spare parts?
Answer. The challenge here is defense-unique items, such as fighter
aircraft parts, which tend to be low volume, high cost items, often
provided by sole-source manufacturers. DLA has recently tested
commercial practices in support of weapons programs such as the Air
Force C-130 as well as ``Corporate Contracting'' for classes of items
with numerous industrial providers. The early results of these tests
appear promising; however, some challenges were identified in terms of
item pricing and the value of inventory management services. I believe
that DOD should continue the adoption of innovative support methods,
while using the ``lessons learned'' from the test programs to improve
future efforts.
prime vendor support
Question. There has been concern expressed regarding the proposals
to adopt prime vendor support for weapon systems, particularly when
that support would be provided by the original equipment manufacturer.
There is concern that these relationships will lead to a non-
competitive environment where our national security requirements might
not be met at the lowest cost.
What actions must the Department of Defense take to ensure that its
pursuit of prime vendor support arrangements does not lead to a non-
competitive environment?
Answer. I fully agree with the committee's concerns over
controlling cost in a non-competitive environment. Where contractor
support is an option, prime vendor strategies must be examined in
concert with other support options. Prime vendor support is but one
type of weapon system support strategy being implemented today. Other
strategies include third-party logistics concepts, partnerships, and
contractor and organic support approaches with performance incentives.
All of these support strategies include tenets of competition--
marketplace competition, public-private competition, or a business case
analysis to determine the best value support provider.
If confirmed, I will encourage the Department to place a greater
emphasis on performance-based logistics (PBL) strategies. These can
work as incentives to both public and private sector support providers.
With private sector providers, these strategies can involve several
contract options that are exercisable based on performance and cost.
The contracts also include significant positive and negative incentives
for cost and performance. These approaches stress the use of effective
competition at the subcontract and supplier level (where most of the
costs are) to maintain cost control. There are also examples of
performance-based organic support providers and integrators (e.g., Army
HEMTT, USAF B-1) that can provide effective leverage on performance
improvement and cost reduction.
competitive sourcing
Question. Over the past several years, DOD has increased its
reliance on the private sector to perform certain activities including
equipment maintenance and facility operations. Some have supported this
effort while others have expressed concern that core activities are
being jeopardized by reducing our reliance on military personnel and
civilian employees of the Federal Government.
What approach would you recommend to balance the need to maintain
necessary capabilities in the government workforce, including the
knowledge necessary to be a ``smart buyer,'' with the savings that may
be available from outsourcing?
Answer. If confirmed, I recommend furthering efforts within DOD to
refine the Federal Activities Inventory Reform (FAIR) inventory. In
order to comply with the FAIR Act of 1998, an annual inventory of all
Defense employee positions is performed in which they are categorized
into three broad categories. A position is recognized as inherently
government when it is part of a core activity so intimately related to
the public interest as to require performance by Federal Government
employees. Such positions are never candidates for competitive
sourcing. A position may also be coded as commercial in nature and
suitable for review for competitive sourcing. Finally a position may be
coded as commercial in nature, but exempt from competition for one of
several reasons, for example fire fighters are precluded from
competitive sourcing due to 10 U.S.C. 2465. An accurate FAIR inventory
identifies those positions that could be performed by the private
sector without eroding necessary government workforce capabilities.
Question. Do you support the principle of public-private
competition for the programs for which the Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense for Logistics and Materiel Readiness is responsible, including
depot-level maintenance of equipment?
Answer. Yes, to the extent possible under law. I believe the forces
of competition drive identification of inefficiencies regardless of
which offer is determined to be most beneficial.
Question. Do you believe that public-private competition results in
significant savings to the Department of Defense regardless of which
side wins the competition?
Answer. Yes. Every independent study performed on this issue that I
am aware of has concluded that significant savings are achieved.
Question. OMB Circular A-76, which establishes the guidelines for
outsourcing most government functions, is slated for scrutiny by a
congressionally mandated panel of government and private experts in
this area. The panel, chaired by the Comptroller General, is scheduled
to report to Congress with specific policy and legislative reforms and
recommendations for changing the way the government conducts out-
sourcing decisions and implements them.
What is your view of the current A-76 process?
Answer. The process is lengthy, complex and frustrating for all
involved. That very frustration is, in part, an outgrowth of a process
which has evolved over time to address legitimate concerns to establish
a level playing field and to protect the interests of all: the
government employee, the private sector competitors and the taxpayer.
Question. Are there other effective alternatives to achieve the
benefits of public-private competition?
Answer. The greatest part of the cost savings could perhaps be
achieved by simply privatizing activities that we determine are
suitable for performance by the private sector. This would take
advantage of the forces of competition that already exist in the
commercial marketplace, and which we enjoy in contracts that already
exist and which are periodically re-competed.
Over the past several years the Department of Defense has increased
its reliance on the private sector to perform certain activities
including equipment maintenance and facility operations. Some have
supported this effort, believing that outsourcing will yield
significant savings that can be used to modernize the military.
Unfortunately, previous administrations have over-estimated potential
savings, which resulted in the need for supplemental appropriations to
restore funds to accounts which were decremented. Furthermore, the
Department has been faced with the possibility of restricting
operations because of between labor and contractors.
Question. If confirmed, how would you structure contracts on work
that is outsourced to ensure that the promised savings are achieved,
and ensure that labor disputes do not disrupt essential operations?
Answer. The savings are established at the time the contract is
awarded. The decision to contract for the work is only made when the
contracted price reflects savings at least 10 percent greater than
could have been achieved through government performance. Existing
contract administration procedures enforce contract compliance on all
contracts, to include those that are developed as part of an A-76 cost
comparison process.
With regard to potential labor disputes, the Defense Department
follows all regulatory requirements with regard to labor rights.
Private sector contractors have provided services to DOD for many
years. We minimize potential disruption to essential operations by
retaining a government workforce to perform all inherently governmental
activities.
joint logistics
Question. One of the most expensive and challenging military
missions is the delivery of logistics support to the warfighter. While
we have made great strides over the last 15 years, our current military
structure continues the existence of a number of separate logistics
systems for each of the military services.
Do you believe that more opportunities exist to consolidate our
logistics systems in a way that will continue to serve the needs of
each military service, while increasing the efficiency and
effectiveness of the system as a whole?
Answer. First of all, I believe DOD's logistics systems primarily
must be effective from a military requirement point of view, and they
must be improved to meet the needs of an agile, highly lethal force. A
significant part of that military effectiveness is the DOD's ability to
rapidly source and distribute required material, without unnecessary
hand-offs and delays. To reduce multiple hand-offs, some consolidation
may be appropriate. If confirmed, I will assess end-to-end DOD
logistics systems to enhance responsiveness to the military
requirements inherent in the National Defense Strategy. If appropriate,
I will identify areas for consolidation and share those areas with this
committee.
Question. What elements of the logistics system do you believe
should be available for privatization, and what elements do you believe
need to be retained within the Department of Defense?
Answer. In terms of privatization, I believe the DOD should
continue to draw upon the robust strength of our industrial sector
where that sector can support our military mission and meet our
military requirements. There is nothing inherently governmental about
running a warehouse, a distribution center, or operating a business
information system. On the other hand, DOD must retain sufficient
technical and management expertise to fulfill our defense mission and
to appropriately oversee private sector providers. If confirmed, I
intend to assess logistics privatization efforts in context of desired
outcomes and the national defense strategy. I would then share the
results of that review with this committee.
public-private partnerships
Question. Congress has encouraged the Department of Defense to
establish partnerships between its equipment maintenance depots and
private industry.
What are your views on the extent to which the public and private
sectors can and should work together?
Answer. I believe that public-private partnering for depot
maintenance support is very beneficial to both the Department and the
private sector. It allows each sector to take advantage of its
strengths, it can potentially reduce costs, it can result in better
capacity utilization, and it allows each sector to learn the best
practices of the other. As long as it makes good sense and complies
with the law, I would not want to limit the use of public-private
partnering.
Question. Do you have any recommendations for facilitating such
partnerships?
Answer. In recent years, the Department has undertaken several
efforts to document the extent of pubic-private partnering for depot
maintenance support. Indications are that the amount of partnering is
quite extensive. So it appears that existing authorities are working.
If confirmed, I would like to take a more detailed look at perceived
issues before recommending any specific changes.
technical data rights
Question. Do you believe the government should purchase the
technical data rights for new weapons systems to the extent necessary
to provide the government the option of competing the life cycle
maintenance of that weapons system among private sector offerors or
performing such maintenance in government facilities as the need might
be?
Answer. I understand that the current policy states when an item is
developed exclusively at the Government expense, we have ``unlimited
rights'' to the data. When an item is developed with mixed (Government
and Industry) funding the government has ``government purpose rights''
to the data for 5 years or other period as negotiated. It is only when
an item is developed exclusively at private expense that it needs to
negotiate for data rights. I believe the decision to purchase technical
data rights needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis depending on a
number of different factors. Also, I believe factors that should be
considered include: the cost of the technical data rights; expected
maintenance costs for the various alternatives; and whether maintenance
of the weapon system is so critical that the government needs to
maintain a capability to perform it.
maintenance of new weapons systems
Question. When new weapons systems enter the inventory, should
decisions on whether life cycle maintenance of those systems will be
performed in the private sector, the public sector, or some combination
of the two be made on the basis of lowest cost and best value to the
government rather on a presumption that the source of repair should
always be public or always be private?
Answer. Many factors enter into the decision on which sector should
provide life cycle support for a weapon system. These include
requirements for organic core maintenance capabilities and best value.
I believe certain capabilities must be retained in the public sector,
most certainly including organizational maintenance for deployed combat
systems. Depending on applicable law and best value, private sector
support may offer advantages to the government. In many cases it may be
a combination of public and private sector support. I believe each case
has unique considerations that must be considered.
Question. At what point in the life cycle of a new weapons system
do you believe a decision on the long-term maintenance strategy for
that system should be made?
Answer. I believe this is an evolutionary decision, but a detailed
plan needs to be defined by Milestone C, which is the commitment
decision for the production and deployment phase.
policy on core maintenance issues
Question. Is the Department currently reviewing existing policies
on what policy skills and functions need to be maintained in government
facilities? If so, when will the results of those reviews be provided
to Congress?
Answer. I have not studied any ongoing review that the Department
might be conducting on policy as to which core maintenance skills and
functions must be retained in government facilities. If confirmed, I
would need to be thoroughly briefed on any such effort to fully
appreciate its findings before developing.
depot maintenance policy
Question. Section 2466 of Title 10, United States Code, requires
that 50 percent of the funds made available in any given fiscal year be
used for depot maintenance performed by employees of the Department of
Defense. Section 2464 of Title 10, United States Code, requires that
the Department of Defense maintain a core logistics capability that is
government-owned and government operated. These requirements are
intended to maintain ready and reliable depot maintenance skills and
the capacity to support the needs of the military services during
periods of both peace and conflict.
Do believe that we need to maintain an in-house capability to
perform depot maintenance on those weapon systems necessary to enable
the Armed Forces to fulfill the strategic and contingency plans
prepared by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff?
Answer. I believe that those depot maintenance capabilities that
are essential to the national defense that cannot reliably be provided
by the private sector must be maintained in the public sector. If
confirmed, I have every intention of complying with the law, including
these provisions of Title 10.
Question. Section 2469 also requires that the Department maintain
the capability to perform depot maintenance on new weapon systems
within the public depots not later than 4 years after initial
operational capability. It appears that the Department of Defense has
been contracting with private sector sources for the depot maintenance
on all new weapon systems rather than ensuring that some enter the
public depot system.
Do you believe that we can maintain modern and reliable public
depots if we do not provide for them to perform work on the new weapon
systems?
Answer. It is section 2464 that provides for having capability not
later than 4 years after initial operational capability. The key
concept here is capability. When the current language requiring the
establishment of capabilities within 4 years of initial operating
capability was enacted, the conference committee agreed that it was not
necessary that all work for systems required for the war plan be
performed in public facilities. Rather, it is the capability to perform
the work that must be retained and that the facilities be operated on a
cost-effective basis. I believe that public depots require sufficient
workload, including new weapon systems, in the respective core
capabilities in order to sustain competency and operate efficiently.
Workloads beyond this requirement can be considered for sourcing based
on best value over the life cycle of the system.
Question. If confirmed, will you ensure that new weapon systems are
inserted into the public depots within 4 year of their IOC as required
by law?
Answer. As stated above, the law requires the establishment of
capabilities. Weapon systems are not core. Core is skills, equipment,
and facilities. If confirmed, I will endeavor to ensure that required
skills, equipment, and facilities are established to support core
capability requirements, as required by law.
Question. Section 2474 of Title 10, United States Code, requires
the Secretary of Defense to designate the public depots as Centers of
Industrial and Technical Excellence in their core competencies and
provide authority for the establishment of public private partnerships
for the performance of depot maintenance at these centers. There have
been proposals to enhance this authority by ensuring the depot will be
held accountable when performing work as a subcontractor, and by
allowing depot maintenance work performed by private sector entities at
these centers to be counted toward the public share of 50/50.
In light of the requirements to maintain a core depot capability,
what actions do you believe should be taken to improve the efficiency
of these facilities and foster cooperation between the public and
private sector?
Answer. Section 2474 was completely revised by the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001. It provided extensive new
authorities for the Department to enter into public-private
partnerships, lease out under-utilized capacity, and sell articles and
services to the private sector. If confirmed, I would want to determine
the impact of these new authorities before proposing additional
measures to foster public-private cooperation. The Department has in
place a number of programs to improve the efficiency of depot
maintenance facilities, including the capital purchase program and the
military construction program. Because of the extremely austere funding
environment the Department has faced in recent years, many high
priority requirements have not been funded. Before advocating any
specific measures, if confirmed, I would want to conduct a detailed
review of requirements.
Section 332 of the Senate version of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 would allow the military
services to lease out excess capacity in the military's industrial
facilities to private business. It would allow the private sector to
hire these facilities as subcontractors, if they chose to do so, and
the work would not interfere with military requirements. The revenues
generated through lease of excess capacity or through work for the
private sector would be used to offset the overhead costs of these
facilities thus reducing the burden on the Department of Defense and
the American taxpayer.
Question. Do you believe that the services should be permitted to
pursue these initiatives if they choose to do so?
Answer. Section 332 of the Senate version of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 became section 341 of the
enacted law. I fully support the law as enacted. I support use by the
Services of these authorities when it is in the best interests of the
Department and makes sound business sense.
Question. One of the challenges to the efficiency of the public
depots is the fact that the facilities in which the maintenance is
conducted is relatively old and poorly designed for the workloads of
the modern military. This is particularly true of the Air Logistics
Centers, where maintenance on large jet aircraft is being conducted in
facilities that were built to produce World War II era bombers. Air
Force Materiel Command has developed a plan to replace these facilities
with modern maintenance hangers.
If confirmed, will you work to ensure that we modernize and
maintain our public facilities so that they are able to efficiently
perform their maintenance responsibilities?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Air Force is still in the
process of developing a long-term strategy for its depots. Though a
draft of the strategy is approaching completion, it has neither been
reviewed or approved by the Secretary of the Air Force nor has it been
shared with anyone in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. If
confirmed, I will thoroughly review requirements for modernization of
public sector depot maintenance facilities.
movement of household goods
Question. The Department of Defense is currently pursuing three
pilot programs to improve the process whereby the household goods of
military service members are moved from one duty station to another.
What is the current status of these pilot programs?
Answer. I am aware of three pilot programs; The Military Traffic
Management Command (MTMC) Pilot; the Sailor Arranged Move (SAM) program
and the Full Service Moving Project (FSMP). I am also aware that DOD's
objective is to evaluate the results of all three pilots to determine
the best provisions of a reengineered program for implementation
throughout the Department, and if confirmed, I will evaluate the status
and results of these programs.
Question. Are they demonstrating improved moving service for our
military families?
Answer. If confirmed I will be thoroughly briefed on the specific
issues and problems and will provide you detailed information on the
programs.
base realignment and closure
Question. Over the past several years, members of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff have testified that there is excess defense infrastructure and
requested Congress to authorize another round of base closure. The
previous administration insisted that another round of base closures is
needed to streamline the defense budget and to shift resources into
personnel and weapons procurement. This administration has also called
for the authorization of another round of BRAC.
Do you believe that we have excess defense facilities and, if so,
where does this excess capacity exist?
Answer. I believe that an intuitive case, at least, can be made for
further initiatives to reduce capacity, because I believe forces have
been reduced more than bases. Only a comprehensive analysis could
reveal where this excess capacity may exist. However, I also believe
that simply eliminating excess capacity is only one part of the issue.
It should be even more important for the DOD to review how its bases
can be restructured to more efficiently support force structure and
facilitate new ways of doing business.
Question. Would you provide a list of those facilities for
congressional consideration absent the authorization of another round
of base closures?
Answer. I have no such list. My experience tells me that only a
comprehensive analysis could provide that detail.
Question. What is your view about another round of BRAC limited to
where excess capacity exists?
Answer. Again, only a comprehensive analysis can reveal where
excess capacity exists. I also believe that even if that analysis were
completed, restricting future initiatives to those locations would
preclude the DOD from looking at and rationalizing its entire base
structure.
environmental issues
Question. The Senior Readiness Oversight Committee is currently
reviewing a group of readiness challenges it has characterized as
``encroachment issues. These include environmental constraints on
military training ranges, local community efforts to obtain military
property, airspace restrictions to accommodate civilian airlines, and
the assignment of radio frequency spectrum away from the Department of
Defense.
In your opinion, how serious are these problems for the Department?
Answer. This is a critical training readiness issue. Historically,
individual ranges address their own specific encroachment issues, most
often on an ad hoc basis. I have observed that the Department has won
some of these battles, and lost others. In the aggregate it appears the
DOD is losing ground, sometimes literally. The complexity of issues
involving Vieques, for example, illustrates just how serious these
problems are and how challenging they are to address.
The myriad forms of encroachment that face the DOD and our ranges
threaten to complicate, and in some cases severely restrict, the
Department's ability to conduct critical testing and training. The
overall trends are adverse, because the number of external pressures is
increasing, and the readiness impacts are growing. This is why I
believe the Department must begin to address these issues in a much
more comprehensive and systematic fashion. It will also be important to
work with regulators, special interests, other Federal agencies, and
communities in order to clearly define the issues from all viewpoints
and to reach mutually acceptable solutions, whenever possible.
Question. If confirmed, what role do you expect to play in
addressing these challenges and what actions would you propose to take
to address them?
Answer. I understand that the Department is addressing the wide-
ranging issues of encroachment and range sustainability identified by
the Senior Readiness Oversight Council (SROC). I believe the DOD
strategy for range sustainment should include a comprehensive
sustainability framework that addresses the test and training mission,
regulatory requirements, community support, and the range capabilities
used to support the mission. The strategy should aid in identifying
problems needing attention, both short and long-term, and whether it
should be a local, regional, national, or a combined response. If
confirmed, I expect my role in developing that strategy would be
significant.
Question. The Department of Defense makes it a practice to request
funding only for those environmental compliance areas that are already
out of compliance and subject to an enforcement action and those that
will be out of compliance before the next budget cycle.
Would you agree that continuing funding for these types of
environmental compliance areas is critical to maintaining a positive
relationship with local regulatory authorities and the communities
around our military bases?
Answer. Yes. Operating in an environmentally sound manner is a
major factor in maintaining good relationships with the regulatory
authorities as well as the communities that surround our military
bases. DOD personnel also reside in those very same communities. In
addition, operating in an environmentally sound manner is more cost
effective than having to correct the effects of unsound practices at a
later date.
Question. Do you believe that the Department of Defense should be
exempt from the application of the environmental laws?
Answer. No. I believe the Department of Defense should not be
exempt from the application of the environmental laws. DOD should be
held to the same standards. Environmental laws are constructed to
protect human health and the environment, including the men, women, and
children who work and live on Department of Defense installations.
Congress has included clauses allowing the President to waive
requirements of environmental laws when needed to protect national
security. However, I do not believe the Department would ask the
President to waive a requirement lightly.
Question. Do you support the basic principle of the Federal
Facilities Act and other laws that Federal facilities, including DOD
facilities, should be subject to the same standards as comparably
situated civilian facilities?
Answer. Yes. I support the basic principles of the Federal Facility
Compliance Act, signed by President George H. W. Bush. Environmental
laws are part of the cost of doing business for every civilian
community and private industrial facility.
Question. The Department of Defense faces a bill for the cleanup of
unexploded ordnance (UXO) that has been estimated to be at least in the
tens of billions of dollars, and could be in the hundreds of billions
of dollars. At current funding levels it has been estimated that it
could take the military services several thousand years to remediate
UXO problems on a DOD-wide basis.
What do you believe would be an acceptable time period for cleaning
up unexploded ordnance problems throughout the Department of Defense?
Answer. I cannot give you a recommended time frame for the cleanup
of UXO today. That's something I'll have to look into, if confirmed.
Question. Do you believe that increased investment in UXO
remediation technologies would be likely to produce more effective and
efficient remediation processes and substantially reduce the
Department's long-term clean-up liability (and the time required to
complete such clean-up)?
Answer. Yes. Improvements in technology for any endeavor usually
effects greater efficiencies. I would expect that increased investments
in UXO remediation technologies would lead to more cost-effective and
timely cleanup of DOD sites.
Question. If confirmed, what actions will you propose to ensure
that encroachment does not prevent the Armed Forces from effectively
training and operating both at home and abroad?
Answer. Increasingly, public pressure to limit range use is fueled
by concerns over safety, noise, and environmental impacts generated by
the use of military munitions in testing and training. Therefore, I
believe that sound management of UXO should figure prominently in the
Department's efforts to address range sustainability and encroachment
issues identified by the Senior Readiness Oversight Council (SROC), and
if confirmed, I will work diligently to reduce the impact of
encroachment on training.
Question. At what point will the Department have baseline data
sufficient to provide a legitimate estimate of the bill for the cleanup
of unexploded ordnance?
Answer. I would have to look into that in more detail, if
confirmed. At this point, I do not have the information to give you an
answer.
Question. Of particular concern is the cost and operational impact
of environmental constraints. Some of the service chiefs have informed
us that they spend more money each year complying with environmental
regulations than they spend on training. We have seen in visits to
military installations, the difficulty caused by compliance with
environmental regulations on the ability of our military to train and
operate today.
What are your views regarding the prospect of reducing the cost to
the Department of environmental compliance?
Answer. I believe that the Department can continue to reduce the
cost of environmental compliance by: (1) prudent investments in
pollution prevention efforts and technology; and (2) working with
regulators on a common sense approach to implementing existing laws and
executive orders.
Question. Do you believe that there may be legitimate national
security interests that require regulators to make environmental
compliance allowances to preserve such interests for the Department of
Defense?
Answer. Yes. I believe that in certain cases it might make sense
for regulators to make allowances to preserve legitimate national
security interests.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as the Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings and
other communications of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Strom Thurmond
installation readiness
1. Senator Thurmond. Ms. Morales, installation readiness is one of
the more challenging issues that you will face if confirmed as the
Deputy Under Secretary for Logistics and Materiel Readiness. As you may
know, due to the underfunding of the real property maintenance
accounts, the majority of installations are rated C-3 or below. What in
your personal view is a realistic approach toward resolving this
significant issue?
Ms. Morales. Installation readiness is one of the more challenging
issues that I will address if confirmed. Three simultaneous steps are
required to reduce the number of C-3 and C-4 facilities. First, DOD
must fully sustain our facility assets, to prevent deterioration and
maximize service life. Second, DOD must establish a stable and focused
program to modernize and replace our facilities, using a combination of
O&M and military construction funds, to keep up with evolving standards
and new technologies. I agree with Secretary Rumsfeld and General
Shelton, who have stated in their testimony that DOD must tie this
recapitalization investment to the expected service life of our assets,
which is conservatively estimated to average about 67 years. Finally,
DOD must continue to dispose of obsolete assets, so they do not drain
away resources we need for sustainment, restoration, and modernization
of our remaining facilities.
housing privatization
2. Senator Thurmond. Ms. Morales, as you may know the Department is
counting on the housing privatization initiative as the solution to
resolving the quality of the military housing problem. Unfortunately,
the new leadership appears to be under the impression that
privatization is the final solution to the issue. In reality, it
represents only a part of the total solution since there are
installations at which the housing cannot be privatized and normal
military family housing construction must be funded. Are you committed
to the total family housing solution and not solely to the
privatization effort?
Ms. Morales. The Department is committed to a total family housing
solution. The quality of housing for Service members and their families
continues to be a critical element in supporting and retaining the high
caliber personnel who make our armed forces the best in the world. But
the majority of our military housing is old, below contemporary
standards, and in need of extensive repair. Accordingly, the President
and Secretary Rumsfeld have made improving housing one of their top
priorities.
The military housing privatization initiative is designed to
support the Department's ongoing policy to have our Service members
live in private housing. Approximately 60-70 percent of our military in
the United States (CONUS) reside off base in private housing. The
military services own and maintain housing where the private sector
does not provide adequate housing for Service members. This is usually
where housing is substandard or not affordable to our Service members.
In testimony before various congressional committees over the last few
years the Department has laid out a strategy to address this area--
which is to aggressively pursue a major 3-prong approach to benefit all
Service members and improve their quality of life: (1) Increasing
housing allowances to eliminate out-of-pocket costs paid by Service
members for private sector housing in the United States. Higher basic
allowances for housing (BAH) will help members who live off base to
afford good quality housing. Both the quality and the availability of
there off base housing options will immediately increase; (2)
Strategically placing housing privatization projects where analyses
have shown a greater housing requirement than the market can support.
Higher allowances for housing will increase and enhance housing
privatization, further improving Service member access to quality
housing. Privatization is intended to enable the military services to
revitalize their inventories of inadequate housing by leveraging
appropriations with private capital. Under current privatization
policy, the services must leverage appropriations to get at least three
times the housing they would get under traditional military
construction. In practice, the services have leveraged appropriations
an average of six times; and (3) Maintaining Military Construction
funding. The combination of increased allowances and continued use of
privatization, where appropriate, will permit more efficient use of
current military construction funding.
Given the demands placed on the Department's budget, and the
Secretary's new initiatives, we believe that privatization will help
the Department reach the goal of revitalizing all the military
services' inadequate housing (approximately 180,000 units) by the year
2010. Under housing privatization, funding not required at one
installation, is used to accelerate housing revitalization at another
installation. This allows the Federal taxpayers dollars to be stretched
farther and allows for a balanced approach between Military
Construction funding and privatization. The leveraging through
privatization is essential to achieve our goal of 2010, but where
privatization is not viable; military construction funding will be
requested.
3. Senator Thurmond. Ms. Morales, in this era of high utility
costs, does it make sense to continue the Department's efforts to
privatize the utility infrastructure on defense installations?
Ms. Morales. Yes, because todays high utility costs relate
primarily to the commodity costs (electricity or natural gas) while our
policy to privatize utility infrastructure is for the ownership,
operation, and maintenance of actual utility distribution systems
(i.e., the pipes, poles, wires, and plants). Our policy is to privatize
utility distribution systems only when it is economically feasible to
do so and when the system has not otherwise been exempted due to unique
mission or security reasons. Parties potentially interested in bidding
on our systems may not necessarily be the same as those selling us the
commodity. There are normally separate utility commodity contracts for
electricity and natural gas. The ownership, operation, and maintenance
of utility distribution systems will generally be separate from the
installations' commodity contracts. The economics of privatization of
the distribution systems may be affected by the commodity sale
situation, but our policy indicates that these factors be considered in
the economic feasibility analysis required by Title 10, section 2688.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Bob Smith
microelectronics
4. Senator Smith. Ms. Morales, I understand that the previous
Secretary of Defense deemed the Defense Microelectronics Activity
(DMEA) as vital to our national defense and moved the organization from
the Air Force to report directly to the Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense for Logistics and Materiel Readiness. Since microelectronics
remains the heart of our most sophisticated weapons systems, will you
continue to support this extremely important organization as a Defense-
wide agency during your tenure?
Ms. Morales. The DMEA is a unique and vital resource to our
national defense. The activity was established to concentrate on the
extraordinary issues surrounding microelectronics technologies that are
common across all Services within the DOD. Microelectronics is the
hidden, yet pervasive, key enabling technology which is the heart of
``smart weapon systems,'' and a host of strategic and tactical assets
for the warfighters. DMEA created original methodologies and innovative
processes that produce solutions that are technically correct yet re-
create profitability for the industry. Notable is DMEA's ability to
rapidly respond to the well-known, commercially-driven dynamic
microelectronics environment with innovative and pragmatic solutions.
DMEA has been highly utilized and praised by all the Services within
the DOD, other Agencies in the Government, and by industry for its
exceptional record of accomplishments.
Much of DMEA's long list of inter-Service achievements is a direct
result of DMEA's streamlined organizational structure. As such, I fully
endorse and support DMEA as a defense-wide activity during my tenure.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Wayne Allard
unexploded ordnances
5. Senator Allard. Ms. Morales, UXO's or unexploded ordnances are a
major concern for many on this committee. For example, last year 5
sarin gas bomblets were found at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal and just
last week, 4 more Sarin gas bomblets were located. I commend the job
that the Army is doing at the Arsenal and for disposing of the
bomblets, especially General Coburn of the Army Material Command.
However, I am concerned that it will take 3 weeks before any of the
only EDS destruction and disposal system is transported to Colorado.
This lack of development of alternatives and lack of systems is of
great concern. Can I get your assurances that the DOD will look and
test other alternatives in order to ensure that we have the systems
needed to deal with this important and dangerous problem?
Ms. Morales. Senator Allard, it is our desire to have multiple
tools to deal with the destruction of recovered chemical agent
materials. I understand that the Army is taking action to ensure that
appropriate disposal technologies are available to dispose of recovered
chemical warfare materiel expeditiously.
clean-up of colorado state fairgrounds
6. Senator Allard. Ms. Morales, I would like to call your attention
to a matter between the Navy and the Colorado State Fair Authority. The
Navy leased land at the Colorado State fairgrounds in Pueblo and in
1946 they had two Reserve Center buildings constructed. Now there is
some dispute as to the environmental clean-up of the site, specifically
regarding the asbestos contained in the building and who will be paying
for clean up. I would certainly appreciate it if you could look into
the matter, and ensure the Navy is giving all due accommodations to the
matter. The Colorado State Fair is a great institution, but not a rich
one, and I would hate for them to be put at a disadvantage.
Ms. Morales. If confirmed, I will certainly look into the matter,
and communicate the results to you Senator.
rocky mountain low level waste compact
7. Senator Allard. Ms. Morales, as you may know, the Rocky Mountain
Low Level Waste Compact is congressionally mandated to take
responsibility to dispose of federally-generated radioactive waste in
the region. First, can you give me your thoughts about the compact
system for disposing waste? Also, do you support the system and would
you support a court challenge to invalidate the compact system?
Ms. Morales. The Low Level Radioactive Waste Compacts serve a
useful purpose by facilitating disposal for the Nation's LLRW. I know
the DOD has supported the Compact system for the past 16 years and will
continue to do so in the future.
I am not aware of any scenario in which it would support a court
challenge to invalidate the compact system.
______
[The nomination reference of Diane K. Morales follows:]
Nomination Reference
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
June 5, 2001.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Diane K. Morales of Texas, to be Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
for Logistics and Materiel Readiness, vice Roger W. Kallock.
______
[The biographical sketch of Diane K. Morales, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Diane K. Morales
In February 1993, Diane Morales became president of DMS, Inc. (``D.
Morales Services, Inc.'' in Virginia), a management services firm
focused primarily on public and commercial logistics operations and
systems planning. Management services include policy and program
analysis, net assessments, strategic planning, government relations,
legislative analysis, and public outreach.
From 1990 to 1993, Ms. Morales served as Deputy Assistant Secretary
of Defense for Logistics, and coordinated a comprehensive restructuring
of defense logistics operations to improve performance and reduce
business costs by $70 billion over 7 years. Logistics reengineering
included integrating logistics policy, regulations, and procedures;
developing and managing programs to reduce DOD inventories from $103
billion to $55 billion by 1995; standardizing logistics systems and
procedures, as well as improving business practices; consolidating and
streamlining organizations; and achieving visibility of military assets
to reduce supply costs and mobility requirements. Ms. Morales served in
this capacity during Operation Desert Storm and played a substantial
role in addressing airlift and sealift requirements.
Prior to her DOD service, Ms. Morales was president of the
predecessor firm to DMS, Morales Consulting Services Company (MCSC),
established in August 1988. MCSC performed net assessment analyses,
strategic planning, and policy/program analyses for the program areas
of ICBM Modernization, the then-Strategic Defense Initiative, and for
the environmental cleanup and compliance issues regarding the
Department of Energy Defense Nuclear Complex.
From 1986 to 1988, Ms. Morales served as Vice President of
Government Affairs for the Earth Technology Corporation, a geotechnical
and environmental services firm supporting primarily the siting and
basing of the U.S. Air Force ICBM Modernization and SDI programs, as
well as the Department of Energy hazardous/radioactive waste management
programs.
Between 1981 and 1986, Ms. Morales served in executive positions in
several government agencies: the Department of the Interior as Deputy
Assistant Secretary for policy; the Civil Aeronautics Board as Board
Member; and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Consumer
Product Safety Commission as a consultant on deregulatory issues.
Ms. Morales was born in Houston, Texas. She received a B.A. from
the University of Texas in Austin.
______
[The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
form that details the biographical, financial and other
information of the nominee. The form executed by Diane K.
Morales in connection with her nomination follows:]
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Room SR-228
Washington, DC 20510-6050
(202) 224-3871
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation
of your answer applies.
Part A--Biographical Information
Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.
1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
Diane K. Morales.
2. Position to which nominated:
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Logistics.
3. Date of nomination:
June 5, 2001.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
5. Date and place of birth:
July 11, 1946; Houston, Texas.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Single.
7. Names and ages of children:
None.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received and date degree granted.
Bellaire High School in Bellaire, Texas; graduated, 1964.
University of Texas in Austin, Texas; BA, 1968.
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
dms inc. 1993-present
President: Heads management services firm focused primarily on
defense and commercial logistics. Management services include policy
and program analysis, net assessments, strategic planning, acquisition,
and government relations/legislative analysis. Currently engaged in
activities regarding Department of Defense strategic planning
(Logistics 2010), information support systems, and best commercial
logistics practices.
department of defense 1990-1993
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Logistics: Managed DOD logistics
operations; functions included supply/materiel management, maintenance,
transportation, energy, international logistics, all support
information systems, commissaries, and exchanges. Key accomplishments:
Resized DOD inventories, reduced operating costs, and
introduced commercial business practices;
Standardized, streamlined, integrated logistics
policies and procedures for standard systems development;
Consolidated DOD organizations and missions; and
Began changing the business culture with total quality
management.
Supply/Materiel Management. Rewrote 80 separate policy documents
regarding the supply system life cycle into single, integrated policy;
developed the Inventory Reduction Plan as the vehicle to implement the
new policy and save $18 billion. In 1990, the value of the on-hand
inventory was $103 billion; by 1992, $86 billion; in March 1993, $80
billion; by 1997, $55 billion (in constant 1990 dollars). In 1989, the
Department spent nearly $30 billion managing the supply system,
including the cost of new supplies; by 1992, $21 billion.
Tracking Assets. Post Gulf War, developed comprehensive plan
(Defense Total Asset Visibility Plan) to provide operators with full
visibility of assets and their condition throughout the logistics
network. The benefits are reduced procurement, smaller inventories,
improved availability of assets for mission requirements, and better
use of transportation assets. Also, conducted study to improve in-
theater distribution.
Maintenance. Developed annual business plan to reduce business
operations costs from $13 billion annually in 1990 to $6.4 billion in
1997 by streamlining processes, personnel, and infrastructure;
increasing inter Service support and competition among Services/
between the Services and private industry; and improving utilization of
capacity through realignment of workload and base closure.
Transportation. Post Gulf War, consolidated wartime and peacetime,
common-user and Service-unique transportation functions under single
command; revised requirements for lift assets, the appropriate mix of
strategic lift, and the augmentation of military assets with commercial
assets under the DOD Mobility Requirements Study; corrected operational
deficiencies after first activation of the Civil Reserve Air Fleet
(CRAF) in Operation Desert Shield; laid out a corrective plan for the
Department of Transportation's problematic activation and maintenance
of the Ready Reserve Force, a government-owned fleet; and after
reviewing internal air carrier oversight systems, military programs for
aviation, and FAA/foreign aviation regulatory activities, initiated a
series of higher quality and safety standards for commercial carriers
serving DOD.
Corporate Information Management (CIM). Directed the foundational
logistics CIM initiative, the Department's program to standardize
common functional information systems; determined requirements,
identified candidate standard systems, and handed the product over to
the Joint Logistics Systems Command (JLSC) for execution.
International Logistics. With the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO), developed cooperative logistics programs to reduce
U.S. costs and to increase ``burdensharing'' among other members;
prepared a Host Nation Support Model Agreement to accelerate logistics
support agreements in countries where the U.S. expects conflicts (the
result of Operation Desert Storm); chaired the Logistics Cooperation
Committee subgroup that completed the Korean Wartime Host Nation
Support Umbrella Agreement signed by the Secretary of Defense and the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative,
honorary or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State,
or local governments, other than those listed above.
department of energy 1989-1990
Consultant. Assessed the DOE, Office of Environment, Safety, and
Health (ES&H) programs, policy, budget, congressional activity,
environmental status (compliance) of all facilities, the changing
environmental regulations, tracking of transportation of waste (nuclear
and non-nuclear), and proposed Office initiatives.
office, management and budget/consumer product safety commission 1985-
1986
Deregulation Consultant: Examined the deregulation of trucking,
barge, maritime, rail, and mineral leasing (involving the Departments
of the Interior and Transportation, and Interstate Commerce Commission)
and made follow-on recommendations; developed program plan for the
Consumer Product Safety Commission to encourage greater voluntary
industry safety actions; the agency followed final recommendations.
civil aeronautics board 1983-1985
Board Member: Completed domestic aviation deregulation; decided
several major anti-competitive cases; determined carrier fitness;
licensed U.S. and foreign carriers; regulated international aviation
and negotiated international agreements.
department of the interior 1981-1983
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy: Served as Acting Assistant
Secretary of Territorial and International Affairs for half tenure;
addressed issues regarding U.S. territories and the single Trust
Territory; participant in negotiations to alter the relationship to the
United States of the Trust Territory and the Northern Marianas.
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational or other institution.
Currently limited to the following:
SAP Public Services, Inc., Consultant to DOD, 1300 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Suite 500, Washington, DC 20004.
SAIC, support contractor on logistics contract, 7980 SAIC Court,
Vienna, VA 22182.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
political organizations
Reagan Alumni Association, Member, 1989-present.
Bush Alumni Association, Member, 1992-present.
professional organizations
National Defense Industrial Association, Logistics Committee, 1995-
present.
Women in Defense, Member, 1999-present.
non-profit organizations
S.A.F.E. Foundation (National Missile Defense), Board Member 2000-
present.
civic organizations
Texas State Society (social), Board Member, 1996-present.
Project Nehemiah (charity/orphanage), Board Member, 1996-present.
American Cancer Society/Virginia, Board Member, 2000-2002.
13. Political affiliations and activities:
(a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or
any public office for which you have been a candidate.
None.
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5
years.
None.
(c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $100 or more for the past 5 years.
George W. Bush Presidential Exploratory Committee--$1,000.00.
George W. Bush for President Compliance Committee--$1,000.00.
Fundraising: Solicitor Tracking No. 7494, Bush Presidential
Campaign.
14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals, and any other special
recognitions for outstanding service or achievements.
Department of Defense Outstanding Public Service Medal in 1993.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
None.
16. Speeches: Provide the committee with two copies of any formal
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have
copies of and are on topics relevant to the position for which you have
been nominated.
None.
17. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree,
if confirmed, to respond to requests to appear and testify before any
duly constituted committee of the Senate?
Yes.
______
[The nominee responded to the questions in Parts B-F of the
committee questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set
forth in the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to
Parts B-F are contained in the committee's executive files.]
------
Signature and Date
I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate,
and complete.
Diane K. Morales.
This 16th day of April, 2001.
[The nomination of Diane K. Morales was reported to the
Senate by Senator Warner on July 11, 2001, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on July 12, 2001.]
------
[Prepared questions submitted to Steven J. Morello, Sr. by
Chairman Levin prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
June 15, 2001.
Hon. Carl Levin, Chairman,
Committee on Armed Services,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Enclosed herewith are the answers to the advance
questions the Senate Armed Services Committee asked me to complete.
Sincerely,
Steven J. Morello.
Enclosure
cc: Hon. John Warner,
Ranking Member.
______
Questions and Responses
defense reforms
Question. More than a decade has passed since the enactment of the
Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and
the Special Operations reforms.
Do you support full implementation of these defense reforms?
Answer. Yes. These reforms have improved the readiness of our Armed
Forces, and the ability of the Department of Defense to perform its
assigned responsibilities. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that the
Department of the Army properly and fully implements the reforms, in
complete compliance with congressional intent.
Question. What is your view of the extent to which these defense
reforms have been implemented?
Answer. In my opinion, the Department of Defense has implemented
these reforms. I am unaware of any specific reforms that have not been
implemented. If confirmed, I will assist in ensuring that the
Department of the Army fully implements the reforms, as Congress has
directed.
Question. What do you consider to be the most important aspects of
these defense reforms?
Answer. The Goldwater-Nichols legislation has strengthened civilian
control over the Armed Forces by clarifying the authority,
responsibilities and relationships among the Secretary of Defense, the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Service Secretaries, and the
Combatant Commanders. The legislation also streamlined the chain of
military command from the President to the Combatant Commanders; vested
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff with responsibility to serve
as the principal military adviser to the President, the Secretary of
Defense and the National Security Council; and facilitated joint
decision-making by designating the Chairman as the spokesman for the
Combatant Commanders, defining the Combatant Commanders' roles,
establishing joint officer management policies and streamlining the
Joint Staff's operations. Our Armed Force's improved performance on the
battlefield and in operations other than war is attributable to the
enhancement of command and control, joint operations and training, and
interoperability brought about by these reforms. Finally, the
Goldwater-Nichols legislation has heightened the efficiency with which
the Military Departments organize, train, equip and administer forces
in support of the Combatant Commanders' operational requirements.
Question. The goals of Congress in enacting these defense reforms,
as reflected in section 3 of the Goldwater-Nichols Department of
Defense Reorganization Act, can be summarized as strengthening civilian
control; improving military advice; placing clear responsibility on the
combatant commanders for the accomplishment of their missions; ensuring
the authority of the combatant commanders is commensurate with their
responsibility; increasing attention to the formulation of strategy and
to contingency planning; providing for more efficient use of defense
resources; and enhancing the effectiveness of military operations and
improving the management and administration of the Department of
Defense.
Do you agree with these goals?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that the
Department of the Army continues its efforts in furtherance of these
goals, and that Congress' intent is fully realized.
Question. Recently, there have been articles which indicate an
interest within the Department of Defense in modifying Goldwater-
Nichols in light of the changing environment and possible revisions to
the national strategy.
Do you anticipate that legislative proposals to amend Goldwater-
Nichols may be appropriate? If so, what areas do you believe it might
be appropriate to address in these proposals?
Answer. I am currently unaware of any reason to amend Goldwater-
Nichols. If confirmed, I will have an opportunity to assess whether the
challenges of today's dynamic security environment require amendments
to the legislation in order to achieve the objectives of the defense
reforms.
duties
Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
the General Counsel of the Army?
Answer. Section 3019 of Title 10, United States Code, provides that
the General Counsel of the Army shall perform such functions as the
Secretary of the Army may prescribe. The General Counsel provides legal
advice to the Secretary of the Army, the Under Secretary, the Assistant
Secretaries, and other offices within the Army Secretariat. As the
chief legal officer of the Department of the Army, the General Counsel
determines the controlling legal positions of the Department of the
Army. The General Counsel's responsibilities extend to any matter of
law and to other matters as directed by the Secretary. Examples of
specific responsibilities currently assigned to the General Counsel
include providing professional guidance to the Army's legal community,
overseeing matters in which the Army is involved in litigation, serving
as the Designated Agency Ethics Official, exercising the Secretary's
oversight of intelligence and other sensitive activities and
investigations, and providing legal advice to the Army Acquisition
Executive.
Question. What background and experience do you possess that you
believe qualifies you to perform these duties?
Answer. The diversity and complexity of legal issues confronting
the Department of the Army are such that no one lawyer can have in-
depth experience in all of them. However, the General Counsel must
possess absolute integrity, mature judgment, sound legal and analytical
skills, and strong interpersonal and leadership abilities. I believe
that my background and diverse legal experiences in both the military
and corporate environments have prepared me to meet the challenges of
this office.
I received my law degree from the University of Detroit Law School
in 1977 and my Masters of Science Degree in Business Administration
from Boston University's Metropolitan College in 1980, and served as a
Judge Advocate officer in both the active Army and Army Reserve for
over 8 years. I also served as a staff assistant to United States
Senator Philip A. Hart. For the past 10 years, I have served as Vice
President, General Counsel and Secretary for Prechter Holdings, Inc., a
privately held company based in Southgate, Michigan. I have provided
extensive legal and business advice to corporate executives in the
automobile, publishing, hotel, real estate, and cattle ranching
industries. Prior to my affiliation with Prechter Holdings, I provided
legal services to the information technology industry as managing
attorney for Digital Equipment Corporation, and served as a contract
attorney for Northrop Corporation.
I believe that my prior military service as a Judge Advocate
officer, my experience in the legislative branch, and my extensive
corporate background have prepared me for assuming the position of Army
General Counsel and overseeing the delivery of legal services in the
Army during this period of transformation. My knowledge of military
legal practice and familiarity with corporate decision-making, and my
experience with problem solving, client counseling and legal analysis
have equipped me to address the challenges of this important position.
Question. Do you believe that there are actions you need to take to
enhance your ability to perform the duties of the General Counsel of
the Army?
Answer. I believe I have the requisite legal training and abilities
and leadership skills to serve as the Army General Counsel. I look
forward to dealing with the full array of legal issues arising from the
operation of the Army. If confirmed, I will work with the
extraordinarily talented civilian and military lawyers in the
Department of the Army to broaden my expertise and increase my
knowledge to better serve the Army.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what duties and functions do
you expect that Secretary White would prescribe for you?
Answer. I anticipate that Secretary White will rely on me to
provide accurate and timely legal advice and help ensure that the Army
complies with both the letter and intent of the law. Presumably, the
current allocation of responsibilities set forth in the General Order
prescribing the duties of each member of the Army Secretariat will
remain in effect. Apart from these formally prescribed duties, I
believe the Secretary of the Army would expect me to build a collegial
and professional relationship with the General Counsels of the
Department of Defense, the other Military Departments, and the Defense
Agencies and, as required, the legal staffs of other Federal agencies.
I anticipate that Secretary White will expect me to continue the
extraordinarily effective and professional working relationship between
the Office of the General Counsel and The Judge Advocate General and
his staff. Finally, I anticipate that Secretary White will expect me to
manage the General Counsel's office efficiently and effectively, and
ensure that the Army legal community is adequately resourced to perform
its important mission.
Question. In carrying out your duties, how will you work with The
Judge Advocate General of the Army?
Answer. I believe that close, professional cooperation between the
civilian and uniformed members of the Army's legal community is
absolutely essential to the effective delivery of legal services to the
Department of the Army. If confirmed, I will seek to ensure that the
Office of the General Counsel, The Judge Advocate General and his staff
continue to work together to deliver the best possible legal services
to the Department of the Army.
Question. How are the legal responsibilities of the Department of
the Army allocated between the General Counsel and The Judge Advocate
General?
Answer. The Army General Counsel is the chief legal officer of the
Department of the Army. The Office of the Army General Counsel is a
component of the Army Secretariat, and provides legal advice to the
Secretary of the Army and other Secretariat officials on all legal
matters. Some of the Army General Counsel's specific duties under the
current assignment of Secretariat functions include advising the Army
Acquisition Executive, serving as the Designated Agency Ethics Official
for the Army, overseeing compliance with the Freedom of Information Act
and the Privacy Act within the Army, exercising the Secretary of the
Army's oversight of intelligence activities and monitoring sensitive
Army intelligence and criminal investigative activities for legality
and propriety. The Judge Advocate General is the legal adviser of the
Chief of Staff of the Army, members of the Army Staff, and members of
the Army generally. In coordination with the Army General Counsel, The
Judge Advocate General serves as military legal adviser to the
Secretary of the Army. He also directs the members of the Judge
Advocate General's Corps in the performance of their duties. By law, he
is primarily responsible for providing legal advice and services
regarding the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the administration
of military discipline. The processing of military claims and the
provision of legal assistance are other functions for which The Judge
Advocate General is primarily responsible. The Office of the Army
General Counsel and the Office of The Judge Advocate General have
developed and maintain a close and effective working relationship in
performing their respective responsibilities.
Question. In carrying out your duties, how will you work with the
General Counsel of the Department of Defense?
Answer. The General Counsel of the Department of Defense is the
Chief Legal Officer and final legal authority for the Department of
Defense, including the Department of the Army. If confirmed, I
anticipate establishing a close and professional relationship with Mr.
Haynes, characterized by continuing consultation, communication and
cooperation on matters of mutual interest, in furtherance of the best
interests of the Department of Defense.
major challenges and problems
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will
confront the General Counsel of the Army?
Answer. In my opinion, the major challenge will be to provide
responsive, accurate legal advice regarding the broad array of complex
issues likely to arise in connection with the Army's transformation in
today's dynamic security environment. Although this environment makes
it difficult to anticipate specific legal questions, I expect to
confront issues relating to operational matters, acquisition reform,
privatization initiatives, military and civilian personnel policies,
compliance with environmental laws, and military support to civilian
authorities in a variety of contexts.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure that the Army's talented and
dedicated lawyers continue to provide professional and responsive legal
advice on every issue they address. I would endeavor to keep Army
lawyers involved at all stages of the decision making process, because
preventive law, practiced early in the formulation of departmental
policies, can help the Department of the Army adapt to the changing
operational environment. I would work diligently to adequately resource
the Army legal community, in order to guarantee decision makers at all
levels access to the best possible legal advice.
Question. What do you consider to be the most serious problems in
the performance of the functions of the General Counsel of the Army?
Answer. I am not aware of any serious problems in this area.
However, if confirmed, I will work hard to ensure that the Army legal
community is adequately staffed and resourced to provide the
responsive, accurate and timely legal advice necessary to ensure the
Department of the Army's successful transformation.
Question. What management actions and time lines would you
establish to address these problems?
Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure that any problems in performing
the Army's legal functions are addressed promptly and through
appropriate channels.
priorities
Question. What broad priorities will you establish in terms of
issues which must be addressed by the General Counsel of the Army?
Answer. If confirmed, I will prioritize legal issues in the manner
that best serves the Department of the Army. I anticipate that the
legal issues of highest priority will arise from the Army's
transformation to meet the challenges posed by today's dynamic security
environment. I will also ensure that the Army legal community continues
to provide timely legal advice of the highest possible quality in
response to the Department of the Army's recurring legal
responsibilities and the numerous issues that the Army confronts every
day.
military justice matters
Question. Since Article 6 of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice
gives primary jurisdiction over military justice to The Judge Advocate
General, how do you see your functions in this area with regard to The
Judge Advocate General of the Army?
Answer. Article 6 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice requires
The Judge Advocate General or senior members of his staff to make
``frequent inspections in the field'' in furtherance of his
responsibility to supervise the administration of military justice.
Although The Judge Advocate General bears primary responsibility for
administering the military justice system within the Army, I will, if
confirmed, consult and cooperate with him on matters of mutual interest
or concern relating to military justice, recognizing his statutory
duties and special expertise in this area. If confirmed, I will work
with The Judge Advocate General in establishing policy for the Army and
safeguarding the integrity of the military justice system.
Question. In your view, how should the General Counsel approach
military justice matters--both in terms of specific cases and general
policy issues to provide useful advice without generating problems of
unlawful command influence?
Answer. It is my view that to avoid the appearance or actuality of
improper command influence, decisions in individual military justice
cases must be entrusted to the accused's commander, the convening
authority, the military judge, and court members. The General Counsel,
like the Secretary of the Army and other senior civilian and military
officials of the Department of the Army, must avoid any action that may
affect or appear to affect the outcome of any particular case. The Army
General Counsel helps to ensure that the military justice system and
its judicial officers are shielded from inappropriate external
pressures that may threaten or appear to threaten the independence of
the military's judicial system or the commander's discretion in
exercising his or her responsibilities under the Uniform Code of
Military Justice to maintain good order and discipline.
Question. In recent years, there have been a number of cases in
which military members have been accused of adultery. Concerns have
been raised about the consistency with which these cases have been
handled.
What do you see as the role of the General Counsel of the Army in
ensuring that the Uniform Code of Military Justice is enforced in a
fair and consistent manner?
Answer. I understand that although The Judge Advocate General has
the principal statutory role in military justice for the Army, he often
coordinates with the Army General Counsel on particular matters
associated with the fair and consistent enforcement of the Uniform Code
of Military Justice. If confirmed, I will consult, as appropriate, with
The Judge Advocate General on measures that may be necessary to ensure
the proper administration of military justice.
Question. Do you see a need for any changes in either the law or
its implementation in this area?
Answer. I am not aware of any such need at this time. I know that
the Joint Services Committee on Military Justice conducts annual
reviews of the military justice system and recommends appropriate
changes to the law and the controlling Executive Order, The Manual for
Courts-Martial. If confirmed, I would anticipate consulting with The
Judge Advocate General on these matters and would be willing to provide
you my views as to any particular legislative amendments or enactments
that appear advisable.
whistleblower protection
Question. Section 1034, Title 10, United States Code, prohibits
taking retaliatory personnel action against a member of the armed
forces as reprisal for making a protected communication. By definition,
protected communications include communications to certain individuals
and organizations outside of the chain of command. We continue to see a
lack of understanding in the senior military leadership of the policy
that it is appropriate and necessary to protect service members who
report misconduct to appropriate authorities outside of the chain of
command.
Do you support prohibiting retaliatory personnel actions for making
protected communications?
Answer. Yes.
Question. If confirmed, what actions will you take to ensure that
senior military leaders understand the need to protect service members
who report misconduct to appropriate authorities within or outside the
chain of command?
Answer. Department of Defense Directive 7050.6, Military
Whistleblower Protection, implements Title 10, United States Code,
section 1034, and affirms that members of the Armed Forces shall be
free from reprisal for making or preparing a protected communication to
a Member of Congress; an Inspector General; a member of a DOD audit,
inspection, investigation, or law enforcement organization; or any
other person or organization (within or outside the chain of command)
designated under regulations or established procedures to receive such
communications. If confirmed, I will work with The Judge Advocate
General to ensure that military leaders are fully and accurately
advised of the whistleblower protections accorded by law and
regulation, and understand their legal responsibilities in this
important area. In addition, I will ensure that any individual cases
involving illegal reprisals that come to my attention are addressed in
accordance with the law.
judicial review
Question. What is your understanding of the appropriate role of the
Article III courts in the review of military activities?
Answer. The Constitution vests Congress and the President with the
power to control the military. The Supreme Court has consistently
observed that this power, as well as the role of Article III courts in
construing it, should be reserved to the executive and legislative
branches. Thus, the courts have held that the great majority of
internal military decisions are not subject to judicial review. In
those relatively few categories of cases in which judicial review of
military activities is appropriate, I believe that the courts should
accord substantial deference to executive and legislative judgments on
military matters.
client
Question. In your opinion, who is the client of the General Counsel
of the Army?
Answer. The Army General Counsel's client is the Department of the
Army, acting through its authorized officials. If a conflict arises
between the interests of the Department of the Army and any of its
officials, the General Counsel must recognize that the Department of
the Army is the client. In addition, in view of the necessarily close
relationship between the Department of the Army and the Department of
Defense, the General Counsel should regard both departments as clients.
legal ethics
Question. What is your understanding of the action a Department of
Defense attorney should take if the attorney becomes aware of improper
activities by a Department of Defense official who has sought the
attorney's legal advice and the official is unwilling to follow the
attorney's advice?
Answer. As I understand the system, the Department of the Army
attorney should bring the matter to the attention of his or her
supervisor and, if necessary, to higher-level supervisory lawyers or
other authorities in the chain of supervision or command. I would
expect Department of the Army attorneys to pursue such matters to the
extent necessary to correct the problem.
Question. In your view, do the laws, regulations and guidelines
that establish the rules of professional responsibility for attorneys
in the Department of Defense provide adequate guidance?
Answer. Yes. As I understand the system in place, the Department of
the Army has developed comprehensive rules in this area, applicable to
military and civilian attorneys throughout the Department. These rules
are based on both the American Bar Association's and the Federal Bar
Association's Model Rules of Professional Conduct. They have been
published as Army Regulation 27-26, ``Rules of Professional Conduct for
Lawyers,'' and provide excellent guidance specifically tailored for
Department of the Army attorneys. I also understand that because all
Department of the Army attorneys are members of the Bar of a State or
the District of Columbia, they are also subject to the rules of their
respective Bars.
role in the officer promotion and confirmation process
Question. In your view, what is the role of the General Counsel of
the Army in ensuring the integrity of the officer promotion process?
Answer. Under Title 10, United States Code, Chapter 36, the
Secretary of the Army is responsible for the proper functioning of the
Department of the Army's promotion selection process. All reports of
promotion selection boards are processed through the Office of the Army
General Counsel prior to final action on the report by the Secretary.
Consequently, the Army General Counsel must satisfy himself or herself
that the Army has met applicable statutory standards and that
individual selection board reports conform with the law. The Army
General Counsel must advise the Secretary of the Army of any case in
which a selection board report fails to adhere to the statutory
standards, either generally or with regard to a particular officer
being considered for promotion. In advising the Secretary of the Army
and the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Manpower and
Reserve Affairs), the General Counsel helps to ensure that Army
promotion policies properly implement applicable laws and regulations
and are fairly applied. Moreover, the Office of the Army General
Counsel coordinates closely on these matters with The Judge Advocate
General.
Question. What is the role of the General Counsel of the Army in
reviewing and providing potentially adverse information pertaining to a
nomination to the Senate Armed Services Committee?
Answer. As I understand the role of the General Counsel of the
Army, the General Counsel's office reviews each selection board report,
as well as Departmental communications to the committee, the President,
and the Secretary of Defense concerning nominations, to ensure that the
reports and communications comply in form and substance with law and
regulation. The General Counsel's office gives special attention to
cases of nominees with potentially adverse information, in order to
ensure that such information is reported to the Senate Armed Services
Committee in a timely manner.
litigation involving the department of defense
Question. In your opinion, what is the relationship between the
Department of Defense and the Department of Justice with respect to
litigation involving the Department of Defense?
Answer. I understand that, pursuant to Title 28, United States
Code, section 516, the Department of Justice is responsible for
representing the United States, its agencies and officers in all
litigation matters. Army attorneys assigned to the United States Army
Legal Services Agency's Litigation Center work directly and very
effectively with Department of Justice counsel in cases in which the
Army is a party or has an interest. Consistent with the statutory
responsibility of the Department of Justice, Army attorneys assist in
drafting and reviewing pleadings, conduct discovery, participate in
developing litigation strategy, and otherwise perform key roles in
connection with trial proceedings.
Question. Is the present arrangement satisfactory, or does the
Department need more independence to conduct its own litigation?
Answer. I am not aware of any problems in the present arrangement,
or any need to accord the Department of the Army greater independence
in conducting litigation but if confirmed, I will review the
arrangement periodically to ensure that the Department has sufficient
independence.
court of appeals decision
Question. On January 4, 2000, the United States Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit decided the case of National
Center for Manufacturing Sciences v. Department of Defense, 199 F.3d
507 (D.C. Cir. 2000). The court concluded that ``Because of the
existence of 10 U.S.C. Section 114, it is clear that any monies
appropriated for NCMS by Congress for research must be authorized
before they can be appropriated and distributed''; and ``Because 10
U.S.C. Section 114(a)(2) requires authorization of these funds before
they become available, appropriation alone is insufficient.''
What is your view of the court's decision in this case and its
implications regarding the obligation of funds that are appropriated
but not authorized?
Answer. In this case, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed
the lower court's granting of the government's motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim. The Circuit Court based its decision on a
provision of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1995 that effectively rescinded the unreleased portion of a fiscal year
1994 funding earmark for the National Center for Manufacturing Sciences
(NCMS). The Circuit Court concluded that, in view of this provision,
NCMS had no legal entitlement to the funds in question. In my opinion,
the issue of whether Department of Defense appropriations must be
authorized before they can be appropriated, obligated or expended was
not squarely presented for resolution in this case. Instead, the court
addressed this question only collaterally. Situations where funds have
been appropriated but not authorized are often complex and may involve
unique statutory language. Thus, I anticipate that the Department of
the Army will continue its practice of working closely with the Office
of the Secretary of Defense and our oversight committees in properly
resolving issues involving funds that have been appropriated but not
authorized.
role in military personnel policy matters
Question. What role, if any, should the General Counsel play in
military personnel policy and individual cases, including cases before
the service boards for the correction of military records?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Secretary of the
Army, the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Manpower and Reserve
Affairs) and other senior Department of the Army leaders to ensure that
the Department of the Army's military personnel policies are formulated
and applied uniformly, fairly, and in accordance with applicable laws
and regulations. If I were to become aware of individual cases in which
military personnel policies were not fairly and lawfully applied, I
would take appropriate action to ensure that the case is properly
resolved. If confirmed, I will coordinate with the Assistant Secretary
of the Army (Manpower and Reserve Affairs), who exercises overall
supervision of Department of the Army Military Review Boards, to ensure
that the Army Board for Correction of Military Records receives the
Army legal community's full support.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as the General Counsel of the
Army?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings and
other communications of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Strom Thurmond
procurement
1. Senator Thurmond. Mr. Morello, as you are aware, the Army will
be facing many critical procurement decisions as it fully carries out
its transformation initiative. If you are confirmed as the next General
Counsel of the Department of the Army what will be your participation
in policy making and oversight of the procurement process within the
Department of Army? What experience have you had with DOD procurement
practices?
Mr. Morello. The Office of the Army General Counsel has long
enjoyed an outstanding relationship with the Office of the Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology
(ASA(AL&T)). Now that I have been confirmed, I will continue that
tradition by establishing a close and professional relationship with
the ASA(AL&T) and by ensuring that the General Counsel's staff provides
sound and proactive legal, policy, and business advice in support of
the Army's procurement process. I have first hand experience with the
Department of Defense's procurement practices, both as a former Army
Judge Advocate officer and later as a contracts attorney for Northrop
Corporation's Defense Systems Division, where I administered Northrop's
B1B Defensive Avionics contracts with the Department of the Air Force.
I have also served as managing attorney for Digital Equipment
Corporation, where I provided legal services to the information
technology industry. Since 1991, I have served as Vice President,
General Counsel and Secretary for Prechter Holdings, Inc., where I
provided legal and business advice to corporate executives in the
automobile, publishing, hotel, real estate, and cattle ranching
industries.
inspector general
2. Senator Thurmond. Mr. Morello, if confirmed, what will be your
relationship with the Inspector General? What oversight will you have
in regard to inspector general investigations?
Ms. Morello. The Office of the Army General Counsel and the Office
of the Inspector General have forged a longstanding, effective
relationship that I am proud to continue. A member of the Office of the
Secretary of the Army, the Inspector General inquires into and reports
upon the discipline, efficiency and economy of the Army, as directed by
the Secretary of the Army or the Chief of Staff. In addition, the
Inspector General periodically proposes programs of inspection and
recommends additional inspections and investigations as appropriate. As
the chief legal officer of the Department of the Army and counsel to
the Secretary and other Secretariat officials, I will maintain my
office's close, professional relationship with the Inspector General,
and will communicate with him directly and candidly as he performs his
prescribed duties. I will provide independent and objective legal
advice with regard to all matters that relate to the Inspector
General's programs, duties, functions or responsibilities, and will
oversee the provision of legal guidance to the Office of the Inspector
General regarding the conduct of investigations. Further, as part of my
responsibility to review legal and policy issues arising from the
Army's intelligence and counterintelligence activities, I will advise
the Inspector General concerning proper reporting of the Army's
intelligence oversight activities.
workforce
3. Senator Thurmond. Mr. Morello, a significant issue throughout
the Department of Defense is its aging workforce and the looming loss
of expertise because of retirements. What are your concerns regarding
this issue as it related to the Office of the General Counsel?
Ms. Morello. Recruiting, training, and retaining Army's civilian
work force is critical to mission accomplishment. Army is proactively
addressing this challenge. Army projects that many of its civilians,
particularly those in leadership positions, will retire within a
relatively brief time span of about 5 years, from 2003 to 2008. In
preparation for the anticipated losses as the ``baby boomers'' in its
workforce reach retirement age, the Army is currently planning to
increase entry and mid-level intake to professional, administrative,
and technological occupations. It is also employing more aggressive and
effective recruitment strategies. It is centrally funding a Student
Career Experience Program for college juniors and seniors who may be
non-competitively placed in intern positions. In order to compete with
private industry, Army is offering recruitment bonuses for engineers,
scientists, and computer specialists; accelerated promotions for
engineers and nurses; permanent change of station moves for all
interns; and, in some cases, advanced in-hire rates of pay and
repayment of student loans.
In order to refine and accurately forecast future civilian work
force needs, Army has developed and is using a sophisticated projection
model that provides the capability to forecast future civilian needs
under various alternative scenarios.
Army is also working with OSD to identify hiring flexibilities and
pay reform that would facilitate recruiting in today's tight labor
market. Two legislative proposals are pending. One would authorize Army
to make expeditious job offers to applicants who might otherwise accept
an immediate private sector offer rather than wait for the slow Federal
selection process. The second would authorize a broad-banding pay
system that combines 15 current General Schedule grades into a few
broad bands comprised of one or more grades. Groupings would consider
work similarities, qualifications, training requirements, and common
patterns of advancement within occupations.
We are working with Army leadership to review the laws pertaining
to civilian personnel to see where they might be modified to better
enable Army to recruit, sustain, train, and retain a civilian work
force capable of supporting the Army mission today and well into the
21st century.
religious practices
4. Senator Thurmond. Mr. Morello, the rise of various religious
cults has challenged our military services because of the potential
impact on morale and discipline. What are your views on the recognition
of these religious cults by the military services?
Ms. Morello. The Army recognizes and places a high value on a
soldier's Constitutional right to practice and observe the tenets of
his or her personal religious beliefs. Army Regulation (AR) 600-20
provides guidance for accommodating religious practices within the
United States Army and does not favor one form of religious expression
over another. As a matter of policy, however, the Army does not support
any activity, religious or secular, that is detrimental to good order
and discipline. If the soldier's religious practice adversely impacts
unit readiness, individual readiness, unit cohesion, morale,
discipline, safety or health, the Army will not authorize the religious
accommodation.
Army Regulation 600-20 requires the submission of special requests
for religious accommodation from the soldier to his or her immediate
commander. If the commander foresees no adverse impact on good order
and discipline or on mission accomplishment, the commander may approve
the request. If circumstances change and the accommodation is no longer
in the best interest of the Army, then the commander can revoke the
approval. If the commander disapproves the request or revokes a prior
approval, the soldier can appeal this decision to the Deputy Chief of
Staff for Personnel. During the appeal process, a chaplain will
interview the soldier and examine both the religious basis and
sincerity of the request. While the requests and appeals are pending,
soldiers must adhere to the orders and standards established by their
immediate commanders. Soldiers whose appeals are denied may request
separation from the Army.
Under Army regulations, military chaplains have the responsibility
of providing comprehensive religious support to soldiers and their
families. As an exception to policy, however, civilian religious
personnel may provide religious support when a military chaplain is
otherwise unable to meet specific religious needs. Prior to using
military chapels and unit facilities for religious services, civilian
religious personnel must submit an application certifying that their
religious organization has met certain regulatory requirements.
unexploded ornances
5. Senator Thurmond. Mr. Morello, UXO's or unexploded ordnances are
a major concern for many on this committee. For example, last year five
sarin gas bomblets were found at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal and just
last week, four more sarin gas bomblets were located. I commend the job
that the Army is doing at the Arsenal and for disposing of the
bomblets, especially General Coburn of the Army Material Command.
However, I am concerned that it will take 3 weeks before any the only
EDS destruction and disposal system is transported to Colorado. This
lack of development of alternatives and lack of systems is of great
concern. Can I get your assurances that DOD will look and test other
alternatives in order to ensure that we have the systems needed to deal
with this important and dangerous problem?
Mr. Morello. I share your desire to ensure we have adequate means
to respond to the discovery of chemical munitions. The Army must be
prepared to take immediate action to protect human health and the
environment whenever non-stockpile chemical warfare materiel is found.
I understand that the Army is reviewing its policies, procedures, and
responsibilities for responding to the discovery of chemical warfare
materiel and taking steps to ensure that appropriate disposal
technologies are available to dispose of recovered chemical warfare
materiel on short notice. Now that I have been confirmed, I will work
with the program proponents to clear the way for the use of destruction
and disposal systems that are safe and effective.
______
[The nomination reference of Steven J. Morello, Sr.
follows:]
Nomination Reference
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
June 7, 2001.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Steven John Morello, Sr. of Michigan, to be General Counsel of the
Department of the Army, vice Charles A. Blanchard, resigned.
______
[The biographical sketch of Steven J. Morello, Sr., which
was transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Steven J. Morello, Sr.
Steve Morello was born the first of six children in Saginaw,
Michigan, on September 17, 1952. He attended school in Carrollton,
Michigan, and graduated from Carrollton High School in 1970. In 1974,
Steve graduated from the Foreign Service School at Georgetown
University in Washington, DC. While at Georgetown, he participated in
Army ROTC and was awarded a 2 year scholarship to attend Georgetown by
the Army. Steve attended University of Detroit Law School and graduated
in May of 1977. In 1980 Steve was awarded a Masters of Art degree in
Business Administration from Boston University. This year, Steve was
awarded his second Masters in Art degree in Pastoral Studies from
Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit. In January of 1978, he joined
the United States Army as a Captain and attended the Judge Advocate
General's Basic Course in Charlottesville, Virginia.
In May of 1978 Steve was married to Francia Ormond. They have been
married now for 23 years and have three children, Steven Jr., Rebecca,
and Christine. Steve served on Active Duty with the United States Army
as a member of the JAG Corps from 1978 until 1982. He was assigned to
service in Karlsruhe and Berlin, Germany and completed his active
service at Ft. Sheridan in Illinois. He was awarded an Army
Commendation Medal while serving in Berlin.
After completing his military service, Steve joined Northrop
Corporation and managed the Defense Systems Division's B1B defensive
avionics contracts. Steve also worked for Digital Equipment Corporation
in both Chicago and Detroit. Currently, Steve is the Vice President,
General Counsel and Corporate Secretary for Prechter Holdings, Inc. PHI
is a closely held corporation which manages almost one billion dollars
worth of assets annually.
In 1991 Steve was ordained a Deacon in the Roman Catholic Church.
He enjoys spending his free time with his family and in service to the
Church preparing couples for marriage and celebrating other sacraments
with members of the Church. He has also served as a Campus Minister at
University of Detroit Mercy Law School and most recently as a Wayne
County Sheriff's Chaplain.
______
[The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
form that details the biographical, financial, and other
information of the nominee. The form executed by Steven J.
Morello, Sr. in connection with his nomination follows:]
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Room SR-228
Washington, DC 20510-6050
(202) 224-3871
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation
of your answer applies.
Part A--Biographical Information
Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.
1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
Steven J. Morello.
2. Position to which nominated:
General Counsel of the Army.
3. Date of nomination:
June 7, 2001.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
5. Date and place of birth:
September 17, 1952 in Saginaw, MI.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Francia S. Morello (Ormond).
7. Names and ages of children:
Steven J. Morello, Jr. (20).
Rebecca S. Morello (17).
Christine M. Morello (12).
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received and date degree granted.
a. Carrollton High School diploma 1970.
b. Delta College: A.A. 1972.
c. Georgetown University: B.S.F.S. 1974.
d. University of Detroit Law School: J.D. 1977.
e. Boston University: M.A B.A. 1980.
f. Sacred Heart Major Seminary Certificate Diploma in Theology
1991.
g. Sacred Heart Major Seminary M.A.P.S. 2001 (summa cum laude).
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
Prechter Holdings, Inc, Southgate, MI: Vice President and General
Counsel 1991 to present.
10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative,
honorary or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State,
or local governments, other than those listed above.
Staff Assistant to United States Senator Philip A. Hart, 1972-1974;
U.S. Army JAG Corps, Active Duty, 1978-1982; Reserves from 1982-1987,
Rank of Captain.
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
Vice President and General Counsel for these Heinz Prechter owned/
controlled companies:
i. Prechter Holdings, Inc.
ii. ASC, Inc.
iii. Heritage Network, Inc.
iv. World Heritage Foundation
v. ASCET, Inc.
vi. Triad, Inc.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
Michigan Bar Association.
Illinois Bar Association.
Computer Law Association.
American Corporate Counsel Association.
Works of charity include service as Roman Catholic Deacon in
Archdiocese of Detroit.
13. Political affiliations and activities:
(a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or
any public office for which you have been a candidate.
None.
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5
years.
Michigan Lawyers for Bush-Cheney.
(c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $100 or more for the past 5 years.
None.
14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals, and any other special
recognitions for outstanding service or achievements.
a. Army ROTC Full Tuition Scholarship.
b. UAW 699 Tuition Assistance Scholarship.
c. State of Michigan Tuition Grant.
d. Prechter Holdings Community Service Award.
e. Fellow--National Contract Management Association.
f. Army Commendation Medal.
g. Berlin Army of the Occupation Medal.
h. Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians Self Sufficiency
Tuition Award.
i. Graduated in April 2001 from Sacred Heart Major Seminary Summa
Cum Laude.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
None.
16. Speeches: Provide the committee with two copies of any formal
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have
copies of and are on topics relevant to the position for which you have
been nominated.
None.
17. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree,
if confirmed, to respond to requests to appear and testify before any
duly constituted committee of the Senate?
Yes.
______
[The nominee responded to the questions in Parts B-F of the
committee questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set
forth in the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to
Parts B-F are contained in the committee's executive files.]
------
Signature and Date
I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate,
and complete.
Steven J. Morello.
This 8th day of May, 2001.
[The nomination of Steven J. Morello, Sr., was reported to
the Senate by Chairman Levin on July 11, 2001, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on July 12, 2001.]
------
[Prepared questions submitted to William A. Navas, Jr., by
Chairman Levin prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
June 15, 2001.
Hon. Carl Levin, Chairman,
Committee on Armed Services,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Enclosed herewith are the answers to the advance
questions the Senate Armed Services Committee asked me to complete.
Sincerely,
William A. Navas, Jr.
cc: Hon. John Warner,
Ranking Member.
______
Questions and Responses
defense reforms
Question. More than a decade has passed since the enactment of the
Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and
the Special Operations reforms.
Do you support full implementation of these defense reforms?
Answer. I am committed to the complete and effective implementation
of these reforms.
Question. What is your view of the extent to which these defense
reforms have been implemented?
Answer. I believe these reforms have been fully implemented and
that they have greatly clarified the responsibilities and authorities
of the Secretary of Defense, the Secretaries of the Military
Departments, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs.
The effectiveness of our joint warfighting forces especially with
respect to communication, interoperability, training, and joint
operations, has improved as a result of these reforms.
Question. What do you consider to be the most important aspects of
these defense reforms?
Answer. In my view, the most significant value of these reforms has
been to strengthen joint warfighting. Our military is stronger and more
lethal because our Services can work better together.
Question. The goals of Congress in enacting these defense reforms,
as reflected in Section 3 of the Goldwater-Nichols Department of
Defense Reorganization Act, can be summarized as strengthening civilian
control, improving military advice; placing clear responsibility on the
combatant commanders for the accomplishment of their missions; ensuring
the authority of the combatant commanders is commensurate with their
responsibility; increasing attention to the formulation of strategy and
to contingency planning; providing for more efficient use of defense
resources; and enhancing the effectiveness of military operations and
improving the management and administration of the Department of
Defense.
Do you agree with these goals?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Recently, there have been articles which indicate an
interest within the Department of Defense in modifying Goldwater-
Nichols in light of the changing environment and possible revisions to
the national strategy.
Do you anticipate that legislative proposals to amend Goldwater-
Nichols may be appropriate? If so, what areas do you believe it might
be appropriate to address in these proposals?
Answer. I am unaware of any proposals to amend Goldwater-Nichols.
If confirmed, I will be in position to better understand and assess
whether such proposals would be warranted. The implementation of the
Goldwater-Nichols reforms has enhanced the ability of the Services to
act quickly and jointly.
duties
Question. What are you understanding of the duties and functions of
the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Manpower and Reserve Affairs?
Answer. Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Manpower and Reserve
Affairs provides oversight of the formulation and execution of Navy and
Marine Corps manpower and personnel policies and programs for Active
Duty, Reserve and Civilian Personnel. Manpower and Reserve Affairs also
develops health care policy and provides oversight and review of health
care delivery initiatives. Last but not least, Manpower and Reserve
Affairs administers personnel actions as authorized or delegated by
Secretary of the Navy.
Question. What background and experience do you possess that you
believe qualifies you to perform these duties?
Answer. I served for over 33 years as a citizen-soldier, initially
as a Regular Army Officer with combat duty in Vietnam, then as a
traditional Guardsman while engaged in civil engineering and later as a
full-time Active Guard and Reservist (AGR) with the Army National
Guard. The last 11 years were spent as a General Officer in the
Pentagon where I served in numerous high-level decision-making
capacities including Director of the Army National Guard, Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs and Military
Executive of the Reserve Forces Policy Board. I feel that those jobs
have given me the experience and skills needed to successfully lead the
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Manpower and Reserve
Affairs.
Question. Do you believe that there are actions you need to take to
enhance your ability to perform the duties of the Assistant Secretary
of the Navy for Manpower and Reserve Affairs?
Answer. I have begun to study and receive briefings on the vast
array of issues that I would be responsible for if confirmed as the
Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Manpower and Reserve Affairs.
Question. In carrying out your duties, how will you work with the
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Force Management Policy, the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs, the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Health Affairs, the Chief of Naval Personnel, the Deputy
Chief of Staff of the Marine Corps for Manpower and Reserve Affairs,
the Chief, Naval Reserve and the Commanding Officer, Marine Forces
Reserve?
Answer. If confirmed, it is my intention to work closely and
directly with the Under Secretary, Assistant Secretaries, Service
Chiefs and Commanding Officers to ensure that Assistant Secretary of
the Navy for Manpower and Reserve Affairs maintains a clear focus on
the priorities outlined by the Secretary consistent with the
appropriate laws and Title X of the U.S. Code. I intend to encourage
and foster teamwork within the Department of the Navy developing
integrated product teams both within the civilian leadership and
between the civilian leadership and their uniformed counterparts.
priorities
Question. What broad priorities will you establish in terms of
issues which must be addressed by the Assistant Secretary of the Navy
for Manpower and Reserve Affairs?
Answer. I share Mr. England's vision, that at the end of the day,
our sailors, marines, and civilians should know that their contribution
is important and feel that their work is both stimulating and
rewarding. If confirmed, I will emphasize ``Quality of Service''--
achieving a higher quality workplace as well as a higher quality of
life for our sailors, marines, active duty and reserve, and civilians
and all of their families.
major challenges and problems
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will
confront the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Manpower and Reserve
Affairs?
Answer. If confirmed, I will do whatever I can to support the
Secretary of the Navy's four strategic thrusts--combat capability,
people, technology and interoperability, and modernization of business
practices. In particular--the people thrust. My goal, if confirmed as
the Assistant Secretary for Manpower and Reserve Affairs, will be to
create an environment where our men and women can excel at their chosen
profession, unimpeded by factors that divert their attention from work.
This includes providing:
Competitive compensation
Quality housing
Hi-tech workplace resources
Accessible and professional health care
Cutting edge training
Operational tempo that considers the individual, as
well as family and community.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, I will immediately work with the Secretary of
the Navy to establish priority actions in each of these areas and then
support him in initiating each as rapidly as possible.
Question. What do you consider to be the most serious problems in
the performance of the functions of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy
for Manpower and Reserve Affairs?
Answer. None that I am aware of. If confirmed, I will immediately
begin working towards improving the quality of service for our sailors
and marines.
Question. What management actions and time lines would you
establish to address these problems?
Answer. None at this time.
officer management issues
Question. We consider promotions to general and flag officer ranks
as identifying military officers for very senior positions that should
be filled only by officers with the very highest ethical and moral
values.
Do you believe the officer corps has confidence in the integrity of
the officer promotion system in the Navy and Marine Corps?
Answer. I believe the officer corps has confidence in the integrity
of the officer promotion system in the Navy and Marine Corps. The
services take considerable effort to ensure that promotion selection
boards are impartial in terms of their management and the conduct of
selection board deliberations.
Question. What role do you, as Assistant Secretary of the Navy for
Manpower and Reserve Affairs, expect to play in the officer promotion
system?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with senior Service leaders to
ensure that the promotion selection process is as fair. I would provide
appropriate board guidance and monitoring.
Question. What role do you, as Assistant Secretary of the Navy for
Manpower and Reserve Affairs, expect to play in the general officer
management and nomination process?
Answer. If confirmed I intend to work closely with the Secretary of
the Navy and support current regulations and polices regarding General
and Flag officer management and nomination.
Question. What steps will you take to ensure that only the most
highly qualified officers are nominated for promotion to general and
flag officer rank?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with senior Service
leaders to ensure that the integrity of the promotion system remains
inviolate.
protected communications
Question. Section 1034, Title 10, United States Code, prohibits
taking retaliatory personnel action against a member of the armed
forces as reprisal for making a protected communication. By definition,
protected communications include communications to certain individuals
and organizations outside of the chain of command. We continue to see a
lack of understanding in the senior military leadership of the policy
that it is appropriate and necessary to protect service members who
report misconduct to appropriate authorities outside of the chain of
command.
Do you support prohibiting retaliatory personnel actions for making
protected communications?
Answer. Yes.
Question. If confirmed, what actions would you take to ensure that
senior military leaders understand the need to protect service members
who report misconduct to appropriate authorities within or outside the
chain of command?
Answer. If confirmed, I will be vigilant in ensuring that military
members whose actions are protected by the Act are not subject to
illegal reprisals or retaliation. I also understand that the current
Department of the Navy practice is to brief the requirements of the Act
to all prospective commanding officers and executive officers. If
confirmed, I will ensure that emphasis on the Act in formal Navy
training courses will continue.
operating tempo
Question. The Services have been very concerned in recent years
about the impact of the pace of operations, or ``OPTEMPO,'' on the
quality of life of our people in uniform and specifically on their
willingness to reenlist.
What steps do you plan to take to address the Navy and Marine Corps
OPTEMPO concerns?
Answer. I recognize the delicate balance between quality of life,
retention and meeting the operational requirements of the National
Command Authority. Though not completely familiar with all current
issues of OPTEMPO in DON, I believe that the Service Chiefs should be
given flexibility to manage personnel issues in regards to operational
demands. If confirmed I will work with the Secretary of the Navy to
address the issues associated with OPTEMPO.
recruiting and retention
Question. Recruiting and retention in the Navy have improved
significantly over the last year. Yet the Navy continues to have
shortages in critical specialties, and has an at-sea billet gap of
6,000. The Marine Corps also has shortages in a number of high tech
specialties.
What steps will you take, if confirmed, to assist the Navy and
Marine Corps in meeting their recruiting and retention goals?
Answer. In a strong economy the military is in direct competition
with the private sector. If confirmed, my goal will be to make the
military an attractive and fulfilling career choice. I believe that the
Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Manpower and Reserve Affairs should
be an extremely strong advocate for the Recruiting Commands, both
active and reserve. Serving as sailors and marines must continue to be
perceived as a proud and enduring vocation providing high quality
training and appropriate compensation.
Question. Recent emphasis regarding recruiting and retention has
been focused on the Active component. The Reserve components are facing
even greater challenges in recruiting and retention.
What steps will you take, if confirmed, to assist the Reserve
components in achieving their recruiting and retention goals?
Answer. As a former Reserve component chief, I consider myself a
strong advocate for the Reserves. Just as with the Active component,
the Reserve components are in competition for talented individuals with
the private sector. If confirmed, I will ensure that the Reserves
continue to be an integral component of the Navy and Marine Corps'
Total Force recruiting effort.
management of deployments of members
Question. The increasing operational demands on military personnel
resulted in enactment of section 991 of Title 10, United States Code,
and section 435 of Title 37, United States Code. Those provisions
require the Services to manage the deployments of members and, if
operational necessity so dictates, to pay per diem compensation to
members whose deployed periods exceed prescribed limits. Additionally,
each Service Secretary is required to establish a system for tracking
and recording the number of days that each member of the armed forces
under the jurisdiction of the Secretary is deployed.
Do you support the statutory framework set forth in the sections
cited above? If so, do you believe any modification to the law are
necessary?
Answer. The Department of the Navy is tracking OPTEMPO for each
individual service member (ITEMPO). I understand that a Navy working
group is currently studying how best to manage situations arising from
implementation of this program. If confirmed, I plan to closely study
the recommendations of this group and this important issue.
Question. What is your understanding of the ability of the Navy and
Marine Corps to comply with these statutes and implement the prescribed
tracking and recording system?
Answer. I understand that both Services are working hard to ensure
compliance with all aspects of the statutes. If confirmed I will
examine the effort to date and become more familiar with the tracking
and recording systems.
armed forces retirement home
Question. The Naval Home in Gulfport, Mississippi, and the
Soldiers' and Airmen's Home in Washington, DC, provide unique services
to eligible military retirees, but have experienced problems in funding
and management.
Do you support an increase in the amount of money automatically
deducted from the pay of active duty personnel as a means of better
funding the retirement homes?
Answer. If confirmed, I will study this issue in-depth and work
towards a long-term and comprehensive solution that will ensure the
solvency of the Armed Forces Retirement Home Trust Fund.
Question. If confirmed, what actions would you take to ensure the
successful operation of the retirement homes?
Answer. If confirmed, I would support any and all efforts that
would ensure that both facilities are operated in an efficient manner
and that they provide excellent quality of life for our military
retirees.
homosexual conduct policy
Question. Do you support the current Department of Defense (DOD)
Homosexual Conduct Policy?
Answer. Yes.
Question. If confirmed, do you plan to make any changes to the
basic policy or its implementation? If so, what changes will you
propose?
Answer. No.
anthrax vaccine immunization program
Question. DOD considers the biological agent anthrax to be the
greatest biological weapons threat to our military force because it is
highly lethal, easy to produce in large quantities, and remains viable
over long periods of time. The anthrax vaccination program has been
curtailed because of limited quantities of FDA approved vaccine.
If confirmed, will you support and enforce the Anthrax Vaccine
Immunization Program if DOD reinstates it?
Answer. Anthrax poses a clear and present danger to the Armed
Forces of the United States; I would be remiss in my duties if I did
not diligently pursue implementation of Secretarial directives
pertaining to Anthrax Vaccine Immunization Program.
Question. How do you believe the Navy and Marine Corps should
respond to service members who refuse to take the vaccine when ordered
to do so?
Answer. It is imperative to maintain good order and discipline
within the Navy and Marine Corps. I will support the enforcement of
applicable statues and regulations.
montgomery gi bill
Question. Almost all new service members enroll in and contribute
to the Montgomery GI Bill. Only about half use their benefits, and many
do not use all of their entitlement. Many sailors and marines say they
would like to stay in the Service, but feel they have to leave so that
they can provide for the education of their spouses and children. Some
of these service members might stay in the service if they could
transfer all or a part of their unused entitlement to GI Bill benefits
to family members in return for a service commitment. Service
Secretaries could use this retention tool selectively, just as they use
reenlistment bonuses.
If confirmed, will you give serious consideration to how the Navy
and Marine Corps could use the transfer of unused GI Bill benefits to
family members as a retention tool and provide your thoughts on how
best to do this?
Answer. If confirmed, I will give serious consideration towards
this concept. I will defer offering any concrete thoughts or opinions
until I have had more time to study the issue.
Question. An alternative legislative proposal under consideration
by the committee to address the cost of education for dependent spouses
and children envisions the award of United States Savings Bonds to
military members in connection with reenlistment.
If confirmed, will you give serious consideration to how the Navy
and Marine Corps could use the award of U.S. Savings Bonds as a
flexible means to enable sailors and marines to save money for the
education of themselves and their dependents?
Answer. I understand that service members are concerned about their
own education and that of their dependents. If confirmed I will
seriously consider all efforts to improve Quality of Service, including
this proposal.
gender integrated training
Question. Basic training, which may be the single most important
phase of an individual's life in the military, is structured and
defined differently by each Service.
Do you believe the current DOD policy of allowing each of the
Services to establish its own policy for gender integration in basic
training is effective?
Answer. Yes. This policy allows the Services, each with their own
unique military culture and professional ethos, the flexibility to
conduct basic training in a manner that best instills the tenets of
their culture.
concurrent receipt
Question. Military retirees with disabilities incurred during their
military service are eligible to receive military retired pay from the
Department of Defense and veterans' disability compensation from the
Department of Veterans' Affairs. However, current law requires that
military retired pay be reduced by the amount of the veterans'
benefits.
If confirmed, would you support a change in the law to permit
disabled military retirees to receive their full retired pay as well as
their disability compensation?
Answer. If confirmed, I will devote serious study to this important
issue. I believe that disabled service member should be treated with
the utmost care and fairness.
management of the congressional fellowship program
Question. For the past several years, the committee has expressed
concern about the management of legislative fellows by the military
departments and the Department of Defense.
If confirmed, will you review the Department's policies pertaining
to the management of legislative fellows and provide the committee your
assessment of which management reforms have been implemented and which
require additional action?
Answer. Yes.
Question. What are your personal views on the value and current
management of the legislative fellowship program within the Navy and
Marine Corps?
Answer. From my initial briefings, I believe that the program is
worthwhile and should be continued. The Department benefits from the
assignment of its personnel to the legislative branch of government,
where they gain insight into the process by which legislation is
drafted and passed. The Department places a high priority on ensuring
that internal procedures and controls support DOD policy relating to
legislative fellowships.
Question. After completing their fellowships, are legislative
fellows assigned to positions in which the experience and knowledge
they gained during their fellowship are used effectively?
Answer. From my briefings, I understand that after completing their
fellowships, legislative fellows generally return to assignments within
their warfare specialties. Subsequent tours of duty, as coordinated by
the officer assignment managers, often allow officers to apply
experience gained during their fellowships.
Question. In your opinion, is it appropriate to bring a Reserve
component member on active duty solely to participate in a legislative
fellowship program?
Answer. As an advocate for the Total Force, I believe in parity
between the Active Duty and Reserves. Our Reserve sailors and marines
bring a tremendous amount of experience and talent to each and every
mission of our service, including legislative liaison. If confirmed I
will spend time studying this issue and look for ways to integrate
reservists into this important program.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as the Assistant Secretary of the
Navy for Manpower and Reserve Affairs?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings and
other communications of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Strom Thurmond
military pay
1. Senator Thurmond. Mr. Navas, for the past several years,
Congress and the administration have provided significant increases in
military pay and compensation. Despite these increases, recruiting of
new soldiers and the retention of the highly trained personnel has been
a problem in several of the services.
Based on your long and distinguished career in the Army National
Guard and long association with military issues, how do you rate
compensation over such issues as quality of life and personnel tempo as
a motivator for a military career?
Mr. Navas. Military compensation has long been an extremely
important element in the military services' efforts to achieve and
sustain optimum personnel readiness. Having said that, there is clear
and convincing evidence that quality health care, educational
opportunity, family separation, adequate housing, promotion opportunity
and availability of morale, welfare and recreation facilities are also
significant contributing factors to the career decisions of service men
and women.
In the current climate of unprecedented competition from the
private sector for America's best and brightest, an appropriate balance
of military compensation and assured ``quality of Service'' is clearly
the best approach to influence military families to commit to military
careers. Ultimately, all of these elements impact the ability of the
armed services to achieve optimum personnel readiness in the near-term
and sustain it over the long-term.
reserve component
2. Senator Thurmond. Mr. Navas, as I indicated in my opening
statement, once you are confirmed as the Assistant Secretary of the
Navy, your long and distinguished career as a Citizen Soldier will be a
great benefit to you and our sailors and marines. In view of this
experience, what do you see as the greatest challenge facing our
Reserve components?
Mr. Navas. The biggest challenge facing us is reconciling reservist
availability to the Active components' increasing demand for their
services. This is a particularly difficult issue within the Navy, whose
main purpose is to provide combat-credible, forward deployed forces to
respond to crises. That puts a lot of strain on the Active Force, and
we try to relieve the strain by employing our reservists in peacetime.
Our nearly 90,000 citizen-sailors absolutely want to contribute but, if
we try to do too much, we simply shift the ``strain'' from the Active
to Reserve sailors. Balancing job, family and Navy is difficult. Our
job is to find opportunities to do more--and more efficiently--with our
reservists.
cross decking
3. Senator Thurmond. Mr. Navas, due to critical shortfalls in
certain specialties, the Navy has been cross-decking personnel from a
ship coming off deployment to a ship going on its deployment. The
result has been an increased in personnel tempo and morale problems.
What is the current extent of cross decking and how do you plan to
minimize the impact of this practice?
Mr. Navas. The need to crossdeck sailors is directly tied to
shortages in our at sea manning. During the drawdown the Navy
experienced difficulties in manning our deployed units. The shortfall
peaked in late fiscal year 1998 due to numerous factors, an
exceptionally strong national economy, not meeting our recruiting goals
for several years and poor retention. Today through renewed efforts in
recruiting and retention the at sea manning shortfall has fallen to
less than one third of the 1998 levels and continues to trend downward.
Correspondingly the need to crossdeck sailors has fallen. In Pacific
Fleet, for example crossdeck needs have fallen from an peek average of
90 sailors a month at end of fiscal year 1998 and the first half of
fiscal year 1999 to less than 35 sailors a month on average for the
first half of fiscal year 2001. We are continuing to address the at sea
manning shortfalls through better management of all sea duty eligible
sailors, focused efforts on recruiting and retention and efforts to
decrease attrition form afloat commands.
______
[The nomination reference of William A. Navas, Jr.
follows:]
Nomination Reference
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
June 7, 2001.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
William A. Navas, Jr. of Virginia, to be Assistant Secretary of the
Navy, vice Carolyn H. Becraft.
______
[The biographical sketch of William A. Navas, Jr., which
was transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of William A. Navas, Jr.
William A. Navas, Jr. is currently a Defense and Management
Consultant, specializing in the areas of program analysis, business
development and strategic planning. He is a retired Major General in
the United States Army.
Mr. Navas has had a long and distinguished career in public service
and the military. From 1995 to 1998, he was the Director of the Army
National Guard, responsible for the development and coordination of all
programs, plans and policies affecting the Army National Guard. Prior
to that, he was the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense/Chief of
Staff for Reserve Affairs from 1994 to 1995. In that position, he was
responsible for the integration of programs and policies for the
Reserve components of all the Services, including the Coast Guard.
From 1992 to 1994, Mr. Navas was a Military Executive with the
Reserve Forces Policy Board. Before that, he was the Vice Chief of the
National Guard Bureau from 1990 to 1992, the Deputy Director of the
Army National Guard from 1987 to 1990, and the Director of Plans,
Operations, Training and Military Support for the Puerto Rico Army
National Guard from 1981 to 1987. Mr. Navas was the principal in
various design, land development, and general construction enterprises
in western Puerto Rico from 1970 to 1981. Finally, from 1966 to 1970,
he served in the United States Army as a Post Engineer in Germany, a
Combat Engineer Company Commander in Vietnam, and as Engineer Advisor
to the National Guard.
Mr. Navas graduated from the University of Puerto Rico in 1965 with
a B.S. degree in Civil Engineering, and from the University of
Bridgeport in 1979 with an M.S. degree in Management Engineering. In
1982, he studied at the Interamerican Defense College in Washington,
DC, and in 1990, he participated in the Program for Senior Managers in
Government at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.
______
[The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
form that details the biographical, financial and other
information of the nominee. The form executed by William A.
Navas, Jr. in connection with his nomination follows:]
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Room SR-228
Washington, DC 20510-6050
(202) 224-3871
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation
of your answer applies.
Part A--Biographical Information
Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.
1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
William A. Navas, Jr. (Bill/Billy).
2. Position to which nominated:
Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Manpower and Reserve Affairs
(ASN-M&RA).
3. Date of nomination:
June 7, 2001.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
5. Date and place of birth:
December 15, 1942, Mayaguez, Puerto Rico.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Wilda M. Cordova.
7. Names and ages of children:
William A. Navas III--35.
Gretchen M. Navas--32.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received and date degree granted.
Immaculate Conception Academy,1956-1960, High School Diploma.
University of Puerto Rico, 1960-1965, BS in Civil Engineering.
University of Bridgeport, 1976-1979, MS in Management Engineering.
Interamerican Defense College, 1981-1982, MEL1 Diploma.
Harvard University, JFKSG, 1991, Senior Managers in Government
Certif.
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
Independent Consultant, various organizations (see item 11),
Washington, DC, 1998-present.
Director, Army National Guard, National Guard Bureau, Washington,
DC, 1995-1998.
DASD (RA), OSD, The Pentagon, Washington, DC, 1994-1995.
Military Executive, Reserve Forces Policy Board, The Pentagon,
Washington, DC, 1992-1994.
Vice Chief, National Guard Bureau, The Pentagon, Washington, DC
1990-1992.
10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative,
honorary or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State,
or local governments, other than those listed above.
None.
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational or other institution.
organization and affiliation
Burdeshaw Associates, Ltd.--Associate.
CALIBRE Systems, Inc.--Consultant.
Systems Management Engineering--Consultant.
James Martin Government Intel.--Consultant.
Booth, Allen & Hamilton--Consultant.
Wilbur Smith & Assoc.--Consultant.
American Systems International--Consultant.
Avue Technologies--Consultant.
Modern Technologies Corp.--Consultant.
IT Group Inc.--Consultant.
Price Waterhouse Coopers--Consultant.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
Army Engineer Association Member, Board of Directors.
Minuteman Institute for National Defense Studies Member, Board of
Directors.
Buffalo Soldiers Foundation Member, Board of Directors.
American Veterans' Committee for Puerto Rico Self-Determination,
Chairman.
13. Political affiliations and activities:
(a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or
any public office for which you have been a candidate.
None.
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5
years.
None.
(c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $100 or more for the past 5 years.
Republican National Committee, $250.00, 1/29/00.
Election Committee, Cong. Carlos Romero Barcelo, $250.00, 9/9/00.
Republican National Committee, $250.00, 9/9/00.
14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals, and any other special
recognitions for outstanding service or achievements.
civilian
Distinguished Military Student, University of Puerto Rico, 1964.
Distinguished Military Graduate, University of Puerto Rico, 1965.
Hispanic Magazine Avanzando Award.
National IMAGE, Inc. Meritorious Service Award.
National Guard Association of the U.S. Meritorious Service Medal.
National Guard Bureau--Eagle Award.
National Guard Bureau--Distinguished Service Award.
Phi Sigma Alpha Fraternity--Distinguished Citizen Award.
Phi Sigma Alpha Fraternity--Distinguished Service Medal.
Army Engineer Association--Silver DeFleury Medal.
Artillery Association--Order of St. Barbara.
Illustrious Alumni Designation--University of Puerto Rico.
Biographee ``Who's Who in America''.
Knight, Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem.
military
Defense Distinguished Service Medal.
Army Distinguished Service Medal.
Defense Superior Service Medal.
Legion of Merit with Oak Leaf Cluster.
Bronze Star Medal.
Defense Meritorious Service Medal.
Meritorious Service Medal with Oak Leaf Cluster.
The Air Medal.
Army Commendation Medal with two Oak Leaf Clusters.
Reserve Components Achievement Medal.
National Defense Service Medal with star.
Vietnam Service Medal with 4 campaign stars.
Humanitarian Service Medals.
Reserve Components Medal w/Hourglass Device.
Army Service Ribbon.
Overseas Service Ribbon.
Reserve Components Overseas Deployment Ribbon.
Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal.
OSD Staff Badge.
Army Staff Badge.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
papers:
Threat of Civil Unrest and Insurrection, . . . to insure domestic
tranquility, provide for the common defence . . . Strategic Studies
Institute, October 2000.
The National Security Act of 2002, Organizing for National
Security, Strategic Studies Institute, November 2000 Articles.
Posse Comitatus, the Army of the 21st century and the Law of
Unintended Consequences, National Guard Magazine, January 1999.
The ``Five Rs'' of Army Integration and the Crucial Element,
National Guard Magazine, July 1999.
The Army, Guard included, Needs to Tell its Story, National Guard
Magazine, June 2000.
16. Speeches: Provide the committee with two copies of any formal
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have
copies of and are on topics relevant to the position for which you have
been nominated.
I have not delivered any speeches relevant to the position for
which nominated.
17. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree,
if confirmed, to respond to requests to appear and testify before any
duly constituted committee of the Senate?
Yes.
______
[The nominee responded to the questions in Parts B-F of the
committee questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set
forth in the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to
Parts B-F are contained in the committee's executive files.]
------
Signature and Date
I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate,
and complete.
William A. Navas, Jr.
This 9th day of June, 2001.
[The nomination of William A. Navas, Jr. was reported to
the Senate by Senator Warner on July 11, 2001, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on July 12, 2001.]
------
[Prepared questions submitted to Michael W. Wynne by
Chairman Levin prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
June 15, 2001.
Hon. Carl Levin, Chairman,
Committee on Armed Services,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Enclosed are the answers to the advanced
questions that the Senate Committee on Armed Services asked me to
complete.
Sincerely,
Michael W. Wynne.
cc: Hon. John Warner,
Ranking Member.
______
Questions and Responses
defense reforms
Question. More than 10 years have passed since the enactment of the
Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and
the Special Operations reforms. From your close association with
defense issues, you have had an opportunity to observe the
implementation and impact of those reforms.
Do you support full implementation of these defense reforms?
Answer. If confirmed, I will fully support the intent of the
reforms and advocate policies that will facilitate accomplishment of
joint operations, streamline acquisition management and oversight, and
enhance the Department's ability to respond to our 21st century
national security challenges.
Question. What is your view of the extent to which these defense
reforms have been implemented?
Answer. The enactment of Goldwater-Nichols significantly improved
the organization of the Department of Defense, focused our joint
warfighting capabilities, and enhanced the military advice received by
the Secretary. However, given the passage of time, I support Secretary
Aldridge's view that it is worthwhile to review the Department's
implementation and make appropriate adjustments, if needed. In
particular, if confirmed, I will emphasize a closer partnership between
the acquisition and operational requirements communities and an
efficiently organized management and support infrastructure that will
reduce the time it takes to provide new warfighting capability while
enhancing the effectiveness of our existing systems.
Question. What do you consider to be the most important aspects of
these defense reforms?
Answer. The most important aspects of the Goldwater-Nichols
Department of Defense Reorganization Act, seem to me to be
strengthening civilian control; improving military advice; placing a
clear responsibility on the combatant commanders for the accomplishment
of their missions; providing for more efficient use of defense
resources; and enhancing the effectiveness of military operations and
improving the management and administration of the Department of
Defense.
Question. Do you agree with these goals?
Answer. Yes, I support full implementation of the Goldwater-Nichols
reforms and agree with its goals.
duties
Question. Section 133 of Title 10, United States Code, describes
the duties of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and
Technology and Logistics (USD(ATL)).
Assuming you are confirmed, do you expect that Secretary Rumsfeld
will prescribe additional duties for you?
Answer. If confirmed, I will support the Secretary, Deputy
Secretary, and the Under Secretary as best as I am able. To answer your
question specifically, I would expect that the USD (AT&L) would assign
any additional duties, but I certainly will carry out all assigned
tasks and unassigned tasks as prescribed by law and directive.
Question. What background and experience do you possess that you
believe qualifies you to perform these duties and those outlined in the
law and applicable DOD directives?
Answer. I have spent most of my career in weapons systems
development and acquisition following 7 years as an Air Force officer.
Over the past quarter of a century, I have gained experience and skills
I think will enable me to carry out the duties required by the
acquisition and technology position. Throughout my career, I have been
blessed to have worked with outstanding individuals--leaders,
colleagues, and subordinates--who have taught me a lot in how to
manage, lead, and follow. I believe this perspective and the knowledge
I have gained through different positions and working with many
different people will aid me in carrying out the duties of this
position.
Question. Do you believe that there are any additional steps that
you need to take to enhance your expertise to perform these duties?
Answer. Life is a continuing learning experience. I think it is
most important to listen and talk to the people who are subject matter
experts, listen to people in the field, communicate with the Military
Departments, Joint Staff, and Congress, and most importantly talk to
the warfighter. If confirmed, I will get up to speed as soon as
possible so I can perform my duties to the best of my abilities.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what duties and functions do
you expect that Secretary Rumsfeld and Mr. Aldridge would prescribe for
you?
Answer. Title 10, United States Code, is of course, the starting
point for all the duties to be considered. There are also Department of
Defense Directives that cover broadly the duties of the USD(AT&L) and
the DUSD(A&T). I look to these laws and directives as the guiding
principles. Finally, if confirmed, I will perform any duties delegated
to me by Secretary Rumsfeld and Mr. Aldridge.
Question. If you are confirmed as Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
for Acquisition and Technology, what will your relationship be with
each of the following:
The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics.
Answer. Mr. Aldridge would be my boss and I would support him to
the best of my ability.
Question. The Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Logistics and
Material Readiness.
Answer. The DUSD(L&MR) would be a peer and colleague in supporting
the USD(AT&L).
Question. The Director of Defense Research and Engineering.
Answer. The DDR&E would be a peer and colleague in supporting the
USD(AT&L).
Question. The Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations and
Environment).
Answer. The DUSD(I&E) reports to the DUSD(L&MR).
Question. The Chief Information Officer of the Department of
Defense.
Answer. The CIO is under the purview of ASD (C\3\I). The
relationship would be one of coordination and communication on
positions that relate to the USD (AT&L).
Question. The Defense Acquisition Regulatory Council.
Answer. The DARC is overseen by the Director, Defense Procurement,
who reports to the DUSD(A&T). Issues and challenges would certainly be
dealt with in a direct and positive way.
Question. The Secretaries of the military departments.
Answer. There are so many issues of mutual concern that
coordination is demanded, and of course if confirmed, that is what I
would do.
Question. The Assistant Secretaries of the military departments for
research, development, engineering.
Answer. The Assistant Secretaries play a key role in acquisition,
technology, and logistics as Component Acquisition Executives.
Communication and coordination, as with the Secretaries of the Military
Departments, are essential.
Question. The Director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency (DARPA).
Answer. DARPA reports through DDR&E, a peer. If confirmed, I expect
that I will enlightened on the many different projects that DARPA is
working and support DARPA activities.
Question. The Director of the Defense Logistics Agency.
Answer. DLA reports to the DUSD(L&MR) and the DUSD(L&MR) would be
my peer.
Question. The Director of Operational Testing and Evaluation.
Answer. The DOT&E is a peer and plays a very key role in certifying
tests before a program can move forward through the acquisition
process. If confirmed, I expect to coordinate with the DOT&E on testing
and evaluation issues.
major challenges and problems
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will
confront the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and
Technology?
Answer. If confirmed, the major challenges I will face include: (a)
improving the cost and schedule performance of our major acquisition
programs by focusing on actions to reduce acquisition cycle time and
control cost growth; (b) implementing new DOD acquisition policies to
emphasize evolutionary acquisition and time-phased requirements; and
(c) maintaining effective communications with the Services and the
defense industry.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. It is my understanding that the USD(AT&L) has established
as a top priority a goal to improve the credibility and effectiveness
of the acquisition and logistics process. To assist him in achieving
this objective, I believe he is looking at some metrics to use to be
able to measure key aspects of the acquisition cycle. I would think
appropriate metrics would be to reduce acquisition cycle time or
eliminate cost growth. If confirmed, he and I will oversee the
execution of the Department's acquisition programs to identify areas
needing improvement or better ways of doing business that will then
accomplish the objectives and overcome the challenges I outlined above.
If confirmed, the USD(AT&L) and I also will meet regularly with the
Service acquisition leadership and with leaders of the defense industry
to maintain open and effective communications.
I believe that the USD(AT&L) already has announced his intention to
open a new dialog with the Services and defense industry through
regular, high-level meetings and annual, cooperative reviews of major
contracts with the leading defense contractors.
Question. What do you consider to be the most serious problems in
the performance of the functions of the Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition and Technology?
Answer. I consider the most serious problems that I need to
address, if confirmed, to be those associated with the USD(AT&L)'s five
stated goals. These goals are:
(1) Achieve Credibility and Efficiency in the Acquisition and
Logistics Support Process;
(2) Revitalize the Quality and Morale of the Acquisition
Workforce;
(3) Improve the Health of the Defense Industrial Base;
(4) Rationalize the Weapon Systems and Infrastructure With the
New Defense Strategy; and
(5) Initiate High Leverage Technologies to Create the Weapon
Systems and Strategies of the Future.
More specifically, the problems I need to address, if confirmed,
will center around finding ways to measure how effectively we are
meeting these goals.
Question. What management actions and timelines would you establish
to address these problems?
Answer. If confirmed, I intend to develop more detailed objectives
that will support the USD(AT&L)'s goals. Certainly, the bottom line is
to identify those capabilities and policies that are required to
deliver and sustain the necessary combat capability required by the
military strategy. As for a timeline, I need to delve further into
these issues, before I am prepared to present an actual timeline.
priorities
Question. What broad priorities will you establish in terms of
issues that must be addressed by the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
for Acquisition and Technology?
Answer. If confirmed, I plan to explore more detailed subordinate
goals to support Mr. Aldridge's five goals in order to bring them to
the operational level. As you may recall, his five goals are to:
(1) Achieve Credibility and Efficiency in the Acquisition and
Logistics Support Process;
(2) Revitalize the Quality and Morale of the Acquisition
Workforce;
(3) Improve the Health of the Defense Industrial Base;
(4) Rationalize the Weapon Systems and Infrastructure With the
New Defense Strategy; and
(5) Initiate High Leverage Technologies to Create the Weapon
Systems and Strategies of the Future.
Beyond these, there are many challenges that confront me, if
confirmed, and they run the full spectrum of my prospective
responsibilities. A few that come to mind are:
Addressing the continued aging of the force structure and defining
an executable long-term modernization program to support Secretary
Rumsfeld's strategic vision.
Arresting the forecasted growth of Operation & Support costs.
Improving the quality of the acquisition workforce and implementing
programs to maintain a viable workforce in the face of significant
predicted losses over the next decade.
Monitor and improve, where possible, the health of the Defense
industrial base.
major weapon system acquisition
Question. Secretary Rumsfeld testified at his confirmation hearing
that the cycle time for major acquisition programs conducted over the
past several decades averages between 8 and 9 years. Others have stated
that the cycle time may be as long as 15 to 20 years. The Secretary
stated that this cycle time is not sufficiently responsive to urgent
new challenges and rapidly emerging technological developments.
What specific steps could the Department of Defense take to reduce
cycle time for major acquisition programs?
Answer. There is no doubt the Department must continually work to
deliver advanced technology to the warfighter faster. It seems to me
the acquisition cycle time can be reduced by: (1) rapid acquisition
with demonstrated technology, (2) time-phased requirements and
evolutionary development, and (3) integrated test and evaluation.
In addition, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics has established specific goals for the
organization and will look to metrics to help him assess progress
toward achieving those goals. I think using metrics as tools to assist
senior leadership and program managers in reducing cycle time is a good
approach for the Department.
Question. Do you believe that incremental or phased acquisition
approaches could help address this problem?
Answer. I believe evolutionary acquisition is a way to help address
the problem. Early involvement of the test community in the
requirements process and design of an integrated test strategy seems to
me to be important also.
Question. One of the features of the Department's acquisition
system that is frequently criticized is the extensive ``concurrency'',
or overlap, between the development and production phases of major
weapon system acquisition programs.
Where and under what conditions should concurrency be used in the
development and production phases of DOD's major weapon system
acquisition programs?
Answer. One has to balance the benefit of early acquisition against
the risks of early failure. Some degree of concurrency may be necessary
in weapons program execution. Overlapping development and production
phases ensures that those engineering and management personnel involved
in the development phase are also available to work the production
technical issues and design changes. This ensures technical continuity,
which I believe, results in a better product for the warfighter.
Question. Do you believe there has been too much concurrency?
Answer. It is important to maintain a balance on the degree of
concurrency. With too much overlap, the results of testing
(particularly operational testing) may not be incorporated in fixing
and improving the weapon's design prior to a significant commitment to
production. This results in costly rework for those units already in
the production pipeline.
Question. If so, what steps should be taken to reduce such
concurrency?
Answer. I feel that each weapons acquisition program needs to be
evaluated and treated on a case-by-case basis. I believe DOD decision-
makers are aware of the risks associated with too little or too much
concurrency. Reducing acquisition cycle time or fielding an important
capability for the warfighter as soon as possible must be balanced with
the risks associated with too much concurrency.
Question. Department of Defense Instruction 5000.2, which governs
the acquisition of major weapon systems, was recently rewritten to
require that new technologies be demonstrated in a relevant environment
(preferably an operational environment) before they may be incorporated
into DOD acquisition programs.
Are you familiar with the revised version of DOD Instruction
5000.2, and if so, what are your views on this revision?
Answer. I am not yet as familiar with the new DOD Instruction as I
hope to be, if I am confirmed. However, I do think a new, more flexible
acquisition process has the possibility of giving the Department the
right kind of policy tool to make the kind of acquisition decisions
necessary to put advanced technologies into the hands of the
warfighters faster.
Question. Do you believe that the process of testing and
demonstrating new technologies is more efficiently conducted in the
context of major acquisition programs, or in stand-alone technology
programs?
Answer. It's really a matter of timing and context. If you are
testing a technology for potential broad application across a number of
existing or emerging systems, then testing within the context of a
stand-alone technology program is appropriate. If, however, you are at
the point of applying a technology within the context of a certain
system, it should be tested in that context.
Question. Would DOD's major acquisition programs be more successful
if the Department were to follow the commercial model and mature its
technologies with research and development funds before they are
incorporated into product development programs?
Answer. I believe there should be a clearer separation between
technology work and systems work.
test and evaluation
Question. The Department has frequently been criticized for failing
to adequately test its major weapon systems before they go into
production. In recent years, the Department has given the Director of
Operational Test and Evaluation increased authority over developmental
testing.
Would you agree that a strong, independent Director of Operational
Test and Evaluation is critical to the success of the Department's
acquisition programs?
Answer. First, let me say my understanding is the Department has
not given the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation any increased
authority over developmental test and evaluation. My understanding is
that during a 1999 realignment of functions, the Director, Operational
Test and Evaluation assumed responsibility for the Major Range and Test
Facilities Base and budgets for the Central Test and Evaluation
Investment Program. However, responsibility for developmental test and
evaluation continues to be an Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics function.
I feel that a strong, independent Director of Operational Test and
Evaluation is critical to ensuring the Department's acquisition
programs are realistically and adequately tested in their intended
operational environment. As an independent voice, the Director of
Operational Test and Evaluation provides operational test and
evaluation results to the Secretary of Defense, other decision-makers
in the Department, and Congress before they proceed beyond Low Rate
Initial Production.
Question. Do you believe that supervisory authority over
developmental testing is an appropriate role for the Director of
Operational Test and Evaluation, or could this role compromise the
Director's independence?
Answer. First, as stated in my previous response, my understanding
is that the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation does not have a
supervisory position over Developmental Test and Evaluation.
Developmental test and evaluation and operational test and
evaluation are separate, yet complementary. Developmental test and
evaluation is an integral part of system engineering designed to verify
performance or to discover anomalies; and, through a test-fix-test
process, assure the system design and mitigate technical risk.
Operational Test and Evaluation is used to determine a system's
military effectiveness and suitability for its intended operating
environment.
Question. Do we need to take any steps to ensure that developmental
testing is realistic, and is used for its intended purpose of
identifying and addressing potential weaknesses in an acquisition
program at an early stage?
Answer. I believe that there are several steps that can be taken to
ensure developmental test and evaluation is realistic and used for its
intended purpose. Developmental test and evaluation needs to be
balanced against a schedule that will sufficiently mitigate program
risk, while also ensuring a high probability of successfully completing
operational test and evaluation the first time around and fielding
systems to meet War-fighter requirements.
Testers should be involved early to ensure an adequate test and
evaluation program is defined, addressed, and maintained in both
program budget and schedule. We need to devote sufficient resources to
conduct well-planned test programs and execute the program properly.
The Department needs to increase discipline in the developmental
test and evaluation process by assuring systems have passed their exit
criteria and demonstrated a fundamental core capability in
developmental test and evaluation before entering Initial Operational
Test and Evaluation.
acquisition workforce
Question. There has been considerable pressure to reduce
acquisition organizations on the basis of absolute numbers. DOD has
reduced its acquisition workforce approximately 50 percent, from the
end of fiscal year 1990 to the end of fiscal year 1999, while the
workload has essentially remained constant, and even increased by some
measures.
Are you concerned that reductions to the acquisition workforce will
have a negative effect on effective program management, and if so, how
do you plan to address this problem?
Answer. Yes, I am concerned about the effects of the reductions on
the acquisition workforce. I believe there are some plans in place
already within the Department to address issues related to reductions
in the acquisition workforce.
Question. As the Department continues to emphasize contracting out
and competitive sourcing, the skills, training, and experience of the
acquisition workforce will be critical in effectively managing these
contracts.
Does our current acquisition workforce have the quality and
training to adapt to new acquisition reforms, as well as to the
increased workload and responsibility for managing privatization
efforts?
Answer. With changes related to acquisition reform, plus increased
workload and a reduced workforce it is important that the current
acquisition workforce have the necessary training and experience to
implement the reforms as well as manage the Department's privatization
efforts.
Question. What is your view of the recommendations of the
Acquisition Workforce 2005 Task Force and what role do you expect to
play in implementing these recommendations?
Answer. I am not familiar with the specific recommendations of the
Acquisition Workforce 2005 Task Force but, if confirmed, it is
certainly an area I will be interested in learning more about in order
to determine what role I should play.
science and technology
Question. The Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1999 established the goal of increasing the budget for the
defense science and technology program by at least 2 percent over
inflation for each of the fiscal years 2000 to 2008. This goal was not
met in the fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001 budget requests. In
his speech at the Citadel last year, then-Governor Bush spoke of his
support for increased research and development spending and a strong
and stable technology base.
Do you believe that a substantial increase in the Department's
science and technology budget is needed?
Answer. Determining a sufficient level of science and technology
(S&T) investment is not a precise science, rather I believe it is a
strategic decision. But, yes, I believe the Department's S&T budget
needs to be increased consistent with the President's Blueprint and
balanced with other DOD needs to ensure the technological superiority
of our armed forces. I feel that revolutionary concepts should be
emphasized in the S&T budget to provide more dramatic advances in
capabilities that the President seeks. Our military needs a
technological edge now more than ever.
Question. Congress has authorized the Department to give laboratory
directors direct hiring authority to enable them to compete more
effectively with the private sector for top scientific and engineering
talent. To date, the Department has been reluctant to use this
authority.
Do you support giving the Department's laboratory directors the
authority to make direct hires without having to go through a lengthy
review process, which can take up to 18 months?
Answer. Yes. Our laboratories are vital for our Nation's
development of future, essential warfighting capabilities. I am not
familiar with this particular authority but the whole area of a
talented and well-trained acquisition workforce, to include laboratory
staff, where we need to have excellent scientific and engineering
talent is an area I will be exploring further, if confirmed, in order
to improve the Department's ability to compete for that talent.
logistics transformation
Question. Over the last 10 years, the Defense Logistics Agency
(DLA) has placed an increasing emphasis on approaches such as prime
vendor agreements, virtual prime vendor agreements, and direct vendor
delivery to streamline the Department's logistics systems for
commercial items such as medical supplies, clothing and subsistence,
and common hardware items.
Do you support commercial practices such as those that rely
increasingly on the private sector to meet the Department's logistics
need?
Answer. I strongly support the use of commercial practices in
defense logistics, where it makes sense from a warfighter's
perspective. I think DLA is moving in this direction and I support
their efforts in this area.
Question. Do you believe that these types of logistics practices
can appropriately be expanded to the delivery of non-commercial items,
such as aircraft spare parts?
Answer. The challenge here is with defense-unique items, such as
fighter aircraft parts, which tend to be low volume, high cost items,
often provided by sole-source manufacturers. I believe DOD should
continue adopting innovative support methods, while using ``lessons
learned'' from the test programs to improve future efforts, always
bearing in mind the very real need to protect the safety of our troops.
competitive sourcing
Question. Over the past several years, DOD has increased its
reliance on the private sector to perform certain activities including
equipment maintenance and facility operations. Some have supported this
effort while others have expressed concern that core activities are
being jeopardized by reducing our reliance on military personnel and
civilian employees of the Federal Government.
What approach would you recommend to balance maintaining necessary
capabilities and outsourcing?
Answer. I believe each case should be evaluated on its merit.
Intuitively, it would seem that all appropriate commercial activities
could be competed.
Question. Do you believe that public-private competition results in
significant savings to the Department and, if so, how?
Answer. I believe the forces of competition should drive
identification of potential efficiencies regardless of which offer is
determined to be most beneficial. However, if confirmed, I would like
to review the analysis and the supporting data before making a final
decision on this.
Question. Do you believe that public-private competition is an
essential prerequisite to the outsourcing of functions currently
performed by Federal employees?
Answer. I would think that competition would be the preferred
option but there again I would like to see the supporting analytical
data.
Question. What is your view of the current A-76 process?
Answer. I am only marginally knowledgeable of the A-76 process,
but, if confirmed, I intend to become much better informed in this
area.
Question. Are there other effective alternatives to achieve the
benefits of public-private competition?
Answer. I cannot really respond at this time without reviewing more
information on this.
information technology
Question. There appears to be potential overlap between the
responsibilities of the USD(ATL) and the Chief Information Officer
(currently ASD(C\3\I)) with regards to information technology
acquisition.
How do you anticipate sharing responsibilities with the CIO to
ensure effective acquisition of information technology?
Answer. I think information technology acquisition is both a high
priority and a continuing challenge for the Department. The ASD
(C\3\I), USD (AT&L), and their respective organizations have major
roles to play. If confirmed, I expect to have a close working
relationship with the ASD (C\3\I) to ensure that both organizations
contribute the strengths of the respective organizations to the
process. From my perspective, I view the CIO as a technical expert in
information technology and a colleague.
Question. The effective use of information technology such as
advanced computing, telecommunications, networking technology and
software is a vital component in achieving the goal of full spectrum
dominance as outlined in the Joint Vision 2020. Recently, the
commercial marketplace has been the source of major innovation in these
sectors rather than DOD.
What is your assessment of the Department's ability to rapidly
assimilate these commercial technologies?
Answer. The Department is aware of the increasing capability of
commercial information technologies. I think the Department needs to
emphasize evolutionary acquisition and time-phased requirements, in
part, patterned after commercial practices, and to further improve its
ability to rapidly assimilate commercial technologies to bring their
benefits to the warfighter.
Question. Is a growing DOD dependence on commercial information
technology a positive or negative development?
Answer. This is probably the province of the CIO, but with the
growth in commercial technology I believe there are more positives than
negatives. To be specific, to the extent that relying on commercial
information technology enables DOD to deploy the latest technologies
more quickly and at reduced costs, it is positive. When the commercial
technologies are not sufficiently robust to operate in a military
environment, and when a required and appropriate DOD in-house
capability to support and maintain its military forces under unique
military scenarios is compromised, it is negative. Striking the
appropriate balance as we exploit commercial information technologies
will be a continuing challenge.
the defense industrial base
Question. Some have argued that in many categories the current
industrial base may no longer be able to support the ``winner-take-
all'' competitions of the past.
How can we obtain the benefits of competition given the current
limited number of contractors?
Answer. The number of active competitors in several defense markets
has declined and, consequently, it has become more challenging to
ensure effective competition in these sectors. I believe the Department
of Defense has in place a process to review proposed mergers and
acquisitions. That process should help to address the concerns related
to losing the benefits of competition in the marketplace.
Question. Do you support further consolidation of the defense
industry?
Answer. Each proposed new merger or acquisition of the defense
firms should be considered on a case-by-case basis. The competitiveness
and financial health of each industrial sector are different and need
to be considered.
Question. A November 2000 report by the Defense Science Board on
the health of the defense industry identified some significant issues
associated with under-investment and consolidation.
What is your view of the specific recommendations of the Defense
Science Board study?
Answer. I am not familiar with the recommendations of this study
but would certainly be very interested in learning more about them if
confirmed. I believe it is imperative that the country retain a robust
and competitive industrial base.
Question. What is your view of the current state of the U.S.
defense industry?
Answer. My opinion is that the U.S. defense industry is strong and
still provides the best products and services to our war-fighters. I
believe it will continue to provide those products and services in the
future. It will always need the correct incentives in order to remain a
stable industrial base for the future.
Question. One factor in the escalation of support costs in relation
to weapon system procurement and operations is the maintenance of over
capacity in the defense industry that is carried as overhead. Some in
industry contend that under current government accounting policies
there is little incentive for contractors to reduce the number of
facilities.
Should DOD assess providing incentives to further reduce the number
of facilities or is this best left to market forces?
Answer. While I think it seems better to let the market forces
provide the incentives for business decisions of our defense firms, I
believe that with certain Defense-unique requirements there should be
options available. I think when needed the Department should consider
appropriate incentives for rationalizing inefficient operations.
foreign acquisition
Question. In recent years, foreign-owned companies have been
purchasing a variety of U.S. defense manufacturers.
What is your position on foreign investment in the U.S. defense
sector?
Answer. In general, I favor foreign investment in the U.S. whether
it be for defense industries or non-defense industries, so long as this
investment does not pose threats to national security.
Question. What are your views on the responsibility of the
Department of Defense to monitor and oversee potential acquisitions of
U.S. firms by foreign buyers?
Answer. Since foreign acquisitions of U.S. defense firms could
directly affect both the reliability of suppliers to the DOD weapons
acquisition process as well as the transfer of technology under
development in DOD, I believe that the Department needs to oversee and
continue to monitor developments in this area, in order to protect our
national security interests. I realize, of course, that international
armaments cooperation and, more specifically international investment
in the industrial base increases the potential security risks inherent
in the transfer of militarily significant technology. To eliminate such
risks, all participating nations must ensure that mutually-acceptable,
adequate control and enforcement mechanisms are in place to eliminate
the transfer of technology outside the coalition partnership, or even
into the commercial world.
Question. What standard should be applied to determine if a foreign
acquisition threatens national security?
Answer. I believe the standard should basically be whether the
company being acquired has a critical technology or process the
Department of Defense relies on and if that technology or process would
be lost if the investor decided to close it down.
Question. What do you plan to do to ensure that the U.S. does not
lose critical manufacturing capabilities as a result of foreign
acquisitions?
Answer. I understand there is a process currently in place by which
the Department monitors vulnerabilities related to the possible loss of
manufacturing and Research and Development capabilities and can take
legal action, if necessary. Broadly, there are two things I think
should be done regarding this issue. First, in each merger or
acquisition transaction, one needs a good analysis on what
vulnerabilities exist for national security in the event of a move
offshore involving not just manufacturing facilities but R&D facilities
as well. Second, I believe there is a need for continuing diligence in
monitoring the defense industrial base in critical technology and
manufacturing areas to anticipate where vulnerabilities may exist so
that the Department can take actions to help ensure that future supply
is reliable.
Question. What are your plans for strengthening the Defense
Department's oversight role to ensure that U.S. national security is
not compromised from future foreign acquisitions within U.S.
industries?
Answer. Fundamentally my sense is the Department needs to enforce
the guidelines that are already in place and make the current process
work to the benefit of national defense.
Question. Do you believe that there should be greater cooperation
and even integration between defense industries in Europe and the U.S.?
If so how can such cooperation be facilitated?
Answer. I support greater transatlantic defense industrial
cooperation. More cooperative endeavors such as transatlantic teaming,
joint ventures and even mergers and acquisitions can produce beneficial
synergies, efficient use of limited resources and healthy competition,
so long as it occurs in a positive and constructive manner. One way to
encourage more transatlantic industrial cooperation is to bring good,
well-managed programs to the marketplace.
I think with respect to integration, it is necessary to evaluate
each case on its merit.
intellectual property
Question. Many observers have said that one of the major
disincentives for commercial companies interested in doing business
with the Department of Defense is the difficulty of protecting their
intellectual property under a government contract. On January 4, 2001,
the Pentagon issued guidance to improve the Department's handling of
intellectual property rights in order to attract commercial entities to
defense contracts.
Are you familiar with this guidance and, if so, what are your views
of this revised policy?
Answer. No, I am not familiar with this guidance, but I am aware of
this criticism and the fact that it is perceived as a disincentive. If
confirmed, my primary approach to this issue would be to ensure that
any solution would be even-handed.
multiyear procurements
Question. Providing a stable funding profile for defense programs
is absolutely essential to effective program management and
performance, for both DOD and the defense industry. One already tested
means of increasing program funding stability is the use of multiyear
contracts.
Please provide your views on multiyear procurements.
Answer. My sense is that the Department has successfully used
multiyear procurement in past years to reduce defense system production
cost. Multiyear procurement is a very useful acquisition strategy when
the requirement is clear and the program has achieved stability. Where
these circumstances exist, I will, if confirmed, strongly encourage the
use of multiyear contracts to reduce the production cost associated
with weapon systems.
Question. How will you treat proposals to renegotiate a multiyear
procurement?
Answer. If confirmed, with great caution. Multiyear procurement
will remain an effective tool only if all parties to multiyear
contracts live up to the long-term commitment they made. Neither
industry nor Congress will be interested in entering into multiyear
contracts unless each can rely on the other to follow through as
planned. This is rarely a problem if the program met the stability
criteria before the multiyear contract was awarded. That said, we all
know dramatic changes can and do occur in this business. If
circumstances change significantly enough to force renegotiation of a
multiyear contract, I would expect any such recommendation to be fully
supported by a description of what changed, why the changes necessitate
renegotiation of the contract, how the benefits of the multiyear
contract, including reduced cost, will be preserved to the extent
possible in the renegotiation, and what will be done to preclude
perturbing the contract in the future. It is definitely something that
needs to be scrutinized on a case-by-case basis and depends on the
particular circumstances.
small business issues
Question. For the last two decades, the Department of Defense has
been subject to statutory goals for contracting with small businesses
and minority small businesses. More recently, additional goals have
been added for contracting with women-owned business and businesses
owned by disabled veterans. A number of programs have been put in place
to help the Department achieve these goals.
Do you believe that these goals serve a valid purpose in the
Department of Defense contracting system?
Answer. Yes, I believe statutory goals serve to highlight valid
congressional concerns that the Department of Defense is obligated to
carryout as efficiently and effectively as possible. However, the sheer
magnitude of twenty separate statutory goals is undermining the
Department's ability to credibly carryout those goals. If confirmed, I
intend to play a proactive role in ensuring that small business firms
have maximum practicable opportunity to participate in Defense
procurements.
Question. Do you support the so-called ``rule of two,'' which
provides that if two or more small businesses are capable of performing
a contract, competition will be limited to small business?
Answer. I support the ``rule of two'' providing their capabilities
are sufficient to perform the service or provide the required product.
I believe it is a valid and effective tool in support of the
Department's efforts to provide increased opportunities for small
business firms.
Question. Do you support the Section 8(a) program, under which the
Department sets aside certain contracts for performance by small
disadvantaged business?
Answer. I do. I think it has provided benefits and highlighted
talents not otherwise recognized.
Question. Do you support the Department of Defense mentor-protege
program, under which major defense contracts provide advice and
assistance to small disadvantaged businesses and women-owned businesses
seeking to do business with the Department of Defense?
Answer. I am familiar with this program from my private experience
and have seen that there is a benefit to expanding the Defense
industrial base in this manner. By providing incentives to major prime
contractors the Department is developing a cadre of capable small
disadvantaged business firms that can support mission requirements. I
was pleased to see that Congress has recently expanded the program to
include women-owned small business firms and, if confirmed, will
strongly support this program.
Question. Would you recommend the extension of the program?
Answer. Yes, this program has certainly demonstrated benefits. I
believe that by developing the small business firms that have the
requisite capabilities to participate in DOD acquisitions, the
Department is expanding its domestic small business capabilities as
well as ensuring a competitive and capable pool of contractors.
Question. Over the last several years, representatives of the small
business community have been increasingly critical of the Department of
Defense for ``bundling'' contracts together into larger contracts that,
in their view, tend to preclude small businesses from competing.
Several years ago, Congress enacted a law under which the Department is
required to conduct market research to determine whether consolidation
of requirements is necessary and justified before proceeding with a
bundled contract. The bundled contract is permitted to go forward only
if the Department determines that the benefits substantially outweigh
the costs.
What is your view of contract ``bundling''?
Answer. I recognize the Department is dealing in an environment
that requires taking a hard look at how we do business. Our acquisition
workforce is much smaller than it was a decade ago. As the Department
strives to create efficiencies, sometimes it is necessary to combine
contracts or requirements that may have been previously performed by
small business firms. I think this should be done carefully and with a
full understanding of the actual benefits to be gained.
Question. Do you believe that there is a value to having small
businesses contract directly with the Federal Government, rather than
being relegated to the role of subcontractors?
Answer. I believe there is value in both roles. Certainly, my
experience with the mentoring program confirms the value of having
small business serve as subcontractors, but there are times when being
the prime contractor is preferable for both the Department and the
small business involved. I am convinced small businesses offer the
Department value at both the prime contractor and subcontractor level.
Question. Do you believe that the standard adopted by Congress for
approving bundling is the appropriate one, or would you recommend that
this standard be modified?
Answer. I am not familiar with this standard, however, I would
think that each case should be evaluated on its own merit. If
confirmed, I certainly would want to look into using metrics to assess
the impact of policy changes and would support such an approach in this
area.
feeder systems
Question. For years, the Department of Defense has been unable to
ensure proper accountability and control over its physical assets,
proper accounting for the costs of operations, and proper recording and
reconciling of disbursements. In the view of many, the Department will
not be able to get its financial house in order until it has identified
and addressed problems with the so-called ``feeder systems'' that
provide much of the information used by the Department's finance and
accounting systems.
Do you agree that it must be a high priority for the Department of
Defense to develop systems that can properly account for costs and
disbursements?
Answer. I understand that Secretary Rumsfeld has made financial
management reform and improvements to feeder systems a high DOD
priority. I agree with the Secretary and, if confirmed, will
aggressively work to ensure DOD systems properly account for costs and
disbursements. The Secretary has already taken very positive steps to
begin such improvement efforts by establishing a Defense Business
Management Board to oversee business and financial improvements, and I
will, if confirmed, ensure that my office is actively involved.
Question. Would you make it a high priority to work with the DOD
Comptroller, the Chief Information Officer, and the military services
to ensure that the Department's acquisition systems include appropriate
management controls and provide reliable data that can be used for both
acquisition management and financial management purposes?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I intend to work with the DOD
Comptroller and other DOD organizations to ensure that the Department's
acquisition systems are modernized and that controls are developed or
strengthened to ensure reliable information is provided to both
acquisition and financial management.
transformation
Question. Over the last year, the military departments have
described or initiated plans to transform so that they will be better
able to deal with a wide range of anticipated 21st century national
security challenges.
What are your views of the transformation initiatives within the
Department as they are currently understood?
Answer. I believe that the military departments have taken steps
that are appropriate in view of the anticipated 21st century national
security challenges. I would look to the upcoming Quadrennial Defense
Review and the other Departmental reviews as a mechanism to further
refine and integrate these individual transformation plans. The
important point is to be forward looking and not to look to the past.
Question. Are you concerned that these initiatives appear to be
``self defined'' by the services without direct participation of the
Secretary of Defense or the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff?
Answer. I am not aware of any current problems in this regard.
While the initial transformation steps by the military departments may
have lacked broad DOD participation, it is clear Secretary Rumsfeld
feels much can be done to prepare the Department for the 21st century.
The Strategic Review and the upcoming Quadrennial Defense Review seem
to have the full participation of the Office of the Secretary of
Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff as well as the Services. It is my
understanding that these two efforts will be the basis for the
Department's future transformation efforts.
Question. Recognizing that a fundamental change of the military
services will be expensive and understanding that ``legacy''
modernization programs were significantly underfunded before these
transformation initiatives began, what would you do to ensure that a
proper balance of resources is maintained between the two efforts?
Answer. I feel that this will be the most difficult challenge for
the Department. In my opinion, the Quadrennial Defense Review must
carefully consider current capabilities and steps that must be taken in
the near term to maintain a viable war-fighting capacity. In that vein,
transformation initiatives must be examined on their own merit and
paced in such a manner that sustainable programs are defined so as not
to create budgetary imbalances in the future. I believe it is very
important to recognize America continues to need protection during a
transformation process and, therefore, judicious support of ``legacy''
programs is necessary.
cost estimating
Question. As programs move forward to critical decision points,
there often seems to be a wide disparity between the cost estimates
provided by Service analysts and those of the Cost Analysis Improvement
Group (OSD CAIG).
How do you intend to handle the issue of projected costs when the
estimates may widely differ?
Answer. Under Secretary Aldridge has testified about the 5
organizational goals he established that directly support the
objectives of the Secretary of Defense. The first of these goals is to
Achieve Credibility and Efficiency in the Acquisition and Logistics
Support Process. A critical element of this goal is the need to
establish realistic pricing for our acquisition programs.
Quite often, in the process of estimating program costs, different
assumptions and methodologies will yield disparate results. If
confirmed, I believe I would tend to rely on the independent estimate
the CAIG provided for assessing the Service's projected cost for the
program. I would want to understand the reasons for differences between
the Service estimate and the CAIG estimate prior to a decision at a
Defense Acquisition Board meeting. To that end, I would seek to
reconcile differences, on a case-by-case basis, if at all possible.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as the Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings and
other communications of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Strom Thurmond
acquisition workforce
1. Senator Thurmond. Mr. Wynne, I was pleased to see that you
considered the Quality and Morale of the Acquisition Workforce as one
of the most serious problems that must be addressed by the Department
of Defense. What are your personal views on how the Department can best
resolve this problem?
Mr. Wynne. Senator, thank you for focusing your concern on this
critical issue. The problem of deteriorating morale in the Acquisition,
Technology and Logistics Workforce has developed over time and is the
result of a decade of downsizing combined with the impact of increased
operational deployments and associated costs during the 1990s reduced
the funding available for modernization of systems and infrastructure.
There are already plans within the Department to address issues
related to reductions in the workforce. I am looking at a range of
initiatives encompassing career development, expanded recruiting and
hiring, and the broad application of the kinds of authorities that are
working so well in the Acquisition Workforce Personnel Demonstration
Project. But one of the most important thing we must do is to provide
leadership at every level. We have to provide vision and direction from
the top and empower our line and middle managers to lead.
acquisition process
2. Senator Thurmond. Mr. Wynne, based on your board and extensive
experience in the private sector acquisition process, what commercial
practices would you consider key toward improving the defense
acquisition process?
Mr. Wynne. We need to adopt best commercial practices and become
more ``commercial friendly.'' By this, I mean we need to integrate
better with commercial industry so that there are not two methods of
doing business--one for government and one for commercial. For example,
I plan to reform government property rules, look at how we manage
intellectual property and develop creative solutions to implement
commercial leasing alternatives.
live fire testing
3. Senator Thurmond. Mr. Wynne, what are your views on the
requirement for Live Fire Testing of our weapons systems?
Mr. Wynne. Live Fire Testing is an important and integral part of
the Department's weapon system test and evaluation process, providing
timely and accurate assessments of system survivability, vulnerability,
and munitions lethality.
Live Fire Testing also provides insights into methods of reducing
the vulnerability and improving the lethality of weapons and weapon
platforms, assessing battle damage repair capabilities and issues, and
improving the computer modeling of weapons system lethality and
vulnerability.
I believe strongly that Live Fire Testing should be continued.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Susan Collins
acquisition workforce
4. Senator Collins. Mr. Wynne, in your response to the advance
policy questions, you state that you consider one of the most serious
problems you would face as Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition and Technology, to be that of revitalizing the quality and
morale of the acquisition workforce. The Acquisition 2005 Task Force
Report, Shaping the Civilian Acquisition Workforce of the Future,
highlights that the Department is on the verge of a crisis of a
retirement driven brain drain. This report states that more than 50
percent of DOD's civilian acquisition workforce will be eligible to
retire by 2003, requiring a surge in recruiting at all levels. Assuming
you are confirmed, what are some specific actions you would take to
overcome this problem?
Mr. Wynne. Thank you, Senator. Actually the timeframe is 2005
versus 2003 that 50 percent of our acquisition, technology and
logistics workforce is eligible to retire. I fully support the Task
Force 2005 initiatives and I will aggressively pursue their
implementation. Our civilian acquisition, technology and logistics
workforce is critical to the continued success of the DOD. The
Department has begun comprehensive human capital planning and is
enhancing career development and training for the acquisition,
technology and logistics workforce. We also need to pursue a range of
workforce shaping and hiring initiatives. In particular, I support
aggressive recruiting and hiring at all levels. We need to advertise
the important and challenging work our people do every day in order to
attract top talent as well as make it easier for people to transfer
into government from the private sector. We also need to become more
competitive with industry in recruiting because timing and ease of
hiring is critical particularly in our initial offers. We need a
broader range of intern and exchange programs and authorities to speed
the introduction of private sector best practices into our operations
wherever appropriate.
spiral acquisition
5. Senator Collins. Mr. Wynne, in the responses to the advanced
questions, you state that you will attempt to reduce cycle time for
major acquisition programs by introducing the concept of ``time-phased
requirements and evolutionary development.'' Is this concept synonymous
with the concept that Mr. Pete Aldridge, Under Secretary for Defense
for Acquisition and Technology, has commonly referred to as ``spiral
acquisition''? Would you elaborate on what the perceived pros and cons
are to this acquisition approach?
Mr. Wynne. Yes, ``time-phased requirements and evolutionary
development'' are synonymous with ``spiral acquisition.'' ``Time-phased
requirements'' refers to the establishment of ``blocks'' of military
capabilities that are required to be fielded incrementally.
``Evolutionary development'' is the actual maturation of the needed
technologies over time, with the focus on phasing in the required
technologies on a more achievable basis. Together, these concepts are
the foundation of ``spiral acquisition'' or ``spiral development.''
Spiral development calls for using available and relatively more
mature technologies to produce weapons systems that may meet many, but
not necessarily all, of the system's operational requirements when they
first are deployed--and then for developing and incorporating upgrades
to those systems later when the necessary technologies are available.
The series of upgrades represent the ``spirals'' that provide for
increasing capabilities over time.
The revised DOD 5000-series documents that govern the DOD
acquisition system specifically embody this system as a way to reduce
acquisition cycle times from Science and Technology activities through
production of weapon systems. This new acquisition philosophy and
process provides expanded opportunities to insert mature technologies
more quickly into weapon systems at various phases in the acquisition
cycle. The new process requires more involvement and collaboration
between the S&T and acquisition communities by requiring an agreement
on the technology maturity level before insertion into the weapon
system. The new process also emphasizes earlier risk reduction and
demonstration of key technologies before they are inserted into a
weapon system and before the formal beginning of the acquisition
program. By using the more mature and available technologies during the
first phases of a program, we hope to avoid the cost growth and
schedule delays that have been caused in the past by trying to satisfy
every operational requirement at first fielding by using much riskier,
much more immature technologies.
In addition to emphasizing earlier risk reduction, the new process
also permits programs to proceed more quickly through the acquisition
cycle by allowing them to enter later in the cycle if their
technologies are more mature. For example, a program no longer must
begin with a Concept Exploration phase and proceed serially through all
the later acquisition phases. If a program embodies more mature
technologies and concepts, it may be able to skip earlier program
phases and enter the acquisition process in the late System Development
and Demonstration phase or even in the Production and Deployment phase.
As part of this new acquisition model, we also have streamlined the
Defense Acquisition Board decision process to eliminate unnecessary
meetings, and we have established a comprehensive set of metrics to
monitor the cycle time, cost growth, and other aspects of acquisition
program performance so we can more easily monitor program status and,
thus, more quickly address emerging problems before they seriously
threaten program schedules.
A principal benefit of this approach is that its emphasis on
earlier technology maturation and demonstration, more achievable
development objectives, and flexibility in the acquisition cycle has
the prospect for avoiding cost growth and schedule delays, thus
potentially delivering more advanced capabilities into the hands of the
warfighters sooner. A principal challenge of this approach is leading,
educating, and training the acquisition community, both at the senior
and working levels, so that it may best take advantage of the this new
system to accomplish these objectives as soon as possible.
science and technology
6. Senator Collins. Mr. Wynne, Mr. Pete Aldridge, Under Secretary
for Defense for Acquisition and Technology, during recent testimony to
the Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee, stated that the
Department needs to invest in its future through Defense Science and
Technology initiatives. Further, he suggested that if you evaluate the
science and technology investments as a percentage of the budget, that
the right ratio of the budget which should be invested in science and
technology would be approximately 3 percent. What are your thoughts on
this issue?
Mr. Wynne. Determining a sufficient level of Science and Technology
(S&T) investment is not a precise science, rather I believe it is a
strategic decision. It has always been the Department's goal to fund
S&T at a level adequate to ensure the technological superiority of our
armed forces. A strong S&T program is required to provide options for
responding to a full range of military challenges both today, and into
the uncertain future. The Department's investment in S&T develops the
technology foundation necessary for our transformation and
modernization effort, and fosters the development of ``leap ahead''
technologies that produce revolutionary capabilities. DOD must continue
to invest broadly in defense-relevant technologies because it is not
possible to predict in which areas the next breakthroughs will occur.
It is the Department's objective to grow the S&T budget to be 3 percent
of the total DOD top-line budget as soon as possible. This goal is
consistent with the industrial model of investing 3 percent of a
corporation's budget in research. However, we also need to ensure that
the funding levels of the various components in the Department's total
budget are balanced based on our assessment of the most urgent
requirements at any given time.
contract bundling
7. Senator Collins. Mr. Wynne, you refer briefly to your view of
contract ``bundling'' in the response to your advanced questions.
Recently, I attended an event for small to mid-size businesses at which
the participants inquired as to what the Department's current defense
policy is on bundling, and further highlighted their concern with this
concept and its impact on growing small and mid-size companies trying
to establish business relationships with the Department. First, can you
comment on the Department's current policy on bundling? Second, what do
you believe the Department can do to ensure that small and mid-size
businesses have adequate opportunities to compete for DOD contracts?
Mr. Wynne. The Department's policy is to comply with the applicable
statutes and the Federal Acquisition Regulation concerning contract
bundling. The FAR recognizes that bundling may be justified when there
are measurably substantial benefits. The Department is preparing to
issue a guidebook to assist acquisition planners in performing quality
benefit analyses that are critical to the determination as to whether
or not bundling is justified.
The Small Business Program Reinvention was one of the first
initiatives of Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology,
and Logistics, Mr. Pete Aldridge. This policy emphasizes the importance
of senior management support for the Program and assigns accountability
at the highest levels within DOD for small business program
accomplishments. Providing for this level of program accountability is
a strong measure toward ensuring that small businesses are provided the
maximum practicable opportunities to compete for Defense requirements.
______
[The nomination reference of Michael W. Wynne follows:]
Nomination Reference
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
June 12, 2001.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Michael W. Wynne, of Florida, to be Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition and Technology, vice David R. Oliver.
______
[The biographical sketch of Michael W. Wynne, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Michael W. Wynne
Michael W. Wynne is currently serving as Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer for the IXATA group (IXTA), a position he
took on in December of 2000. IXATA is an Internet Application
Service Provider in the information space of the travel
industry. He is also currently serving as Chairman of Extended
Reach Logistics (www.e-RL.com), an Internet start-up aspiring
to sell spares and repair kits to the military worldwide. He
spent most of his career in the world of defense, both in the
Air Force, and with Industry, following graduation from the
United States Military Academy at West Point.
He retired as Senior Vice President from General Dynamics
(GD), where his role was in International Development and
Strategy. He spent 23 years with General Dynamics in various
senior positions with the Aircraft (F-16's), Main Battle Tanks
(M1A2), and Space Launch Vehicles (Atlas and Centaur). As the
President of the Space Division, he facilitated the design of
four Rockets in 4 years, introduced them commercially and set
them on a course to launch over 50 straight satellites
successfully. In Tanks, he initiated multi-year procurement in
the Army and sold both vehicles and manufacturing facilities
around the world. While in the F-16, he was the lead negotiator
for the then ``deal of the century'' for the U.S./European co-
production of the initial 998 airplanes.
In between working with GD, he spent 3 years with Lockheed
Martin (LM, having sold the Space Systems division to then
Martin Marietta He successfully moved the division from San
Diego to Denver and integrated it into the Astronautics
Company. He became the General Manager of the Space Launch
Systems segment, combining the Titan with the Atlas Launch
vehicles. During this period, he orchestrated the first, and
only, purchase, following design, of a Russian propulsion
system (RD-180) for U.S. Rockets (Atlas). The resulting vehicle
will be in the U.S. inventory for years to come.
Prior to joining industry, Mike served in the Air Force for
7 years, ending as a Captain and Assistant Professor of
Astronautics at the U.S. Air Force Academy teaching Control
Theory and Fire Control Techniques. While there he was awarded
the Unit Citation Award for being one of the team of designers
of the AC-130E Gunship.
In addition to his undergraduate degree, he also holds a
Masters in Electrical Engineering from the Air Force Institute
of Technology and a Masters in Business from the University of
Colorado. He has attended short courses at Northwestern
University (Business) and Harvard Business School (PMD2). He is
a Fellow in the National Contracts Management Association, and
has been a past President of the Association of the United
States Army, Detroit Chapter and the Michigan Chapter of the
American Defense Preparedness Association.
He was born in Florida, and currently resides in McLean,
Virginia, with his wife Barbara. They have four daughters.
------
[The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
form that details the biographical, financial, and other
information of the nominee. The form executed by Michael W.
Wynne in connection with his nomination follows:]
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Room SR-228
Washington, DC 20510-6050
(202) 224-3871
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If
more space is needed, use an additional sheet and cite the part of the
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation
of your answer applies.
Part A--Biographical Information
Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.
1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
Michael Walter Wynne.
2. Position to which nominated:
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition and Technology).
3. Date of nomination:
June 12, 2001.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
5. Date and place of birth:
September 4, 1944; Clearwater, FL.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Barbara H. Wynne (Maiden Name--Hill).
7. Names and ages of children:
Lisa W. Henkhaus, 34.
Collene W. Finn, 33.
Karen W. Murphy, 30.
Laura Wynne, 25.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received and date degree granted.
University of Colorado, MBA--9/1973--6/1975.
Air Force Institute of Technology, Wright Patterson Air Force Base,
MSEE--7/1968-6/1970.
United States Military Academy, BSGE--7/1962-6/1966.
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
12/2000--Present, IXATA Group, 8989 Rio San Diego Dr., San Diego CA
92109. Chairman/CEO.
7/1997--10/1999, General Dynamics, 3190 Fairview Park Dr., Falls
Church VA 22042, Senior Vice President.
5/1994-3/1997, Lockheed Martin Astronautics, Deer Creek Canyon
Drive, Denver, CO 80145, General Manager--Space Launch System.
3/1991-5/1994, General Dynamics Space Systems, 5001 Kearney Villa
Rd, San Diego, CA 92123 President.
4/1982-3/1991, General Dynamics Land Systems, 38500 Mound Rd,
Sterling Heights MI 48310, Vice-President--Business Development.
10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative,
honorary or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State,
or local governments, other than those listed above.
Officer, United States Air Force, 6/1966-6/1973, Regular Reserve
Officer, 6/1973-9/1975, Rank achieved Captain.
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational or other institution.
(1) WC Factors, LLC, Managing Member (I recently registered this to
finance Extended Reach Logistics receivables. It has never operated.)
(2) Extended Reach Logistics, Inc. Chairman.
(3) IXATA Group, Chairman and CEO.
(4) NextGen Fund II, LLC, NextGen SBS Fund II, Limited Partner,
Member of the Executive Committee.
(5) Rothstein Asset Management, LP, Limited Partner.
(6) Fiduciary Partners Fund, LP, Limited Partner.
(7) General Dynamics Corporation, Senior Vice President.
(8) Lockheed Martin Corporation, Astronautics; General Manager--
Space Launch Systems.
(9) Association of the United States Army, Detroit Chapter,
President--mid 1980s.
(10) Michigan Chapter, American Defense Preparedness Association,
President--mid 1980s.
(11) National Contracts Management Association, Fellow--Since the
early 1980s.
(12) National Contracts Management Association, Detroit Chapter,
President--Early 1980s.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable and
other organizations.
None.
13. Political affiliations and activities:
(a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or
any public office for which you have been a candidate.
None.
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5
years.
None.
(c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $100 or more for the past 5 years.
Republican National Committee, Democratic National Committee,
Clinton-Gore campaign, Senator Feinstein, Senator Allen, Senator Leahy,
Congressman Hunter, Bush Campaign, Texas Republican Party, Virginia
Republican Party, Congressman Cunningham, Senator Snowe, Lazio
Campaign.
14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals, and any other special
recognitions for outstanding service or achievements.
National Contract Management Association, Fellow, Military Medals:
Unit Excellence (AC130 Gunship Development).
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
(1) AIAA/IEEE proceedings, 1970--Multiple reentry vehicles.
(2) AIAA proceedings, 1972--Optimal control; sightline autopilot.
(3) Society for Parametric Estimating, 1978, 2d quarter--Impact of
Labor Strike on Learning Curves for Manufacturing.
(4) Army Material Command, RD&A Magazine, May 1985--Benefits of the
M1A1 multi-year for the Army.
16. Speeches: Provide the committee with two copies of any formal
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have
copies of and are on topics relevant to the position for which you have
been nominated.
None.
17. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree,
if confirmed, to respond to requests to appear and testify before any
duly constituted committee of the Senate?
Yes.
______
[The nominee responded to the questions in Parts B-F of the
committee questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set
forth in the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to
Parts B-F are contained in the committee's executive files.]
------
Signature and Date
I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate,
and complete.
Michael W. Wynne.
This 13th day of June 2001.
[The nomination of Michael W. Wynne was reported to the
Senate by Chairman Levin on July 11, 2001, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on June 12, 2001.]
NOMINATIONS OF DIONEL M. AVILES TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY,
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND COMPTROLLER; REGINALD JUDE BROWN TO BE
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, MANPOWER AND RESERVE AFFAIRS; DR.
STEVEN A. CAMBONE TO BE DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR POLICY;
MICHAEL MONTELONGO TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR THE AIR FORCE,
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND COMPTROLLER; AND JOHN J. YOUNG, JR., TO BE
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY (RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND
ACQUISITION)
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 27, 2001
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:12 a.m., in
room SD-106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Carl Levin
(chairman) presiding.
Committee members present: Senators Levin, Reed, Warner,
and Inhofe.
Other Senators present: Senators Stevens and Inouye.
Committee staff members present: David S. Lyles, staff
director; Madelyn R. Creedon, counsel; Richard D. DeBobes,
counsel; Gerald J. Leeling, counsel; and Peter K. Levine,
general counsel.
Professional staff members present: Daniel J. Cox, Jr.,
Richard W. Fieldhouse, and Creighton Greene.
Minority staff members present: Romie L. Brownlee,
Republican staff director; Judith A. Ansley, deputy staff
director for the minority; L. David Cherington, minority
counsel; Ann M. Mittermeyer, minority counsel; Suzanne K.L.
Ross, research assistant; Richard F. Walsh, minority counsel;
and Scott Stucky, minority counsel.
Professional staff members present: Charles W. Alsup,
Edward H. Edens IV, Brian R. Green, William C. Greenwalt, Gary
M. Hall, Carolyn M. Hanna, Mary Alice A. Hayward, Ambrose R.
Hock, George W. Lauffer, Patricia L. Lewis, and Thomas L.
Mackenzie.
Staff assistants present: Gabriella Eisen, Kristi M.
Freddo, and Michele A. Traficante.
Committee members' assistants present: Menda S. Fife,
assistant to Senator Kennedy; Barry Gene (B.G.) Wright,
assistant to Senator Byrd; Frederick M. Downey, assistant to
Senator Lieberman; Elizabeth King, assistant to Senator Reed;
Brady King, assistant to Senator Dayton; John A. Bonsell,
assistant to Senator Inhofe; George M. Bernier III, assistant
to Senator Santorum; Robert Alan McCurry, assistant to Senator
Roberts; Douglas Flanders, assistant to Senator Allard;
Kristine Fauser, assistant to Senator Collins.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN, CHAIRMAN
Chairman Levin. The committee will come to order.
The committee meets today to consider the nominations of
Dionel Aviles to be Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Financial
Management and Comptroller; Reginald Jude Brown to be Assistant
Secretary of the Army, Manpower and Reserve Affairs; Dr. Steven
A. Cambone to be Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy;
Michael Montelongo to be Assistant Secretary of the Air Force,
Financial Management and Comptroller; and John Young to be
Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Research, Development, and
Acquisition.
On behalf of the entire committee, I would like to welcome
you, your families, and friends to the Armed Services
Committee. We have a tradition in the committee of asking our
nominees to introduce their family members who are present. Let
me call on each of you to do that now. Then in a moment or two,
we are going to go to the introductions.
So first, Mr. Montelongo, why do we not start with you?
Mr. Montelongo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is my pleasure
to introduce my bride, Debbie, and our daughter, Amanda.
Chairman Levin. Mr. Brown.
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is my pleasure to
introduce my wife, Emmy.
Chairman Levin. Dr. Cambone.
Dr. Cambone. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I would
like to introduce my wife, Margaret, and my niece, Caitlin.
Chairman Levin. Mr. Aviles.
Mr. Aviles. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
introduce my wife, Kimberly; my son, Thomas; and my mother-in-
law, Arlene Chandler, and my father-in-law, Bill Corbin.
Chairman Levin. Mr. Young.
Mr. Young. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I would like to
introduce my wife, Barbara; my son, Nathan; my son, William;
and my daughter, Kathryn.
Chairman Levin. Kathryn is the name of your daughter? I
have heard she has two great older brothers, who really, really
love her. Someday, she will know how lucky she is. [Laughter.]
Now, that is the truth. Sometimes I joke about that, but I
have heard in this family those two brothers really take great
care of their sister.
Let me thank all the family members in advance for the
sacrifices that they will be making so that you can serve. Each
of you before us today have a record of public service, so your
families at least have some idea as to what they are in for.
Again we thank them in advance for their willingness to have
you serve again.
John Young and Dionel Aviles are well known to committee
members for their dedicated service as congressional staffers
over the last decade. Mr. Young has served since 1993 as a
professional staff member for the Defense Subcommittee of the
Senate Appropriations Committee.
Mr. Aviles has served since 1996 as a professional staff
member for the House Armed Services Committee.
The experience, skills, thoughtfulness, and dedication that
they have brought to their jobs will be missed on Capitol Hill,
but will surely serve them well as they take on new challenges
in the executive branch.
Mr. Brown, Dr. Cambone, and Mr. Montelongo have also had
important experiences and bring great skills to their new jobs.
Mr. Brown has previously served as Assistant Administrator
at the United States Agency for International Development.
Dr. Cambone has served as Staff Director for the Space
Commission and the Ballistic Missile Threat Commission and
currently serves as a Special Assistant to the Secretary of
Defense.
Mr. Montelongo has served as a Special Assistant to the
Army Chief of Staff and is a Congressional Fellow.
Each is well-qualified for the important position to which
he has been nominated.
The committee, of course, has a responsibility to get a
clear record of our nominees' views on national security issues
that they and this Nation face, and we look forward to their
testimony.
Senator Warner.
Senator Warner. Mr. Chairman, I thought out of deference to
our two colleagues that I would give my few remarks following
the introduction by our distinguished colleagues.
Chairman Levin. Terrific. Thank you very much.
Senator Warner. I really want to hear what they got in
return for releasing Young. They got a deal out of this
somewhere. [Laughter.]
These two parents structured something to lose this
valuable member.
Chairman Levin. In other words, I think Senator Warner is
suggesting that you stay for questioning as well. [Laughter.]
Our nominees have all responded to the committee's pre-
hearing policy questions and our standard questionnaire.
Without objection, these responses will be made a part of the
record.
The committee has also received the required paperwork on
each of the nominees, and we will be reviewing that paperwork
to make sure that it is in accordance with our requirements.
The first round of questions will be limited to 6 minutes
for each Senator on the basis of the early bird rule. But
before we begin our first round of questions and ask our
introducers to make their comments, we would ask several
standard questions of each of the nominees. In your response to
the advanced policy questions you have agreed to appear as a
witness before the congressional committees when called, and to
ensure that briefings, testimony, and other communications are
provided to Congress, so we will not repeat those questions.
Here are the questions that we will ask you to respond to:
Have each of you adhered to applicable laws and regulations
governing conflict of interest?
Mr. Aviles. Yes, sir.
Mr. Brown. Yes, sir.
Dr. Cambone. Yes, sir.
Mr. Montelongo. Yes, sir.
Mr. Young. Yes, sir.
Chairman Levin. Have any of you assumed any duties or
undertaken any actions which would appear to presume the
outcome of the confirmation process?
Mr. Aviles. No, sir.
Mr. Brown. No, sir.
Dr. Cambone. No, sir.
Mr. Montelongo. No, sir.
Mr. Young. No, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Have you done anything which presumes
confirmation?
Mr. Montelongo. No, sir.
Mr. Young. No, sir.
Dr. Cambone. No, sir.
Mr. Brown. No, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Aviles. No, sir.
Chairman Levin. Will you ensure that the Department
complies with deadlines established for requested
communications including prepared testimony and questions for
the record and hearings?
Mr. Aviles. Yes, sir.
Mr. Brown. Yes, sir.
Dr. Cambone. Yes, sir.
Mr. Montelongo. Yes, sir.
Mr. Young. Yes, sir.
Chairman Levin. Will you cooperate in providing witnesses
and briefers in response to congressional requests?
Mr. Aviles. Yes, sir.
Mr. Brown. Yes, sir.
Dr. Cambone. Yes, sir.
Mr. Montelongo. Yes, sir.
Mr. Young. Yes, sir.
Chairman Levin. Will those witnesses be protected from
reprisal for their testimony?
Mr. Aviles. Yes, sir.
Mr. Brown. Yes, sir.
Dr. Cambone. Yes, sir.
Mr. Montelongo. Yes, sir.
Mr. Young. Yes, sir.
Chairman Levin. I think what we will do at this point is
ask our colleagues to make their introductions.
Senator Inouye, would you start please?
STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL INOUYE, U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII
Senator Inouye. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,
I am pleased to be here with my co-chairman of the Senate
Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense to introduce Mr. John
Young, the President's nominee to be the Assistant Secretary of
the Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition.
Mr. Young came to the Appropriations Committee 10 years ago
as a young 28-year-old American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics fellow from Sandia National Labs. At that point,
10 years ago, he already had an impressive resume.
He received an engineering degree from Georgia Tech, a
masters degree from Stanford. He had worked for General
Dynamics in the F-16 program; for Rockwell on tactical
missiles. At Sandia, he had worked on the hypersonic reentry
vehicle technology.
He claims that he came to us in Congress to learn about
Congress and the defense budget process. He came for 12 months
and we succeeded in keeping him for 10 years.
During his initial year, the members of the subcommittee
and their staff recognized John's talent, his ability to
analyze complex problems, and offer current solutions. As the
record indicates, his recommendations to the subcommittee saved
the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. At the same
time, his ideas helped the military further its agenda. That is
why, Mr. Chairman, we kept him for 10 years.
Reluctantly, we recognize now that the administration has
discovered our secret weapon and they have pressed him into
their service. [Laughter.]
All kidding aside, John Young will be a great asset to the
Department of the Navy and the administration. His long
experience in acquisition matters for Congress and the private
sector make him uniquely equipped to become the next Assistant
Secretary for the Navy.
I am pleased to join Senator Stevens in introducing John
Young to you formally, even though I know that many of you have
gotten to know him over the past decade.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I have never met
anyone who has had anything but the greatest respect for his
talent, his knowledge, and his pleasant demeanor. I recommend
him to you without equivocation.
Chairman Levin. Senator Inouye, thank you very much.
Senator Stevens.
STATEMENT OF HON. TED STEVENS, U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
Senator Stevens. Mr. Chairman and Senator Warner, it is a
pleasure to join my chairman in introducing to you John Young.
Following Senator Inouye's comments you are well aware of
his academic, engineering, and public service accomplishments.
His resume is an extremely outstanding one. He is immensely
qualified for the position that the President has asked him to
fill.
I just want to take a moment to tell you how lucky the Navy
is to have stolen John from our committee staff. He has
demonstrated an extraordinary skill in balancing the priorities
of the military and the interests of Congress, and the true
capability of technology to be harnessed to serve our national
defense.
It is not enough to be certain a system is right; it must
be the right solution to a challenge that we face. The real
talent lies in determining whether that solution is, in fact,
ready to be produced, how it is to be produced, and when it is
to be produced.
Any candidate to serve as Assistant Secretary to the Navy
for Research, Development, and Acquisition needs these skills,
and John possesses all of them in abundance.
Quite simply, John has served as one of the most trusted
members of our committee's staff for more than a decade. He
worked for each of us and for both of us the whole time.
I am sorry to see John depart. He has been a grand fishing
companion, if nothing else. [Laughter.]
I am not going to tell you, frankly, unless you put me in
chains what we really got for him, a few bases here and there;
a little reopening of some that were closed inadvertently by a
former Secretary of Navy. [Laughter.]
But this is the right assignment at the right time. I know
that John appreciates as well that in being here it is a sign
that the two of us will be looking over his shoulder as he
wrestles with the challenges this administration will give him
because we are going to continue to rely upon him to advise
your committee and ours.
There is no one whose judgment I would trust more to serve
in this position than John Young. It is a pleasure to be with
you and a pleasure to work with him. We wish him the very best
in his new assignment.
Senator Warner. Mr. Chairman, if I might observe, the
committee sees the presence of Steve Cortese, Sid Ashworth,
Charlie Houy, and Tom Hawkins of the staff who have come to
give backup support to the distinguished two ``co-chairmen,''
as they refer to themselves.
Senator Stevens. We have really come just to tell you we
are ready to keep him if you do not do this very quickly.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Levin. Well, I tell you, Senators Inouye and
Stevens, we can accommodate your desire to keep him quite
easily. There are ways for this committee to meet those needs,
not very subtle ways, but there are ways that we can do it.
[Laughter.]
Senator Stevens. If this committee thinks that our needs
are greater than the President's, we are at your service, sir.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Levin. He has been trained at the feet of a couple
of masters on the Appropriations Committee, so we know how well
he will take that service to the executive branch.
Now, Congressman Reyes, you----
Senator Warner. I would like to say a few remarks here. I
had reserved my time----
Chairman Levin. Sure. Oh, no--we have a Congressman here.
Senator Warner. Oh, yes, of course, OK.
Chairman Levin. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF HON. SILVESTRE REYES, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
TEXAS
Mr. Reyes. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee.
It is my privilege and pleasure to be here with you this
morning to introduce a gentleman that we are very proud of,
coming from El Paso in general and from Fort Bliss, the Army
Air Defense Center, in particular.
I am also here on behalf of our colleague, Senator Kay
Bailey Hutchison, who was unable to be here, but would have
liked to be here as well. Also representing Mr. and Ms. Jerry
Tennison are the nominee's in-laws, residents of my district.
This morning, it is my sincere pleasure to introduce to you
the nominee for Under Secretary of the Air Force for Financial
Management and Comptroller, Mr. Michael Montelongo. He is a
graduate of the United States Military Academy and a career
Army officer, having retired as a Lieutenant Colonel after
serving in the Army Air Defense Artillery.
He is coming to us, to public service, from Cap Gemini
Ernst and Young, where he served as a sales executive and
consulting manager. He also served as a Congressional Fellow in
the office of Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison in the 104th
Congress, and in the past has also served as a fellow in the
Pentagon.
It is my privilege and pleasure to also acknowledge his
wife Debbie from El Paso and his daughter Amanda, who are with
him here today.
Mr. Chairman and the members of the committee, I know that
Michael Montelongo will do an outstanding job for our country
in his new position.
Thank you very much for the opportunity.
Chairman Levin. Congressman Reyes, thank you very much for
that introduction. I know how appreciative Mr. Montelongo is as
well. Thank you.
Senator Warner.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN WARNER
Senator Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I commend you again in your skills for having
these very important hearings, the Constitutional function of
the United States Senate, which is to give advise and consent
with regard to nominees of the President of the United States.
The President, again, is to be commended for recruiting
such a fine, outstanding, and well-qualified group of
individuals to come and, in several instances, to re-enter
public service. They take on the very heavy responsibilities
associated with protecting this Nation and making us secure,
and not only here at home, and I emphasize at home because the
President in his Citadel speech brought to the attention of the
American people that threats here at home now unfortunately are
mounting, but also preserving freedom abroad for ourselves and
our allies.
I commend you and I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your
reference to the families. Indeed, they are a vital part of
this team in the Department of Defense.
I was privileged to serve once and I remember so well my
children were almost the sizes of those children right there at
that time, and I have a wonderful picture of those toddlers
gathered around me when I took on those responsibilities a
quarter of a century ago.
I hasten to tell the families to get those husbands home at
a reasonable hour in the evening. Any decision made after 7
o'clock in the Pentagon is reversed in the morning. [Laughter.]
So come on home and you will do better in your jobs after
rejoining your wonderful families and getting the sustenance
and the support that they can provide you.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I would like to
make some special comments with reference to Reginald Brown. He
proudly claims Virginia as his State since 1986.
He is a West Point graduate who has served in the infantry
from 1961 through 1971. He has an impressive history of
government and business accomplishments including service as
Assistant Administrator at the U.S. Agency for International
Development from 1989 to 1993.
I believe at that time I introduced you before the Senate,
but we will just dig up that old record and make it count for
this one. I thank you and your family for once again responding
to the public life.
Dr. Cambone, others have covered extensively your
exceedingly impressive record of accomplishments for a
relatively young man who has achieved so much in such a short
period of time. You will be a point man for the President's
policies and initiatives and particularly with missile defense
and other strategic programs.
You are eminently qualified in my judgment, Doctor, to
handle those debates before Congress and in the public forum. I
think you want to anxiously accept that challenge.
Mr. Young, you have received so much praise, so I will
remain quiet and just let it rest and I will put into the
record my comments with respect to you.
To the others here, the Chairman also covered extensively
your background, so I will place my statement in the record.
But I, again, join the Chair and the members of this committee
in thanking you for offering yourselves to public service.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Prepared Statement by Senator John Warner
Thank you, Senator Levin.
I join you in extending a warm welcome to our nominees and their
families. I thank you all for your willingness to serve.
Dr. Stephen A. Cambone is currently serving as the Special
Assistant to the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense and has
compiled a distinguished career in government and academia. He served
as the Director of Research at the Institute for National Strategic
Studies of the National Defense University from August 1998 to July
2000. Prior to that he served as the Staff Director for the Commission
to Assess United States National Security Space Management and
Organization from July 2000 to January 2001. From January 1998 to July
1998, Dr. Cambone was the Staff Director for the Commission to Assess
the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States. He previously served
in the Office of the Secretary of Defense from 1990 to 1993 as Director
for Strategic Defense Policy, and he worked in the Office of the
Director, Los Alamos National Laboratory from 1982 to 1986. Dr.
Cambone, I congratulate you on your many accomplishments.
Mr. Young is currently a Professional Staff Member on the Senate
Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Defense, having served there
since 1993. For 10 years prior to joining our colleagues on the
Appropriations Committee, Mr. Young was a member of the Technical Staff
at the Sandia National Labs. He has also worked as an engineer with
Rockwell International, the BDM Corporation, and General Dynamics.
Congratulations, Mr. Young, on your nomination.
Mr. Montelongo is an Army veteran having graduated from the U.S.
Military Academy in 1977. His active-duty service included assignments
as a Senior Analyst and Associate Professor at the U.S. Military
Academy from 1988 to 1991 and as a Special Assistant to the Chief of
Staff of the Army from 1994 to 1995. He currently works for the firm of
Ernst & Young in Atlanta, Georgia.
Mr. Brown also served on active duty in the U.S. Army with the
infantry after graduating from West Point in 1961. Following his
military service, he served in various important government positions
including Director in the Office of Price Monitoring at the Council of
Wage and Price Stability and Principal Analyst for the Defense Manpower
Commission. From 1989 to 1993, he was an Assistant Administrator at the
U.S. Agency for International Development. Thank you for your
willingness to return to government service.
Mr. Aviles is currently a Professional Staff Member on the House
Armed Services Committee with responsibility for defense budget and
financial management, Navy procurement, and Merchant Marine issues. He
graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1983, and served as a Surface
Warfare Officer. Mr. Aviles was an engineer with the Naval Sea Systems
Command from 1990 to 1991, and an Examiner at the Office of Management
and Budget from 1991 to 1995. Thank you, Mr. Aviles, for your continued
willingness to offer public service.
I am very impressed by the qualifications of these nominees. If
confirmed, they will be key members of the Secretary's team of senior
leaders. They have my support.
Senator Levin.
Chairman Levin. Thank you. Senator Reed, do you have an
opening statement?
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JACK REED
Senator Reed. Mr. Chairman, I do not have a formal opening
statement. I just want to welcome the nominees.
I particularly want to welcome Mr. Brown, who was my
instructor at West Point in the Social Science Department. If I
am particularly acute today, take credit for it. Otherwise, you
have no responsibility. [Laughter.]
To all the gentlemen and the families who have come here
today to accept this responsibility to serve the Nation, I
thank you for that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you. Without meaning to pry in any
way, how good a student was Senator Reed? That good?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Brown. A top one.
Chairman Levin. Well, he is top on this committee, too.
[Laughter.]
Senator Reed. I think that is one of those nominees
conversions----[Laughter.]
--confirmation conversion, right?
Chairman Levin. Let the record show that Mr. Brown had his
thumb up in the air. [Laughter.]
The record should reflect that Chairman Stump and
Congressman Spence from the House Armed Services Committee had
planned to be here to introduce Mr. Aviles, but we had to
change the starting time of the hearing, and they were not then
able to make it.
Senator Warner. We have a hearing before the House this
morning and they were with us this morning at the Department of
Defense when we had breakfast with the Secretary and spoke very
highly of you throughout the meeting. At this point, without
objection, I submit for the record the opening statement of
Senator Thurmond.
[The prepared statement of Senator Thurmond follows:]
Prepared Statement by Senator Strom Thurmond
Thank you, Mr. Chairman:
Mr. Chairman, I want to welcome and congratulate each of our
nominees as the Armed Services Committee convenes to consider their
nominations to the critical positions within the Office of the
Secretary of Defense and the military services. The fact that they are
here this morning is a reflection of their accomplishments and the
potential for them making significant contributions to our Nation, in
particular to the men and women of our Armed Forces.
I specifically want to recognize Mr. Aviles and Mr. Young who
toiled for many years as professional staff members on the House Armed
Services Committee and the Senate Appropriations Committee. Each will
provide critical insight of the legislative branch to Secretary
Rumsfeld's leadership team and hopefully will facilitate the flow of
information between the Department of Defense and the defense
committees.
Mr. Chairman, the Nation is fortunate to have individuals, such as
our nominees, who are willing to take on the challenges of the offices
for which they have been nominated. I wish each of them success and a
speedy confirmation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Now we will call out our witnesses for any
opening remarks that they may wish to make. Let us just go
right down the table, keep doing it the way we have been doing
it.
Mr. Montelongo.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL MONTELONGO, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT
SECRETARY FOR THE AIR FORCE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND
COMPTROLLER
Mr. Montelongo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am very honored and privileged to appear before this
committee seeking confirmation as the Assistant Secretary of
the Air Force for Financial Management. I want to thank the
President and the Secretary for this very special opportunity
and privilege to serve the men and women of the United States
Air Force and the Nation.
I want to thank the committee members for taking time out
of their busy schedules to conduct the hearing, and offer a
very special thank you to Congressman Silvestre Reyes for his
very kind introduction. I also want to thank everyone who
helped shepherd me through the nomination and confirmation
process.
Finally, I especially want to thank my bride Debbie and our
daughter Amanda, for their love, prayers, and support, and for
once again demonstrating that service to the Nation, as it is
for so many of our servicewomen and men, is a family affair.
Mr. Chairman, if confirmed, I would seek to address what I
believe are three issues key to the Air Force financial
management community: One, restore confidence and reliability
in financial management systems and the related critical feeder
systems to achieve auditable financial statements and, more
importantly, provide the warfighters and decisionmakers with
informed information.
In other words, Mr. Chairman, as good stewards of taxpayer
money, we should do everything possible to ensure that funds
are executed in the same manner appropriated and that they are
accurately tracked.
Two, review and understand the defense strategy and then
shape the budget to meet Air Force priorities and strategy.
Three, to plan, program, and budget funds in a responsible
manner to meet the demands of our changing global and military
environments.
Mr. Chairman, if confirmed, I very much look forward to
working with you and the committee to support and care for the
men, women, and families who selflessly serve in the United
States Air Force.
I look forward to your questions.
Chairman Levin. Thank you very much.
Mr. Brown.
STATEMENT OF REGINALD JUDE BROWN, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, MANPOWER AND RESERVE AFFAIRS
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Warner, Senator
Reed, other members of the committee. I feel deeply honored and
privileged to appear before this committee to seek confirmation
as Assistant Secretary of the Army.
I wish to especially thank you, Senator Warner and Senator
Reed, for your kind remarks.
I would also like to thank the President, Secretary
Rumsfeld, and Secretary White for this opportunity.
I enthusiastically support Secretary White's three-part
vision for the Army; as you may recall, an Army that will
attract, develop, and retain America's best young people, while
providing for their quality of life and well-being; an Army
that will maintain its readiness; an Army that transforms
itself to achieve dominance through the full spectrum of future
military operations.
I look forward, if confirmed, to working with this
committee and the Senate in achieving this vision for the Army.
I look forward to the questions of the committee.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Levin. Thank you very much.
Dr. Cambone.
STATEMENT OF DR. STEVEN A. CAMBONE, NOMINEE TO BE DEPUTY UNDER
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR POLICY
Dr. Cambone. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Warner, Mr.
Reed. It is an honor to appear before this committee seeking
confirmation as the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for
Policy.
I am grateful to Secretary Rumsfeld for his confidence in
proposing my name to the President for this post. I am honored
by the President for his nomination.
I am looking forward to taking part in this Constitutional
process by which the Senate gives its advise and consent to the
President on his nomination. It is a process that is
characteristic of our democracy and one, as I say, I am looking
forward to taking a part in.
If confirmed by the Senate, Mr. Chairman, I will work
closely with you and other members of this committee to protect
and defend the United States and its people, to promote the
national security of the United States, and to assure that we
and our future generations are peaceful and prosperous.
Thank you, sir.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Dr. Cambone.
Mr. Aviles.
STATEMENT OF DIONEL M. AVILES, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND COMPTROLLER
Mr. Aviles. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, Senator Warner, Senator Reed, it is my
distinct honor and personal privilege to appear before you
today as the nominee for the position of Assistant Secretary of
the Navy Financial Management and Comptroller.
With your permission, I would like to dispense with a
formal statement and just make a few brief remarks.
I thank President Bush for his nomination, Secretary
Rumsfeld and Secretary England for their support for my
nomination to serve the Nation and the Department of the Navy.
While serving as an examiner at the Office of Management
and Budget and on the staff of the House Armed Services
Committee, I have had the opportunity to work with the members
and staff of this committee and know firsthand of your
unwavering support for all of our Nation's armed forces. Having
previously served the Navy both as a naval officer and a
civilian engineer, I would like to express my personal thanks
for that support.
Should I be confirmed, I look forward to working with
Secretary England, the members and staff of this committee, and
other Members of Congress to provide the Department of the Navy
with the tools necessary to ensure the continued maritime
dominance of our naval forces while improving the quality of
service for our sailors and marines.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, if I may be permitted, I would
like to thank former Chairman Floyd Spence, Chairman Bob Stump,
and ranking member Ike Skelton of the Committee on Armed
Services in the House of Representatives for their support. The
opportunity that they have provided me to serve Congress has
resulted in some of the most professionally rewarding
experiences of my life, and I am grateful.
Lastly, I would like to thank my family, especially my wife
Kimberly and my son Thomas, without whose loving support I am
certain that I would not be appearing before you today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That concludes my remarks.
Chairman Levin. Thank you very much, Mr. Aviles.
Mr. Young.
STATEMENT OF JOHN J. YOUNG, JR., NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF THE NAVY (RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND ACQUISITION)
Mr. Young. Chairman Levin, Senator Warner, Senator Reed, it
is a great honor to appear before you today as the President's
nominee to be Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research,
Development, and Acquisition.
I have a statement for the record, and I would like to make
a few brief remarks. I appreciate the time and effort devoted
by members of the Senate Armed Services Committee to
considering my nomination.
First, I wish to thank President Bush, Secretary Rumsfeld,
and Navy Secretary England for the privilege of being nominated
to serve in this position. I strongly support their efforts to
better prepare our Nation's forces for the future.
In the same breath, I want to thank my family for
supporting me in this nomination.
I have served Chairman Inouye, Senator Stevens, and the
other members of the Senate Appropriations Committee as a
professional staff member for the past 10 years. Senator
Stevens and Senator Inouye, as veterans, as lawmakers, and as
citizens have provided a daily example of leadership and
determined support for our Nation. They have faced dangers that
I have never known and, hopefully, the Nation will never know
again because of their unwavering support for preparing our
defenses to overcome any and all challenges. I do not have
adequate words to thank them for introducing me.
During my tenure in the Senate, I have had the opportunity
to work with and learn from Senators, my dedicated staff
colleagues on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, as well
as the excellent professional staff supporting the Armed
Services Committee.
It has been rewarding to serve the Senate because of the
uniform and bipartisan support and desire of members and their
staffs to provide for our soldiers, sailors, marines, and
airmen.
Looking ahead now, I strongly support Secretary England's
goals to improve combat capability, to meet the professional
and personal needs of sailors and marines, to apply technology
to the challenges posed by an advancing threat, and to change
the business practices that hinder timely and affordable
purchase of new systems and capabilities. If confirmed, I look
forward to working through the details of Navy and Marine Corps
research, development, and acquisition programs to accomplish
these goals.
As a professional staff member, I have often thought of the
sailors and marines who are deployed for months at a time,
recognizing that our inconveniences are negligible relative to
what the Nation asks of them.
Their commitment to this Nation is measured in their daily
sacrifices as well as the patience and support provided by
their families and friends. They ask nothing more than to have
good equipment, adequate training, and the resources to prepare
regularly and fight when necessary.
As a participant in the congressional defense process, I
was able to directly observe the leadership role played by this
committee in successfully and continually meeting and
surpassing the objective of doing everything possible for our
soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen.
If confirmed, I hope to work with the strong Navy and
Marine Corps team, the Defense Department, Congress, and this
committee to continue this tradition of meeting and exceeding
these goals.
I thank the members for their time and attention, and I
look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Young follows:]
Prepared Statement by John J. Young, Jr.
Chairman Levin, Senator Warner, and members of the committee, it is
a great honor to appear before you today as the President's nominee to
be Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, and
Acquisition. I appreciate the time and effort devoted by the members of
the Senate Armed Services Committee to considering my nomination. The
opportunity that lies ahead is both daunting and exciting. However,
before I can look ahead, I wanted to say a few things about the past.
First, I wish to thank President Bush, Secretary Rumsfeld, and Navy
Secretary England for the privilege of being nominated to serve in this
position. I strongly support their efforts to better prepare our
Nation's forces for the future as well as their initiatives to spend
our defense investment dollars more efficiently.
I have served Chairman Inouye, Senator Stevens, and the other
members of the Senate Appropriations Committee as a professional staff
member for the past 10 years. Senator Stevens and Senator Inonye, as
veterans, as lawmakers, and as citizens, have provided a daily example
of leadership and determined support for our Nation. They have faced
dangers that I have never known and hopefully the Nation will never
know again because of their determined, unwavering support for
preparing our defenses to overcome any and all challenges. I do not
have adequate words which can express my appreciation for the great
honor of having these gentlemen introduce me to the Senate Armed
Services Committee.
As a member of the Senate Defense Appropriations staff, I have been
able to make recommendations on a range of defense issues to the
members of the Appropriations Committee and Congress. Because of the
excellent spirit of coordination and cooperation between the Senate
Armed Services and Appropriations Committees, I have also had the
chance to work with many members of the Armed Services Committee on key
defense issues. Finally, I have had the pleasure of working with and
learning from dedicated staff colleagues on the Defense Appropriations
Committee as well as the excellent professional staff supporting the
Armed Services Committee. These experiences have been some of the best
of my professional career. It has been rewarding to serve the Senate
because of the uniform and bi-partisan desire of members and their
staffs to provide for our soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen.
My industry experiences proved to be excellent preparation for my
task of reviewing defense programs in support of the Senate. It was
important for me to work on technology development, project management
and testing in order to appreciate both the capabilities and limits of
defense firms. Industry is an important ally in delivering the combat
capability of the future, and I will work to enhance the Navy and
Marine Corps' industry relationships, if confirmed.
Looking ahead now, I am pleased to have the opportunity to work
with the Defense Department as well as Members of the Senate and the
House of Representatives to make further improvements in the combat
systems and equipment which our sailors and marines will rely on to
provide for the Nation's security. Indeed, the support of the President
and Congress will be essential to ensuring the Navy and Marine Corps
can efficiently and affordably acquire modern weapons systems which
will allow sailors and marines to overcome any threat that the future
presents to this Nation's territory and ocean commerce.
Each of you is familiar with the key problems facing the Navy and
Marine Corps. Secretary England very effectively outlined his strategic
thrusts in support of the President's vision for our military. I
strongly support his goals to improve combat capability, to meet the
professional and personal needs of sailors and marines, to apply
technology to the challenges posed by an advancing threat, and to
change the business practices that hinder timely and affordable
purchase of new systems and capabilities. Clearly, the Navy and Marine
Corps must make progress in accurately pricing and then controlling the
cost of new weapons systems. Further, more can be done to assure that
the systems being purchased are fully tested and ready for combat.
While there are concerns and improvements to make, there is also
progress. Many new systems appear to be on the verge of overcoming the
challenges of development and delivering real and meaningful new
capabilities to our warfighters. Further, as Secretary England
highlighted, there are available commercial and defense technologies
that, with changes in business practices, can be quickly harnessed to
expand our buying power and combat capability.
If confirmed, I look forward to working through the details of
current Navy and Marine Corps acquisition and development programs. I
also will work to ensure that research programs are focused on the
current and future needs of our naval forces. There are also research
and development programs in the other services and defense agencies
which can be applied to meeting the weapon and technology needs of the
Navy and Marine Corps.
As a professional staff member, I often thought of the sailors and
marines who are deployed for months at a time, recognizing that our
inconveniences are negligible relative to what the Nation asks of them.
Their commitment to this Nation is measured in their daily sacrifices
as well as the patience and support provided by their families and
friends. They ask nothing more than to have good equipment, adequate
training, and the resources to prepare regularly and fight when
necessary. As a participant in the congressional defense process, I was
able to directly observe the leadership role played by this committee
in successfully and continually meeting and surpassing the objective of
doing everything possible for our soldiers, sailors, marines, and
airmen. If confirmed, I hope to work with the current, strong Navy and
Marine Corps team, the Defense Department, and Congress to continue
this tradition of meeting and exceeding these goals.
I thank the members of the committee for their time and attention.
I look forward to your questions.
Chairman Levin. Mr. Young, thank you, and I am sure that
Senators Inouye and Stevens would appreciate your tribute to
them, well deserved.
Dr. Cambone, let me start asking you about Macedonia. The
situation seems to be continuously unraveling. Civil war is a
definite possibility there. If civil war erupts in Macedonia,
then a renewed conflict could occur elsewhere in the Baltics as
a result. That, in turn, could undermine the efforts of NATO
including the U.S. in Kosovo, in the Presovo Valley in Serbia.
The United States, unlike other NATO allies, was apparently
unwilling to make a commitment to participate in a NATO mission
to oversee a voluntary disarmament of ethnic Albanian
insurgents, even if the environment became benign.
What are the criteria that you would recommend be used in
deciding whether or not U.S. forces participate with the forces
of our NATO allies in a NATO mission in Macedonia in either a
benign or a hostile environment?
Dr. Cambone. Let me say first of all, that the broad
analysis that you have made about the importance of the
situation as it is evolving in Macedonia is shared by many
people. The Secretary and others have been engaged in
discussions on this subject.
For my part, I think there are a handful of items we have
to keep in mind. First, the objective ought to be to try to
keep the legitimate government of Macedonia capable of
functioning as such. That includes both its ability to exercise
its powers of sovereignty, but also to respect the rights and
circumstances of its ethnic populations. Any action that is
undertaken with respect to Macedonia ought to have that in mind
first and foremost.
Connected and intimately bound up with it is the fact that
we already have--the United States does--deployed to Macedonia
some 500 people, who have a variety of tasks, two of the most
prominent being guarding the lines of communication to the
forces at K4, and conducting reconnaissance operations and
surveillance operations out of Macedonia.
Chairman Levin. Do you want to pull that mike up? Many
people in the rear are not able to hear you.
Dr. Cambone. I am sorry, sir.
Chairman Levin. Just speak right into it.
Dr. Cambone. Second, therefore, we need to be careful in
any steps we take to assure that our people are, in fact,
protected and those supply lines are kept intact going into
Kosovo.
Chairman Levin. Is it true that we have decided whether or
not we would join with NATO in an operation in Macedonia? Have
we set limits on it? If so, what?
Dr. Cambone. Senator, I cannot answer that question.
Chairman Levin. When you say you cannot answer it, that is
because you are not----
Dr. Cambone. No. I do not know the answer to the question,
sir.
Chairman Levin. Thank you. In your response to a pre-
hearing question on the proper criteria for involvement of U.S.
armed forces and military operations overseas, you stated that
you would work to ensure, this is now your words, ``that when
we deploy our armed forces, the mission is justified, well-
defined, and the strategy is well-conceived.''
You did not include an exit strategy in that description,
and I am wondering if that was intentional or just oversight.
Dr. Cambone. Oh, no, sir. It was not an omission. As part
of a well-conceived strategy, one ought to know what the
objectives are and ought to be able to have the criteria in
hand for knowing when they have been achieved.
Having done so, we then ought to be able to withdraw our
military forces and, in a case like a Bosnia, be able to turn
over those kinds of operations to civil authorities.
Chairman Levin. I want to move to missile defense. This is
a subject which is going to take up a great deal of this
committee's time.
The first question relates to this: As a special assistant
to the Secretary of Defense, you have been heavily involved in
the Ballistic Missile Defense Program at the Department. In a
briefing to this committee on June 13, General Kadish, the
Director of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization,
presented the results of the Department's missile defense
strategy review and its recommendations.
He said that if the recommendations from the strategy
review were implemented, there would be no violation of the ABM
Treaty in fiscal year 2002. Is that your understanding of that
review, number one?
Number two, is it your understanding that the fiscal year
2002 budget request reflects that strategy review?
Dr. Cambone. I will answer the second one first, if I may,
sir. The budget request will find its way here either this
evening, I hope, or in the morning. Within it will be a series
of recommendations for spending.
I know that the Secretary is going to be prepared to
address this specific question at tomorrow's hearing, and I
think all in all it would be better to defer to him on that
question.
In terms of General Kadish's comments, I cannot speak for
General Kadish, sir. The objective of the program, as it is
being proposed, is to be able to permit the United States to
pursue the most effective and efficient form of missile defense
that is possible, allowing us to make intercepts in each of the
phases of the flight of a ballistic missile, and to do it in a
way that allows us to take advantage of advances in technology
as they occur.
Therefore, as the program unfolds, there will be
adjustments and changes to it, particularly as General Kadish
learns more about what he can and cannot do, both technically
and in terms of the direction and guidance he has been given by
the Secretary.
Chairman Levin. Do you know whether or not the budget that
has been submitted to us reflects the review of the BMDO
relative to missile defense budget?
Dr. Cambone. Yes. I am certain we have, sir. The Ballistic
Missile Defense Office has proposed a program for 2002 that is
reflected in its budget. There are a handful of undertakings
within that budget which will be, during the course of the
year, reviewed and considered.
I think one important thing that distinguishes this
approach from past approaches is that what we do not have in
this budget is a major acquisition program of the sort that we
have had in the past, in which there are clear stages and
milestones and activities that are laid out on a year-by-year
basis.
It is designed to provide, as I said, the kind of
technological experimentation that is necessary to move the
program forward and develop as the year goes forward.
Chairman Levin. My time is up. I want to make sure I
understand the first part of that last answer very clearly.
What you are saying to us is that the budget which is being
submitted to us reflects the BMDO's review relative to missile
defense, so that what General Kadish told us on June 13 is
reflected in this budget submission?
Dr. Cambone. The proposed program from General Kadish is
the one that he has submitted.
Chairman Levin. But----
Dr. Cambone. Whether General Kadish's statement to you
about what the implications of all of the program activity that
he has put forward or not is correct, that I cannot attest to,
sir. I do not know what General Kadish has argued on that
point.
Chairman Levin. All right. But putting aside his
characterization, which was that there was no conflict between
that proposal of his for 2002 and the ABM Treaty, what you are
saying is that his proposal or his review is the review that is
reflected in the budget request, his outline of a program.
Dr. Cambone. Yes, sir. I mean, he has proposed that----
Chairman Levin. His outline of the 2002 program is what is
reflected in the 2002 budget request; it has not been changed.
Dr. Cambone. Well, insofar as I know, given the fact that
there were adjustments made as the marks came down from OMB for
the budget, and they went through a process of adjusting that
program--and let me say, as well----
Chairman Levin. Insofar as you know then, the answer is
yes?
Dr. Cambone. I believe so, Senator. But on the other hand,
there is a great deal of advice that is given to people about
what is and is not part of the program and how it is going to
be conducted. I think we need to await the Secretary's
statement tomorrow. He can give you a definitive answer to the
question you are asking.
Chairman Levin. Have you not had any conversations in the
last week with General Kadish?
Dr. Cambone. Yes, sir. We talked to him both yesterday and
previously.
Chairman Levin. Did this subject not come up?
Dr. Cambone. Yes, sir, it did. Let me be as clear as I can.
The program that General Kadish has submitted is within the
reductions that they took and the changes that he made within
that program, based on the marks that came from OMB, the
program as it was proposed. There are adjustments, and there
are changes to it that had taken place over the course of the
last 10 days as they have adjusted for budgets.
In terms of explicit programmatic detail, I think what you
are seeing in some of these statements is different
understandings of how the program will unfold over the course
of the next year based on where they expect to make progress
and where it is that they could inject certain activities into
the program.
Chairman Levin. I will pursue this in my next round.
Senator Warner.
Senator Warner. We have a vote, Mr. Chairman. I would
simply follow up while this subject is fresh in mind, that this
morning in the discussions with the Secretary, my distinguished
Chairman had a colloquy with the Secretary on this point, and I
recommended today the record of General Kadish's testimony
before this committee be brought to the Department, carefully
reviewed, so that the Secretary can explicitly answer our
Chairman's questions tomorrow, because I am very anxious.
This is an important year, 2002, to the United States
military. I want to see our bill moved through Congress and
become law. If we get tangled up on legitimate differences of
views on this missile defense program, I happen to be among the
strongest of supporters of the President's goals, that will
stall this bill out quicker than anything I have seen in some
time.
We were stalled out for some 50 days last year for other
reasons, and I am just hopeful under the guidance of our
Chairman that we could move this bill through and we can
reconcile these differences, because it is my judgment,
listening and studying what the President has said, that he
wishes to start some new initiatives. But I do not detect any
clear desire to go against the ABM Treaty and its provisions
until such time as he has completed a program, which he has
started already, of negotiating with our allies--or I should
not say, maybe, ``negotiating,'' but in consulting with our
allies. Indeed the initial consultations that he has had with
President Putin, I think he has done commendably well, and we
are moving forward.
But in my own opinion, without any facts to back it up,
he's not going to reconcile in all probability a new framework
as he has annunciated prior to the 2002 bill coming up for a
vote in Congress.
We have to decide, given that I am correct in my prognosis,
how we reconcile giving this President some new initiatives,
such that he can lay the foundation for a new architecture and,
at the same time, not jeopardizing passage of the bill because
of controversy over the ABM Treaty. That is my view.
Chairman Levin. I very much welcome Senator Warner's
comments, by the way. I think they are very much on target, but
I would urge you to review this transcript because if there is
a conflict between what the Secretary tells us tomorrow and
what General Kadish told us just a week ago, there is an
unnecessary firestorm that is going to be unleashed on that
issue. So take a very careful look at that transcript.
Dr. Cambone. I will, sir.
Chairman Levin. You are in a position where you can do
exactly that?
Dr. Cambone. You have my word that we shall.
Chairman Levin. We will stand adjourned for----
Staff. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Excuse me. [Pause.]
OK.
Senator Inhofe. I have already voted.
Chairman Levin. You have already voted. Terrific.
Senator Reed, you have not voted?
Senator Reed. I have not, no.
Chairman Levin. Do you want to try a couple of minutes
before you vote?
Senator Reed. Let me just--just a few minutes, and I will
go over and vote.
Chairman Levin. Please, we will call on Senator Reed. Then
we will turn it over to Senator Inhofe.
Senator Reed. Let me just first say, once again, I commend
all of you for your willingness to serve and particularly to
Mr. Brown, who was someone I respected and admired a great deal
as a faculty member at West Point. It is a good day for West
Point, as I am bracketed between two graduates, 1961 and 1977,
so congratulations.
I will just follow up on a question, Dr. Cambone. You in
your response suggested that the direction of the missile
defense program is going to be abandoning a formal acquisition
program with clear stages and milestones.
A simple question: how does one manage a program without
clear stages and milestones?
Dr. Cambone. Yes, sir.
Senator Reed. More importantly for our point, how does
Congress effectuate appropriate oversight? Those are two major
issues, I believe. Related to that is whether or not that is a
strategy driven by policy and budgets rather than a sound
acquisition strategy.
Dr. Cambone. I am hopeful, sir, that it is sound on all
three points.
The proposal is for the Ballistic Missile Defense Office to
concentrate more fully on its research and development test,
experiment and demonstration activities. As it moves forward in
those activities and begins to discover which of the
technologies, system designs, and concepts prove to be more
effective, more affordable, and able to give support to defense
operations across each of the phases of a missile's flight,
they will move those programs into acquisition programs.
They will take a program, which has gone through its
testing, evaluations, and experimentation, and when we come to
that point, the proposal says, when we are prepared to move
into acquisition, the proposal is that that system be
transferred to a service, whether the Air Force or the Army,
and that in its transfer, it be fully funded and brought into
then the acquisition process for its subsequent development and
deployment.
As we stand today, the Ballistic Missile Defense Office has
both its research, development, tests, evaluation,
experimentation work, and acquisition responsibilities.
So what the proposal is, is to get it much more closely
focused on the first part of the mission, and then as the
systems evolve and become appropriate to transfer them to the
services for production and procurement.
Senator Reed. This begs the question of, then, why
originally was it thought that we should combine all those
functions into one agency? Again, generically there has been
traditionally criticism of military programs as being
disjointed, in which some agency does the design; some agency
does acquisition; some agency does this; and some agency does
that. You seem to be going back to the latter model.
Dr. Cambone. There was a closed discussion, sir, between
the Secretary, General Kadish, and the Chiefs on this question.
There was agreement that this approach would serve the broader
purpose of trying to be certain about the nature of the
technologies and give the Ballistic Missile Defense Office a
freer hand to be able to advance those technologies which work
best, to leave behind those which were not succeeding, and to
move to new ones as the opportunity presented itself.
When you are managing a research program as an acquisition
program, the strictures are much tighter. The ability to adjust
from one approach to another approach is oftentimes more
difficult.
So what we were looking to do was to make sure that there
was a greater facility on the part of the developers to
understand what they could accomplish. Then, when they had
established the basic capabilities, to then transfer it into a
standard acquisition program and to place that acquisition
program in the services.
Senator Reed. Let me just suggest that this will be a topic
of intense interest and scrutiny as the budget comes over,
particularly, I believe, on this committee and certainly my
interest.
One final comment: It seems to me that this is
understandable, but you have a program that is in
organizational realignment. You have a technology that has been
criticized, frankly, within the ranks of the Department of
Defense. Mr. Coyle has rendered some opinions prior to his
departure.
All of this would suggest it is not a program that is ready
for deployment in the next year or so, which goes back, I
think, to the issues that Senator Levin was speaking to.
Dr. Cambone. Yes, sir.
Senator Reed. But thank you, Dr. Cambone.
Gentlemen, thank you and, again, I commend you all for your
willingness to serve the Nation. Thank you.
Dr. Cambone. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Inhofe [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Reed.
I have come at a very opportune time, I see. So there are a
number of things, I understand, that have been discussed here.
I was late because I was having a meeting with Condoleezza Rice
on the same subject you were discussing here.
First of all, I know some discussions were taking place on
the ABM Treaty. Let me just assure that there are a large
number of people who share my ideas about the ABM Treaty.
Sometimes I think it is an advantage not to be a lawyer, so
you are not encumbered by all these details and you can look at
a treaty that was made between two nations, one of which does
not exist any longer, where the threat is totally changed in
accordance with Henry Kissinger, the architect of the ABM
Treaty.
The idea of mutually assured destruction might have had a
place in the past, but with the proliferation of not just
weapons of mass destruction, but the means of delivering those
weapons, and when we do not really know who has these
technologies.
I was pretty stressed out back in August 1998 when we asked
when would North Korea have a multiple rocket capability, and
they said it would be sometime in the next 5 to 15 years. And 7
days later, on the 31st of August 1998, they fired one.
So we really do not know who has what out there. But we do
know this: That the threat that faces us today is from a number
of nations. We know that China, Russia, North Korea all have
that capability. We also know that they are trading technology
and systems with countries like Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria,
Pakistan.
I just would like to have you aware of the fact that I had
asked this question. I think, Dr. Cambone, Condoleezza Rice was
on Meet the Press this Sunday. When she was asked the question
about the restraints of the ABM Treaty, her response was,
``Well, you know, our job is to defend America. If we come up
against that, then that is a problem, but we have to do
whatever is necessary to build a system that will defend
America against incoming ballistic missiles.''
Did you hear her make that statement, Dr. Cambone?
Dr. Cambone. No, sir. I will confess that I was in church
when she was on television, sir.
Senator Inhofe. But anyway, the administration is now
getting a little bit stronger in its determination that you
cannot construct a system within the framework of an ABM
Treaty. You cannot have a sea-based system. You cannot have the
radar detections that are necessary to adequately protect
yourself.
So I would like, for starters, just to have you share with
me, now, maybe it is redundant to what you have said before,
but how can we both defend my eight grandchildren and still
stay within that treaty?
Dr. Cambone. Sir, I do not believe it is going to be
possible to do so. The treaty has any number of provisions,
which make the type of defense that is the capability that is
necessary to defend the United States and might I add, our
allies and friends abroad, against missiles of any range
increasingly difficult to develop, test, demonstrate, and
deploy.
There are four articles of the treaty which come
immediately to mind. Article One of the treaty bans the
territorial defense of the United States.
Senator Inhofe. Yes. Article Five is----
Dr. Cambone. We are hopeful that we are going to be able to
do that.
Article Five prohibits the testing and deployment of ABM
systems, mobile systems either at sea or air-based and other
forms of mobile systems.
Article Six bans the conversion of non-ABM systems, theater
defense systems into capabilities that might be able to counter
longer range missiles. Might I add, there is no definition in
the treaty on what it means to counter a longer range ballistic
missile with a non-ABM system.
Article Nine prohibits us from transferring technology,
blueprints, and other forms of information to others of systems
that would be capable of intercepting longer range missiles.
That includes, ironically enough, the Russians. The treaty as
it stands now, if it is to be observed, would, in fact,
prohibit that transfer even to the Russians, if an agreement
were reached.
Senator Inhofe. You are all five just so qualified. It is
very rare that we have a group like this. I will be very proud
to be working with each one of you.
You have said it very well. I have used those same four
articles in discussions, even once this morning. I think that
it is just important that you know, you folks are being
nominated by the President, who has a very specific idea about
our necessity to defend America and how we are going to do it.
I know there can be some obstacles. Some people have honest
differences of opinion as to what the type of threat that is
out there is. But George W. Bush is President of the United
States, and I happen to agree with his perspectives.
We will have some obstacles. We will have to work out those
on this side of the table, the legislative things. I am sure
that you will carry out your end of it.
Mr. Montelongo, am I saying that right?
Mr. Montelongo. Yes, sir.
Senator Inhofe. You were with Senator Hutchison for awhile,
were you not?
Mr. Montelongo. At one time, sir, I was a Congressional
Fellow in her office.
Senator Inhofe. You have also, I know, had 20 years
experience in the U.S. Army, so you have a lot of
qualifications.
We have some issues, and having served with Kay Bailey
Hutchison and since Kelly was in her district, you are familiar
with the air logistics centers. Today, after the four BRAC
rounds, we went down, particularly the last round, from five
air logistic centers operating at about 50 percent capacity to
three operating at about 80 percent capacity.
That 80 percent capacity is now up to about 100 percent
capacity, depending on the two ways that they evaluate the
capacity.
We have a system that is based on the necessity for
national security purposes of having core capability from
within. That core capability is very important to protect and
until we come up with a better way, this arbitrary 50/50 is the
law today. Unfortunately, we have been operating on a national
security waiver that has allowed them to go more than 50
percent outsourcing.
This has concerned me quite a bit. It concerns me that when
I hear discussions out there that perhaps maybe we can go
outside that 50 percent if the air logistic centers are at full
capacity. Now, this argument could be used with any other
centers, too. I am using this because I am more familiar with
air logistic centers.
One of the reasons we are at 100 percent capacity is that
we have old equipment. We are not able to do the things that we
should be able to do in upgrading and modernizing our
equipment. So as new platforms come in, we are not able to
adapt to them.
Now, from your perspective, and anyone else who has any
ideas on this might respond too, what are your plans to, in
terms of financially, getting our air logistics centers and our
other depots around the country up to a state of modernization
so they can absorb the new responsibilities and be able to keep
us compliant with our 50/50 guidelines?
Mr. Montelongo. Sir, you certainly cite one area that is
very critical and, if confirmed, I intend to certainly give it
the priority that it deserves.
You talk about modernization, and that is certainly one of
the key things that we have to address going forward, and
certainly the depots are part of that whole picture of
modernization. As I say, that is one area that I will
absolutely give lots of attention to, if confirmed.
Senator Inhofe. Yes. Do you believe, then I appreciate that
answer very much and I would assume that you are committed to
keeping a core capability in depots, so that we would not face
the--some day the problems that we have all been concerned
about, being relying upon sole source outside, if a war should
come along.
Mr. Montelongo. Sir, I do believe that there are missions
and tasks that are inherently governmental and that certainly
need to belong in that area and in the public domain.
Senator Inhofe. Yes. I would like to hear from anyone else
who might have some ideas, even though you might not directly
in your job be faced with this. It is still something that each
branch of the service is going to have to deal with.
With this changing environment I had noticed--we are down
now in the United States of America to primarily three
contractors that can build air platforms. When I came in 1986
to the House, we had about 20. So it is a different environment
out there. That makes this core capability, in my opinion, even
more significant.
Does anyone have any comments to make about that? John?
Mr. Young. Senator, I agree with your point on the
consolidation. It is a competition issue, and it is a services
issue for the Department. The core capabilities in the depots
have served us well.
I think from my work in the Senate that some of the
companies have partnered with the depots to try to do positive
things to make both sides efficient. If confirmed, I will
certainly continue to work towards those goals to make both
sides provide good service for the Nation and maintain both an
organic capability and the industrial base we need.
Senator Inhofe. Yes. Pardon me for calling you John. I
guess that is not proper in a setting like this, but we have
worked together for many years and also we witnessed together
in the last few weeks where we are relative to the competition
out there and our potential adversaries in terms of our air-to-
air capability, air-to-ground capability.
While most Americans think that our modernization program
is ahead of the rest of the world, they are wrong. We are not.
There are platforms out there that are far superior to those
that we have.
Any other comments about this subject? [No response.]
Another question, Mr. Montelongo. In terms of flying hours,
recently the Navy and the Air Force have under-estimated the
cost of flying hours and causing the need for an emergency DOD
supplemental. The reasons for this are concerning the increased
cost of flying older aircraft and an ineffective budget
process. What is your plan to correct this malady?
Mr. Montelongo. Senator, I am not familiar with the
mechanics of estimating the cost of flying hours at the moment.
I will tell you that, as I understand it, certainly flying
hours is the heart and soul of the Air Force, an Air Force that
is extremely busy today, that is in combat today, that is
flying an ever increasing aging fleet, as you have pointed out.
Because it is that important, if confirmed, that is an area
that I plan to invest the time necessary to understand and
appropriately address the issue.
Senator Inhofe. Good.
Mr. Aviles, the same situation in the Navy: What are your
thoughts?
Mr. Aviles. Yes, sir. Senator, I would have to go along
with Mr. Montelongo's comments in that I am not particularly
familiar with the mechanics of how those models are developed
to estimate what the flying hours program costs would be, as
the budget is developed in each year.
I would definitely concur with your comments that this has
been a systemic problem, it appears, because this theme has
cropped up each year as we have seen supplemental requests come
up, both in the flying hours program and depot maintenance
programs.
If confirmed, I commit to be actively involved in trying to
establish what the root cause for these issues are and to try
and develop solutions to it.
Senator Inhofe. Yes. I bring this up, because I have
chaired the Senate Armed Services Readiness Subcommittee for
the last 4 or 5 years and have occasion to really look into
this retention of pilots problem, a very expensive problem that
we have. It is even more pronounced in the Navy than it is in
the Air Force.
One of four or five issues that comes up when I talk to
groups of pilots is this thing. They are not getting the flying
hours that they need, and they are not getting the red flag
exercises and some of these and the constraints are financial
constraints. I think it is something that really has to be
done.
Do you think that without the supplemental, Mr. Montelongo,
that the Air Force can operate effectively without relying on
an annual emergency supplemental?
Mr. Montelongo. Senator, I am not familiar with the
specifics of the supplemental for some obvious reasons. I have
not been, obviously, confirmed yet, but I fully agree with your
statement that unless our Air Force has the funding to do the
flying that it must do, it cannot do its mission.
Senator Inhofe. I just feel very strongly about that.
Mr. Brown, you in your testimony, even though I did not
read it, but my staff says that you address this, the problem
we are having with retention in some detail and you see this,
hopefully, as a crisis that I see it as now.
In terms of recruiting and retaining, I guess I am the only
member of this committee that is--you cannot give me a card. I
am the only one--oh, no, the Chairman is back now.
I had a pretty good deal going, Mr. Chairman, for awhile.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Levin [presiding]. Keep going. Keep going.
Senator Inhofe. OK. I guess I am the only member of this
committee who openly and publicly says that I believe we should
return to the draft to compulsory service. I was a product of
that.
Do you see that as something on the horizon that might be
an alternative? I look and I talk about the cost of retention
of these people. Of course, the quality of life has gone down.
We need to rebuild that, and we are in the process of doing
that right now and taking care of all these things.
But I wonder sometimes if all the services, in order to
retain the quality of people, might want to relook at that some
day in the future.
Mr. Brown. Senator, I think that you have put your finger
on perhaps the most important element in the volunteer force
that we run today, and that is to be able to recruit and retain
the people that we need.
When I served on the Defense Manpower Commission in the
1970s that was one of our primary fears, and so we kept the
whole apparatus for conscription in place. Twenty years later I
look at this, and I am surprised at how well the services have
done in meeting their objectives.
So far, the numbers look good. I think we have to continue
in that vein and give this volunteer system what it needs in
order to work. The incentives that we need deal with the
quality of life issues, deal with the OPTEMPO issues. If we do
that, I think we can continue to make the targets.
Senator Inhofe. I would hope that you bring out the issues
that are there, but you almost have to go to the field to
really sense it and talk to these kids that are out there. Go
to Fort Bragg sometime during a rain storm and see what it is
like inside the barracks. It is raining in there, too.
These guys are covering their own equipment. We have real
property maintenance shortfalls that they have swapped around,
bought more bullets instead of doing these things.
I hope that you will be able to look at that and see that
in the field and respond in this forum. All too often we will
have hearings here in Washington, and it is very difficult for
people to come in. There is a spirit of intimidation that none
of you feel, of course, but others do when they come in.
I would just hope that you would be able to see the real
need, the real problems in these shortfalls that are out there.
Mr. Brown. Yes, sir.
Senator Inhofe. Mr. Chairman, can I have one more question?
Chairman Levin. Please, yes.
Senator Inhofe. I know I have abused this, but I do want to
take advantage of the opportunity.
You have been probably sensitized, in terms of the Navy to
the problem at Vieques. It is very real, and we probably have
differing opinions at this table.
We dealt with this problem last year when the Chairman and
the current Chairman got together and decided in order to do
the best we can to try to make every effort to retain this very
valuable range. I do not believe there is any place else in the
world that can duplicate it in terms of the three missions that
are performed there simultaneously in the unified training.
That is the marine expeditionary landing, the live Navy firing
and, of course, the rest of the battle group from the air, the
F-14s and F-18s using live ordnance.
In fact, on March 12, we had an accident where we lost six
people, five of whom were Americans. The accident report makes
it very clear that we did not get adequate live ordnance
training.
We need to get back to that, but in the event that it does
not happen, we are going to go forward and do the best we can
with the referendum in November. If for some reason that does
not come out the way it should come out, we would have to start
constructing and spending quite a bit of money to try to
replicate this training as near as possible.
Mr. Aviles, primarily you are going to be faced with some
alternatives. How are you going to fund that?
There are some, perhaps, opportunities out there. I think
you know that we rebate back to Puerto Rico about $300 million
a year on rum tax. Primarily a lot of these benefits that are
to the advantage of Puerto Rico, do so because we have been
able to use that range. We own it, of course, but we are using
it.
Do you think that maybe that would be a place where you
could look for another $300 million a year that might help
offset the loss of Vieques?
Mr. Aviles. Senator, I just would like to say that I am
somewhat out of my element speaking with respect to Vieques
policy. Having worked as a staffer on the House Armed Services
Committee, I am well aware of the efforts that went into the
legislation that was put forward and became law last year.
I guess my concern is I really am in deep water if you are
looking for me to comment on tax cut policy. That is something
that is completely outside my experience.
Senator Inhofe. It may not be completely outside if the
time should come, and the Navy were to lose that referendum,
you would be looking for places and opportunities.
So we will be in a position to talk about that later, but I
think there are some areas where we can look. Hopefully we will
not be faced with that and we will get back to our live range
as it has been over the last 50 years.
Mr. Aviles. Yes, sir.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your
tolerance, sir.
Chairman Levin. Thank you.
Dr. Cambone, back to the different aspects of missile
defense and whether or not there ought to be demonstrated
effectiveness before they are deployed.
This was the prehearing policy question that you were
asked: ``Would you recommend acquiring or deploying a weapons
system, including a missile defense system, that is not
operationally effective?''
Here was your response: ``No. Defenses that are
substantially less than 100 percent effective, however, can be
essential to deterring threats and defending against attacks.
We should not face an all-or-nothing choice in missile defense
anymore than we do regarding other defense programs.''
I understand that weapons systems cannot be 100 percent
effective all of the time, but ``substantially'' is the word
you used, ``less than 100 percent effective.'' It sounds to me
like a standard that is designed for failure. If an airplane is
80 percent likely to fly, we do not buy it, do not deploy it.
For a national missile defense system that is currently
under development, the operational requirement is that the
system stop every incoming warhead from a limited attack with a
high degree of confidence. That is the operational requirement,
is it not?
Dr. Cambone. I believe it is, sir, yes.
Chairman Levin. Are you proposing to change that?
Dr. Cambone. I suspect that it is setting a standard for
capability which is going to be such that the cost and time it
takes to reach that objective will inhibit us from bringing
online capabilities that could be effective in combination with
other capabilities in the meanwhile.
Rather than constantly waiting for the system that gets to
near perfection, there is an advantage to us in having systems
which are confident and capable and militarily useful, both as
a way of defending against existing threats and as a way of
deterring and dissuading others from proceeding with their own
offensive missile programs.
Chairman Levin. That operational requirement was set by the
Ballistic Missile Defense Office in the uniformed military, was
it not?
Dr. Cambone. I believe, actually, sir, it came through the
military channels, through the CINC and through the ordinary
process.
Chairman Levin. Right.
Dr. Cambone. Yes, sir.
Chairman Levin. But are you proposing to override then the
CINC's recommendations?
Dr. Cambone. Sir, I, personally, no, sir.
Chairman Levin. Are you going to propose to the Secretary
that he----
Dr. Cambone. There has, in fact, been discussion amongst
the members of the Joint Chiefs and with the CINCs about how we
might think about that requirement in terms of what is
militarily useful in a system as they are being developed.
Chairman Levin. Would you supply for the record those
conversations and discussions?
Dr. Cambone. I cannot do that, sir, for----
Chairman Levin. That you are familiar with.
Dr. Cambone. I am familiar with them, but I cannot give
them to you. There is not a record in that sense. It was a
discussion amongst them around the table, sir.
Chairman Levin. You say you cannot do it?
Dr. Cambone. I do not have a written record of it.
Chairman Levin. No. Just your recollection of it for the
record.
Dr. Cambone. Sure. I would be happy to.
[The information follows:]
For a complete response to the above, please refer to my Question
for the Record No. 1.
Chairman Levin. Thank you.
Relative to your answer on Taiwan, you stated that, if
confirmed, you would monitor carefully the situation in the
region and take very seriously our obligation to assist Taiwan
in maintaining a self-defense capability. Such assistance
includes not only making available defense hardware, but also
maintaining contacts with the Taiwan defense establishment
across a broad range of activities.
Dr. Cambone. Yes, sir.
Chairman Levin. My question relates to the part of your
statement about maintaining contacts with the Taiwan defense
establishment across a broad range of activities. Is that meant
to signal a change of policy vis-a-vis Taiwan?
Dr. Cambone. No, sir, it's not.
Chairman Levin. Now, Mr. Young and Mr. Aviles, we will let
Dr. Cambone take a rest here for a minute.
We received a report recently from the Navy regarding the
potential benefits and risks associated with the use of
advanced appropriations for the acquisition of ships. The
report indicates that the advanced appropriations would enable
the Navy to ``increase the number of ship starts in the near
term.'' Over time, the report says, advance appropriations
would result in a ``loss of flexibility.''
According to the report, higher levels of funding will be
required to sustain the building rate, and failure to sustain
these funding levels will cause disruption to ships already in
construction, which will lead to increased costs and the
inability to put new ships under contract.
My question is this: Are you concerned that if we relied
upon advanced appropriations that the Navy might bet on
increased funding in future years and then risk significant
disruption to its ship-building program if such funding does
not appear?
First, Mr. Young.
Mr. Young. Mr. Chairman, as you have highlighted, advanced
appropriations is one potential mechanism to try to increase
the rate of ship building. My experience on the Appropriations
Committee says we have to be cautious about changing full
funding policies. The Secretary has articulated a plan to
submit budgets that fully fund the Department annually.
If there are advantages to that mechanism, I want to go to
the building, if confirmed, and try to understand those and
work with you further on them. But certainly, the hope would be
to have a fully funded budget in the current year and future
years.
Chairman Levin. OK. Mr. Aviles?
Mr. Aviles. Mr. Chairman, in any financing mechanism that
is other than full funding that relies on the availability of
out-year appropriations to complete an individual ship hull,
there is going to be some uncertainty associated with those
out-year appropriations. This is the nature of the way that we
fund the Defense Department.
Having said that, if confirmed, I would want to take a hard
look at any of the alternative arrangements.
Clearly, this is one way to get more ships under
construction as stated in the report, but as you noted, there
is some risk or uncertainty associated with what that means or
portends for the out-years.
If you want to maintain a higher ship building rate, you
have to spend more money on ship building whether you do it
through an advanced appropriation mechanism or full funding
mechanism. Now, I think, as I said, if confirmed, I would need
to take a hard look at this and try to decide what provides the
best value for the Navy, the taxpayers and other stakeholders,
relevant committees of Congress, ship yards, everyone that is
involved in this process, to make sure everyone understands
both the benefits and the risks associated with it.
Chairman Levin. You used ``full funding'' in the same
breath as ``advanced appropriations.'' Is there not a greater
uncertainty with advanced appropriations than there is with
full funding?
Mr. Aviles. Absolutely, sir. There is risk associated with
full funding, as you are aware, Senator, because of problems
with prior year programs, we have unfunded costs associated
with prior year programs, because of the inability to estimate
properly what the ship cost would be.
There are risks associated with full funding. There are
risks associated with advanced appropriations. The risk or
uncertainty with advanced appropriations is whether you would
have the commitment from the administration to budget for that
money in the out-years and whether Congress would support it.
Chairman Levin. But is not the uncertainty greater with the
advanced appropriations approach than with full funding?
Mr. Aviles. The question of uncertainty as to whether a
completely funded ship would be less risky because the
appropriations would be provided for it, I would have to say,
yes.
The uncertainty and the quality of the estimates of the
cost of that ship, I think, that is a risk under both
scenarios.
Chairman Levin. OK.
Mr. Montelongo, how do you think other military services
and the Navy would react if there is an over-commitment to the
ship building program in the form of advanced appropriations?
Then if the Navy had to look outside of its own budget to get
the funds necessary to meet day-to-day operating needs, how
would the other services, do you think, respond to that?
Mr. Montelongo. Mr. Chairman, that is an area that I, if
confirmed, want to better understand than I do at the moment.
But as I understand it, the Air Force has been a long proponent
of the full funding policy and has, in fact, complied with that
guidance.
But having said that, again if confirmed, I stand ready to
explore all possible procurement alternatives and also perhaps
look into this particular issue as to the impacts.
Chairman Levin. Senator Warner.
Senator Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Forgive me. I was
in debate on the floor on the 2001 supplemental. Some effort is
being made to get the 2001 up today and have all amendments
filed and debated this afternoon and tonight so we can get this
voted out before the House leaves town.
Chairman Levin. Good.
Senator Warner. There is an effort. I do not know what the
success may be.
Dr. Cambone, the subject of NATO expansion has been one
that I have followed and participated in for years here in the
Senate. I have the greatest respect for that extraordinary
coalition of nations and the wisdom that put this thing
together 50 years ago.
I have to tell you I see an unraveling of what I believe
the core values were that held it together these many years. I
was actively engaged in trying to restrict the expansion beyond
the one or two nations that occurred last time and to throw a
note of caution as we proceed to the future.
I want to let you know where I am coming from on it,
because I think the pact has served its purpose way beyond the
expectations of those who laid it down, and it can continue to
provide a rock of stability in the continent of Europe if it is
kept pretty much the way it is.
Nevertheless, it is one of the few times that I have some
concerns with my President, whom I respect so much, but during
his last swing through Europe he said as follows, ``For all of
Europe's new democracies, from the Baltic to the Black Sea and
all that lie between them'' with reference to some of the
thoughts he has on expansion.
Now, I will just make two observations. I think our highest
priority at the moment is to try and work out with Russia a new
framework agreement so that we can move forward with a strong
and new innovative architecture for the limited missile defense
program.
If the Baltics became the subject of expansion, then the
question is put to you and other policymakers in the
administration: How does that affect the ability to get ahead
with this, which I regard as the number one priority, the
limited missile defense, given Russia's strong feelings about
the Baltics?
I point out that although I have only been there twice in
my life, and it was some time ago, I am not prepared to say,
maybe you are, that they have a military component to their
overall national structure which would aid NATO in its
missions. I will leave to others that analysis, but I have not
seen it as yet.
So the certainty of this round of negotiations coming up to
expand is one that we should take into consideration very
carefully. There may be nations other than the Baltics, which
are not only deserving, but begin to strengthen NATO.
I do not know that you need to reply, but I just hope that
you would take into consideration the views of some of us that
we have to preserve NATO, to preserve its original goals. Yes,
the world has changed and the Cold War is terminated, but I
think we better use the rear view mirror to watch history that
unfolded.
When I came to the Senate with Senator Levin 23 years ago,
there were many calls to pull out from NATO: ``NATO has
finished its work. Let us pack up and go home.''
We have a defense budget, which you were present for this
morning when we listened to our distinguished Secretary talk
about the future and the need to reconstitute the basic
procurement structure that is needed to plan for our future.
Those are big dollars. I could match up dollars and NATO
expenditures with those, if necessary. Just a little comment
from a friendly voice here in the Senate.
To our distinguished members that came from the staffs of
our committees, the question of the aging of this cadre of
aircraft that we have in all of our services, the Secretary was
very good this morning in pointing out how it is becoming more
and more costly to our budget to maintain the existing old
aircraft fleets of all of our services, and how that
maintenance dollar is becoming so significant that it is
impeding the process to get the procurement dollars for the
newer aircraft.
I just want to hear both of you talk about that a little
bit. Are you aware of that situation? Do you have some
innovations that you can bring to the attention of our
Secretary, if confirmed, to help alleviate this problem?
Why do you not start first, Mr. Young?
Mr. Young. Senator, because of my work here, I am very
familiar with the aircraft procurement accounts. You, sir, I am
sure, and the committee are very aware that in the 1980s we
bought aircraft at very high rates. Those aircraft are by
definition now approaching 20 years old.
The current budget does not necessarily foresee buying
aircraft at comparable rates. I think the strategic review and
the QDR process will deal with the force structure issues.
But from those decisions, I look forward to, if confirmed,
trying to work with the Department to increase the aircraft
build rates if the force structure requirements support that,
and to work with industry and the Department to try to get the
costs of those aircraft under control.
Certainly, you are aware of the Joint Strike Fighter and
the promise it holds. It will require continued attention to
achieve those cost goals. It holds a lot of promise.
Senator Warner. In addition, we covered at length this
morning--the Secretary is right on target with his analysis on
ship building. He added one ship in his proposal coming up to
Congress, going from five to six.
But he pointed out that you need a minimum of nine to stop
this rapid decline in the numbers of ships, which will take us
well below 300 if we do not put in corrective steps. Are you
aware of that problem, also?
Mr. Young. Yes, sir. Senator Warner, it has been spoken of
frequently. As I mentioned earlier, the review process will set
the force structure, but regardless of that, I think the
Secretary has articulated his expectation that we will have to
have more ships than the current build rates support.
My experience in aircraft programs, I have to, if
confirmed, get out to the shipyards and look at these issues.
But I hope there are some opportunities to bring design tools
and other production practices to the shipyards so we can do a
better job of delivering ships in a timely manner and at a cost
that puts them on an affordable basis.
Senator Warner. You also heard about some of the
innovations with regard to how Congress should fund these
ships. Are you basically supportive of trying to explore those
innovations of--in other words, we used to call it advanced
procurement. We used another term this morning.
I have been associated with this issue for a very long
time. We put new names and new titles, but the whole concept is
to try and utilize such appropriations as are available for
that fiscal year to maximize the number of ships that we can
put into the construction process. Are you open to those
innovations?
Mr. Young. Yes, sir, Senator. We talked to the Chairman
briefly earlier. I think every acquisition strategy and
technique should be on the table to try to get an affordable
ship building program, where we know the costs and we can get
the build rate up on ships if at all possible.
Senator Warner. Good.
Mr. Young. We just have to make sure we have the resources
in the future to buy the ships. I think we both articulated
that we have to have a fully funded budget, where we would like
to put as many ships as the strategic review supports and the
shipyards can build into that budget.
Senator Warner. All right.
Mr. Aviles.
Mr. Aviles. Yes, Senator Warner, I would like to echo Mr.
Young's remarks. We had a discussion with Senator Levin before
you came back, on the subject of advanced appropriations. The
discussion chiefly centered around the uncertainty associated
with the advanced appropriations model, as I understand it,
with respect to the availability of that out-year funding, and
balance that against the uncertainty associated with a full
funding mechanism as we currently use primarily for ship
building; and the uncertainty there chiefly being in the
inability to accurately estimate what the true costs of the
vessel will be from when Congress actually provides the
appropriations until the construction is actually completed.
The point that I would make is that under any scenario,
there will be uncertainty associated with the true costs of the
ship. Under the advanced appropriation model, the goal there is
ostensibly to get more ships under construction at a given
period of time.
But the bottom line is if you are going to buy more ships,
it is going to cost more money no matter what financing
mechanism you use. That is going to take a commitment from the
administration and Congress to provide those, in addition to
trying to find ways, innovative ways through technology and,
or, industrial techniques to trying to reduce the cost of
production of those vessels.
Senator Warner. I thank you both.
Mr. Chairman, I will return to other questions when my time
becomes available again.
Chairman Levin. On the financial management issues, Mr.
Aviles and Mr. Montelongo, the financial management study,
which was commissioned by the Secretary as part of his
strategic review, concludes that the Department's current
financial management systems ``do not provide information that
could be characterized as relevant, reliable, and timely.''
Then that review said that the systems were unable to
provide reliable financial and managerial data for effective
decision making and management, because what has too often
happened is that convoluted practices are used to make
decisions in the absence of that information.
I assume that, if you are confirmed, you both would commit
yourselves to address the deficiencies in the financial
management systems of the respective departments. But I would
be interested as to whether you have any current ideas as to
how you would go about that.
Mr. Montelongo, do you want to start?
Mr. Montelongo. Mr. Chairman, you bring up a very important
issue and certainly one that I believe is a critical one that
is facing us in the Department overall. In fact, I think that
it is clearly an issue that is department-wide.
I very much look forward to working with my colleagues, my
counterparts across the services, and the OSD Comptroller to
support the Secretary of Defense and the Comptroller, to
implement consistent budgeting and financial management
practices.
One of the key components of that will be to address the
improving, if you will, and upgrading of the financial
management systems.
One of the areas that I am, if confirmed, very excited
about and looking forward to is, again, getting with my
colleagues to share best practices and adapting what we can to
address this particular issue.
One of the things that I think that we certainly need to do
is to look at this from an enterprise-wide perspective,
beginning with developing a system architecture for the
Department and then having the various services plug into that.
Chairman Levin. Thank you.
Mr. Aviles.
Mr. Aviles. Yes, Chairman Levin. I would like to, I guess,
echo Mr. Montelongo's remarks with respect to specific changes
that I would recommend for the Navy.
If I may, I would like to take that for the record. If
confirmed, I will certainly be heavily involved in the
development of alternatives to the status quo. But I do not
have any specific recommendations at this time.
Chairman Levin. OK, that is fine. Thank you.
[The information referred to follows:]
This is certainly an important issue of concern for the Department
of Defense. If confirmed, I look forward to working closely with the
Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and my counterparts in the
other military departments to look at an enterprise-wide financial
architecture. Integrating our financial management processes, where
appropriate, will be critical to providing the visibility and
accountability necessary for leaders of the Department of Defense to
make effective and timely decisions.
Chairman Levin. Mr. Young, relative to the V-22, the
Osprey, that program is at a critical juncture as a result of
two fatal crashes and allegations about the falsification of
maintenance data. A panel established to review the program has
recommended redesign and follow-on testing for the aircraft,
which would significantly delay that program.
At a recent hearing, we heard testimony that some critical
safety information arising out of flight testing of that
aircraft may not have been transmitted to the program manager.
Would you agree that the safety of the aircraft is a
paramount consideration and we should not move to low-rate
initial production until we can be confident of that safety?
Mr. Young. Senator, I could not agree with you more. Safety
of that aircraft and the safety of the marines that were flying
it is paramount.
Chairman Levin. Would you, if confirmed, review the
relationship between the Navy testers and the program
management and revise procedures as necessary to ensure that
critical safety information gets to the program manager?
Mr. Young. Absolutely, Senator. I would be happy to review
that and make sure there are processes in place to guarantee
that information is shared appropriately.
Chairman Levin. Thank you.
Mr. Brown.
Mr. Brown. Yes, sir.
Chairman Levin. A recent report by an Army training and
leadership development panel reported that Army culture is out
of balance. These are their words now: ``There is friction
between Army beliefs and practices. Over time that friction
threatens readiness. Training is not done to standard.
Leadership development and operational assignments are limited
and do not meet officer expectations. Officers and their
families elect to leave the service early.''
Could you give us some ideas as to how you might address
some of those concerns that have been raised about Army
leadership and Army culture?
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Senator. This is, indeed, a very
important question. The Army has recently completed an
extensive review of this subject and has come up with an
extensive program of recommendations as to how to address it.
It is in the process of evaluating exactly which of these
should be given the highest priority in terms of being
addressed. But my understanding is the leadership is very much
seized with this problem of officer retention and is forthright
in its commitment to address it.
Chairman Levin. On a different subject, the Department
considers the biological agent anthrax the most serious
biological weapon threat to our military forces. The anthrax
vaccine immunization program was initiated to address the
threat, but a number of service members have refused to take
the vaccine, although ordered to do so.
How do you believe the Department should respond to service
members who refuse to take a vaccine when required to do so?
Mr. Brown. This too is a very important topic, Mr.
Chairman. I believe that the Army must uphold its good order
and discipline and apply applicable regulations in this matter.
Certainly, the Army has taken measures to educate these
people and try to bring about voluntary compliance. If
voluntary compliance fails, then it has to resort to existing
procedures for dealing with this.
Chairman Levin. OK.
Senator Warner.
Senator Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Montelongo, in your capacity as the financial manager
for the Department of the Air Force, you will probably be
tasked in part to look over the current infrastructure, base
structure to advise your Secretary with regard to the possible
future of another round of BRAC. Have you studied that subject
at all, base closures?
Mr. Montelongo. No, sir, I have not studied it in any
detail, but certainly that is an area we had previously talked
about.
Senator Warner. Good. I personally think, and I think the
Chairman is of the same view, that we, the United States,
should look at that and consider possible base closure in the
near future.
But the key to the success of it is showing where there
will be a savings. Those types of projections in part fall
within your purview. If I may respectfully suggest that you
early on get up to speed on these subjects, because you will
want to advise your Secretary and be a part of the team that
addresses that issue for your department and, indeed, in the
Department as a whole.
Mr. Montelongo. Yes, sir. Indeed, I believe the Secretary,
and in fact, I believe all the service secretaries have
mentioned that they are concerned about excess capacity and
doing what is prudent to rationalize that. I certainly will
take your counsel.
Senator Warner. Good. Well, then you will enjoy your work,
and I hope that you meet with some regularity with your
counterparts in the other two military departments, so you can
share the experiences that each of you are having.
There are, and there should be, certain individualities to
the departments. But in the area of financial management, to
the extent to which you all can have some parallelism, I think
it makes it easier for those of us here in Congress in our
oversight responsibility to monitor the areas for which you
have responsibility.
Mr. Montelongo. Yes, sir. If confirmed, I am very much
looking forward to that.
Senator Warner. Good. Thank you. Again, thank you for your
public service.
Mr. Brown, when we had an opportunity to visit here in my
office, I stressed with you the importance of overseeing the
procedure by which officers are promoted, and as well as the
senior enlisted, because therein is the core of the military
services.
It has been my experience that all they ask for is fairness
and to have uniformity; in other words, that each are treated,
depending on their background and accomplishments and so forth,
but there is clear understanding to guide them through their
career patterns, hopefully 20 years plus.
What are the criteria by which the President and those
beneath him pick officers for promotions? That procedure has to
be sacrosanct. It has to be fair, and no real or perceived
perception that there is anything other than fairness to every
officer and senior enlisted. Do you understand that, do you
not?
Mr. Brown. Yes, Senator, and I could not agree with you
more.
Senator Warner. You basically agree. Our committee, the
Chairman and I, these many years we have been together, we
carefully look at the recommendations by the President,
forwarded by the service secretaries for promotion. There are
times when we have to give the closest examination to
individual persons, because in the course of their career, they
have been involved in incidents which bear upon our decision
making as to whether or not we give it advise and consent
favorable or withhold it for individuals. It is not an easy
task.
Just this morning I dealt with one--or last night. I do not
know. We work around the clock here. But we have to look at
those cases.
So first, I want your commitment that you will provide
Congress with information relating to those individuals where
that information could be viewed as adverse to their promotion.
Even though it is a decision of the service secretary to
include them on the list for promotion that comes to Congress,
we must make our own separate and independent evaluation.
Now, do you commit to do that?
Mr. Brown. Yes, Senator. I have an advisory role in this
with regards to the Secretary, but I can assure you I will do
all in my power to make sure that you get the information you
need.
Senator Warner. I would hope that Secretary Abell, who was
on our staff for many years in the Armed Services Committee, a
highly respected individual now in office over there, would
early on bring together persons in your position, if confirmed,
and I expect you will be, and get a uniformity among the
military departments on how to keep Congress informed in a
timely fashion.
There is someone in the audience who can communicate with
him very quickly on that subject. [Laughter.]
Mr. Brown. Yes, Senator.
Senator Warner. Dr. Cambone, I hope the others here today
recognize that this is an opportunity for us to discuss policy
issues relating to the security interests of this nation abroad
as we have one here who is eminently qualified to take on his
position and who will be very integral, not only within the
Department of Defense, but with his colleagues and associates
and potentially the State Department, but other departments and
agencies, CIA, but this committee follows very closely the
policy decisions by administrations on various sections of the
world.
I come to the subject of North Korea. I frankly think that
former Secretary of Defense Perry, who came before this
committee on the issue of his work on behalf of the previous
administration towards the framework in North Korea, did a
wonderful job. I hope you will familiarize yourself with his
work, as you undertake yours.
I believe now our administration is going to take steps to
build on that framework. Am I not correct in that, Doctor?
Dr. Cambone. Yes, sir.
Senator Warner. Also, China/Taiwan is always an issue that
is just beneath the surface and can flare up for various
reasons.
We want to enforce the law of our land, this committee
does, with respect to issues as they may arise on that theater
of operations, but I urge that you spend time regularly on this
subject and to hear out both sides as issues arise with regard
to that sensitive part of the world.
Dr. Cambone. Yes, sir.
Senator Warner. We certainly do not want to see open
conflict.
Dr. Cambone. No, sir.
Senator Warner. We must take every step. I have urged those
both in China and Taiwan to use carefully selected, but
cautious, rhetoric, because sometimes rhetoric can trigger
situations.
I think the package that the President has set up for the
additional arms to--we have an obligation under the law of our
land to help Taiwan maintain sufficient arms by which they can
protect their freedom and democracy.
Dr. Cambone. Yes, sir.
Senator Warner. Likewise India/Pakistan, almost like a
volcano, it is quiet and then it will flare up. Therein are
weapons possessed by both that can spread any conflict way
beyond the geographic boundaries of those countries.
Likewise, we see Indonesia, a very sensitive situation in
Indonesia right now. We have to monitor that. I think the
administration has recently decided to restore some military-
to-military contact with Indonesia.
There is always risk associated with that. But I think
history has shown through the years that our Nation is reaching
out to young officers who some day become heads of state and
government, reaching out so that they can learn and understand
the fundamentals of democracy that is in our Nation, even
though it is not practiced in their homelands.
Human rights, how we treat that subject here in our Nation
gives them some incentive, I think, to go back to their
respective nations and work to achieve many of the things that
we have in this country and all too often take for granted.
I wonder if you have any comment on any of those four
regions that you wish to put in today's record.
Dr. Cambone. It is quite a list, sir. I would first like to
say that I am grateful for your wise counsel on this. All four
of those regions are, as you suggest, subject to eruptions
sometimes unpredictably.
As you well know, the administration has decided to build
on the work on North Korea.
The China/Taiwan issue, as you say, is one that is volatile
and can be affected by the way in which we talk about it.
Therefore, if confirmed, I will take your sound advice on being
very careful on how one speaks to that.
India and Pakistan continue to evolve and will continue to
evolve in ways that we need to be careful to monitor and not to
unconsciously and inadvertently incite one side or the other to
do things.
Your words on the training of foreign officers, whether it
be Indonesia or any other country, are well placed.
During my time at the National Defense University, I ran
into many a chief of staff for foreign countries who had had
the opportunity to train in one fashion or another with the
United States troops and to, in fact, be educated here in the
United States.
That is a very valuable part of our outreach programs and
of our military-to-military contacts, and something that we
need to continue with, with some vigor.
Senator Warner. I thank you very much, Dr. Cambone.
Chairman Levin. Dr. Cambone, I believe you were the Staff
Director of the Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile
Threat to the United States.
Dr. Cambone. I was, sir.
Chairman Levin. Now, did that commission make any
recommendation relative to deployment of a ballistic missile
defense?
Dr. Cambone. No, sir, it did not.
Chairman Levin. Just one other last question for Mr. Brown.
We just received a report from the Inspector General of the DOD
concluding that the Army has not yet fully incorporated the
Gulf War nuclear, biological, and chemical lessons learned,
which were identified by the Office of the Special Assistant
for Gulf War Illnesses, Medical Readiness, and Military
Deployments into its doctrine, training, organizational
structure, leadership development, material policies. So are
you familiar with that report?
Mr. Brown. No, Mr. Chairman, I am not familiar with the
report.
Chairman Levin. OK. Would you become familiar with it on
your confirmation and make the implementation of these lessons
learned a high priority for the Department?
Mr. Brown. If confirmed, I will definitely do that.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, all. I also want to thank your
families and particularly, if I can single out your children.
They have been absolutely wonderful observers here, incredibly
patient. I wish I were as well behaved at their age, as they
are. They are real testaments to their parents.
We congratulate you all and, again, thank your families for
the support which they have given you.
We will stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:01 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[Prepared questions submitted to Dionel M. Aviles by
Chairman Levin prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
June 21, 2001.
Hon. Carl Levin,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Enclosed herewith are the answers to the advance
questions the Senate Armed Services Committee asked me to complete.
Sincerely,
Dionel M. Aviles.
cc: Senator John Warner,
Ranking Minority Member.
______
Questions and Responses
defense reforms
Question. More than 10 years have passed since the enactment of the
Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and
the Special Operations reforms.
Do you support full implementation of these defense reforms?
Answer. Yes. The establishment of the combatant commands, the
delineation of responsibilities, and most importantly, the focus on
joint service operations and integration outlined in the Department of
Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 has enhanced the readiness and
warfighting capabilities of the U.S. armed forces.
Question. What is your view of the extent to which these defense
reforms have been implemented?
Answer. I believe these reforms have been accepted and implemented.
They have clarified the responsibilities and authorities of the
Secretary of Defense, the Secretaries of the Military Departments, the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Service Chiefs and the
Combatant Commanders. As a result of these reforms, the effectiveness
of our joint warfighting forces has improved.
Question. What do you consider to be the most important aspects of
these defense reforms?
Answer. I consider the most significant value of these reforms to
be an improvement in joint warfighting capabilities. I believe our
military is now stronger and more effective because the our services
can work better together.
Question. The goals of Congress in enacting these defense reforms,
as reflected in section 3 of the Goldwater-Nichols Department of
Defense Reorganization Act, can be summarized as strengthening civilian
control; improving military advice; placing a clear responsibility on
the combatant commanders for the accomplishment of their missions;
ensuring the authority of the combatant commanders is commensurate with
their responsibility; increasing attention to the formulation of
strategy and to contingency planning; providing for more efficient use
of defense resources; and enhancing the effectiveness of military
operations and improving the management and administration of the
Department of Defense.
Do you agree with these goals?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Recently, there have been articles which indicate an
interest within the Department of Defense in modifying Goldwater-
Nichols in light of the changing environment and possible revisions to
the national strategy.
Do you anticipate that legislative proposals to amend Goldwater-
Nichols may be appropriate?
Answer. I am unaware of any current proposals to amend the
Goldwater-Nichols Act. If confirmed, I will work with the Secretary of
the Navy to determine the requirement for any legislative proposals.
Question. If so, what areas do you plan to address in these
proposals?
Answer. As I am unaware of any legislative proposals, it would be
premature to offer any thoughts on the question at this time.
duties
Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Financial Management)?
Answer. If confirmed, I will be responsible for advising the
Secretary of the Navy on financial management matters and for directing
and managing all financial activities and operations of the Department
of the Navy. I will also be responsible for supervising the Naval
Center for Cost Analysis, which performs independent cost analysis and
cost estimating functions for the Secretary of the Navy.
Question. What background and experience do you possess that you
believe qualifies you to perform these duties?
Answer. I believe my background makes me qualified to serve in the
capacity as Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Financial Management and
Comptroller). I have worked on many different aspects of defense
programs and have gained a thorough understanding of the Department of
Defense, executive branch and congressional budget process. Having
served as a budget examiner in the Office of Management and Budget and
as a Professional Staff Member on the House Armed Services Committee, I
believe that, if confirmed, I would bring a solid foundation from which
to advise effectively the Secretary of the Navy on financial management
matters.
Question. Do you believe that there are actions you need to take to
enhance your ability to perform the duties of the Assistant Secretary
of the Navy (Financial Management)?
Answer. While I have relevant experience relevant to the position,
education is a life long and continuing process. If confirmed, I will
continue to learn as much about the position and the issues and
challenges facing the Department of the Navy so that, if confirmed, I
will be better able to carry out the duties more about the Department
and the duties of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Financial
Management and Comptroller).
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what duties and functions do
you expect that Secretary England would prescribe for you?
Answer. If confirmed, I will be responsible to Secretary England
for overall financial management issues and Department of the Navy
resources. I will also be charged with carrying out the
responsibilities pursuant to 10 U.S.C. Sec. 5025.
Question. In carrying out your duties, how will you work with the
Secretary of the Navy; the Under Secretary of the Navy; the Under
Secretary of Defense (Comptroller); and the Assistant Secretaries of
the Army and the Air Force for Financial Management?
Answer. If confirmed as the Assistant Secretary of the Navy
(Financial Management and Comptroller), I will be the principal
assistant and advisor to the Secretary of the Navy on fiscal and
budgetary matters. The Assistant Secretary (Financial Management and
Comptroller) also performs such other duties as the Secretary may
prescribe.
If confirmed as the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Financial
Management and Comptroller), I will be the principal assistant and
advisor to the Under Secretary of the Navy on fiscal and budgetary
matters. The Assistant Secretary (Financial Management and Comptroller)
also performs such other duties as the Under Secretary may prescribe.
In the role of Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Financial
Management and Comptroller), I will, if confirmed, work closely with
the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) in the development and
execution of the budgetary and fiscal policies and initiatives of the
President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of the Navy.
If confirmed, I will work closely with the Assistant Secretaries of
the Army and Air Force for Financial Management and Comptroller to
support the efforts of the Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary
of Defense (Comptroller) to develop a productive working relationship
and implement consistent budgeting and financial management policies as
appropriate.
civilian and military roles in the navy budget process
Question. What will the division of responsibilities be between the
Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Financial Management) and the senior
military officer responsible for budget matters in the Navy's Financial
Management office (the Director of the Office of Budget and Fiscal
Management) in making program and budget decisions including the
preparation of the Navy Program Objective Memorandum, the annual budget
submission, and the Future Years Defense Program?
Answer. If confirmed as the Assistant Secretary of the Navy
(Financial Management and Comptroller), I will have the responsibility
and the authority for all budget matters within the Department of the
Navy. The Naval officer who serves as the Director of the Office of
Budget will serve under my direct supervision and will be responsible
to me for the formulation, justification, and execution of the Navy
budget.
major challenges and problems
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will
confront the next Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Financial
Management)?
Answer. I am not completely aware of all the challenges that will
face the next Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Financial Management and
Comptroller), but I believe that providing adequate resources for the
Navy's warfighting priorities and ensuring the availability of
accurate, reliable and timely financial management information will be
significant challenges. If confirmed, I will evaluate these challenges
and attempt to address them.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Under Secretary
of Defense (Comptroller), the Secretary of the Navy, the Chief of Naval
Operations and the Commandant of the Marine Corps to ensure that
sufficient resources are allocated for warfighting priorities and
efforts to ensure the availability of useful financial management
information are undertaken.
Question. What do you consider to be the most serious problems in
the performance of the functions of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy
(Financial Management)?
Answer. I believe the availability of accurate, reliable and timely
financial information is perhaps the most serious issue today in the
performance of the duties of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy
(Financial Management and Comptroller). I am concerned that financial
management systems may not consistently provide needed information.
Question. What management actions and time-lines would you
establish to address these problems?
Answer. If confirmed, I will study this issue and then develop
actions and time-lines, as appropriate.
priorities
Question. What broad priorities will you establish in terms of
issues which must be addressed by the Assistant Secretary of the Navy
(Financial Management)?
Answer. If confirmed, my broad priorities will include improving
the quality of financial management information for both budget
formulation, budget execution and day-to-day decision making. Another
priority will be modernization of financial management systems and
processes to ensure that accurate information is available in a timely
manner.
advance billing
Question. In recent years the Navy has had to resort to advance
billing of customers for industrially funded work in order to keep cash
in its working capital funds above minimum levels more frequently and
extensively than the other military departments.
What are your views on the practice of advance billing and what is
your assessment of the Navy's ability to manage the cash balance of its
working capital fund?
Answer. Generally, working capital funds are designed to ensure
sufficient funds are available to cover the cost of operations. The
practice of advance billing, the billing of customers in advance of the
provision of goods or services, should only be used under exceptional
circumstances. If confirmed, I will review current processes and the
Department of the Navy's ability to manage the cash balances of the
working capital fund.
budgeting for flying hour costs
Question. In recent years both the Navy and the Air Force budgets
have consistently underestimated the cost of carrying out their planned
training for aviation units, that is, their flying hour costs. The most
frequently cited reasons for this are the increasing hourly cost to
operate older aircraft and a budget process that does not adequately
project and budget for likely cost increases above the most recent data
on actual costs incurred.
What are your views on the reasons for the consistent underfunding
of flying hour costs and the steps that should be taken to correct it?
Answer. I do not have adequate experience to comment on reasons for
underfunding of flying hour costs. If confirmed, it will be my
intention to work with appropriate Department of the Navy staff to
ensure readiness requirements are adequately identified.
navy-marine corps intranet
Question. Last year Congress became concerned that the Navy was
embarking on a major acquisition program, the Navy-Marine Corps
Intranet (NMCI), for which no funds were identified in the budget and
with no adequate process in place to identify to Congress how funds
appropriated for other programs would be used to fund this program.
If confirmed, will you ensure that the future Navy budgets identify
the funding needed for this program?
Answer. If confirmed, it will be my intention to ensure visibility
of the funding for this program in the Department's budget.
financial management and accountability
Question. DOD's financial management deficiencies have been the
subject of many audit reports over the past 10 or more years. Despite
numerous strategies and initiatives the Department and its components
are undertaking to correct these deficiencies, financial data continues
to be unreliable.
What do you consider to be the top financial management issues to
be addressed by the Department of the Navy over the next 5 years?
Answer. I believe one of the top financial management issues of the
Department of the Navy, or indeed any of the services, is the need for
consistent, accurate, and timely financial information for decision
makers. To provide accurate information, the Department of the Navy
must have financial management systems that are both capable of
producing this information and are compliant with Federal standards and
controls. To support the timely delivery of this information, the
Department must have a reliable, technologically sound infrastructure
that links either transaction-level or aggregated information to the
decision maker. If confirmed, I will make this a goal.
Question. How do you plan to provide the needed leadership and
commitment necessary to ensure results and improve financial management
in the Department of the Navy?
Answer. If confirmed, I intend to make the improvement of financial
management in the Department of the Navy, particularly in terms of the
quality and timeliness of financial information, one of my highest
priorities. I intend to enlist the support of appropriate personnel to
accomplish this.
Question. What are the most important performance measurements you
would use to evaluate changes in the Department of the Navy's financial
operations to determine if its plans and initiatives are being
implemented as intended and its anticipated results are being achieved?
Answer. If confirmed, I will enlist the support of senior
Department of the Navy leadership to establish logical, useful, and
relevant performance measures. This effort would be designed to ensure
the necessary auditing conditions of completeness, existence, and
proper valuation are achieved--resulting in consistent, accurate, and
timely information for decision makers.
compliance with chief financial officers act
Question. The Chief Financial Officers Act requires the annual
preparation and audit of financial statements for Federal agencies.
However, the DOD Inspector General and GAO's financial audit results
have continually pointed out serious internal control weaknesses
concerning hundreds of billions of dollars of material and equipment,
as well as billions of dollars of errors in Department's financial
records.
In your view, is the Navy capable of meeting the requirements
imposed by the Chief Financial Officers Act? If not, please describe
the actions you think are necessary to bring the Navy into compliance
and the extent to which such actions are the responsibility of the
Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Financial Management) or other
officials in the Department of the Navy or the Department of Defense.
Answer. I understand the Department of the Navy is not currently
able to meet the requirements imposed by the Chief Financial Officers
Act. If confirmed, one of my top priorities will be to take necessary
actions to ensure that the Department of the Navy meets the
requirements of the Chief Financial Officers Act consistent with the
goals set forth by the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller). It
would be premature for me to comment on the actions necessary until I,
if confirmed, have an opportunity to assess fully the current
situation.
standardization within the department of defense
Question. Many of the financial management initiatives currently
underway within the Department of Defense are centrally controlled by
the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and most observers believe that
financial management practices should be standardized throughout the
Department of Defense to the maximum extent possible.
What role do you believe the military departments should have in
the decision-making process when DOD-wide financial management
decisions are made?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Under Secretary
of Defense (Comptroller) and the Secretary of the Navy in the decision-
making process to ensure the Department of the Navy's perspective is
considered in the decision making process affecting financial
management issues.
Question. What are your views on standardizing financial management
systems (including hardware and software) and financial management
practices across the Department of Defense?
Answer. I fully support standardization where it makes sense to do
so. The vastness of the information technology infrastructure of the
Department of Defense and the Department of the Navy and the many
internally and externally driven initiatives being undertaken to
improve financial management may not lend themselves to a ``one size
fits all'' solution in all cases. What is important is for the
financial and feeder systems, as well as financial management practices
and processes, to provide desired information accurately and
consistently.
Question. Are there areas where you believe the Department of the
Navy needs to maintain unique financial management systems?
Answer. It would be premature for me to provide comment on any one
specific area within the Department of the Navy where unique systems
may be appropriate. However, as I mentioned above, a ``one size fits
all'' approach to standardization of systems and practices may not make
good business sense in some situations.
responsibility for accuracy of financial data
Question. When the Department of Defense, through the Under
Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) or the Defense Finance and
Accounting Service, prepares financial or budget information for
submission to the Office of Management and Budget or Congress, who will
be responsible for the accuracy of such information concerning the
Navy?
Answer. If confirmed, I will be responsible for the accuracy of the
Department of the Navy's finance, budget and accounting information
provided to the Department of Defense and the Office of Management and
Budget.
Question. Who will be responsible for ensuring that the financial
management and accounting systems of the Department of the Navy have
the interfaces and internal controls needed to produce timely and
accurate financial information?
Answer. If confirmed, it will be my responsibility to ensure that
the financial management and accounting systems of the Department of
the Navy have the interfaces and internal controls needed to produce
timely and accurate financial information.
financial management training
Question. In response to the Defense Acquisition Workforce
Improvement Act of 1991, DOD has taken action directed at improving the
professionalism of its acquisition workforce. This was brought about as
a result of the need to better ensure that DOD's acquisition workforce
was well-versed in the rapidly changing technical skills needed to keep
abreast of acquisition trends. A key part of the effort to upgrade the
professionalism (technical currency) of DOD's acquisition workforce was
the requirement that each acquisition official receive a minimum of 80
hours of continuous learning every 2 years. While DOD has stated that
this should be a goal for financial management personnel, it has not
made it a requirement because of uncertainties over whether necessary
funding would be available.
What are your views on the merits of establishing a requirement
that all Navy financial management personnel receive a minimum of 80
hours of continuous learning every 2 years?
Answer. The field of financial management requires a high level of
technical proficiency and currency. If confirmed, I will encourage
Department of the Navy financial management professionals to pursue on-
going training opportunities through available certification programs
and other professional training programs.
Question. If confirmed, what actions would you take to ensure that
the Navy's financial management personnel keep abreast of emerging
technologies and developments in financial management?
Answer. If confirmed, I intend to work with the Under Secretary of
Defense (Comptroller) and the Secretary of the Navy to ensure that the
Department of the Navy's financial management workforce is adequately
trained. I will encourage Department of the Navy financial management
personnel to take advantage of career planning and the existing
financial management professional development opportunities.
ppbs
Question. Recently, a commission, which included a number of former
Defense officials and former Comptroller General Bowsher, asserted that
the Department's Planning, Programming, and Budgeting System (PPBS) is
no longer functioning effectively.
What are your views on the PPBS process? Are there any changes that
you would recommend?
Answer. I believe that the planning, programming, and budgeting
process must facilitate top-level decision making efforts and address
major resource issues. If confirmed, I will work with the Under
Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and the Secretary of the Navy to
evaluate the sufficiency of the current system and make recommendations
for improvement if warranted. I do not currently have any changes which
I would recommend.
government performance and results act (gpra)
Question. If confirmed as Assistant Secretary of the Navy
(Financial Management and Comptroller), what would your
responsibilities be with respect to the requirements of the GPRA to set
specific performance goals and measure progress toward meeting them?
Answer. Both the Secretary of the Navy and the Secretary of Defense
have made it clear that they want the Department to operate more like a
business and to do so requires the establishment of performance-based
measures and metrics. If confirmed, I will support this effort.
Question. What additional steps can the Navy take to fulfill the
goals of the GPRA to link budget inputs to measurable performance
outputs?
Answer. If confirmed, it will be my intent to support the
development of meaningful performance metrics and integrate them into
the budgeting and decision making process.
incremental funding
Question. In your view, what are the likely benefits or advantages
of incremental funding of naval vessels?
What are the likely costs or disadvantages of such funding?
How do you weigh these competing costs and benefits and what
approach do you believe the Navy should take toward incremental funding
of naval vessels?
Answer. The Secretary of Defense has testified before the Senate
Armed Services Committee that, he believes in his personal view, we are
probably not procuring enough ships for the Navy and we should be
procuring more ships. Careful consideration should be given to
innovative alternate methods of financing shipbuilding, such as
incremental funding, while seeking to ensuring the Navy gets the best
value for each investment dollar spent. If confirmed, I will evaluate
the potential advantages and disadvantages of investment financing
proposals and make appropriate recommendations to the Secretary of the
Navy. I look forward to working with the committee on this matter.
advance appropriations
Question. If such an approach were to be available in the future,
what criteria should the Navy use in seeking advance appropriations for
a program?
What do you believe would be the strengths and weaknesses of
funding ships using advance appropriations?
Have you seen any objective analysis of alternative shipbuilding
funding mechanisms that demonstrate that advance appropriations would
result in lowering unit costs of ships and/or be preferable to using
multi-year procurement or any other approach?
Answer. The Secretary of Defense has stated that he believes we
should be procuring more ships. Careful consideration should be given
to innovative methods of financing shipbuilding while seeking to get
the best value for the money. I look forward to working with the
committee on this matter. The Secretary of Defense has testified before
the Senate Armed Services Committee that, in his personal view, we are
probably not procuring enough ships for the Navy. Careful consideration
should be given to alternate methods of financing shipbuilding, such as
advance appropriations, while ensuring the Navy gets the best value for
each investment dollar spent. If confirmed, I will evaluate the
potential advantages and disadvantages of investment financing
proposals and make appropriate recommendations to the Secretary of the
Navy.
savings from competition
Question. The Navy and other military departments have
substantially increased the number of public-private competitions in
recent years in order to achieve greater efficiency and effectiveness
while reducing costs. Studies have shown that the military departments
save money regardless of which side wins the competition.
Do you believe that decisions on whether to outsource work
currently performed by government civilians should be made through
public-private competition?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the Department of Defense
and the Department of the Navy staff to evaluate the effectiveness of
public-private competitions.
Question. What steps should the Navy undertake to measure the
actual savings achieved after such competitions?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review the metrics currently in place
to measure savings achieved from competition and determine what could
be done to improve visibility of these savings.
Question. What are your views on the practice of including
``funding wedges'' in the budget that anticipate savings from public-
private competition or other efficiencies prior to those savings
actually being achieved?
Answer. Outyear ``funding wedges'' in a budget are estimates that
represent current policy assumptions. If confirmed, I will evaluate the
use of such ``funding wedges'' in the budget.
working capital funds
Question. Are there any changes you would recommend to the policies
governing working capital funds in the Department of the Navy?
Answer. If confirmed, it would be my intention to carefully review
the policies associated with the working capital fund and determine
what, if any, changes would be desired.
Question. Do you believe the scope of activities funded through the
working capital funds should be increased or decreased?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review the scope of activities funded
through the working capital fund.
Question. The Navy has established a pilot program at the Pearl
Harbor Naval Shipyard. The primary purpose of this pilot program is to
increase efficiency by combining the military and civilian maintenance
workforces more closely. This pilot program also moved the shifted
funding for maintenance at this shipyard from the working capital fund
via direct appropriations.
What are your views on removing depot maintenance for some or all
of the public depots from the working capital funds?
Answer. It would be premature for me to comment on removing depot
maintenance for some, or all, of the public depots from the working
capital fund. If confirmed, I will review the appropriateness of
financing methods for various activities.
oversight of special access programs
Question. As the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Financial
Management), will you be responsible for the financial management of
special access programs in the Navy?
Answer. If confirmed, yes. Yes. It is my understanding that the
Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Financial Management is responsible
for oversight of the financial management structure for Department of
the Navy special access programs.
Question. Are you satisfied with the oversight standards for the
financial management of special access programs? Are these standards as
stringent as those for other programs?
Answer. I am not fully aware of the oversight standards for special
access programs. If confirmed, I will review these standards and
examine this area.
Question. Does the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy
(Financial Management) have sufficient cleared personnel and authority
to review special access programs?
Answer. I am not aware of the status of cleared personnel. If
confirmed, I will review these requirements.
legislative liaison responsibility
Question. Under the current organization of the Navy, legislative
liaison functions affecting congressional appropriations committees are
performed by officers under the supervision and control of the Navy
Comptroller.
If confirmed, what would be your relationship with the Chief of
Legislative Affairs regarding budgetary and appropriations matters?
Answer. If confirmed, I would work closely with both the Chief of
Legislative Affairs, as well as the Head, Navy Appropriations Matters
Office on all matters germane to Congress.
Question. What requirements or procedures, if any, would you put
into place, if confirmed, to ensure that financial information is made
available on an equal basis to authorization committees?
Answer. If confirmed, it would be my intention to work with both
sides of the Department of the Navy legislative liaison organizations
to ensure financial management information is made available to the
appropriate congressional committees.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as the Assistant Secretary of the
Navy (Financial Management)?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings and
other communications of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Strom Thurmond
1. Senator Thurmond. As you may be aware, my colleague, Senator
Byrd, has been very critical of the Department's financial management
system. I am in full agreement with his assessment and hope that you
and your counterparts will bring a new perspective on how to fix the
system.
Since you have had exposure to the financial management system
during your tenure on the House Armed Services Committee, do you have
any specific recommendations for improving the current financial
management system?
Mr. Aviles. I am aware of the criticism. This is an area that the
Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Navy have listed as a top
management priority, but the issue is more related to how the total
enterprise is managed, rather than just the financial management
system.
Reengineering and integrating our business processes, where
appropriate, will be critical to providing the visibility and
accountability necessary to achieve the goal of clean, auditable
financial statements.
As the Secretary of the Navy's principal advisor on financial
matters, if confirmed, I will work closely with the Under Secretary of
Defense (Comptroller) and my counterparts in the other Military
Departments to address these challenges.
2. Senator Thurmond. The Department of Defense has established 2010
as the goal to improve the quality of family housing. The principle
vehicle to achieve this goal is the housing privatization initiative,
which leverages private sector money to renovate and build military
family housing.
How do you evaluate the cost effectiveness of the privatization
program?
Mr. Aviles. I would measure the cost effectiveness using a total
life cycle cost comparison between the cost of government ownership, as
in a traditional family housing project, and any privatization
proposal. In making such a comparison I would also try to take into
consideration less quantifiable factors such as likely customer
satisfaction.
______
[The nomination reference of Dionel M. Aviles follows:]
Nomination Reference
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
June 12, 2001.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Dionel M. Aviles of Maryland, to be Assistant Secretary of the
Navy, vice Deborah P. Christie, resigned.
______
[The biographical sketch of Dionel M. Aviles, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Dionel M. Aviles
Dionel Aviles is currently a Professional Staff Member on the House
Armed Services Committee for defense budget and financial management,
Navy procurement, and Merchant Marine issues.
Mr. Aviles was an Examiner at the Office of Management and Budget
from 1991 to 1995. Before that, he was an Engineer at the Naval Sea
Systems Command from 1990 to 1991. From 1988 to 1991 he was a Support
Engineer with Advanced Technology, Inc. He served in the U.S. Navy from
1983 to 1988 as a Surface Warfare Officer in various positions in both
the operations and weapons departments.
Mr. Aviles has earned a B.S. degree from the U.S. Naval Academy in
1983 and an M.B.A. from George Washington University in 1993.
______
[The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
form that details the biographical, financial, and other
information of the nominee. The form executed by Dionel M.
Aviles in connection with his nomination follows:]
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Room SR-228
Washington, DC 20510-6050
(202) 224-3871
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation
of your answer applies.
Part A--Biographical Information
Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.
1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
Dionel M. Aviles.
2. Position to which nominated:
Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Financial Management and
Comptroller).
3. Date of nomination:
June 12, 2001.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
5. Date and place of birth:
January 23, 1961, Bryan, Texas.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to the former Kimberly Lee Corbin.
7. Names and ages of children:
Thomas William Aviles (4 years old).
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
George Washington University, 1991 to 1993, Master of Business
Administration, December 1993.
University of Maryland, 1989 to 1990, no degree granted.
U.S. Naval Academy, 1979 to 1983, Bachelor of Science, Mechanical
Engineering, May 1983.
Texas A&M University, 1978 to 1979, no degree granted.
Satellite High School, Satellite Beach, Florida, 1975 to 1978, High
School Diploma.
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
Professional Staff Member, U.S. House of Representatives, Committee
on Armed Services, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515.
March 1995 to Present.
Budget Examiner, Executive Office of the President, Office of
Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. April 1991 to February
1995.
10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative,
honorary or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State,
or local governments, other than those listed above.
Engineer, Department of the Navy, Program Executive Officer for
Cruise Missiles and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, Naval Air Systems
Command, Arlington, VA 20361. January 1990 to April 1991.
Naval officer, U.S. Navy, 1983 to 1988, U.S. Naval Reserve, 1988 to
present.
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
None.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
U.S. Naval Academy Alumni Association (1983-present), 247 King
Street, Annapolis, MD 21402; (410) 263-4448. Life Member--no offices
held.
Our Lady of the Fields Catholic Church (1995-present), 1070 Cecil
Avenue, Millersville, MD 21108; (410) 923-3133. Parishoner--no offices
held.
Republican Party (1979-present), c/o Republican National Committee,
310 First Street, SE, Washington, DC 20003; (202) 863-8500. Member--no
offices held.
National Rifle Association (1993--present), 11250 Waples Mill Road,
Fairfax, VA 22030; (800) 672-3888. Life Member--no offices held.
Navy Federal Credit Union (1979-present), P.O. Box 3000,
Merrifield, VA 22119-3000; (703) 255-8760.
Anne Arundel Fish and Game Conservation Association (1993-present),
P.O. Box 150, Arnold, MD 21146; (410) 757-6800. Member--no offices
held.
United Services Automobile Association (1982-present), 9800
Fredericksburg Road San Antonio, TX 78288; (800) 531-8111. Member--no
offices held.
Society of American Military Engineers (1988-present), 607 Prince
Street Alexandria, VA 22314; (703) 549-3800. Member--no offices held.
Reserve Officers Association (1995-present), One Constitution
Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002; (202) 479-2200. Life member--no
offices held.
13. Political affiliations and activities:
(a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or
any public office for which you have been a candidate.
None.
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5
years.
Member of the Republican party. No offices held or services
rendered during the last 5 years.
(c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $100 or more for the past 5 years.
Bush for President Campaign (1999)--$1,000; Bush Gubernatorial
Reelection Campaign (1998)--$500.
14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals, and any other special
recognitions for outstanding service or achievements.
Navy Commendation Medal (2 awards).
Navy Achievement Medal (2 awards).
National Defense Service Medal.
Navy Expert Pistol Medal.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
None.
16. Speeches: Provide the committee with two copies of any formal
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have
copies of and are on topics relevant to the position for which you have
been nominated.
None.
17. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree,
if confirmed, to respond to requests to appear and testify before any
duly constituted committee of the Senate?
Yes.
______
[The nominee responded to the questions in Parts B-F of the
committee questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set
forth in the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to
Parts B-F are contained in the committee's executive files.]
------
Signature and Date
I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate,
and complete.
Dionel M. Aviles.
This 18th day of June, 2001.
[The nomination of Dionel M. Aviles was reported to the
Senate by Senator Warner on July 11, 2001, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on July 12, 2001.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to Reginald Jude Brown by
Chairman Levin prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
June 21, 2001.
Hon. Carl Levin,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Enclosed herewith are the answers to the advance
questions the Senate Armed Services Committee asked me to complete.
Sincerely,
Reginald J. Brown.
cc: Senator John Warner,
Ranking Minority Member.
______
Questions and Responses
defense reforms
Question. More than a decade has passed since the enactment of the
Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and
the Special Operations reforms.
Do you support full implementation of these defense reforms?
Answer. Yes.
Question. What is your view of the extent to which these defense
reforms have been implemented?
Answer. I believe these reforms have been fully implemented and
that they have greatly clarified the responsibilities and authorities
of the Secretary of Defense, the Secretaries of the Military
Departments, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs. The effectiveness of our joint warfighting forces, especially
with respect to communication, interoperability, training, and joint
operations, has improved as a result of these reforms.
Question. What do you consider to be the most important aspects of
these defense reforms?
Answer. In my view Goldwater-Nichols defense reforms initiated a
cultural change within the military services that reflected an emerging
understanding of the importance of joint training and joint operations
in defense preparedness and modern warfare. Key aspects of those
reforms include strengthening civilian control, and streamlining the
operational chain of command, improving efficiency in the use of
defense resources, improving the military advice provided to the
National Command Authorities, and joint officer management.
Question. The goals of Congress in enacting these defense reforms,
as reflected in section 3 of the Goldwater-Nichols Department of
Defense Reorganization Act, can be summarized as strengthening civilian
control; improving military advice; placing clear responsibility on the
combatant commanders for the accomplishment of their missions; ensuring
the authority of the combatant commanders is commensurate with their
responsibility; increasing attention to the formulation of strategy and
to contingency planning; providing for more efficient use of defense
resources; and enhancing the effectiveness of military operations and
improving the management and administration of the Department of
Defense.
Do you agree with these goals?
Answer. Yes, I support the goals of Congress in enacting the
reforms of the Goldwater-Nichols legislation.
Question. Recently, there have been articles which indicate an
interest within the Department of Defense in modifying Goldwater-
Nichols in light of the changing environment and possible revisions to
the national strategy.
Do you anticipate that legislative proposals to amend Goldwater-
Nichols may be appropriate? If so, what areas do you believe it might
be appropriate to address in these proposals?
Answer. I am unaware of any proposals to amend Goldwater-Nichols.
If confirmed, I will be in position to better understand and assess
whether such proposals would be warranted. The implementation of the
Goldwater-Nichols reforms has enhanced the ability of the services to
act quickly and jointly.
duties
Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs?
Answer. I understand that my principal duty, if confirmed, will be
the overall supervision of manpower and Reserve component affairs
within the Department of the Army.
Question. What background and experience do you possess that you
believe qualifies you to perform these duties?
Answer. I believe that my military background and diverse
experience in the private sector have prepared me to meet the
challenges of this office. After graduating from West Point, I served
for over 10 years as a regular Army officer, including tours of duty in
Vietnam and post-war Korea. In civilian life, I was the Associate
Director of the Defense Manpower Commission and Executive Director of
the President's Commission on Military Compensation. Service on these
Commissions has given me an excellent perspective on enduring manpower
issues relating to recruitment, retention, force structure, and
utilization. As Director of Administration in two private sector firms,
I have had responsibility for human resources programs in the private
sector. I believe that my diverse experience and knowledge of human
resources issues will enable me, if confirmed, to effectively discharge
the duties of this important position during this period of
transformation.
Question. Do you believe that there are actions you need to take to
enhance your ability to perform the duties of the Assistant Secretary
of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs?
Answer. I believe that I have the requisite experience, knowledge,
and leadership to serve in this position. If confirmed, I will
extensively study the vast array of issues that I would be responsible
for as the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve
Affairs.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what duties and functions do
you expect that Secretary White would prescribe for you?
Answer. If confirmed, I believe the Secretary of the Army will
prescribe specific duties for me that are consistent with my background
and experiences and that will support his efforts to ensure that the
Department of the Army successfully accomplishes the many demanding and
varied missions entrusted to it.
Question. In carrying out your duties, how do you expect to work
with the following: the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness; the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force Management
Policy; the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs; the
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs; the Army Deputy
Chief of Staff for Personnel; and the Chief, Army Reserve.
Answer. Acting on behalf of the Secretary of Defense, the Under
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness performs
responsibilities that require, from time to time, the issuance of
guidance to the military departments. If confirmed, I will communicate
openly and directly with the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel
and Readiness in articulating the views of the Department of the Army.
I will work closely with the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel
and Readiness to ensure that the Department of the Army is administered
in accordance with the guidance and direction issued by the Office of
the Secretary of Defense.
The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force Management Policy has
functional responsibilities that require, from time to time, the
issuance of force management guidance to the military departments. If
confirmed, I will establish a close, professional relationship with the
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force Management Policy and will
communicate openly and directly in articulating the views of the
Department of the Army and in ensuring that the Department of the Army
is administered in accordance with the guidance promulgated by the
Office of the Secretary of Defense.
The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs has
functional responsibilities that require, from time to time, the
issuance of Reserve component guidance to the military departments. If
confirmed, I will establish a close, professional relationship with the
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs and will communicate
openly and directly in articulating the views of the Department of the
Army and in ensuring that the Department of the Army is administered in
accordance with the guidance promulgated by the Office of the Secretary
of Defense.
The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs has
functional responsibilities that require, from time to time, the
issuance of health affairs guidance to the military departments. If
confirmed, I will establish a close, professional relationship with the
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs. I will communicate
openly and directly in articulating the views of the Department of the
Army and in ensuring that the Department of the Army is administered in
accordance with the guidance promulgated by the Office of the Secretary
of Defense.
The Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel formulates, manages,
evaluates, and executes military personnel plans and programs for the
Army for peacetime, contingency, and wartime operations. If confirmed,
I will establish a close, professional relationship with the Deputy
Chief of Staff for Personnel. I will communicate with him directly and
openly as he performs his prescribed duties. I would expect that the
Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel and I would work together as a team
on a daily basis.
The Chief, Army Reserve is the principal advisor to both the
Secretary of the Army and the Chief of Staff of the Army. The Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs is the Secretary
of the Army's designated Secretariat agent for dealing with Reserve
matters relating to the Department of the Army. If confirmed, I will
establish a close, professional relationship with the Chief, Army
Reserve. I will communicate with him directly and openly as he performs
his prescribed duties.
priorities
Question. What broad priorities will you establish in terms of
issues which must be addressed by the Assistant Secretary of the Army
for Manpower and Reserve Affairs?
Answer. The Department of the Army continues to face challenges
manning the force. If confirmed, that will be a top priority for me.
Training, quality of life, and Army integration will also be
priorities. I cannot emphasize enough that the Army's people will
always be my top priority.
major challenges and problems
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will
confront the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve
Affairs?
Answer. In my view, the fundamental challenge facing the Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs is to man the
force to meet the challenges of the 21st century and Army
transformation. I view recruiting and retaining the right men and women
as a major challenge in the Army's drive to maintain readiness. While
the Army continues to attract and retain high-quality recruits,
challenges are still there, not the least of which is a robust economy
with low unemployment. Similarly, retaining the right caliber of
soldier in the appropriate grades and skills is becoming increasingly
difficult, due, in part, to the increased frequency of deployments and
the availability of private-sector opportunities.
I believe a second major challenge is to ensure the well-being of
the entire Army team, including active, Reserve, Guard, retirees, and
veterans and the civilian workforce, and all family members. Ensuring
the well-being of the team contributes to the four key institutional
outcomes of performance, readiness, retention, and recruiting.
Finally, among the major challenges I would face, if confirmed, is
the need to foster and maintain an environment in which soldiers and
civilian employees, regardless of gender, have a work environment free
of discrimination and harassment, have assignments and advancement
systems that, while responsive to the needs of the Army, are based on
individual qualifications and performance, and have an equitable
opportunity to succeed.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, I will forthrightly address these issues to
ensure we are doing what we must. I will candidly assess our recruiting
and retention posture and do my best to ensure we are not bearing
unacceptable risk in these areas. I understand the importance of well-
being programs for all of our people (active, Guard, Reserve,
civilians, retirees, veterans, and families) and will work to initiate
or enhance programs of the type and quality most likely to support the
Army's recruiting and retention needs. I will work closely with the
entire Defense community to link all the legacy programs to the well-
being campaign plan. Legacy programs, such as Morale, Welfare and
Recreation, family programs, and other Quality-of-Life programs will be
integrated into the campaign. Finally, if confirmed, I will work to
ensure that all of our people are treated with respect and dignity.
Question. What do you consider the most serious problems in the
performance of the functions of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Manpower and Reserve Affairs?
Answer. In addition to recruiting and retention, which I have
discussed above, at this time, I consider continuing to improve the
state of relations between the active component and the Reserve
component as a primary goal. Over the past few years there has been
dramatic improvement in this area, but there is still much to do to
enhance active component/Reserve component integration.
Question. If confirmed, what management actions and time lines
would you establish to address these problems?
Answer. I cannot at this time, specify a timetable or specific
management action for addressing these matters. I know that, in each
case, there are already actions underway that are intended to address
these issues. It is my intention, if confirmed, to focus immediately on
these matters, to review those actions that are underway, and to join
with the other civilian leaders and with my counterparts in uniform to
resolve them to the best of my ability.
officer management issues
Question. We consider promotions to general officer ranks as
identifying military officers for very senior positions that should be
filled only by officers with the very highest moral and ethical values.
Do you believe the officer corps has confidence in the integrity of
the officer promotion system in the Army?
Answer. Yes. Although some will always question the end-product, I
believe that by and large the officer corps understands the rigor and
fairness of the promotion board process.
Question. What role would you, as ASA M&RA, expect to play in the
officer promotion system?
Answer. If confirmed, I see myself as the Army Secretariat official
principally responsible for developing and overseeing the
implementation of promotion policies that comply with the applicable
statutes, Department of Defense directives, and Army regulations, and
the principal adviser to the Secretary of the Army on these matters.
Question. What role would you, as Assistant Secretary of the Army
for Manpower and Reserve Affairs, expect to play in the general officer
management nomination process?
Answer. Again, if confirmed, I see myself in a policy making and
advisory role within Army Secretariat.
Question. If confirmed, what steps will you take to ensure that
only the most highly qualified officers are nominated for promotion to
general officer rank?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review the current system to ensure
that it is fair and advancing the most highly qualified officers. I
also intend to work closely with the Deputy Chief of Staff for
Personnel to ensure that we are implementing our system to meet these
goals. If confirmed, I will also advise the Secretary of the Army as
appropriate.
Question. A recent study by the Army Training and Leader
Development Panel concluded that the Army culture is out of balance and
that there is widespread dissatisfaction among junior officers.
Complaints about micro-management, diminished well-being, unbalanced
life, the officer evaluation system, not training to standards, among
others, raised serious questions about the morale of junior officers
and the efficacy of efforts to improve the attractiveness of continuing
service.
What are your views about the validity and implications of this
study?
Answer. Since the Army Training and Leader Development Panel
findings were based on over 13,000 survey responses, the validity of
the report must be respected. Currently, it is my understanding that
the Army has an Implementation Process Action Team reviewing the 84
recommendations included in the panel report. The team is determining
the implementation processes, as well as, the resourcing implications
of each recommendation. The implications of the study are fairly
straightforward. The senior leaders of the Army, civilian and military,
must do what is necessary to fulfill the commitments we make to our
young leaders. We must strive to provide them the requisite command
climate and operating environment that allows them to develop skills
within their chosen career fields, while providing a just opportunity
for advancement.
Question. If confirmed, how would you address the issues raised by
the panel?
Answer. The issues raised by the report are important. Some are
serious policy issues. Some are simply a matter of leaders practicing
effective leadership. If confirmed, I will address the policy issues at
the Secretariat level, in coordination with the Army Staff, to find the
correct implementation process.
protected communications
Question. Section 1034, Title 10, United States Code, prohibits
taking retaliatory personnel action against a member of the armed
forces as reprisal for making a protected communication. By definition,
protected communications include communications to certain individuals
and organizations outside of the chain of command. We continue to see a
lack of understanding in the senior military leadership of the policy
that it is appropriate and necessary to protect service members who
report misconduct to appropriate authorities outside of the chain of
command.
Do you support prohibiting retaliatory personnel actions for making
protected communications?
Answer. Yes.
Question. If confirmed, what actions will you take to ensure that
senior military leaders understand the need to protect service members
who report misconduct to appropriate authorities within or outside the
chain of command?
Answer. If confirmed, I will be vigilant in ensuring that military
members whose actions are protected by the act are not subject to
reprisals or retaliation. I also understand that the current Department
of the Army practice is to brief the requirements of the act to all
prospective commanding officers and executive officers. If confirmed, I
will ensure that emphasis on the act in the formal Army training
courses will continue.
operating tempo
Question. The services have been very concerned in recent years
about the impact of the pace of operations, or OPTEMPO, on the quality
of life of our people in uniform and specifically on their willingness
to reenlist.
If confirmed, what steps do you plan to take to address Army
OPTEMPO concerns?
Answer. I recognize the delicate balance between quality of life,
retention and meeting the operational requirements of the National
Command Authority. Though not completely familiar with all current
issues of OPTEMPO, I believe that the Service Chiefs should manage
personnel issues in regards to operational demands, in coordination
with the Service Secretaries, the Joint staff, the Combatant Commanders
and the Office of the Secretary of Defense. If confirmed, I will work
with the Secretary of the Army to address the issues associated with
OPTEMPO.
recruiting and retention
Question. Recruiting and retention in the Army have improved
significantly over the last year. Yet the Army continues to have
shortages in critical specialties.
What steps will you take, if confirmed, to assist in meeting the
Army's recruiting and retention goals?
Answer. I understand that the Army has made progress in the areas
of recruiting and retention in the past few years to include meeting
its end strength and recruiting goals for all three components last
year. If confirmed, I will focus on continuing the momentum of the
initiatives already begun and will look to introduce additional state-
of-the-art best business practices to ensure that we have the right
people in the right place at the right time.
Question. Recent emphasis regarding recruiting and retention has
been focused on the active component. The Reserve components are facing
even greater challenges in recruiting and retention.
What steps will you take, if confirmed, to assist the Reserve
components in achieving their recruiting and retention goals?
Answer. The Reserve components--National Guard and U.S. Army
Reserve--are an integral part of America's Army. I believe that active-
Reserve integration must include equity of emphasis across the
components and will work with the Chief, Army Reserve, and the
Director, National Guard Bureau, to best meet their recruiting and
retention needs along with the active component.
Question. In a recent hearing before the Personnel Subcommittee,
front line recruiters discussed impediments to their efforts, including
the inability to gain access to high schools and student directories.
Do you support recent legislation of the Fiscal Year 2001 National
Defense Authorization Act that aimed at alleviating this impediment?
Answer. I am supportive of section 563. If confirmed, I will ensure
that the Army implements this important legislation effectively and
that the whole Army--active and Reserve--shares in the effort in
coordination with the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
Question. If confirmed, what actions would you take to ensure that
in the year ahead effective notification about this provision of law is
provided to local educational agencies?
Answer. I believe that we must work congenially and cooperatively
with local educational agencies across the Nation to ensure their
understanding of the role of the military in maintaining national
security, its importance to communities and national defense, and the
opportunities for education and growth it affords young people.
However, if confirmed, I will support those procedures in place to
notify local educational agencies that are in breach of the law.
reserve components
Question. With the extensive commitment of the active components,
the Reserve components have been called on to supplement the active
components on a more frequent basis. The increased deployments are
stressing the relationship between the reservists and his or her
civilian employer. Although in periods of low unemployment this may not
be a problem, as unemployment rises the employers may not be as
accommodating to the absentee reservist.
What is your position on the current program to ensure reservists
jobs are protected during periods of extended or multiple military
call-ups?
Answer. I am fully supportive of the Federal laws that are
currently in place such as the Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act
and the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act that
provide protections for our mobilized and deploying soldiers. We must
also encourage states to enact similar legislation so that all
reservists are completely protected. I feel that it is very important
to continue to partner with the National Committee for Employer Support
of the Guard and Reserve. The Department must duly recognize that
employers are vital to our mission accomplishment.
Question. What impact would you expect the high Reserve personnel
tempo is having on recruiting and retention?
Answer. It is my understanding that, on the whole, recruiting and
retention levels have remained constant as the Reserve component
supported the three Presidential Reserve call-ups. I anticipate that
this trend will continue. In fact, both Reserve Chiefs have recently
reiterated the same message. If confirmed, I will continue to monitor
``stress levels'' within the Reserve components to ensure that the
possible negative effects of high PERSTEMPO are minimized.
recruiting of military health care providers
Question. The health benefit is a significant component of the
military compensation package. The Department of Defense utilizes a
combination of bonuses and incentives to recruit and retain health care
professionals to provide care throughout their military medical assets.
The last legislative revision to those bonus amounts occurred some 10
years ago. Given the inherent reduction in buying power of those
programs over time, Congress directed the Department of Defense to
submit a legislative plan to reinvigorate those bonus programs.
What are your views on these programs and will you commit to a
close examination and development of recommendations on these programs
as a priority if you are confirmed?
Answer. I believe that use of special pays to recruit and retain
highly skilled professionals is necessary and appropriate. But I also
believe that special pays are not the only answer. I understand that
the study to which you refer is partially completed and will be
delivered to you in its final form by Health Affairs in October of this
year. If confirmed, I look forward to evaluating the recommendations
contained in the report with my Army subject matter experts and
financial analysts. I will indeed work with Health Affairs and Congress
on implementing any practical and viable changes for not only the
active component health professionals, but I am also greatly interested
in the bonuses and educational incentives utilized by the Army Reserve
components to recruit and retain health care professionals. Since the
Reserve components make up some 70 percent of the Army medical
department, I also intend to evaluate the programs that affect them, if
I am confirmed.
management of deployments of members
Question. Increasing operational demands on military personnel
resulted in enactment of section 991 of Title 10, United States Code,
and section 435 of Title 37, United States Code. Those provisions
require the services to manage the deployments of member and, if
operational necessity so dictates, to pay per diem compensation to
members whose deployed period exceed prescribed limits. Additionally,
each Service Secretary is required to establish a system for tracking
and recording the number of days that each member of the armed forces
under the jurisdiction of the Secretary is deployed.
Do you support the statutory framework set forth in the sections
cited above?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you believe any modifications to the law are
necessary?
Answer. Not at this time.
Question. What is your understanding of the ability of the Army to
comply with these statutes and implement the prescribed tracking and
recording system?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Army has been tracking and
recording the deployed periods of its personnel since the start of this
fiscal year. This information has recently been available to soldiers
on their monthly Leave and Earnings Statements.
homosexual conduct policy
Question. Do you support the current Department of Defense
Homosexual Conduct Policy?
Answer. Yes, I do. I believe that the current policy implements the
requirements of public law in a manner that recognizes the private
nature of sexual orientation while simultaneously providing commanders
with the tools they need to enforce standards of conduct upon which the
cohesion of our force depends.
Question. If confirmed, do you plan to make any changes to the
basic policy or its implementation? If so, what changes will you
propose?
Answer. I feel that the basic policy is based in public law. The
implementation of this policy is currently consistent with the law and
I see no need for change. If confirmed, I will continue to promote the
Army's two current emphases; educating all soldiers on the provisions
of the law and policy and holding commanders closely accountable for
the safety of every soldier within his or her command.
anthrax vaccine immunization program
Question. DOD considers the biological agent anthrax to be the
greatest biological weapon threat to our military force because it is
highly lethal, easy to produce in large quantities, and remains viable
over long periods of time. The anthrax vaccination program has been
curtailed because of limited quantities of FDA approved vaccine.
If confirmed, will you support and enforce the Anthrax Vaccine
Immunization Program if DOD reinstates it?
Answer. Absolutely.
Question. How do you believe the Army should respond to service
members who refuse to take the vaccine when ordered to do so?
Answer. I believe current Army procedures should continue to be
used to respond to service members who refuse to take the vaccine.
These procedures emphasize commanders' responsibility to ensure that
soldiers are continually educated about the intent and rationale behind
the immunization requirement. That intent is to protect the health and
overall effectiveness of the command and the individual soldier. If
confirmed, I will monitor this issue closely.
montgomery gi bill
Question. Almost all new service members enroll in and contribute
to the Montgomery GI Bill. Only about half use their benefits, and many
do not use all of their entitlements. Many sailors and marines say they
would like to stay in the service, but feel they have to leave so that
they can provide for the education of their spouses and children. Some
of these service members might stay in the service if they could
transfer all or a part of their unused entitlement to GI Bill benefits
to family members in return for a service commitment. Service
secretaries could use this retention tool selectively, just as they use
reenlistment bonuses.
If confirmed, will you give serious consideration to how the Army
could use the transfer of unused GI Bill benefits to family members as
a retention tool and provide your thoughts on how we best do this?
Answer. If confirmed, I will look into this. Cost effective policy
options that address family issues of central concern to service
members will be a key to future retention success.
Question. If confirmed, will you give serious consideration to how
the Army could use the award of U.S. Savings Bonds as a flexible means
to enable soldiers to save money for their education and that of their
dependents?
Answer. If confirmed, I would support using a Savings Bond
incentive as I believe that it would favorably impact reenlistment. I
believe that it would have a more favorable impact if it does not
negate or reduce any normal bonuses the soldier may be eligible for at
time of reenlistment. I am also concerned that the legislation be
inclusive of all soldiers to ensure that none see themselves as
forgotten by senior Army leadership and Congress.
gender integrated training
Question. Basic training, which may be the single most important
phase of an individuals' life in the military, is structured and
defined differently by each service.
Do you believe the current DOD policy of allowing each of the
services to establish its own policy for gender integration in basic
training is effective?
Answer. Yes. In my mind it makes good sense to have the people most
familiar with the individual service's culture and training
requirements make those informed decisions.
Question. If confirmed, will you propose changes to Army policies?
If so, what changes will you propose?
Answer. If confirmed, I have no plans to propose changes at this
time.
concurrent receipt
Question. Military retirees with disabilities incurred during their
military service are eligible to receive military retired pay from the
Department of Defense and veterans' disability compensation from the
Department of Veteran's Affairs. However, current law requires that
military retired pay be reduced by the amount of the veteran's
benefits.
If confirmed, would you support a change in the law to permit
disabled military retirees to receive their full retired pay as well as
their disability compensation?
Answer. If confirmed, I will devote serious study to this important
issue. I believe that disabled service members should be treated with
the utmost care and fairness.
management of the congressional fellowship program
Question. For the past several years, the committee has expressed
concern about the management of legislative fellows by the military
departments and the Department of Defense.
If confirmed, will you review the Department's policies pertaining
to the management of legislative fellows and provide the committee your
assessment of which management reforms have been implemented and which
require additional action?
Answer. Yes.
Question. What are your personal views on the value and current
management of the legislative fellowship program within the Army?
Answer. As I receive briefings on this program I view it as an
excellent opportunity for outstanding individuals, both military and
civilian, to learn the workings of the legislative branch of
Government. Based on briefings I have received, I believe legislative
fellowships are generally awarded to deserving military and civilian
personnel with demonstrated potential to benefit from the experience.
Question. After completing their fellowships, are legislative
fellows assigned to positions in which the experience and knowledge
they gained during their fellowship are used effectively?
Answer. From my briefings, I understand that after completing their
fellowships, legislative fellows return to assignments within their
specialties. If confirmed, I will closely monitor this issue to ensure
they return to legislative positions to complete their utilization
tours.
Question. In your opinion, is it appropriate to bring a Reserve
component member on active duty solely to participate in a legislative
fellowship program?
Answer. From my briefings, it is my understanding that both Army
Reserve and Army National Guard soldiers participate in our program. If
confirmed, I will continue to support their participation as long as
their respective agencies have legislative positions for them to fill
for their utilization tours. I do not support bringing them on active
duty solely to participate in the program.
armed forces retirement home
Question. The Soldiers' and Airmen's Home in Washington, DC, and
the Naval Home in Gulfport, MS, provide unique services to eligible
military retirees but have experienced problems in funding and
management.
Do you support an increase in the amount of money automatically
deducted from the pay of active duty enlisted personnel as a means of
better funding the retirement homes?
Answer. If confirmed, I will study this issue in-depth and work
toward a long-term and comprehensive solution that will ensure the
solvency of the Armed Forces Retirement Home Trust Fund.
Question. If confirmed, what actions would you take to ensure the
successful operation of the retirement homes?
Answer. If confirmed, I would support any and all efforts that
would ensure that both facilities are operated in an efficient manner
and that they provide excellent quality of life for our military
retirees.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as the Assistant Secretary of the
Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings and
other communications of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Strom Thurmond
1. Senator Thurmond. With the support of Congress, the Department
of Defense has made great strides toward improving the quality of life
for our military personnel. Among the most significant improvements has
been the increase in compensation. However, despite significant pay
increases over the past years, there is a continuing crescendo for
additional pay raises. What are your views regarding the adequacy of
the military personnel compensation program over the span of a military
career?
Mr. Brown. I want to take this opportunity to thank the members for
their attention on this important issue and I thank you for your
support. Compensation is of great concern to the Army and will remain
so. It is important that we continue to monitor military pay to ensure
that it is both adequate for the needs of individual soldiers and the
needs of the Army as a whole.
I will continue to review all related recommendations in the future
to ensure we stick to our basic needs: maintain competitiveness with
the civilian sector, and continue to offer programs and incentives
which will allow us to attract and retain qualified soldiers.
2. Senator Thurmond. Due to the increase in the OPTEMPO of the
Active Forces, they have called on our Reserve components for support
on a more frequent basis. Although the Reserve community has willingly
taken on this challenge, a consequence of the increased Reserve OPTEMPO
is that the number of active duty soldiers completing their tour of
duty who join the Reserves is declining. As a result, the Reserves have
a recruiting challenge and incur higher training costs to maintain
their readiness challenge.
In your view, how important is the infusion of former active
component personnel into the Reserve units?
Mr. Brown. It is very important. Prior service accessions possess
high levels of skills and talents in their military occupational
specialties and contribute significantly to the overall quality and
readiness of the Army's Reserve components. These soldiers, whether
transitioning from active duty directly into drilling reserve units
through the in-service recruiter, or as Individual Ready Reservists
transitioning from the Individual Ready Reserve into drilling units,
have traditionally made up the majority of the Army's Reserve component
enlisted accessions each year. Conversely, non-prior service recruits,
while introducing youth and vigor to the force, need costly and time
consuming training. Unfortunately, as the Individual Ready Reserve pool
shrinks with the downsizing of the regular Army, we have been forced to
recruit a greater percentage of non-prior service soldiers.
The rate of prior service accessions has been falling for a number
of years. In fiscal year 1996, the Army's Reserve components received
15,112 soldiers directly off of active duty. In contrast, by fiscal
year 2000, there were only 11,663 accessions of prior service
personnel. Also, the active component is experiencing a significant
increase in retention, that further decreases the population available
for prior service accessions.
3. Senator Thurmond. A change recommended by the defense strategic
review is to eliminate the ``up or out policy'' that has been the
backbone of the military personnel management for the past 50 years.
What are your views on this proposal? How do you maintain the young and
vigorous fighting force by retaining those who cannot qualify for
promotion?
Mr. Brown. I believe the strategic review is on track in that it
does not make sense to automatically eliminate experienced, trained
soldiers with 10 to 15 years on the job because they were not
competitive for further promotion; however it is important that we
maintain a vigorous, young fighting force and this must remain first in
our thoughts if there is to be any change in the current long standing
policy.
Before any changes are made it would be my intent to ensure that we
are able to maintain the highest experience level possible without
degrading the capabilities of our fighting force.
______
[The nomination reference of Reginald J. Brown follows:]
Nomination Reference
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
June 12, 2001.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Reginald Jude Brown of Virginia, to be Assistant Secretary of the
Army, vice Patrick T. Henry, resigned.
______
[The biographical sketch of Reginald J. Brown, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Reginald J. Brown
Reginald J. Brown currently is consulting with two
companies; Meridian International and Brown & Lowe
International. He was Executive Director and Member of the
Board at Alliance for Medical Care from 1996 to 1997. Prior to
that he was an independent consultant with Science Applications
International Corp (SAIC) from 1996 to 1997, Capital Systems
Group, Inc., Executive Vice President and National Policy
Forum, Policy Council member from 1995 to 1996.
From 1989 to 1993 he was an Assistant Administrator at the
U.S. Agency for International Development, a Senior Fellow at
the Center for Strategic and International Studies from 1982 to
1989, and an Executive Vice President at DECA Group, Inc. from
1979 to 1982. From 1974 to 1979 he served in various government
positions including: Director, in the Office of Price
Monitoring at the Council of Wage and Price Stability,
President's Commission on Military Compensation, Congressional
Budget Office, Principal Analyst, Defense Manpower Commission.
Prior to that he was the Deputy Administrator at the Office of
Food, Cost of Living Council from 1973 to 1974.
He was a Special Assistant for Energy and Natural Resources
at the MITRE Corporation and an Assistant Vice President at the
Urban Institute from 1971 to 1974. He served in various
positions with the U.S. Army Infantry from 1961 to 1971.
Mr. Brown graduated with a B.S. from U.S. Military Academy
in 1961. The John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard
University, M.P.A. in 1965. He was a PhD. Candidate in
Economics at Harvard University, completing his course work
from 1965 to 1966.
------
[The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
form that details the biographical, financial, and other
information of the nominee. The form executed by Reginald J.
Brown in connection with his nomination follows:]
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Room SR-228
Washington, DC 20510-6050
(202) 224-3871
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation
of your answer applies.
Part A--Biographical Information
Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.
1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
Reginald J. Brown.
2. Position to which nominated:
Assistant Secretary of Army, Manpower and Reserve Affairs.
3. Date of nomination:
June 12, 2001.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
5. Date and place of birth:
February 13, 1940; New Orleans, LA.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Emilia Lowe Chong.
7. Names and ages of children:
Eric F. Brown, 36.
Denise A. Lawson, 34.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
Harvard University, 7/64 to 6/66 MPA 65.
USMA, West Point, 7/57 to 6/61, BS 61.
El Cerrito High School, 9/54 to 6/57.
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
President, Meridian International, Inc., Alexandria, VA, 5/99 to
Present.
Consultant, Elan Vital, Inc., Alexandria, VA, 3/98 to 5/99.
Executive Director, Alliance for Medical Care, Alexandria, VA, 3/96
to 10/97.
Executive Vice President, Capital Systems Group, Rockville, MD, 2/
95 to 2/96.
Consultant, SAIC, worked at Fed. Energy Tech. Ctr., Pittsburgh, PA,
10/96 to 6/97.
President, Brown Lowe Intl, Consulting in Alexandria, VA, 3/93 to
Present.
Assistant Administrator, USAID, Washington, DC, 8/89 to 1/93.
10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative,
honorary, or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State,
or local governments, other than those listed above.
1/79 to 7/79, Director, Energy Div., Office of Price Monitoring,
Wage and Price Stab.
5/78 to 12/78, Consultant to Congressional Budget Office and to
Off. of Tech. Assessment.
10/77 to 4/78, Exec. Director, President's Commission on Military
Compensation.
12/75 to 9/77, Principal Analyst, Congressional Budget Office.
12/74 to 11/75, Associate Director, Defense Manpower Commission.
8/73 to 12/74, Dep. Administrator, Office of Food, Cost of Living
Council.
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
Meridian International, Inc., President & CEO.
Meridian Protection Services of CA, Inc., Director.
Brown & Lowe International, Inc., President.
Capital Systems Group, Inc., Exec. Vice President.
Alliance for Medical Care, Inc., Exec. Director.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
American Legions: 1993 to Present.
National Rifle Association: 1989 to Present.
Naval Institute: 2000 to Present.
Elan Vital Inc., Educational and Religious Organization: More than
10 years to Present.
13. Political affiliations and activities:
(a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or
any public office for which you have been a candidate.
None.
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5
years.
Republican National Committee.
Republican Party of Virginia.
RNC, National Policy Forum, 1995-1996.
(c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $100 or more for the past 5 years.
Republican National Committee:
05/20/97--$25
08/05/97--25
01/23/98--50
01/11/99--50
06/25/99--100
01/25/00--50
Republican Party of Virginia:
$35 to $50 each year.
14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals, and any other special
recognitions for outstanding service or achievements.
Meritorious Service Medal.
Bronze Star Medal.
Army Commendation Medal.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
``Countermobility in Modern Warfare: Opportunities and
Limitations,'' Defense Science, March, 1989 (With LTG Ernest Graves).
``Passive ECM: Merchant Ships' Answer to Self Defense,'' Defense
Science 2003, February, 1985 (With Vice Admiral Frederick Turner).
``Natural Gas Vehicles: A National Security Perspective,'' CSIS
Significant Issue Series Vol. VI, No. 16 (with Charles Ebinger, et
al.).
``The Persian Gulf: Upheavals, Instability, and a Preventive
Presence,'' ``The Almanac of Sea power, 1984 (with Admiral Thomas H.
Moorer).
``Electronic Warfare in the 21st Century: Implications for Low
Intensity Conflict,'' Defense Science and Electronics, July 1984.
``The Case for an ANZUS Carrier,'' ``Defense & Foreign Affairs, May
1983 (with Alvin Cottrell).
``U.S. Naval Strategy for the Twenty-First Century,'' Defense
Science 2001+, April 1983 (with Alvin J. Cottrell).
The Lessons of Wage and Price Controls, The Food Sector. Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1977 (with John Dunlop et.
al.).
``Petroleum Storage: Alternative Programs and Their Implications
for the Federal Budget,'' Congressional Budget Office, October 1976.
``Overseas Rotation and Tour Lengths,'' Defense Manpower
Commission, Staff Studies, Volume IV, May 1976.
``The Meaning of Professionalism: Purposes and Expectations in a
Democratic Society,'' American Behavioral Scientist, May-June 1976.
``Regulating Food Prices, Limitations and Possibilities,'' MITRE
Technical Report, 1976.
``Investment Cost Comparisons for Capacity Additions for Selected
Fuels,'' MITRE Technical Report, MTR-6769, January 1975.
16. Speeches: Provide the committee with two copies of any formal
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have
copies of and are on topics relevant to the position for which you have
been nominated.
None.
17. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree,
if confirmed, to respond to requests to appear and testify before any
duly constituted committee of the Senate?
Yes.
______
[The nominee responded to the questions in Parts B-F of the
committee questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set
forth in the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to
Parts B-F are contained in the committee's executive files.]
------
Signature and Date
I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate,
and complete.
Reginald J. Brown.
This 19th day of May, 2001.
[The nomination of Reginald J. Brown was reported to the
Senate by Senator Warner on July 11, 2001, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on July 12, 2001.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to Dr. Stephen A. Cambone by
Chairman Levin prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
June 22, 2001.
Hon. Carl Levin,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Enclosed are the answers to the advance
questions the Senate Armed Services Committee asked me to complete.
Yours Truly,
Stephen A. Cambone.
cc: Senator John W. Warner,
Ranking Minority Member.
______
Questions and Responses
defense reforms
Question. More than a decade has passed since the enactment of the
Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and
the Special Operations reforms.
Do you support full implementation of these defense reforms?
Answer. Yes, I support the implementation of these reforms. The
focus on ``jointness'' outlined in the Defense Reorganization Act of
1986 has significantly enhanced the readiness and warfighting
capabilities of the U.S. armed forces.
Question. What is your view of the extent to which these defense
reforms have been implemented?
Answer. These reforms have fundamentally changed the way the
Department of Defense works by strengthening civilian control of DOD,
improving military advice given to the President and Secretary of
Defense, and advancing the ability of the Department to carry out its
fundamental mission--protecting America's security and furthering its
vital interests.
Question. What do you consider to be the most important aspects of
these defense reforms?
Answer. From my point of view, the most important aspects are the
clear responsibility and authority given the CINCs for mission
accomplishment, and the increased attention to formulation of strategy
and contingency planning.
Question. The goals of Congress in enacting these defense reforms,
as reflected in section 3 of the Goldwater-Nichols Department of
Defense Reorganization Act, can be summarized as strengthening civilian
control; improving military advice; placing clear responsibility on the
combatant commanders for the accomplishment of their missions; ensuring
the authority of the combatant commanders is commensurate with their
responsibility; increasing attention to the formulation of strategy and
to contingency planning; providing for more efficient use of defense
resources; and enhancing the effectiveness of military operations and
improving the management and administration of the Department of
Defense.
Do you agree with these goals?
Answer. Yes, I support the goals of Congress in enacting the
reforms of the Goldwater-Nichols legislation.
Question. Recently, there have been articles which indicate an
interest within the Department of Defense in modifying Goldwater-
Nichols in light of the changing environment and possible revisions to
the national strategy.
Do you anticipate that legislative proposals to amend Goldwater-
Nichols may be appropriate? If so, what areas do you believe it might
be appropriate to address in these proposals?
Answer. I have not identified any major changes that are needed to
Goldwater-Nichols. As you well know, the Secretary has studies underway
regarding the organization of the Department. If any changes are
identified as a result of these studies, the Department would consult
closely with Congress, especially this committee.
duties
Question. Section 134a of Title 10, United States Code, provides
that the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy shall assist the
Under Secretary of Defense for Policy in the performance of his duties.
Department of Defense Directive 5111.3 emphasizes that the Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense for Policy advises and assists the Under Secretary
of Defense for Policy, particularly on strategy formulation,
contingency planning, and the integration of Department of Defense
plans and policy with overall national security objectives.
What is your understanding of the duties and functions of the
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy?
Answer. If confirmed, I will perform the duties provided by statute
and regulation. The Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, as
the primary assistant of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy
(USD(P)), advises and assists the USD(P) for all responsibilities in
providing staff advice and assistance to the Secretary of Defense and
the Deputy Secretary of Defense, particularly on strategy formulation,
contingency planning, and the integration of DOD plans and policy with
overall national security objectives, and by law is empowered to act in
his or her stead.
Question. What background and experience do you possess that you
believe qualifies you to perform these duties?
Answer. I am fortunate to have served in a number of positions that
provide useful experience to perform the duties of the Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense for Policy.
From 1990-1993, I served in the Department of Defense as Director
of Strategic Policy in the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for
Policy. My responsibilities included participation in the Ross-Mamedov
talks on cooperative missile defense activities and oversight of U.S.
missile defense programs. After I left DOD, I was a Senior Fellow at
the Center for Strategic and International Studies until 1998. My work
there focused on the new security challenges confronting the U.S. and
its allies after the end of the Cold War.
In 1998, I was the staff director of the Commission to Assess the
Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States. I led a staff that
conducted extensive investigation into the threats posed by the
proliferation of missiles and weapons of mass destruction. During this
period, I worked with prominent defense policy experts, the
intelligence community, and DOD. From 1998-2000, I served as Research
Director at the Institute for National Strategic Studies (INSS) at the
National Defense University. I oversaw research on key issues of
strategy and policy to support senior decision-makers in OSD, the Joint
Staff, and the CINCs. Specifically, I focused on the changing nature of
deterrence and the trends in key transatlantic security issues. In
2000, I was detailed from INSS to direct the staff of the Commission to
Assess United States National Security Space Management and
Organization.
Since January of this year, I have been serving as the Special
Assistant to the Secretary of Defense and the Deputy Secretary of
Defense. In this capacity, I coordinated the series of reviews directed
by Secretary Rumsfeld to identify critical issues related to defense
strategy for consideration and integration in the Quadrennial Defense
Review (QDR).
These experiences, I believe, provide a solid base of experience to
perform the duties of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy.
Question. Do you believe that there are actions you need to take to
enhance your ability to perform the duties of the Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense?
Answer. Please see my previous answer.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, are there any other duties
and functions that you expect that Secretary Rumsfeld would prescribe
for you?
Answer. I would expect Secretary Rumsfeld to look to the Deputy
Under Secretary of Defense for Policy to fulfill all the duties
assigned to that office by statute and regulation--in particular,
assistance and advice on the formulation of national security and
defense policy. This would likely include strategy formulation,
contingency planning, crisis management and the integration of DOD
plans and policy with overall national security objectives. In
addition, I would expect the Secretary would, from time to time, ask me
to undertake various other special projects.
Question. If confirmed, what would your responsibilities be with
respect to strategic and nuclear weapons policy for the Department of
Defense?
Answer. Under the anticipated reorganization of OSD Policy, the
Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy would,
among other things, be charged with the development, coordination, and
oversight of all policy issues related to nuclear weapons and forces.
The Assistant Secretary would report through the Deputy Under Secretary
of Defense to the Under Secretary for Policy. My responsibilities would
thus be quite broad, including representing the Under Secretary and the
Secretary of Defense in interagency deliberations and international
negotiations in this area.
relationships
Question. If confirmed, what will be your relationship with: the
Secretary of Defense; the Deputy Secretary of Defense; the Under
Secretary of Defense for Policy; the other Under Secretaries of
Defense; the Assistant Secretaries of Defense in the Policy
Directorate; the other Assistant Secretaries of Defense; the General
Counsel of the Department of Defense; the Service Secretaries; the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; the Vice Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff; the Director of the Joint Staff; and the National
Security Council.
Answer. If confirmed, I will report to the Secretary and Deputy
Secretary of Defense through the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy.
I will work closely with and help to coordinate the work of the
Assistant Secretaries in the Office of the Under Secretary for Policy.
I expect to maintain a close and cooperative working relationship with
the other Under Secretaries and Assistant Secretaries of Defense and
the General Counsel of the Department. If I am confirmed in this
position, it will be a high priority for me to develop a close working
relationship with the Service Secretaries, the Chairman, Vice Chairman
and Director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and with the Joint Staff in
general. I also will, if confirmed, continue to work closely with the
staff of the National Security Council to coordinate the
administration's international security and defense policy with
Congress.
major challenges and problems
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will
confront the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy?
Answer. The major challenges that will confront the Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense for Policy will be in the areas relating to
reaching the goal of the President and Secretary of Defense to
transform U.S. military capabilities, operational concepts and
organizations to meet the security challenges of the 21st century.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. The Quadrennial Defense Review process will provide a basis
for addressing these challenges. If confirmed, I look forward to
working with senior DOD civilian and military officials and with this
committee in using the results of the QDR process as a guide.
Question. What do you consider to be the most serious problems in
the performance of the functions of the Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense for Policy?
Answer. I am not in a position to assess problems in the
performance of the functions of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
for Policy.
Question. What management actions and time lines would you
establish to address these problems?
Answer. If confirmed, I plan to make an early assessment of the
functions and resources of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for
Policy and work with the Under Secretary and this committee to take the
necessary actions to address shortfalls, if there are any.
priorities
Question. If confirmed, what broad priorities will you establish in
terms of issues which must be addressed by the Deputy Under Secretary
of Defense for Policy?
Answer. The U.S. faces a rare opportunity to transform its defense
posture to meet emerging threats, maintain stability in critical
regions, and preserve our leadership and freedom of action for the
future. Taking those actions necessary to implement the transformation,
decided by the senior civilian and military leadership, will be my
highest priority.
In addition to implementing and resourcing the Department's
transformation efforts, my principal priorities, if confirmed, will
also include strategy formulation and implementation, contingency
planning, and crisis management.
strategy formulation and contingency planning
Question. One of the purposes of Goldwater-Nichols was to increase
attention on the formulation of strategy and contingency planning.
Department of Directive 5111.3 specifically assigns a major role to the
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy for those important
matters.
How do you see the civilian role, as compared to the military role
in the formulation of strategy and contingency planning?
Answer. Civilian control is essential, and starts with the
President, the Commander in Chief. His senior civilian subordinates--
including the Secretary of Defense, the Under Secretary for Policy, and
the Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense--have a major role in
formulation of strategy and contingency planning. The senior civilian
leadership plays a vigorous role in ensuring the development and
implementation of planning in the Department.
Civilian oversight of the contingency planning process is at its
most mature state since enactment of the Goldwater-Nichols Act. The
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy maintains very
close working relations with the Joint Staff and CINCs' planning staffs
to ensure proper oversight.
Question. Secretary Rumsfeld has given the highest priority to
accomplishing a defense strategy review.
Has this review process produced the foundation of a defense
strategy that will guide the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) process?
Answer. The Secretary initiated a number of studies to identify
critical issues related to defense strategy. The results are now being
integrated into the QDR process. Among the studies undertaken are
Acquisition Reform, Financial Management, Conventional Forces, Missile
Defense, Morale/Quality of Life, Space, Transformation, Crisis
Management, Nuclear Forces, and Strategy. As the Secretary has
testified, he has been closely involved with the senior military
leadership in developing an alternative approach that could be tested
in the QDR process.
Question. Will the QDR further review and refine the Secretary's
defense strategy?
Answer. In accordance with the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2000, the QDR will be a comprehensive examination of
the national defense strategy, force structure, force modernization
plans, infrastructure, budget plan, and other elements of the defense
program with a view toward determining and expressing the defense
strategy of the United States. As Secretary Rumsfeld has testified, the
QDR process will integrate the results of a variety of studies and the
views of the senior military leadership in the QDR process. From this
process, the Department will develop a national defense strategy.
Question. What role did you play in the Secretary's defense
strategy review?
Answer. Acting in my appointed role as the Special Assistant to the
Secretary and the Deputy Secretary of Defense, I have worked closely
with the Secretary and his staff in support of the overall review
process.
Question. If confirmed, what role would you expect to play in the
QDR?
Answer. If confirmed, I would expect to provide substantial support
to the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary in their direction of the
QDR. Specifically, I would play a major day-to-day role working closely
with senior civilian and military leadership, directing and reviewing
staff studies and QDR analyses, and developing decision options and
alternatives for the Secretary.
Question. Department of Defense Directive 5111.3 also assigns a
major role to the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy for the
integration of DOD plans and policy with overall national security
objectives.
If confirmed, how will you know what those overall national
security objectives are in the absence of the issuance of a National
Security Strategy by President Bush?
Answer. A new National Security Strategy for the Bush
administration is now under development. In addition, there is frequent
and ongoing interaction among the senior leadership--including the
President, the Vice President, the National Security Advisor, the
Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Defense, and likewise among my
interagency counterparts and myself. The Department will remain fully
cognizant of the administration's national security priorities and
objectives, and will integrate these into the national defense
strategy.
the balkans
Question. It appears that NATO may be called upon to play a role
inside Macedonia, which could involve the use of NATO troops on the
ground, perhaps overseeing the voluntary disarmament of ethnic Albanian
insurgents.
If NATO should agree to play such a role, what are the criteria you
would recommend be used in deciding whether U.S. forces should
participate with the forces of our allies on such a mission?
Answer. The situation in Macedonia is very fluid and sensitive. The
U.S. already has a significant presence in Macedonia, in order to
support KFOR logistical operations. Specifically, over 500 U.S.
personnel are stationed with KFOR Rear at Camp Able Sentry in Skopje.
As Secretary of State Powell stated on June 20 before the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee, we have not made any commitments of troops
for the purpose of a potential NATO mission to assist in disarmament in
Macedonia, because we really do not see a need for such a contribution
under current circumstances. I agree with that statement.
Question. Last December marked the 5-year anniversary of the NATO-
led military presence in Bosnia. Despite over 5 years of an
international military presence in Bosnia, we are far from achieving
the goal of a unified, multi-ethnic nation, as envisioned in the Dayton
Accords.
In your opinion, what should the United States do to break the
stalemate in Bosnia and help create the conditions for the withdrawal
of U.S. troops?
Answer. NATO and associated military forces are being used to
secure the environment in which civil implementation of the Dayton
Accords can take place. Decisions on the circumstances and timing of
continued military presence in Bosnia are linked to an alliance process
of periodic assessments. Overall force levels are reviewed every 6
months. We are committed to act as a member of the alliance in defining
any reductions. Force levels must be de-linked from civil
implementation requirements.
At their most recent meeting in June, NATO defense ministers agreed
on the need to accelerate the development of civil institutions and
local police so they may be able to take more responsibility for local
security and the maintenance of law and order.
nato issues
Question. According to NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson, Heads
of State and Government decided at their special meeting on June 13,
2001 that NATO ``hopes and expects, based on current and anticipated
progress by aspiring members, to launch the next round of enlargement
at the Prague Summit in 2002.''
What criteria do you believe should be applied to decide which
aspiring members, if any, should be invited to join NATO at that time?
Answer. As President Bush stated in Warsaw, NATO membership should
be possible ``for all of Europe's democracies that seek it and are
ready to share the responsibilities that NATO brings.'' The key factor
in considering which aspirants should be invited to join the Alliance
is whether their membership will contribute to the Alliance's capacity
for collective defense and other agreed missions to build security and
stability in Europe.
I believe there should not be a ``checklist'' of criteria required
for NATO membership; however, new members must be prepared to commit
themselves to:
Accept the responsibilities that come with NATO,
including possible participation in an Article 5 defense of
another ally.
Contribute their fair share in terms of added military
value to the Alliance.
Make the necessary investments in the creation and
maintenance of effective military forces that are interoperable
with other NATO allies.
Question. The gap in capabilities between the United States and
potential allies and coalition partners is wide, and may grow larger as
we transform our defense capabilities. What roles should we expect
allies and coalition partners to play across the spectrum of military
operations? A number of our European NATO allies have assured us that
the European Union's (EU) European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP)
would result in greater popular support for defense spending. They also
have told us that many of the improvements that would have to be made
to implement the ESDP are the same improvements that are called for by
NATO's Defense Capabilities Initiative (DCI) and that the increased
defense spending would enable their military forces to be more capable
NATO partners. However, we now know that European defense spending has
been decreasing at a rate of 5 percent per year. Are you concerned
about the decrease in European defense spending and do you have any
suggestions for how the United States can get our European allies to
reverse this trend? What are your thoughts about the ESDP?
Answer. There are worrisome imbalances and shortfalls in Alliance
capabilities--for example, in the areas of precision strike, mobility,
command, control, and communications, and strategic airlift. Several of
these were highlighted in Operation Allied Force in 1999. The Alliance
is aware of these imbalances and shortfalls, and the allies must
continue to work to improve their national and Alliance capabilities,
including through NATO's Defense Capabilities Initiative (DCI). Not
every NATO ally needs or can afford the newest or best fighter
aircraft, long-range tanker aircraft, or surveillance systems, but I
believe our goal should be to provide NATO forces with compatible and
complementary capabilities that meet our collective requirements.
European nations must do more to ensure both appropriate priorities
for defense and adequate spending, and I believe the U.S. should press
the allies to move forward on their defense restructuring plans and to
improve spending levels. The Alliance will not remain healthy if the
allies are unwilling or unable to make investments to field 21st
century forces that are fully capable of meeting 21st century
challenges.
With regard to ESDP, I believe that NATO will continue to be the
indispensable anchor of American engagement in European security
matters and the foundation for assuring the collective defense of
Alliance members. That said, I believe the administrations approach to
ESDP is correct. NATO and the European Union must work in common
purpose, and the U.S. should welcome an ESDP that develops EU
capabilities in a manner that is fully coordinated, compatible, and
transparent within NATO, provides for the fullest possible
participation by non-EU European NATO members, embeds defense planning
within NATO, and applies only where NATO has chosen not to act
collectively.
value of peacekeeping
Question. A number of recent newspaper articles have reported the
views of U.S. military personnel participating in peacekeeping missions
in the Balkans. In a statement reflective of the general view, an Army
tank company commander is quoted in the New York Times edition of
January 18, 2001 as saying about his responsibilities as a member of
the American force in Kosovo that ``In the Army, you spend practically
all of your time training. Here, we are executing a real-world mission.
We get to interact with the other NATO militaries. Things are so
decentralized that I have a lot more autonomy in making decisions. It's
good experience.''
Do you believe that peacekeeping missions can make a valuable
contribution to troop readiness, particularly at the individual and
small unit level?
Answer. The participation of United States forces in peace
operations can strengthen military skills in several areas, such as
operating in coalition, providing logistics, communications,
engineering, medical support, small unit leadership, civil affairs, and
other key areas. Readiness depends in great part on mission-based
training, which we must balance between preparing for traditional
military missions and for peacekeeping and other missions. While this
is an ongoing challenge, I believe we can maintain that balance. If
confirmed, I will be diligent in the review of U.S. force commitments
worldwide, including in peace operations.
military deployments
Question. The administration is conducting a comprehensive review
of all U.S. military deployments abroad. At a September 1999 speech at
The Citadel announcing his intention to direct such a review, then-
Governor Bush spoke of problems with ``open-ended deployments and
unclear military missions.''
What do you believe are the proper criteria to apply when deciding
whether or not to involve U.S. Armed Forces in military operations
overseas, including small-scale contingencies and peacekeeping
activities?
Answer. The United States should be selective in its international
military interventions, especially where there is danger of combat. As
President Bush said at The Citadel on September 23, 1999, ``If America
is committed everywhere, our commitments are everywhere suspect.''
At the same time, the United States will not be able to, nor should
it, remain indifferent to significant humanitarian crises. But in these
cases, we should seek as a first resort to help develop mechanisms
whereby other nations can work together and take the leading
responsibility. The United States may be willing to provide assistance
but others should take the lead wherever possible.
If confirmed, I will work with DOD officials, others in the
administration, and this committee to help ensure that when we deploy
our Armed Forces, the mission is justified and well-defined and the
strategy is well-conceived.
counter-narcotics
Question. For more than 10 years the Department of Defense has been
a key player in the Federal Government's counter-narcotics efforts. The
Department is designated as the lead agency for detection and
monitoring, but also makes a significant contribution in other counter-
narcotics missions, such as interdiction and demand reduction. While
many see this as a law enforcement function, others believe that, given
the impact of the drug trade on the stability of the Andean Ridge
countries, it is a national security function.
In your opinion what is the appropriate role of the Department of
Defense in U.S. counter-drug efforts?
Answer. As the President recently said, a successful counter-drug
effort depends on a thoughtful and integrated approach. The
Department's counter-drug activities support the wide range of
programs. At the same time, the Secretary has tasked the Department to
review its overall mission to include support to other Federal
Agencies. I am ready, if confirmed, to oversee the support the
President and the Secretary feel is required to support other agencies
in their counter-drug efforts.
Question. Does the Department's counter-drug efforts contribute to
the defense of our national interests?
Answer. I believe the Department's counter-drug activities play a
significant role in contributing to the administration's overall
National Drug Control Strategy.
Question. Do you support the DOD's practice of providing
information to Andean Ridge governments who engage in the shootdown of
suspected drug trafficking aircraft?
Answer. At this time, the Department of Defense is participating in
the ongoing review led by the State Department on USG assistance to
host nation interdiction programs, including the recent tragic events
in Peru. If confirmed, I would make certain that, upon completion of
the review, further information will be made available to Congress.
regional issues
Question. President Bush and his advisors have emphasized the
increasing significance of Asia for U.S. foreign and defense policy.
Do you believe that our national interests dictate that we place
greater emphasis on Asia? If so, how does this affect our interests in
Europe, Latin America and elsewhere?
Answer. We have vital interests in several regions. Our national
interests are not a zero-sum game. As the Secretary stated on June 7,
``Increased U.S. attention to the security situation, for example in
the Persian Gulf or Korea, in no way implies any American intention to
de-emphasize Europe.''
While the overall security picture in the Asia-Pacific region is
generally positive, we nonetheless face some of the greatest challenges
to U.S. defense policy in that region, specifically China, North Korea,
and instability in key countries such as Indonesia.
U.S. military presence has long provided a crucial element of
stability in the Asia-Pacific region, and that will certainly continue
to be the case. In the context of the Quadrennial Defense Review, we
will look at the best ways to protect U.S. interests and ensure
regional stability in the future. We will be examining possible ways of
restructuring our force posture and capabilities within the region; we
may have to rearrange our forces and capabilities to face new threats
that may arise.
Question. What is your understanding of President Bush's statement
that the United States would do ``whatever it took'' to defend Taiwan?
Answer. The President's statement did not signal a change in U.S.
policy toward Taiwan, or in the U.S. position on ``One China.'' We
remain committed to help Taiwan defend itself; we have done so since
1979.
U.S. policy toward Taiwan is guided by the Taiwan Relations Act
(TRA) of 1979. The TRA's basic premises are that an adequate defensive
capability on Taiwan is conducive to the maintenance of peace and
security in the region, so long as differences remain between the PRC
and Taiwan, and that the U.S. ``will make available to Taiwan such
defense articles and defense services in such quantity as may be
necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense
capability.''
If confirmed, I will monitor carefully the situation in the region
and take very seriously our obligation to assist Taiwan in maintaining
a self-defense capability. Such assistance includes not only making
available defense hardware, but also maintaining contacts with the
Taiwan defense establishment across a broad range of activities.
Question. How does this statement affect United States-China
relations?
Answer. Our unofficial relationship with Taiwan is an issue that is
frequently raised in discussions between the United States and the
People's Republic of China, a condition likely to persist so long as
differences remain between the PRC and Taiwan.
Question. The administration has initiated a dialogue with North
Korea on a ``broad agenda,'' which includes implementation of the
Agreed Framework, ending North Korea's missile production and export
programs and reducing the conventional threat from North Korea.
Do you believe the administration should attempt to achieve
progress on all of these as a package? Will progress on one item be
linked to progress on another?
Answer. Pursuing a comprehensive approach with North Korea allows
us to address the issues of concern to the U.S., and issues of equal
concern to South Korea and Japan. A comprehensive approach also
supports South Korea's engagement with the North. The administration is
realistic that progress with North Korea will be difficult, but that
should not preclude us from putting a number of important issues on the
table to expand our opportunities for progress.
It would be difficult to justify diplomatic progress with the North
if the DPRK regime fails to address our concerns on missile production
and export, Agreed Framework implementation, and reduction of the
conventional force threat.
I would support an approach that reaches effectively verifiable
agreements with the North and that encourages progress toward North-
South reconciliation and a constructive relationship with the United
States.
Question. The Bush administration has recently engaged India on a
number of regional and bilateral issues.
In your opinion, how will continued dialogue with Indian officials
on such matters be in our national security interests?
Answer. Dialogue on strategic issues will build U.S.-India
understanding and could lay the foundation for cooperation in such
areas as the President's new Strategic Framework, controlling the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and enhancing stability
in South Asia.
Dialogue on counter-terrorism and peacekeeping also address areas
of mutual security interest. We will continue to benefit from
cooperation and interaction with India on these and a growing number of
other issues, particularly as India's growing economic and military
power make it an increasingly important player in South Asia, the
Indian Ocean and beyond.
Question. Do you support similar U.S. engagement with Pakistani
officials?
Answer. While we still have many unresolved issues between our
countries, Pakistan is an important nation in its own right. United
States policy in South Asia needs to take account of Pakistan, to seek
to resolve our differences, and to establish a relationship that
enables us to influence Pakistan's policies and actions.
Question. The administration is currently conducting a
comprehensive review of U.S. policy toward Iraq.
What elements--to include military options--do you believe should
be part of the administration's policy to ensure Iraqi compliance with
the obligations Iraq accepted at the end of the Persian Gulf War?
Answer. Ensuring Iraqi compliance with U.N. Security Council
resolutions since the Gulf War will, I believe, require a comprehensive
approach. Strengthening the sanctions regime is one part of such an
approach. Enforcing the no-fly zones and other aspects of the U.N.
Security Council resolutions, as coalition forces are now doing, is
also important, and the United States should, I believe, look for ways
to accomplish this more effectively. Finally, as expressed on a
bipartisan basis in the Iraq Liberation Act, regime change should be an
element of U.S. policy.
Question. According to a January 31, 2001, presentation before the
Nixon Center, Ambassador Elizabeth Jones, Special Advisor to the
President and Secretary of State for Caspian Basin Energy Diplomacy,
stated ``that the Bush administration has four strategic goals in the
Caspian region consisting of (1) assuring sovereignty and independence;
(2) supporting economic interdependence; (3) assuring reliable sources
of energy; and (4) supporting American companies' investments in the
region.''
What is your view of this policy and what strategic role do you
envision the Department of Defense playing in supporting this policy?
Answer. The Department supports the administration's strategic
goals in the Caspian region and has been an active participant in
developing policy for the region. We recognize that sovereignty and
independence of these countries is a top priority. The Department's
support for these emerging democracies will foster peace and stability
in the region, and therein strengthen U.S. access to strategic natural
resources and markets.
transformation
Question. What should the objectives of military transformation be,
and how urgently should they be pursued?
Answer. In transforming the military we must address an uncertain
future strategic environment while staying ready to meet our current
security responsibilities. This is a difficult challenge that will take
some time to achieve, but two requirements are crystal clear. First,
our military forces must transform in a manner that outpaces
competitors by pursuing new technologies, operational concepts, and
organizational constructs. Second, we must do so in a way that makes
our most valuable resource--our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and
marines--as operationally effective as they can be.
Recent operations and ongoing experimentation strongly indicate
that we need to transform now. They have shown the need for forces that
are rapidly deployable over greater distances, ready for quick
commitment upon entering a theater, and able to decisively affect the
outcome of any operation to which they are committed. This necessitates
that our forces have a command and control system that is truly joint,
integrated and interoperable.
Question. What is the role of experimentation, including joint
experimentation, in this transformation process?
Answer. Experimentation--particularly joint experimentation--
ensures that our transformation efforts are fully integrated from
inception to implementation. To achieve these objectives, our
transformation efforts must encompass several tenets:
1. Our experimentation efforts must focus on how we can best
introduce new and emerging technologies to our forces in combination
with maintaining the legacy systems we will be required to retain for
some time yet.
2. Experimentation initiatives must be robust in nature, striking
in design and sufficiently publicized and imposing that they provide a
deterrent impact of their own, to any potential adversary.
3. Our efforts must be suitably balanced between near, mid, and
long range, objectives. While our thinking must clearly be ``out-of-
the-box'', we must not lose sight of the issue of providing enhanced
capabilities to our forces today.
4. We must aggressively pursue new concepts of warfare. Network
centric, reach back connectivity, sensor-to-shooter, and enhanced
reconnaissance, surveillance, and target acquisition concepts all
warrant continued exploration.
5. Our experimentation efforts must focus on providing enhanced,
full-spectrum, command, control, and communications capabilities to our
military forces. Shared, distributed, templated, ``systems of
systems'', providing real-time, relevant information to widely
dispersed forces, conducting combat/contingency operations is the
required end state.
export controls
Question. Are you in favor of passing a new Export Administration
Act to reauthorize the national export control regime for dual-use
items?
Answer. Yes, I am. The current bill, S.149, has several provisions
that will help transition the current system based on Cold War policies
into a more modern system that focuses on WMD, end-user and end-use
controls.
Question. If so, what elements of such a reauthorization are
essential to protect national security interests?
Answer. First, we must protect our military personnel and our
security interests by ensuring that sensitive technologies are not
exported to potential adversaries or to foreign entities that represent
a significant diversion risk. Second, we must have sensible and
effective policies and procedures to ensure appropriate transfers of
military and commercial systems and technologies that support our
coalition warfighting objectives are permitted. Finally, we must be
mindful that the U.S. is not the only country with advanced military
and commercial technology. If confirmed, I look forward to working with
this committee on the issue.
Question. What role should the Department of Defense have in the
dual use export control process?
Answer. The Defense Department must have a strong role in the
export control policy process. Defense has a tremendous amount of
talent and technical expertise in the export control area and should
have the ability to apply these assets to the overall export control
process. If confirmed, I look forward to working with this committee on
the issue.
homeland defense
Question. How do you think the Department of Defense can best
contribute to the national effort to combat terrorism within the United
States?
Answer. Consistent with law and regulations, the Department of
Defense continues to support the lead Federal agencies regarding issues
dealing with combating terrorism. The Department of Justice, through
the FBI, is the lead Federal Agency for crisis response when dealing
with incidents involving domestic terrorism. The Department of Defense
also supports the Federal Emergency Management Agency that is
designated as the lead Federal Agency in dealing with issues related to
consequence management.
I believe that the Department's focus should be to continue to
provide unique resources and capabilities that may not reside within
other agencies such as the ability to mass mobilize and provide
extensive logistical support.
Question. What do you believe are the appropriate roles and
missions for the Department in support of homeland defense?
Answer. Defending the American homeland is not a new role or
mission for the Department of Defense. The U.S. military has a long and
proud tradition of protecting and supporting the American homeland and
its institutions from a wide variety of threats.
The Department possesses an array of response assets in both the
active and Reserve components that can be task organized to support
lead Federal agencies and civil authorities in dealing with man-made
events and natural disasters. For example, the Department has created
the Joint Task Force for Civil Support to assist Federal, state, and
local first responders in mitigating the consequences of weapons of
mass destruction (WMD) terrorist incidents.
If confirmed, I will support the efforts of the Office of National
Preparedness and the Vice President to develop a preparedness strategy
for Federal, state, and local governments to do the best possible job
in preparing for and defending against WMD.
nuclear weapons
Question. Do you support repeal of section 1302(b) of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998?
Answer. Yes, I support repealing this section of the Authorization
Act.
I support the Bush administration's intention to reduce the U.S.
nuclear arsenal to the lowest level consistent with our national
security requirements, including our commitments to our allies.
If confirmed I will work with the committee to review current
legislation that requires the U.S. to maintain the current levels of
nuclear forces, and to reach a position that is consistent with the
results of the strategic review recommendations.
Question. Do you support prompt retirement of the Peacekeeper ICBM?
Answer. This is currently being examined. The President has
indicated that he wants to reduce nuclear forces quickly, and I expect
a decision on whether to retire the Peacekeeper ICBM to be made this
summer.
Question. Do you support unilateral reductions in strategic nuclear
forces? If so, to what levels?
Answer. Clearly, unilateral reductions under the proper
circumstances may be an attractive and appropriate approach to take.
The Presidential Nuclear Initiatives of 1991 and 1992 resulted in
significant unilateral reductions to our tactical nuclear forces, and
termination or curtailment of modernization programs for our strategic
forces, without requiring years of detailed negotiations in the context
of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties. Until the Nuclear Posture
Review is complete I cannot say to what level we should reduce our
forces.
Question. Would you support reductions below START II force levels?
If so, to what levels?
Answer. I support reductions below existing levels, which are a
vestige of the Cold War. Again, the issue of how far to reduce U.S.
nuclear forces is being addressed in the Nuclear Posture Review.
Question. Would such reductions be unilateral, pursuant to treaty,
or other government-to-government agreement?
Answer. Reductions could be accomplished in a number of ways,
including through unilateral initiatives, reciprocal approaches, formal
arms control agreements, or some combination thereof. The choice among
these approaches hinges on many military and diplomatic considerations.
Again, these issues are being addressed in the review of nuclear
forces.
Question. Do you support dismantling warheads removed from
deployment?
Answer. I believe we need to address the dismantlement of warheads
removed from deployment on a case-by-case basis.
Question. In your view what is the appropriate size of the nuclear
arsenal?
Answer. I support the Bush administration's intention to reduce the
U.S. nuclear arsenal to the lowest level consistent with our national
security requirements, including our commitments to our allies.
Question. Do you support a hedge strategy and if so for what
purpose?
Answer. We cannot reliably predict the future. Unforeseen
circumstances will arise, despite our best efforts to anticipate them.
The United States needs to take steps to reduce its nuclear forces,
while at the same time ensuring that we have the flexibility and
capacity to deploy an effective deterrent against any potential
aggressor.
Question. How do you define ``hair trigger alert'' and what U.S.
weapons fit the description of being ``on hair trigger alert''?
Answer. ``Hair trigger alert'' is a term used by many to describe
any nuclear forces, on alert, that are vulnerable to attack and are not
supported by a warning system in which the leadership of a country has
confidence and that would allow a decision-maker sufficient time to
consider appropriate actions. There are no U.S. nuclear weapons that
fit that description.
Question. Would you support prompt de-alerting of any Russian or
U.S. weapons that are to be retired?
Answer. This measure is not without precedent. This issue will be
looked at as a part of the Nuclear Posture Review. Until this review is
complete and I have understood the military and political implications,
I cannot have an informed personal view.
Question. What other weapons, if any, would you recommend de-
alerting?
Answer. Again, until the Nuclear Posture Review is complete I
cannot have an informed personal view on this issue. This issue will be
carefully considered during the Nuclear Posture Review, and if
confirmed, I would study this issue carefully before making a
recommendation to the Secretary of Defense.
Question. Do you support the Department of Energy's Stockpile
Stewardship Program?
Answer. Yes, I support the Department of Energy's Stockpile
Stewardship Program for its contribution to maintaining a credible
nuclear deterrent. Ensuring the safety, reliability, and effectiveness
of U.S. nuclear weapons is important to the national security interests
of the United States.
Question. It is estimated that a new facility for manufacturing
plutonium pits will cost approximately a billion dollars.
Do the Department's nuclear weapons requirements support the need
to design and construct such a facility?
Answer. Yes. The United States has not had a capability to
remanufacture and certify replacement pits since operations ceased at
the Rocky Flats Plant in 1989. Destructive surveillance testing forces
the retirement of a number of warheads in the stockpile each year.
Today, the Department of Energy (DOE) has no way to replace them.
Current DOE plans reflect a capability to begin production of one type
of replacement pit by fiscal year 2009, with other types following
later. I support this effort.
Question. Does this cost impact your view on whether we should
proceed with such a facility?
Answer. No. Nuclear weapon facilities with the necessary safeguards
and environmental standards are expensive by their very nature. In my
opinion, the DOE must restore its capability to produce plutonium
components in order to sustain the safety and reliability of the
nuclear deterrent.
Question. What role should strategic nuclear forces continue to
play in United States policy and strategy in the foreseeable future?
Answer. I believe that nuclear weapons contribute substantially to
the ability to deter aggression against the U.S., our forces abroad,
and our allies and friends. Nuclear weapons must and will remain a
critical component of our security posture. Nuclear weapons also serve
as a means of upholding U.S. security commitments to our allies, as a
disincentive to those who would otherwise contemplate developing or
acquiring their own weapons, and as a hedge against an uncertain
future.
Question. What criteria should the United States use in determining
an appropriate strategic nuclear force posture for the foreseeable
future?
Answer. These criteria will be developed as a part of the
congressionally-mandated Nuclear Posture Review. It is too early, at
this point, to discuss details of the review, including what criteria
will be applied in determining an appropriate strategic nuclear force
posture for the foreseeable future.
Question. In your view, what impact would the introduction of
missile defense have on deterrence, which in the past has been based
exclusively on offensive nuclear forces?
Answer. The world has changed. The United States and Russia are no
longer enemies whose relationship should be based on mutual assured
destruction, and we now face new threats, which pose new challenges to
our security. We require missile defenses to make clear that we will
not be blackmailed from supporting allies and friends by threats of
ballistic missile attack. Stability and deterrence will be enhanced
when we can help dissuade potential adversaries from investing in
ballistic missiles by devaluing their political and military utility,
and when we can defend allies and friends as well as the U.S. if
deterrence should fail.
Question. Do you believe that the introduction of missile defenses
by the United States could stimulate a nuclear arms race between Russia
and the United States?
Answer. No. We intend to deploy limited defenses against handfuls
of longer-range missiles, not against hundreds of missiles or warheads.
Those limited defenses will not threaten the Russian strategic
deterrent, even under significantly reduced levels of forces.
Question. And/or between China and the United States?
Answer. No. China's nuclear modernization program predates U.S.
missile defense efforts. China is likely to continue this modernization
regardless of what the U.S. does. In my opinion, China does not want to
create a ``Cold War'' relationship with the U.S. We have made clear
that our limited missile defense is intended to protect the U.S., our
allies and our friends only from those who would seek to threaten or
coerce us.
Question. Do you believe that other arms races might be stimulated
by the introduction of missile defenses by the United States?
Answer. Missile defenses are a response to proliferation, not the
cause of it. U.S. and allied vulnerability to ballistic missile attack
serves as a strong incentive to proliferation. Missile defenses will
help dissuade potential adversaries from investing in ballistic
missiles by devaluing their political and military utility.
arms control
Question. Do you believe that arms control treaties can be in the
national interests of the United States?
Answer. Yes, arms control agreements and actions can be in the
national interest of the United States.
Question. If so, under what circumstances?
Answer. Each proposed treaty or unilateral action needs to be
evaluated to determine whether it is in the U.S. national interest.
Relevant considerations regarding treaties include: Is a proposed
treaty's purpose in our national interest? Will the proposed terms
accomplish the purpose? Is the proposed treaty verifiable? How likely
is it that other parties will comply? How effective are efforts likely
to be to enforce compliance if the treaty is violated? Are there
collateral benefits of the proposed treaty even if its terms are
violated by other parties?
Question. The Department of Defense plays the lead role in
developing and implementing arms control technology in support of arms
control agreements.
What do you believe should be the key capabilities, e.g.
monitoring, verification, that the Department should pursue and
develop? What challenges do you believe exist in developing these key
capabilities?
Answer. The Department's focus should be on technologies that
permit DOD and the United States to protect DOD and other national
security equities while allowing us to collect information regarding
the treaty-relevant activities of treaty states of concern. I would
defer to my colleagues in the intelligence community regarding the
challenges associated with the development of national technical means.
With regard to on-site and other cooperative capabilities, the key
challenge is to develop capabilities that: are selective and whose use
would not lead to the disclosure of sensitive information, that
minimize the cost to the U.S. of compliance, that enhance safety, that
reduce the potential intrusiveness of any on-site arms control
provisions in the U.S., and that can be widely shared with other
countries without raising the potential risk of disclosure of sensitive
technologies.
Question. The Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) prohibits the
stockpiling of biological materials in quantities that are not
justifiable for solely peaceful purposes. Currently, the parties to the
Convention are discussing details of a proposed protocol that consists
of a legally binding regime for verification that goes beyond
confidence building measures. Some critics of these discussions believe
that such verification measures are too difficult to enforce. Others
believe the proposed protocol does not go far enough.
What is your view of the Convention and of the desirability of
greater verification of it? Do you believe it is possible to establish
and verify measures beyond confidence building?
Answer. The Biological Weapons Convention establishes a norm
against the development, production, acquisition and stockpiling of
biological weapons. However, given the nature of biological weapons and
biotechnology, the Convention is inherently unverifiable.
threat of growing biotech capabilities
Question. During the next 10 years expected advances in
biotechnology will lead to greater capability to manipulate biological
agents. While we are attempting to protect ourselves against known
biological agents, we may be several steps behind in addressing near-
term threats posed by these near-term advances in biotechnology.
Do you believe our current policies and programs for biological
warfare defense are adequate for current threats? If not, what
additional steps would you recommend?
Answer. No. Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet has
acknowledged that there is ``a continued and growing risk of surprise''
in the biological warfare (BW) area, especially in light of bio-
technology advances and steps being taken by determined rogue states to
hide their BW-related activities. DOD therefore must avoid placing too
much emphasis on ``validated'' threats in its bio-defense preparations,
because we are unlikely to have knowledge of the range of biological
agents that have been, or are available for, weaponization. For
example, we did not know until well after the Persian Gulf conflict
ended that Iraq had weaponized anthrax for ballistic missile delivery.
Nor did we understand the scope of the Soviet BW program--which
included BW agents for inter-continental ballistic missile delivery--
until defectors came to the West in the early 1990s. Capabilities-based
planning will be needed to mitigate risks from emergent BW threats.
cooperative threat reduction (ctr)
Question. Do you support the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat
Reduction Programs?
Answer. Yes. The elimination of former Soviet strategic nuclear
weapons, other weapons of mass destruction, and their delivery vehicles
funded by the CTR program has benefited U.S. national security. The
United States also has an interest in ensuring that Russia eliminates
its stockpile of chemical munitions and biological agents. At the same
time we do not want the CTR program to become a means by which Russia
frees resources to finance its military modernization programs.
Question. If so, does this support include support for funding for
the Russian chemical weapons destruction facility at Shchuch'ye?
Answer. I do not have a personal view on funding for Shchuch'ye. If
confirmed, I would get briefed on all relevant facts and circumstances
to allow me to formulate a view.
Question. Do you believe the CTR programs are making a long-term
contribution to increasing U.S. security?
Answer. Yes. Please see first CTR answer above.
Question. Do you believe the CTR programs are reducing the
probability of an accidental or unauthorized launch of a Russian
ballistic missile?
Answer. The CTR program does not address directly the issue of
accidental or unauthorized launches. To the extent that the program
funds the elimination of former Soviet strategic nuclear weapons and
their delivery vehicles, it can be said to contribute to the reduction
of that danger.
Question. Do you support increasing funding for the CTR programs as
necessary to improve control over all aspects of Russia's nuclear
arsenal, including dismantlement of nuclear warheads, accounting
storage and control of weapons-usable plutonium and uranium, and
shutting down the last three Russian plutonium producing reactors?
Answer. I support the CTR program. As to the particular elements of
the program, I would, if confirmed, get briefed on all relevant facts
and circumstances to allow me to formulate a view on appropriate
funding levels.
Question. In your view, do any increases during the past year in
Russia's gross domestic product, military spending and arms exports,
affect Russia's ability to assume more of the cost share associated
with CTR efforts in Russia?
Answer. Russia should do more to fund the reduction of the weapons
of mass destruction left by the Former Soviet Union. Part of the
ongoing administration review of assistance programs to Russia is to
identify whether Russia is doing as much as it can to fund these
reductions. The recent upturn in Russia's economic situation and
increase in military spending should be taken into account.
Question. In light of Russia's increasing priority on military
spending, what is your view regarding the fungibility of U.S. funds
associated with threat reduction assistance?
Answer. Investment in the CTR program and other U.S.
nonproliferation programs should not become a means by which Russia
frees resources to finance its military modernization programs. The
current review of these programs should look at such questions.
Question. Would you propose limiting or prohibiting CTR assistance
to Russia until Russia ceases its proliferation activities with Iran?
Answer. I have been informed that the administration is currently
reviewing its options for encouraging Russia to cease its proliferation
activities with Iran, including possible steps in the event that Russia
does not cease such cooperation. If confirmed, I would expect to
participate actively in that review.
nuclear test detection
Question. Do you support continued and full funding for the U.S.
project in support of the International Monitoring System for nuclear
testing?
Answer. The U.S. contribution to the CTBT Organization, which
includes support for the International Monitoring System is in the
Department of State's budget. If confirmed, I would support a review of
all DOD activities associated with the CTBT.
Question. Do you believe that the United States' existing nuclear
monitoring capabilities are sufficient to deter and detect any nuclear
explosions?
Answer. I understand that the Department deems our existing
monitoring capabilities sufficient to detect some, but not all, nuclear
explosions. The risk of detection will not necessarily deter testing.
Whether a country will be deterred depends on its own calculations of
whether the benefits of the test exceed possible penalties resulting
from possible detection.
Question. Are there steps that should be taken to enhance our
nuclear monitoring capabilities, including the possibility of bilateral
or other international monitoring collaboration?
Answer. An answer to this question would require an examination of
U.S. nuclear monitoring requirements and the extent to which current
capabilities can satisfy them. If confirmed, I would review the
adequacy of our ability to detect foreign nuclear tests and the cost-
effectiveness of potential improvements.
nuclear testing
Question. Do you believe the United States should return to
underground explosive testing of nuclear weapons? If so, under what
circumstances would you favor a return to testing and for what purpose
would you conduct a test or series of tests?
Answer. I have not been briefed on a DOD requirement for the United
States to resume nuclear explosive testing at this time. If confirmed,
I would support a review of how we can assure the reliability, safety,
and effectiveness of the nuclear weapons in our stockpile.
comprehensive test ban treaty (ctbt)
Question. What do you believe the policy should be within the
Defense Department regarding DOD programs that support the CTBT?
Answer. Secretary Rumsfeld has said that he has concerns with CTBT:
the risks to the reliability and safety of our nuclear weapon stockpile
and the difficulty of verification. Because the CTBT has not been
ratified by the United States or entered into force, the United States
is under no obligation to implement it. If confirmed, I would support a
review of all planned DOD activities associated with the CTBT, to
determine whether they are useful on their own merits.
Question. What programs within the Department, if any, support only
a CTBT?
Answer. I do not have such detailed information. If confirmed, I
expect that I will be briefed on issues related to the CTBT.
space commission
Question. Do you support creation of an Under Secretary of Defense
for Space, Intelligence, and Information as recommended by the
Commission to Assess National Security Space Management and
Organization?
Answer. I support Secretary Rumsfeld's decision not to request
legislation to establish an Under Secretary of Defense for Space,
Intelligence, and Information. As the Secretary's response to Congress
on the Space Commission's recommendations indicated, he has asked staff
to review the responsibilities and functions of the Assistant Secretary
of Defense for Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence and
provide him with recommendations to ensure appropriate senior-level
policy, guidance, oversight, and advocacy for space, intelligence, and
information activities.
Question. If confirmed, what would your responsibilities be with
respect to space policy for the Department of Defense?
Answer. If confirmed, I would assist the Under Secretary of Defense
for Policy in carrying out the responsibilities currently prescribed by
the Secretary of Defense, to ensure that space policy decisions are
closely integrated with overall national security policy
considerations, in coordination with the Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence, and review
contingency and operations plans to ensure the proposed employment of
space forces are coordinated and consistent with DOD policy and the
National Military Strategy. I would also assume any additional
responsibilities for space policy prescribed by the Secretary of
Defense, Deputy Secretary of Defense, or Under Secretary of Defense for
Policy.
Question. In your view, how important is it for the United States
to develop a wide range of space control capabilities, including the
ability to negate hostile satellites?
Answer. The security and well-being of the United States, our
allies, and friends depend on our ability to operate in space. Our
increasing dependence and the vulnerability it creates, however,
require us to have the means to deter and dissuade threats to our
national interests in space. In this regard, I support the 1996
National Space Policy that directs that ``consistent with treaty
obligations, the United States will develop, operate and maintain space
control capabilities to ensure freedom of action in space and, if
directed, deny such freedom of action to adversaries. These
capabilities may also be enhanced by diplomatic, legal or military
measures to preclude an adversary's hostile use of space systems and
services.'' A broad range of military capabilities may be required to
implement this policy. I understand the administration has included in
its on-going strategic review the range of capabilities necessary to
implement this policy, and I support this effort.
non-proliferation policy
Question. The United States faces a number of threats from the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
What role do you believe non-proliferation should have in our
national security policy and what role should the Department of Defense
play in this effort?
Answer. Non-proliferation is a component, complementary to other
elements, of our national security policy. The Department of Defense
will continue to take part in interagency policy development to ensure
effective non-proliferation policy.
Question. In December 2000, Secretary Cohen met with then Russian
Defense Minister Igor Sergeyev to discuss U.S. concern over Moscow's
continued arms sales and proliferation activities with Iran. While this
meeting and subsequent State Department meetings were considered
positive, the United States did not receive concrete assurances from
Russia that these proliferation activities would cease. In fact,
subsequent actions by Russia indicate that Russia intends to continue
to increase its arms sales and nuclear technology transfers to Iran,
despite U.S. concerns.
If confirmed as Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, what
policy options would you propose to address any ongoing prohibited or
non-prohibited proliferation activities of Russia with Iran?
Answer. If confirmed, I would look at the full range of available
options. I would underscore for Russian policy makers that this is a
new administration and that positive, concrete steps on their part to
address our security and stability concerns in this area can provide a
basis for a constructive bilateral relationship.
missile defense
Question. If the administration concluded that, for whatever
reason, deploying a particular missile defense system would actually
decrease our security, would you recommend deploying that system?
Answer. No, but at this time I cannot envision a limited system
that would decrease our security.
Question. President Bush has called for missile defenses to protect
ourselves, our allies and friends against the possibility of limited
ballistic missile attacks.
Should we proceed with missile defense programs in a manner such
that our allies, friends and, if possible, Russia and China do not
perceive our missile defense programs as threatening or destabilizing?
Answer. In my view, the United States should proceed in this area
in accordance with its national interests, taking into account the
views of our allies. I believe, however, that in the area of missile
defense, the United States and our allies have fundamentally harmonious
interests. Good alliance relations are an important element of U.S.
national interests. I think there are reasonable grounds for hoping
that the United States and our allies will work closely and
cooperatively in coming years to protect against the threats resulting
from the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and missile
capabilities. The United States has begun a cooperative allied
consultation process. The desirable and, I believe, likely outcome is
alliance consensus, which enlightened U.S. leadership has often over
the years been able to produce.
We are also discussing such concerns with Russia and China. We are
talking about defenses to protect against handfuls of missiles and
warheads, not hundreds. We intend to move forward on defenses against
ballistic missiles of all ranges--defenses which would protect our
friends and allies as well as the United States against the new threats
which we all face. Our proposed system will not threaten the Russian
strategic nuclear deterrent, even at significantly reduced levels of
forces.
Nor is our missile defense system a threat to China. It is intended
to defend against threats or attacks from states currently attempting
to acquire longer-range missiles. Since the late 1980s, China has been
engaged in the modernization of its nuclear forces; this modernization
is likely to continue regardless of what the U.S. does.
Question. The Department of Defense designs, develops and acquires
weapon systems intended to be operationally effective in combat, and
demonstrated to be capable of meeting their operational requirements.
To date, our missile defense programs have followed this long-standing
policy.
Do you believe that our missile defense systems should continue to
meet the operational requirement for effectiveness?
Answer. Yes. The current operational requirement, however, needs to
be reviewed in the context of the overall missile defense review.
Question. Would you recommend acquiring or deploying a weapon
system, including a missile defense system, that is not operationally
effective?
Answer. No. Defenses that are substantially less than 100 percent
effective, however, can be essential to deterring threats and defending
against attacks. We should not face an all-or-nothing choice in missile
defense any more than we do regarding other defense programs.
Question. You have testified that the ground-based national missile
defense architecture developed under the previous administration is
inadequate to the Nation's needs.
In your view, to what extent should the United States utilize this
ground-based architecture and technology as a starting point for
implementing the President's missile defense plans?
Answer. As the President has stated, the U.S. plans to deploy
missile defenses capable of defending all 50 states, deployed forces,
and friends and allies. The previous administration's ground-based
system, which would only provide for the defense of the United States,
fails to provide for the defense of our friends and allies. Other
system architectures could be more effective overall and capable of
defending our friends, allies, and deployed forces. Furthermore, a
layered system, capable of intercepting ballistic missiles in their
boost, midcourse, and terminal phases, increases the likelihood of a
successful intercept.
I believe the current ground-based system could play an important
role in the layered defense concept. Its role, however, will depend on
a number of factors, such as test results and the availability and
effectiveness of other promising technologies.
Question. The administration has stopped describing missile defense
systems as either ``national'' or ``theater.'' What are the advantages
to eliminating such a distinction?
Answer. The President has said we will deploy defenses capable of
defending the U.S., our deployed forces, and our allies and friends.
Whether a particular system is a ``national'' system or a ``theater''
system depends on where you live and how close you are to the threat.
Some systems--boost-phase system for instance--may be effective against
short-, medium-, and long-range ballistic missiles, whether they are
directed at the United States or at allies in the theater. These
systems should be used where they are effective.
Question. Ballistic missile defense systems would not be able to
defend against weapons of mass destruction delivered by non-missile
systems such as ships or trucks.
Answer. We are determined to defend against such threats. We
already have some defenses against terrorist threats, and are working
to strengthen them. The U.S. spends billions of dollars annually to
address these types of threats.
Regardless of other means of striking the U.S., some countries are
currently putting significant resources into developing or acquiring
long-range missile capability, probably because we have no defenses
against long-range ballistic missiles. Continued vulnerability would
only encourage others to acquire long-range ballistic missiles, to
blackmail or coerce the U.S.
anti-ballistic missile (abm) treaty
Question. In a speech at The Citadel in September, 1999, then-
Governor Bush said: ``At the earliest possible date, my administration
will deploy anti-ballistic missile systems, both theater and national,
to guard against attack and blackmail. To make this possible, we will
offer Russia the necessary amendments to the Anti-Ballistic Missile
Treaty. If Russia refuses the changes we propose, we will give prompt
notice, under the provisions of the treaty, that we can no longer be a
party to it.''
If we can reach agreement with Russia on modifying the ABM Treaty
to permit the deployment of a limited missile defense system to defend
the Nation against the possibility of a limited attack, do you believe
it would be in our interest to do so?
Answer. President Bush has made clear that the ABM Treaty should be
replaced with a new framework that reflects a break from Cold War
thinking and facilitates development of a new, cooperative relationship
between the United States and Russia. The exact nature of the new
framework and whether it includes agreements, parallel or unilateral
actions, or a combination thereof, is still something that is being
developed. The President is looking at a wide range of ideas for the
framework, and whether amendments will be part of it remains under
consideration. In any case, it is clearly in our interest to reach
agreement with Russia, if possible, and President Bush has made it
clear that he seeks to move beyond Treaty constraints cooperatively
with the Russians. To that end, the administration is consulting with
the Russians, with allies, and with Congress on the concept of such a
framework. This should provide the opportunity for openness, mutual
confidence, and a real chance for cooperation, including in the area of
missile defense.
threats and responses
Question. The United States faces many security challenges and
threats.
Do you believe it is important to have a balanced response, in
terms of policy, strategy, and resource allocation, to the full range
of threats and challenges we face?
Answer. Yes. Our overall approach to defense must recognize the
changes in the world, and requires that we balance the risks we face.
If confirmed, I will work with this committee to ensure sufficient
resources to deal with these challenges.
Question. How do you believe that we should assure that we achieve
such a balance between threats and responses?
Answer. We must recognize that the world poses a wide and
unpredictable array of security challenges to which we must be ready to
respond. These risks include near-term operational challenges as well
as long-term challenges that require fundamental transformation of our
military forces and defense processes. Among our top resource
priorities to address these challenges are effectively managing the
force and taking care of our people; promoting experimentation with new
concepts, organizations, and capabilities; pursuing robust research and
development for the future; and modernizing and focusing our
infrastructure and logistics.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as the Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense for Policy?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings and
other communications of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Carl Levin
1. Senator Levin. At your nomination hearing, we discussed the
issue of operational effectiveness of a National Missile Defense
system, and you mentioned that there were discussions of the idea of
changing the standard for NMD operational effectiveness. The NMD system
has an Operational Requirements Document (ORD) as do all major weapon
systems, that was approved by the Joint Requirements Oversight Council
(JROC). At an unclassified level, the NMD ORD specifies that the NMD
system must defeat all warheads from a limited ballistic missile attack
(no leakers) with a very high degree of confidence.
Please describe all conversations to which you have been privy this
year with persons associated with the Defense Department that have
taken place relative to the standards for operational effectiveness for
a National Missile Defense program.
Dr. Cambone. Since January of this year, in my role as the Special
Assistant to the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense, I have
worked closely with the Secretary, the Deputy Secretary, and their
staffs in the coordination of, and in support of, the series of reviews
directed by Secretary Rumsfeld. Missile defense is a high priority for
this administration and, naturally, discussion of a missile defense
program is a topic receiving substantial attention. Consequently, in my
role as the Special Assistant to the Secretary of Defense and the
Deputy Secretary of Defense, I have participated in numerous
conversations with senior civilian and military officials in which
issues associated with the operational requirements for missile defense
have arisen. My conversations with DOD officials have included
discussion of the operational requirements process within DOD and the
different types of requirements examined by DOD, including both
threshold and objective requirements.
2. Senator Levin. Who has taken part in those discussions?
Dr. Cambone. Please see the answer to Question 1.
3. Senator Levin. What reasons have been given in favor of wanting
to change those operational effectiveness standards?
Dr. Cambone. In my opinion, the current standards for operational
effectiveness for the National Missile Defense system, as approved in
the Operational Requirements Document, need to be reviewed. I
understand generally that the reasons for changing the operational
effectiveness requirements include: that the existing requirements for
missile defense are unprecedented for a weapon system; that no system
can be 100 percent effective in meeting threshold or objective
requirements; and that missile defense deployment is not an all-or-
nothing proposition and rudimentary systems less than 100 percent
effective could make substantial contributions to both deterrence and
defense.
I understand that the primary argument for not changing the
operational effectiveness requirement is that an extremely high degree
of effectiveness should be the goal of any weapon system. This does not
mean, however, that a system that does not fully meet the objective
requirement would not be militarily useful. In fact, the operational
requirements process within DOD recognizes that there will be both
threshold requirements, which are the minimal requirements a system
should meet to be deployed, and objective requirements, which represent
the desired evolutionary capability, both of which can be modified for
reasons such as excessive cost or military necessity.
I will carefully consider these matters in advising the
Department's leadership of my views on this question.
4. Senator Levin. What reasons have been given against changing the
operational effectiveness standards?
Dr. Cambone. Please see the answer to Question 3.
5. Senator Levin. What are the views of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
the Commanders in Chief (CINCs) and the Joint Requirements Oversight
Council (JROC) on this question of changing the NMD operational
requirements standard?
Dr. Cambone. I am not in a position to speak for the Joint Chiefs,
the CINCs and the JROC on this matter.
6. Senator Levin. Have the Joint Chiefs, the CINCs or the JROC
requested that the operational effectiveness of NMD be changed from the
current ORD standard?
Dr. Cambone. I understand that U.S. Space Command is now reviewing
the missile defense operational requirement in light of the missile
defense review.
7. Senator Levin. Have they made such requests for any other
missile defense system, or any other weapon system?
Dr. Cambone. As I understand the process, formal requests to review
operational requirements need not be made; in fact, a CINC can initiate
them. I believe there is recognition of the need to review requirements
for missile defense programs overall to ensure our ability to defeat
the full range of ballistic missiles that we and our friends and allies
and deployed forces face today as well as in the future.
7a. Senator Levin. If so, for what systems?
Dr. Cambone. The Airborne Laser is an example of a system for
which, I understand, there is general recognition of the need to review
the requirement.
8. Senator Levin. Have there been any conclusions or
recommendations from those discussions?
Dr. Cambone. The discussions are ongoing.
8a. Senator Levin. If so, what are they?
Dr. Cambone. See above answer.
8c. Senator Levin. If not, is there an intention to make
recommendations or reach a conclusion on this issue in the foreseeable
future?
Dr. Cambone. As discussed above, I understand that CINCSPACE is now
reviewing missile defense operational requirements in light of the
results of the missile defense review.
9. Senator Levin. Have there been similar discussions to which you
have been privy within the Department on changing operational
requirements standards for other missile defense systems, or for other
weapon systems?
Dr. Cambone. I am aware of discussions about the possible need to
review requirements with respect to all missile defense systems. I
understand that this is driven by the need to develop the most
effective overall systems capable of defending our territory, our
friends, allies and deployed forces. I believe that a layered system,
capable of intercepting ballistic missiles in their boost, midcourse,
and terminal phases, increases the likelihood of a successful
intercept.
10. Senator Levin. Has the Department recommended, or has the JROC
approved, any changes to the operational requirements for any weapon
system since Secretary Rumsfeld assumed office? If so, please describe
such changes.
Dr. Cambone. I am not aware of any such changes.
11. Senator Levin. Will the Department continue the policy of
having operational requirements for weapon systems, and of having those
weapon systems demonstrate that they meet the operational requirements
before they are deployed?
Dr. Cambone. I understand that the Department will continue the
practice of having operational requirements and of testing to those
requirements as required by statute. I would note, however, the
Department has on occasion deployed a system that was not fully
compliant with existing ORD requirements, when necessary to meet
increased threats. A good example of this is the deployment during the
Gulf War of Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS).
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Strom Thurmond
12. Senator Thurmond. Although the United States has established
significant relationships with the countries of South and Central
America regarding the counter-drug effort, our interaction with these
countries is insignificant when compared to other nations of the globe.
Considering the economic, political and migration issues associated
with Central and South America, what are your views on our current
military and diplomatic relationships with these regions?
Dr. Cambone. The United States has important security interests in
Latin America. The security, prosperity and demographic makeup of the
U.S. is profoundly influenced by the stability of the region. Latin
America countries are some of our most important friends and allies and
largely share a commitment to democracy, human rights and free markets.
One of our fundamental goals for the region is the promotion of
regional stability. The principal threats facing this hemisphere are
transnational ones, including drug and arms trafficking, money
laundering, illegal immigration, and terrorism. The vast majority of
countries of the western hemisphere have reaffirmed their commitment to
combat these challenges together.
Given the obvious challenges in the Andes and the President's firm
intention to work more closely with Latin American governments to
achieve economic and security objectives, the Department of Defense is
reviewing existing policies and programs and consulting with regional
defense officials to make DOD's role in that process more effective.
13. Senator Thurmond. Many former Soviet republics are seeking to
establish their own identity independent of Russia's central
government. In your personal view, how should the United States respond
to these independence movements?
Dr. Cambone. The basic U.S. security interest for all 12 of the
independent states of Eurasia that emerged from the former Soviet Union
is to support their independence, sovereignty and territorial
integrity. We seek to support the transition of these states to free
market economic systems and democratized political systems. In security
terms, the Department of Defense is working to facilitate the reform,
restructuring and professionalism of the ministries of defense and the
armed forces of these states in an effort to shed their Soviet military
heritage. We hope to build the basis for long-term American influence
in the development of professional militaries and in the security
decisions that these countries will make for years to come.
______
[The nomination reference of Dr. Stephen A. Cambone
follows:]
Nomination Reference
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
June 12, 2001.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Dr. Stephen A. Cambone of Virginia, to be Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense for Policy, vice James M. Bodner, resigned.
______
[The biographical sketch of Dr. Stephen A. Cambone, which
was transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Dr. Stephen A. Cambone
Stephen A. Cambone is currently the Special Assistant to the
Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense. Prior to that, he was the
Staff Director for the Commission to Assess United States National
Security Space Management and Organization from July 2000 to January
2001.
Dr. Cambone was the Director of Research at the Institute for
National Strategic Studies, National Defense University (INSS/NDU) from
August 1998 to July 2000. Before that, he was the Staff Director for
the Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United
States from January 1998 to July 1998, a Senior Fellow in Political-
Military Studies at the Center for Strategic and International Studies
(CSIS) from 1993 to 1998, the Director for Strategic Defense Policy in
the Office of the Secretary of Defense from 1990 to 1993, the Deputy
Director, Strategic Analysis, SRS Technologies (Washington Operations)
from 1986 to 1990, and a Staff Member in the Office of the Director,
Los Alamos National Laboratory from 1982 to 1986.
Dr. Cambone graduated from Catholic University in 1973 with a B.A.
degree in Political Science, from the Claremont Graduate School in 1977
with an M.A. degree in Political Science, and from the Claremont
Graduate School in 1982 with a Ph.D. in Political Science. His numerous
awards include the Secretary of Defense Award for Outstanding Service
in 1993 and the Employee of the Year Award with SRS Technologies
(Washington Operations) in 1988.
______
[The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
form that details the biographical, financial, and other
information of the nominee. The form executed by Dr. Stephen A.
Cambone in connection with his nomination follows:]
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Room SR-228
Washington, DC 20510-6050
(202) 224-3871
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation
of your answer applies.
Part A--Biographical Information
Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.
1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
Stephen Anthony Cambone.
2. Position to which nominated:
Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy.
3. Date of nomination:
June 12, 2001.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
5. Date and place of birth:
June 22, 1952; Bronx, New York.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Margaret Taaffe Cambone.
7. Names and ages of children:
Maria Cambone, 11 years.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
Our Lady of Lourdes High School, 9/1966-6/1970; H.S. Diploma 6/
1970.
Catholic University 9/1970-5/1973; B.A., Political Science 5/1973.
Claremont Graduate School 1974-1977; M.A., Political Science 1977.
Claremont Graduate School 1977-1981; Ph.D., Political Science 1982.
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
Director, Strategic Defense Policy, Office of the Secretary of
Defense/ISP, DOD, Room 2D459, Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301; 4/1990-4/
1993.
Self-employed, Los Alamos Lab/SAIC/National Institute for Public
Policy, 1809 Barbee Street, McLean, VA 22101; 5/1993-10/1997.
Senior Fellow, Political-Military Studies, Center for Strategic and
International Studies, 1800 K Street, NW, Washington, DC 20006; 6/1993-
7/1998.
Staff Director, IPA, Ballistic Missile Threat Commission, HQ CIA,
Langley, VA; 11/1997-7/1998.
Director of Research, Institute for National Strategic Studies,
National Defense University, Marshall Hall, Fort McNair, Washington,
DC; 8/1998-11/2000.
Distinguished Research Professor, Institute for National Strategic
Studies, National Defense University, Marshall Hall, Fort McNair,
Washington, DC; 12/2000-Present.
Staff Director, Commission to Assess United States National
Security Space Management and Organization (detailed from National
Defense University), 2100 K Street, NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC; 7/
2000-1/2001.
Staff Assistant, Presidential Transition Office (detailed from
National Defense University), 1800 G Street, NW, Washington, DC; 1/13/
2001-1/21/2001.
Special Assistant to the Secretary of Defense (detailed from
National Defense University), 1000 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC; 1/
22/2001-Present.
10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative,
honorary or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State,
or local governments, other than those listed above.
Nominated to serve on the Commission to Assess United States
National Security, Space Management and Organization.
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
Guest Scientist, Los Alamos Laboratory. See SF 278.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
None.
13. Political affiliations and activities:
(a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or
any public office for which you have been a candidate.
None.
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5
years.
Detailed to the Bush/Cheney Transition Team from National Defense
University.
(c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $100 or more for the past 5 years.
Dole Campaign, 1996, $1,000.
I may have contributed to other local campaigns:
Colleen Sheehan, Congress, PA, c. 1996.
John Eastman, Congress, CA, c. 1998.
William B. Allen, Senate, CA, c. 1996.
14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals, and any other special
recognitions for outstanding service or achievements.
Secretary of Defense Award for Outstanding Service, 1993.
Employee of the Year, SRS Technologies (Washington Operations),
1988.
Ph.D. awarded with High Honors, Claremont Graduate School, 1982.
Best Master's Degree Thesis, Government Department, Claremont
Graduate School, 1977.
Earhart Fellow, 1976-1977.
Blue Key, Honorary Award, 1973.
Pi Sigma Alpha, +9, c. 1974-1980.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
``Threats and Risks Prompting a Commitment to Ballistic Missile
Defense (BMD),'' National Missile Defence and the Future of Nuclear
Policy, Occasional Paper, Institute for Security Studies--Western
European Union, September, 2000, with Ivo Daalder, Stephen J. Hadley
and Christopher Makins, ``European Views of National Missile Defense,''
Policy Paper, The Atlantic Council, September, 2000.
``An Inherent Lesson in Arms Control,'' The Washington Quarterly,
Vol. 23, No. 2 (Spring 2000).
``After the Assessment: Responding to the Findings of the Rumsfeld
Commission.'' Director's Colloquium, Los Alamos National Laboratory,
February 9, 1999.
A New Structure for National Security Policy Planning, (Washington,
DC: CSIS Press), 1998.
``Demarcation Issues Between Strategic and Theater Systems: A
Response [to an Administration View],'' Robert L. Pfalzgraff, Jr., ed.,
Security Strategy and Missile Defense (Cambridge, MA; Institute for
Foreign Policy Analysis), 1996.
With Colin Grey, ``The Role of Nuclear Forces in U.S. National
Security Strategy: Implications of the B-2 Bomber,'' Comparative
Strategy, Vol. 15, No. 1 (Fall 1996).
With Patrick J. Garrity, ``The Future of U.S. Nuclear Policy,''
Survival, Vol. 36, No. 4 (Winter 1994-5).
With Don M. Snider and Daniel Goure, ``Defense in the Late 1990s:
Avoiding the Trainwreck'' CSIS Report, 1995.
``Readiness Standards for the Future,'' prepared for the Institute
for National Security Studies, National Defense University, Washington,
DC, 1995.
``An Approach to Defense S&T and Providing Technological
Superiority for U.S. Military Forces,'' CNSS, Los Alamos National
Laboratory, 1995.
``NATO Enlargement: Implications for the Military Dimension of
Ukraine's Security,'' The Harriman Review, Vol. 10, No. 3, Winter 1997.
``Will the Senate Endorse NATO's Enlargement,'' RUSI Journal, Vol,
142, No. 6, December, 1997.
``NATO's New Members: Ready for Accession,'' unsigned Strategic
Comments for the International Institute for Strategic Studies, Vol. 3,
No. 10, December, 1997.
``European Unified Political-Military Planning and Control: The
Creation, Organization and Control of a European Force,'' Gert de Nooy,
ed., The Role of European Ground and Air Forces after the Cold War (The
Hague: Netherlands Institute of International Relations/Clingendael),
1997.
``NATO Expansion: A Strategic Perspective,'' U.S. Defense
Intelligence Agency, 1996.
``Organizing for Security in Europe: What Missions, What Forces,
Who Leads, Who Pays?'' Graduate Program in International Studies,
Working Paper 95.5, Old Dominion University, 1996.
``Role of the United States in the Future of Europe,'' Ann-Sofie
Dahl, ed., Security in Our Time. Four Essays on the Future of Europe,
(Stockholm, National Defense Research Establishment), 1995.
Editor, ``NATO's Role in European Stability,'' CSIS Report,
Washington, DC, 1995.
``Time to Define a New U.S.-CIS Relationship,'' Europe Orientale et
Centrale: Les Options de L'Europe Occidentale (Brussels: Centre
d'Etudes de Defense, Institut Royal Superieur de Defense), 1995.
``The Implications of U.S. Foreign and Defence Policy for the
Nordic and Baltic Region,'' Arne O. Bruntland, Don M. Snider, eds.,
Nordic Baltic Security: An International Perspective, CSIS Report,
Washington, DC, 1995.
``The United States and Theater Missile Defense in North-east
Asia,'' Survival, Vol. 39, No. 3, Autumn, 1997.
``Weapons Proliferation: Australia, the U.S. and the Strategic
Equilibrium of the Asia-Pacific'' in Roger Bell, Tim McDonald and Alan
Tidwell, editors, Negotiating the Pacific Century (Sydney: Allen &
Unwin), 1996.
``The Political Setting,'' Dick A. Leurdijk, ed., A U.N. Rapid
Deployment Brigade. Strengthening the Capacity for Quick Response (The
Hague: Netherlands Institute of International Relations/Clingendael),
1995.
``NATO and Peacekeeping: Lessons Learned,'' U.S. Defense
Intelligence Agency, 1995. ```Principles of Operational Concepts for
Peacemaking,'' Ernest Gilman, Detlef E. Herold, eds., Peacekeeping
Challenges to Euro-Atlantic Security (Rome: NATO Defense College),
1994.
``Kodak Moments, Inescapable Momentum and the World Wide Web: Has
the Infocomm Revolution Transformed Diplomacy?'' Center for Information
Strategy and Policy, Science Applications International Corporation,
McLean, VA, 1996.
testimony
``Iran's Ballistic Missile and WMD Programs,''
Testimony before the Subcommittee on International Security,
Proliferation and Federal Services, Committee on Government
Affairs, United States Senate, 106th Congress, September 21,
2000.
``Elements of a Decision to Deploy National Missile
Defense,'' Testimony before the Armed Services Committee, House
of Representatives, 106th Congress, June 28, 2000.
``Elements of a Modern, Non-Proliferation Policy,''
Testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, March
21, 2000.
``Issues Surrounding the 50th Anniversary Summit of
NATO,'' Testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, Subcommittee on European Affairs, April 21, 1999.
``Qualifications of Poland, Hungary and the Czech
Republic for NATO Membership,'' Testimony prepared for the
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, 105th Congress, October
22, 1997.
``Prepared Statement on the Costs of NATO
Enlargement'' Appendix 4, The Debate on NATO Enlargement,
Hearings before the Committee on Foreign Relations, United
States Senate, 105th Congress, 1st Session, Committee Print S.
Hrng. 105-285.
``The ABM Treaty and Theater Missile Defense,''
Testimony before the Military Research and Development
Committee of the Committee on National Security, House of
Representatives, 104th Congress, March 21, 1996.
``Space Programs and Issues,'' Testimony before the
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Senate Armed Services
Committee, 104th Congress, May 2, 1995.
16. Speeches: Provide the committee with two copies of any formal
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have
copies of and are on topics relevant to the position for which you have
been nominated.
I have not delivered formal speeches. I have, however, participated
in numerous panel discussions, colloquies, etc. Those presentations
frequently were developed into articles. Examples include:
``After the Assessment: Responding to the Findings of
the Rumsfeld Commission.'' Director's Colloquium, Los Alamos
National Laboratory, February 9, 1999.
``Demarcation Issues Between Strategic and Theater
Systems: A Response [to an Administration View],'' Robert L.
Pfalzgraff, Jr., ed., Security Strategy and Missile Defense
(Cambridge, MA; Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis), 1996.
``Organizing for Security in Europe: What Missions,
What Forces, Who Leads, Who Pays?'' Graduate Program in
International Studies, Working Paper 95.5, Old Dominion
University, 1996.
``Role of the United States in the Future of Europe,''
Ann-Sofie Dahl, ed., Security in Our Time. Four Essays on the
Future of Europe, (Stockholm, National Defense Research
Establishment), 1995.
``Time to Define a New U.S.-CIS Relationship,'' Europe
Orientale et Centrale: Les Options de L'Europe Occidentale
(Brussels: Centre d'Etudes de Defense, Institut Royal Superieur
de Defense), 1995.
``The Political Setting,'' Dick A. Leurdijk, ed., A
U.N. Rapid Deployment Brigade. Strengthening the Capacity for
Quick Response (The Hague: Netherlands Institute of
International Relations/Clingendael), 1995.
``Principles of Operational Concepts for
Peacemaking,'' Ernest Gilman, Detlef E. Herold, eds.,
Peacekeeping Challenges to Euro-Atlantic Security (Rome: NATO
Defense College), 1994.
17. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree,
if confirmed, to respond to requests to appear and testify before any
duly constituted committee of the Senate?
Yes.
______
[The nominee responded to the questions in Parts B-F of the
committee questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set
forth in the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to
Parts B-F are contained in the committee's executive files.]
------
Signature and Date
I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate,
and complete.
Dr. Stephen A. Cambone.
This 18th day of June, 2001.
[The nomination of Dr. Stephen A. Cambone was reported to
the Senate by Senator Warner on July 11, 2001, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on July 19, 2001.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to Michael Montelongo by
Chairman Levin prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
June 21, 2001.
Hon. Carl Levin,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Enclosed herewith are the answers to the advance
questions the Senate Armed Services Committee asked me to complete.
Sincerely,
Michael Montelongo.
cc: Senator John Warner,
Ranking Minority Member.
______
Questions and Responses
defense reforms
Question. More than a decade has passed since the enactment of the
Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and
the Special Operations reforms.
Do you support full implementation of these defense reforms?
What is your view of the extent to which these defense reforms have
been implemented?
What do you consider to be the most important aspects of these
defense reforms?
Answer. Yes, I fully support the Goldwater-Nichols Act. It enhanced
the organization of the Department of Defense, establishes a clearer
focus on military capabilities and responsibilities and facilitates
improvement in the advice provided to the Secretary of Defense. Service
capabilities are more integrated.
Question. The goals of Congress in enacting these defense reforms,
as reflected in section 3 of the Goldwater-Nichols Department of
Defense Reorganization Act, can be summarized as strengthening civilian
control; improving military advice; placing a clear responsibility on
the combatant commanders for the accomplishment of their missions;
ensuring the authority of the combatant commanders is commensurate with
their responsibility; increasing attention to the formulation of
strategy and to contingency planning; providing for more efficient use
of defense resources; and enhancing the effectiveness of military
operations and improving the management and administration of the
Department of Defense.
Do you agree with these goals?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Recently, there have been articles which indicate an
interest within the Department of Defense in modifying Goldwater-
Nichols in light of the changing environment and possible revision to
the national strategy.
Do you anticipate that legislative proposals to amend Goldwater-
Nichols may be appropriate? If so, what areas do you believe it might
be appropriate to address in these proposals?
Answer. I'm not aware of specific proposals, but I do not think
changes are contemplated in financial management. I believe strongly in
the legislative process. I'm committed to fully supporting all laws as
enacted.
duties
Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Financial Management &
Comptroller)?
Answer. The duties and functions of the Assistant Secretary of the
Air Force (Financial Management & Comptroller) are stated in Public Law
100-456, section 8022. As stated, the Assistant Secretary of the Air
Force for Financial Management shall direct and manage financial
management activities and operations of the Department of the Air
Force, including ensuring that financial management systems of the
Department of the Air Force are compliant. The Assistant Secretary of
the Air Force for Financial Management shall supervise and direct the
preparation of budget estimates of the Department of the Air Force and
otherwise carry out, with respect to the Department of the Air Force,
the functions specified for the Comptroller of the Department of
Defense in section 137(c) of Title 10. Other duties include financial
management systems responsibilities, asset management systems
responsibilities, 5-year plan strategies, and providing the Secretary
of the Air Force an annual report each year on the activities of the
Assistant Secretary during the preceding year to include a description
and analysis of the status of Department of the Air Force financial
management.
Question. What background and experience do you possess that you
believe qualifies you to perform these duties?
Answer. I am quite familiar with the military, having served 20
years as an Army officer. I have had invaluable opportunities to work
with Pentagon personnel and many people on the Hill as a Special
Assistant to the Army Chief of Staff and as a legislative fellow on the
staff of Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. My Bachelor of Science degree in
General Engineering is from West Point and my MBA is from Harvard. The
quantitative focus in my academic training will be of great use in the
numerical world of financial management and in working financial
systems reform.
Question. Do you believe that there are actions you need to take to
enhance your ability to perform the duties of the Assistant Secretary
of the Air Force (Financial Management & Comptroller)?
Answer. No. I believe I have the right abilities.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what duties and functions do
you expect that Secretary Roche would prescribe for you?
Answer. As noted above, I'd expect the Secretary would prescribe
duties and functions commensurate with the duties and functions
outlined in Public Law 100-456, Section 8022.
Question. In carrying out your duties, how will you work with: the
Secretary of the Air Force; the Under Secretary of the Air Force; the
Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller); and the Assistant Secretaries
of the Army and the Navy for Financial Management?
Answer. As the Secretary of the Air Force shared with this
committee, if confirmed I'd expect to be a member of the nucleus of the
Secretary's leadership team. Additionally, if confirmed, I look forward
to working closely with the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)
and the Assistant Secretaries of the Army and the Navy for Financial
Management. I think this administration, beginning with the President,
has established an environment that encourages this collaboration.
There are also various forums that have been created within DOD so the
services can talk to OSD and each other and work issues.
civilian and military roles in the air force budget process
Question. What will the division of responsibilities be between the
Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Financial Management &
Comptroller) and the senior military officer responsible for budget
matters in the Air Force's Financial Management & Comptroller office
(the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Budget) in making program and
budget decisions including the preparation of the Air Force Program
Objective Memorandum, the annual budget submission, and the Future
Years Defense Program?
Answer. If confirmed, I will directly supervise the Deputy
Assistant Secretary (Budget). The Assistant Secretary for Financial
Management has sole responsibility for all financial management
functions including the preparation of the budget. Budgets are
important statements about priorities regarding readiness, investment,
and other key activities. Therefore, many personnel other than the
Assistant Secretary for Financial Management play important roles
during the preparation of the Air Force budget. Additionally, if
confirmed, I will have formal oversight responsibility for the
Secretary for the financial aspects of the POM preparation and the Air
Force portions of the annual President's budget submission, along with
all the entries in the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP).
major challenges and problems
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will
confront the next Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Financial
Management & Comptroller)?
Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for addressing
these challenges?
What do you consider to be the most serious problems in the
performance of the functions of the Assistant Secretary of the Air
Force (Financial Management & Comptroller)?
What management actions and time lines would you establish to
address these problems?
Answer. If confirmed, I believe a key challenge will be to improve
financial management systems, both budget and finance systems. The
services need to lay out a roadmap that supports the DOD plan. The DOD
plan includes reducing the number of finance and accounting systems,
and then improving the balance.
priorities
Question. What broad priorities will you establish in terms of
issues which must be addressed by the Assistant Secretary of the Air
Force (Financial Management & Comptroller)?
Answer. Consistent with my previous response and if confirmed, the
broad priorities I would focus on are 1) aggressively pursuing
improvements in financial management systems and their related critical
feeder systems to achieve auditable financial statements and compliant
systems, 2) constructing budgets that meet Air Force priorities and
fiscal constraints, and 3) executing budgets in a way that address
rapidly changing environments and military needs.
budgeting for flying hour costs
Question. In recent years both the Air Force and the Navy budgets
have consistently underestimated the cost of carrying out their planned
training for aviation units, that is, their flying hours costs. The
most frequently cited reasons for this are the increasing hourly cost
to operate older aircraft and a budget process that does not adequately
project and budget for likely cost increases above the most recent data
on actual cost incurred.
What are your views on the reason for the consistent underfunding
of flying hour costs and the steps that should be taken to correct it?
Answer. While I'm not familiar with the specific details of flying
hour costs, if confirmed, I will make this issue a top priority. I
understand the increased strain that is placed on resources, budget
planning and budget execution when actual costs significantly differ
from budgeted costs.
financial management and accountability
Question. DOD's financial management deficiencies have been the
subject of many audit reports over the past 10 or more years. Despite
numerous strategies and initiatives the Department and its components
are undertaking to correct these deficiencies, financial data continues
to be unreliable.
What do you consider to be the top financial management issues to
be addressed by the Department of the Air Force over the next 5 years?
If confirmed, how do you plan to provide the needed leadership and
commitment necessary to ensure results and improve financial management
in the Air Force?
If confirmed, what are the most important performance measurements
you would use to evaluate changes in the Air Force's financial
operations to determine if its plans and initiatives are being
implemented as intended and the anticipated results are being achieved?
Answer. I consider the top financial management issues for the next
5 years to parallel the priorities I noted previously. If confirmed,
I'll provide the necessary leadership, strong commitment, and emphasis
to the priorities outlined by the President, the Secretary of Defense
and the Secretary of the Air Force. The key driver and critical success
factor is sustained senior management level attention, and we have it.
It is my understanding that the Secretary of Defense and the Under
Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) are very concerned with financial
management improvement and so is the Secretary of the Air Force.
compliance with chief financial officers act
Question. The Chief Financial Officers Act requires the annual
preparation and audit of financial statements for Federal agencies.
However, the DOD Inspector General and GAO's financial audit results
have continually pointed out serious internal control weaknesses
concerning hundreds of billions of dollars of material and equipment,
as well as billions of dollars of errors in the Department's financial
records.
In your view, is the Air Force capable of meeting the requirements
imposed by the Chief Financial Officers Act? If not, please describe
the actions you think are necessary to bring the Air Force into
compliance and the extent to which such actions are the responsibility
of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Financial Management &
Comptroller) or other officials in the Department of the Air Force or
the Department of Defense.
Answer. I think the Air Force is capable of meeting the
requirements imposed by the Chief Financial Officers Act and I'm aware
that other agencies have made great strides in this area. Since
complying with the CFO Act is a legislative duty, if confirmed, I will
make this a high priority item.
standardization within the department of defense
Question. Many of the financial management initiatives currently
underway within the Department of Defense (DOD) are centrally
controlled by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and most
observers believe that financial management and comptroller practices
should be standardized throughout the Department of Defense to the
maximum extent possible.
What role do you feel the military departments should have in the
decision-making process when DOD-wide financial management decisions
are made?
What are your views on standardizing financial management systems
(including hardware and software) and financial management practices
across the Department of Defense?
Are there areas where you believe the Air Force needs to maintain
unique financial management systems?
Answer. I believe standardization promotes efficiency and
jointness. While OSD has key responsibility for DOD-wide financial
management decisions, the services are important customers, paying a
large amount of the cost, and must ensure necessary information is
provided. I'm not currently aware of any areas where the Air Force
needs to maintain unique financial management systems, but there may be
areas where practical applications and cost require it. If confirmed,
financial management systems will be one of my top priorities.
responsibility for accuracy of financial data
Question. When the Department of Defense, through the Under
Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) or the Defense Finance and
Accounting Service, prepares financial or budget information for
submission to the Office of Management and Budget or Congress, who will
be responsible for the accuracy of such information concerning the Air
Force?
Who will be responsible for ensuring that the financial management
and accounting systems of the Department of the Air Force have the
interfaces and internal controls needed to produce timely and accurate
financial information?
Answer. I believe the responsibility must be shared. The Air Force
is responsible for the accuracy and timeliness of its input information
and for ensuring its financial regulations are followed. OSD, working
through the Comptroller, and DFAS are responsible for developing and
operating the systems and procedures that compile financial management
information.
financial management training
Question. In response to the Defense Acquisition Workforce
Improvement Act of 1991, DOD has taken action directed at improving the
professionalism of its acquisition workforce. This was brought about as
a result of the need to better ensure that DOD's acquisition workforce
was well versed in the rapidly changing technical skills needed to keep
abreast of acquisition trends. A key part of the effort to upgrade the
professionalism (technical currency) of DOD's acquisition workforce was
the requirement that each acquisition official receive a minimum of 80
hours of continuous learning every 2 years. While DOD has stated that
this should be a goal for financial management personnel, it has not
made it a requirement because of uncertainties over whether necessary
funding would be available.
What are you views on the merits of establishing a requirement that
all Air Force financial management personnel receive a minimum of 80
hours of training every 2 years?
If confirmed, what actions would you take to ensure that the Air
Force's financial management personnel keep abreast of emerging
technologies and developments in financial management?
Answer. I support the requirement that all Air Force financial
management personnel receive a minimum of 80 hours training every 2
years. If confirmed, I would ensure the Air Force's financial
management personnel remain current with emerging technologies and
developments in financial management by supporting programmed and work-
in-progress initiatives.
ppbs
Question. Recently, a commission which included a number of former
Defense officials and former Comptroller General Charles Bowsher
asserted that the Department's Planning, Programming, and Budgeting
System (PPBS) is no longer functioning effectively.
What are your views on the PPBS process? Are there any changes that
you would recommend?
Answer. If confirmed, I would welcome the opportunity to review the
PPBS process. Because there are a number of agencies other than just
the services that are involved with the process, I think a senior level
group composed of key players should be formed to study the issue and
prepare a report that may or may not recommend changes.
government performance and results act (gpra)
Question. If confirmed as the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force
(Financial Management & Comptroller), what would your responsibilities
be with respect to the requirements of the GPRA to set specific
performance goals and measure progress toward meeting them?
What additional steps can the Air Force take to fulfill the goals
of the GPRA to link budget inputs to measurable performance outputs?
Answer. Since the GPRA report includes the measurement and
reporting of resources, the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force
(Financial Management & Comptroller) has collateral responsibility with
respect to GPRA publication; and of course, DFO requirements include
broad performance measures. I believe that steps the Air Force can take
to fulfill the goals of the GPRA include the judicious selection of
measurable and meaningful metrics.
incremental funding
Question. In the fiscal year 2000 budget request, the previous
administration proposed to shift from the traditional full funding of
military construction projects to an incremental funding approach. This
proposal was unanimously rejected by the congressional defense
committees.
What are your views regarding full-funding versus incremental
funding of major weapons systems?
Answer. I completely support the full-funding policy that has
served the department well for decades. There may, however, be an
occasional need to waive that policy.
savings from competition
Question. The Air Force and the other military departments have
substantially increased the number of public-private competitions in
recent years in order to achieve greater efficiency and effectiveness
while reducing costs. Studies have shown that the military departments
save money regardless of which side wins the competition.
Do you believe that decisions on whether to outsource work
currently performed by government civilians should be made through
public-private competition?
What steps should the Air Force undertake to measure the actual
savings achieved after such competitions?
What are your views on the practice of including ``funding wedges''
in the budget that anticipate savings from public-private competition
or other efficiencies prior to those savings actually being achieved?
Answer. I believe some tasks are so inherently governmental they
should remain in the public arena. Otherwise, I believe competition
produces greater benefits for reduced costs and I support competition.
My view on the practice of ``funding wedges'' before those savings are
achieved is that it forces an unrealistic amount for planned costs and
consequently results in variances to budgeted costs.
working capital funds
Question. Are there any changes you would recommend in the policies
governing working capital funds in the Department of the Air Force?
Do you believe the scope of activities funded through working
capital funds should be increased or decreased?
Answer. I am not currently familiar enough with working capital
funds to recommend any changes. Based on my experience, I believe the
scope of working capital funds is adequate. Especially in the areas of
supply and depot maintenance, the working capital fund concept promotes
competition and encourages a private sector method of business. This
gives the customer visibility to costs so informed decisions and trade-
offs can be made.
oversight of special access programs
Question. As the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Financial
Management & Comptroller), will you be responsible for the financial
management of special access programs in the Air Force?
Are you satisfied with the oversight standards for the financial
management of special access programs? Are these standards as stringent
as those for other programs?
Does the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force
(Financial Management & Comptroller) have sufficient cleared personnel
and authority to review special access programs?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I will have responsibility for the
financial management of all special access programs in the Air Force.
My understanding is that the oversight standards for the financial
management of special access programs are as stringent as those for
other programs. The Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force
(Financial Management & Comptroller) has one office with appropriately
cleared personnel, dedicated to the financial management of Air Force
special access programs.
legislative liaison responsibility
Question. Under the current organization of the Air Force,
legislative liaison function affecting congressional appropriations
committees are performed by officers under the supervision and control
of the Air Force Comptroller.
If confirmed, what would be your relationship with the Chief of
Legislative Affairs regarding budgetary and appropriations matters?
What requirements or procedures, if any, would you put into place,
if confirmed, to ensure that financial information is made available on
an equal basis to authorization committees?
Answer. If confirmed, I will be responsible for budget
appropriations matters while the Chief of Legislative Affairs has
responsibility for budgetary authorization matters. Our
responsibilities are spelled out in accordance with Public Law. In the
past, the two organizations have enjoyed a congenial relationship that
I would expect will continue.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that the committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, when asked, to give your personal views,
even if those views differ from the administration in power?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities, as the Secretary of the Air
Force?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings and
other communication of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Strom Thurmond
1. Senator Thurmond. Based on your private sector and military
experiences, what is the most immediate change that must be made to
improve financial management within the Department of Defense?
Mr. Montelongo. I believe we must give Congress and the American
people full confidence in the way the department manages and accounts
for funds--we must ensure the systems and processes are in place to
achieve this goal. Also, our planning, programming and budgeting
processes must remain relevant as we face the demands of the new
century.
2. Senator Thurmond. As you may be aware, many of our military
installations are in a poor state of repair due to the under-funding of
the repair and maintenance accounts. Although the habitual under-
funding of these accounts is a primary cause, diversion of funds to
other areas is a contributing factor.
What controls would you initiate to limit the diversion of funds
from the real property maintenance accounts?
Mr. Montelongo. Past experience tells me that this diversion is
probably caused by efforts to meet primary mission requirements within
a constrained funding level. By ensuring there is enough funding for
all basic requirements--mission operations, operations support, people
programs, physical plant, and modernization, we limit this migration of
funds.
3. Senator Thurmond. Outsourcing of activities to the private
sector seems to be the Department's immediate answer for achieving
savings in the operating budget. In your personal view, how can we
guarantee that these are long-term savings rather than a buy-in on the
initial contract?
Mr. Montelongo. Certainly there is risk in making any long-term
savings assumptions. However, I understand that the process the
Department uses to outsource activities allows these decisions to be
revisited in the future. At that time, if a function is more cost-
effective to be accomplished in-house, it is returned to the
government.
______
[The nomination reference of Michael Montelongo follows:]
Nomination Reference
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
June 12, 2001.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Michael Montelongo of Georgia, to be Assistant Secretary of the Air
Force, vice Robert F. Hale.
______
[The biographical sketch of Michael Montelongo, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Michael Montelongo
Michael Montelongo is currently the Customer Care Consulting
Manager at Ernst & Young in Atlanta, Georgia. Prior to that he was the
Operations Consulting Manager at Ernst & Young from 1999 to 2000.
Mr. Montelongo was the Chief of Staff and Director of Small
Business Services at BellSouth from 1996 to 1998. He was a
Congressional Fellow in the U.S. Senate from 1995-1996, a Special
Assistant to the Army Chief of Staff from 1994-1995. From 1992 to 1994
he was the Chief of Staff and General Manager for the U.S. Army at Fort
Bliss, Texas, a Senior Analyst and Associate Professor at the U.S.
Military Academy from 1988 to 1991.
Mr. Montelongo graduated from U.S. Military Academy with a B.S.
degree in 1977 and from Harvard Business School with a M.B.A. in
Corporate Strategy, Finance in 1988.
______
[The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
form that details the biographical, financial, and other
information of the nominee. The form executed by Michael
Montelongo in connection with his nomination follows:]
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Room SR-228
Washington, DC 20510-6050
(202) 224-3871
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation
of your answer applies.
Part A--Biographical Information
Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.
1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
Michael Montelongo.
Michael Montelongo, Jr.
Michael (``Mike'') Joseph Montelongo.
2. Position to which nominated:
Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Financial Management and
Comptroller).
3. Date of nomination:
June 12, 2001.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
5. Date and place of birth:
August 20, 1955; New York, N.Y.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to the former Debra Annette Tenison.
7. Names and ages of children:
Amanda K. Montelongo, 11.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
U.S. Army Command & General Staff College--8/91-6/92, Diploma--6/
92.
Harvard Business School--8/86-6/88, MBA--6/88.
U.S. Military Academy--7/73-6/77, BS--6/77.
Xavier High School--9/69-6/73, Diploma--6/73.
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description Employer Location Dates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Music Minister....................... Self-Employment........ St. Peter Chanel 4/01-Present
Catholic Church
Roswell, GA.
Music Minister....................... The Catholic Church of Marietta GA............ 9/00-Present
St. Ann.
Music Minister....................... Self-Employment........ The Cathedral of Christ 8/00-Present
the King, Atlanta, GA.
Sales Executive Consulting Manager... Cap Gemini Ernst & Atlanta, GA............ 5/00-Present
Young, U.S. LLC.
Consulting Manager................... Ernst & Young LLP...... Atlanta, GA............ 3/99-5/00
Staff Director....................... BellSouth.............. Atlanta, GA............ 11/96-10/98
Congressional Fellow................. U.S. Army.............. U.S. Senate, 7/95-10/96
Washington, DC.
Special Assistant.................... U.S. Army.............. Pentagon, Washington, 4/94-7/95
DC.
Operations Officer, Executive Officer U.S. Army.............. Fort Bliss, TX......... 7/92-4/94
Student.............................. U.S. Army.............. Fort Leavenworth, KS... 7/91-6/92
Assistant Professor.................. U.S. Army.............. West Point, NY......... 1/91-6/91
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative,
honorary or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State,
or local governments, other than those listed above.
None.
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., Atlanta, GA, Consultant (Cap
Gemini Ernst & Young).
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
Harvard Business School Club of Atlanta, Vice President for
Community Affairs.
Georgia Hispanic Voter Registration Campaign, Board of Directors.
Association of West Point Graduates Minority Outreach Committee,
Member.
National Society of Hispanic MBAs, Member.
TEC Ministry and Catholic Parishes, Music Director.
13. Political affiliations and activities:
(a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or
any public office for which you have been a candidate.
None.
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5
years.
None.
(c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $100 or more for the past 5 years.
None.
14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals, and any other special
recognitions for outstanding service or achievements.
Spirit of TEC Award (Service to youth ministry program).
Department of the Army Legion of Merit, Meritorious Service Medal,
Commendation Medal.
Congressional Fellowship.
Army Civil Schooling Fellowship.
Service Academy and ROTC Scholarships.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
Case study co-author of ``Florida Power Light Quality Improvement
Story Exercise'' for Harvard MBA curriculum. Published in 1988.
16. Speeches: Provide the committee with two copies of any formal
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have
copies of and are on topics relevant to the position for which you have
been nominated.
None.
17. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree,
if confirmed, to respond to requests to appear and testify before any
duly constituted committee of the Senate?
Yes.
______
[The nominee responded to the questions in Parts B-F of the
committee questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set
forth in the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to
Parts B-F are contained in the committee's executive files.]
------
Signature and Date
I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate,
and complete.
Michael Montelongo.
This 15th day of June, 2001.
[The nomination of Michael Montelongo was reported to the
Senate by Chairman Levin on July 11, 2001, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on July 12, 2001.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to John J. Young, Jr., by
Chairman Levin prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
June 21, 2001.
Hon. Carl Levin,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Enclosed are the answers to the advance
questions the Senate Armed Services Committee asked me to complete.
Respectfully,
John J. Young, Jr.
cc: Senator John W. Warner,
Ranking Minority Member.
______
Questions and Responses
defense reforms
Question. More than a decade has passed since the enactment of the
Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and
the Special Operations reforms.
Do you support full implementation of these defense reforms?
Answer. I am committed to the complete and effective implementation
of these reforms.
Question. What is your view of the extent to which these defense
reforms have been implemented?
Answer. I believe these reforms have been accepted and implemented
and that they have clarified the responsibilities and authorities of
the Secretary of Defense, the Secretaries of the Military Departments,
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. The
effectiveness of our joint warfighting forces has improved as a result
of these reforms.
Question. What do you consider to be the most important aspects of
these defense reforms?
Answer. I believe the most significant value of these reforms to be
improved joint warfighting capabilities. Our military is stronger and
more lethal because our services can work better together. If
confirmed, I will maintain and extend the Navy's commitment to the
principles of joint warfare including interoperability and joint
doctrine.
Question. The goals of Congress in enacting these defense reforms,
as reflected in Section 3 of the Goldwater-Nichols Department of
Defense Reorganization Act, can be summarized as strengthening civilian
control; improving military advice; placing clear responsibility on the
combatant commanders for the accomplishment of their missions; ensuring
the authority of the combatant commanders is commensurate with their
responsibility; increasing attention to the formulation of strategy and
to contingency planning; providing for more efficient use of defense
resources; and enhancing the effectiveness of military operations and
improving the management and administration of the Department of
Defense.
Do you agree with these goals?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Recently, there have been articles which indicate an
interest within the Department of Defense in modifying Goldwater-
Nichols in light of the changing environment and possible revisions to
the national strategy.
Do you anticipate that legislative proposals to amend Goldwater-
Nichols may be appropriate? If so, what areas do you believe it might
be appropriate to address in these proposals?
Answer. If confirmed, I expect to play an active role in this
administration's efforts to continue defense reforms. The Department
has made excellent progress on acquisition reform and much of this
program is due to the support of Congress in passing historic reform
legislation. I will continue to emphasize reform and work with
Congress, if and when additional legislation is required.
I believe the Department will continue to need Congress' help over
the course of the next several years as we continue to work this area.
Legislative proposals may be necessary, but I am not aware of any in
particular at this time. Most importantly, the Department will need
your help in resisting new restrictions.
duties
Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research, Development, and
Acquisition)?
Answer. It is my understanding that, at the present time, the
Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research, Development, and
Acquisition) serves as the Navy Acquisition Executive and has the
authority, responsibility and accountability for all acquisition
functions and programs within the Department of the Navy.
Question. What background and experience do you have that you
believe qualifies you for this position?
Answer. I believe that my responsibilities and experience as a
professional staff member on the Senate Appropriations Defense
Subcommittee as well as experience working in a variety of positions in
private industry provides me with a solid background in research,
development, and acquisition issues. In addition, my experience
reviewing the DOD's most advanced procurement programs and research
projects dovetails perfectly with the Department of the Navy's move
toward a high technology future.
Question. Do you believe that there are actions you need to take to
enhance your ability to perform the duties of the Assistant Secretary
of the Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition?
Answer. I am professionally and technically prepared to assume the
duties of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research, Development,
and Acquisition). If confirmed, I expect to have a close working
relationship with the Secretary and the Under Secretary of the Navy. I
would be aided in my duties with the expertise resident in the strong
acquisition management team that currently exists within the
Department. However, where opportunities exist for strengthening the
team, I would seek to do so with members of the career workforce as
well as individuals from industry and academia.
Furthermore, I plan to establish a close working relationship with
the operational side of the Navy and Marine Corps team including the
Chief of Naval Operations, Commandant of the Marine Corps, as well as
others. We will need to understand each others' problems and concerns
and how we can help each other and ultimately provide sailors and
marines with the required systems and platforms that are effective,
reliable, and affordable.
Lastly, I plan to establish a close working relationship with my
counterparts in the Army and Air Force as well as the Under Secretary
of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to ensure
coordination of key issues. I also expect to personally work with the
Directors of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization and the Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency to advance the warfighting
capabilities of naval systems.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what duties and functions do
you expect that Secretary Rumsfeld would prescribe for you?
Answer. The Secretary's Management Committee consisting of the
Deputy Secretary of Defense, three Service Secretaries, and Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics has been
discussed as an operating model for the Department of Defense. If
implemented by the Secretary of Defense, this may result in the
assignment of additional duties. However, at this point in time, I am
not aware of any other additional duties.
Question. In carrying out your duties, how will you work with the
following: the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics); the Secretary of the Navy; the Under Secretary of the Navy;
and the other Navy Assistant Secretaries.
Answer. If confirmed as the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for
Research, Development, and Acquisition, I plan to establish and
maintain close relationships with each of those identified below to
execute the best possible acquisition program for the Department.
If confirmed as the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research,
Development, and Acquisition), I would represent the Department of the
Navy to the Under Secretary of Defense on all matters relating to Navy
acquisition policy and programs. In addition, the Assistant Secretary
of the Navy (Research, Development, and Acquisition), as the Service
Acquisition Executive, provides recommendations on all Navy ACAT ID
programs to the Under Secretary of Defense.
Under the Goldwater-Nichols Act, the Secretary of the Navy has
explicit authority to assign such of his powers, functions, and duties,
as he considers appropriate to the Under Secretary of the Navy and to
the Assistant Secretaries. It is my understanding that the Secretary of
the Navy has made the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research,
Development, and Acquisition) responsible to ``. . . establish policy
and procedures and manage all research, development, and acquisition .
. .'' within the Department and serve as the Navy's Service Acquisition
Executive and Senior Procurement Executive, among other duties. If
confirmed, I will work closely with the Secretary and Under Secretary
in furtherance of these assignments and duties.
As the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research, Development, and
Acquisition) has responsibility for the Navy's acquisition system, the
three other ASNs have responsibility for their respective areas:
Manpower and Reserve Affairs, Installations and Environment, and
Financial Management and Comptroller. If confirmed, I will work with
the other ASNs on joint issues and on matters affecting their
particular responsibilities as appropriate.
Question. The Secretary of Defense has determined that the
Secretaries of the military departments will represent their
departments on the Defense Acquisition Board. This role has
traditionally been performed by the Assistant Secretaries of Research,
Development, and Acquisition.
How do you believe this change will affect the acquisition role of
the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research, Development, and
Acquisition)?
Answer. My understanding is that the Service Secretaries'
participation in the Defense Acquisition Board process does not change
the relationship between them and their Service Acquisition Executives.
Question. In your view, is this change consistent with the role of
the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research, Development, and
Acquisition) as the Service Acquisition Executive?
Answer. Yes.
Question. To whom will the Navy's Program Executive Officers report
on acquisition matters--to the Secretary of the Navy, the Assistant
Secretary of the Navy (Research, Development, and Acquisition), or
both?
Answer. If confirmed, I do not anticipate changing the reporting
process for acquisition matters. I understand that the Navy Program
Executive Officers report to the Assistant Secretary of the Navy
(Research, Development, and Acquisition), and the Secretary of the Navy
is kept aware of, and is engaged in, program matters.
major challenges and problems
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will
confront the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research, Development,
and Acquisition)?
Answer. I believe the most important challenge facing the
Department of the Navy today is how to maintain our Nation's naval
forces in view of a rapidly evolving threat and today's fiscal
realities. If confirmed as the Assistant Secretary of the Navy
(Research, Development, and Acquisition), my challenge will be to
integrate the research, development, and acquisition functions in the
context of this complex equation. These critical challenges are:
(1) Maintaining our technical advantage over all adversaries;
(2) Developing and fielding affordable systems; and
(3) Maintaining a viable industrial and technological base.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. These are interrelated challenges, and cannot be resolved
individually. They must be addressed in the context of improving the
way the acquisition community and the government conducts business.
First, If confirmed, I will be an active participant in the
acquisition reform initiatives being undertaken by the Secretary of
Defense and the Secretary of the Navy. Only through comprehensive
reforms can the barriers between the defense and commercial sectors of
the economy be reduced or eliminated. Better integration of the defense
and commercial sectors will leverage our Nation's technology base and
reduce overhead costs. This will result in a technically superior and
affordable product for our warfighters.
I will work to ensure that the Navy and Marine Corps establish an
achievable balance between resources and requirements. Once this
balance is achieved, it will be important to properly fund the
development and production efforts and avoid the funding disruptions
that add serious inefficiency to fielding new capabilities. In
addition, I will work to continue efforts to measure accurately the
value delivered for each investment and procurement dollar.
Second, I also believe we must ensure that our infrastructure and
workforce capabilities respond to the changing world threat
environment. If confirmed, I will work with the Secretary of the Navy
to properly size our R&D and acquisition infrastructure to meet this
new world reality.
Question. What do you consider to be the most serious problems in
the performance of the functions of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy
(Research, Development, and Acquisition)?
Answer. At this time, as the prospective Assistant Secretary of the
Navy (Research, Development, and Acquisition), I cannot comment on what
may be the most serious problems in the performance of the functions of
the position.
Question. If confirmed, what management actions and time lines
would you establish to address these problems?
Answer. If confirmed and problems were to arise, I would do my best
to solve problems as expeditiously as possible to maintain the
integrity of the acquisition process.
priorities
Question. What broad priorities will you establish in terms of
issues, which must be addressed by the Assistant Secretary of the Navy
(Research, Development, and Acquisition)?
Answer. I believe that the set of priorities stated by the
Secretary of the Navy represent an excellent framework for the
Department. These priorities include: improving the Navy's combat
capability; enriching the lives of sailors and marines; swiftly
incorporating technology across the total operation; and dramatically
improving the Department's business practices. If confirmed, I will
work hard to address these challenging priorities as part of the
Department's acquisition process.
streamlining the acquisition process
Question. Both Secretary Rumsfeld and Under Secretary Aldridge have
indicated that they believe that there is a compelling need to
streamline the acquisition process to reduce the fielding times for new
weapons systems and capabilities.
What specific steps could the Navy take to reduce cycle time for
major acquisition programs?
Answer. I believe that there are three key steps that we must take
to reduce cycle time.
First, we must employ demonstrated technology, military and
commercial, as much as possible. We should use all available techniques
and resources in order to identify developing and maturing technologies
that can be used in our weapon and combat control systems.
Second, we should time phase our set balanced, achievable
requirements in order which will permit the Navy and Marine Corps to
employ evolving technologies and to avoid applying technologies that
have not been proven in the planned or near planned operating
environment.
Third, we must efficiently apply simulations, engineering test
beds, and integrated testing and evaluation to rapidly deliver products
and insert new technologies as they mature.
Question. Do you believe that incremental or phased acquisition
approaches could help address this problem?
Answer. Yes, I believe incremental, phased, evolutionary
acquisition or time-phased approaches, whatever term you choose to use,
can be important and useful approaches to placing the best capabilities
in the hands of our warfighters as rapidly as possible.
Question. Some would point to the testing process as an overall
area that should be scrutinized in this effort to reduce these cycle
times. However, the increasing complexity and interaction of complex
systems would tend to argue for achieving higher confidence during
testing that these systems will work as advertised.
If you are confirmed as the Assistant Secretary of the Navy
(Research, Development, and Acquisition), how would you propose to
achieve the appropriate balance between the desire to reduce
acquisition cycle times and the need to perform adequate operational
testing?
Answer. I agree that testing is critical to providing confidence in
new weapons systems that our sailors and marines deserve. A review of
all acquisition processes (including testing) and process changes is
necessary to improve acquisition cycle times. If confirmed, I would
work to ensure an appropriate balance between reducing acquisition
cycle times and adequate operational testing by capitalizing on the
benefits of spiral development and new testing technologies.
Question. Do you anticipate the need for changes in legislative or
regulatory authority?
Answer. As I mentioned earlier, I expect to play an active role in
this administration's efforts to continue defense reforms. The
Department has made excellent progress on acquisition reform and much
of this is due to the support of Congress in passing historic reform
legislation. If confirmed, I will continue to emphasize reform and work
with Congress, if and when additional legislation is required.
Question. One of the features of the Department's acquisition
system that is frequently criticized is the extensive ``concurrency,''
or overlap, between the development and production phases of major
weapon system acquisition programs.
Where and under what conditions should concurrency be used in the
development and production phases of Navy's major weapon system
acquisition programs?
Answer. Concurrency, or the overlap of program development onto
production, must be carefully considered. In general, complex programs
that attempt to complete development and operational testing without
demonstrating technical maturity may increase program risk by incurring
additional cost and delivery delays. A degree of concurrency may be
acceptable between development and production phases when the remaining
development is very low risk. It should be used in major weapon system
acquisition programs when there are near-term threats that must be
addressed, and suitable technology is available to address the threat.
It is one methodology that may help reduce cycle time. For example,
combining developmental testing and operational testing--when it makes
sense and while still allowing for an independent assessment--is a form
of concurrency that can streamline acquisition. If confirmed, I will
strive to ensure concurrency is used only when appropriate to reduce
cycle time without undue risk.
Question. Do you believe there has been too much concurrency?
Answer. The answer depends on the specific acquisition program. The
amount of concurrency in a program is a business judgment--balancing
risk, cost, production line flow, and manufacturing and design team
personnel workload against (technology maturity, etc.) and early
fielding of (cycle time reduction) capability for the warfighter.
Concurrency is not always bad. When operational requirements can be met
with low risk technologies such as commercial items, concurrent
development and production concepts may be effectively used within
acceptable schedule and cost risk.
Question. If so, what steps should be taken to reduce such
concurrency?
Answer. Acquisition strategies should specifically address the
benefits and risks associated with reducing lead-time through
concurrency, and the including risk mitigation and testsing planned, to
compensate for the use of a concurrent development strategy if
concurrent development is used. During the milestone review process, I
believe there must be an increased emphasis placed on the review of
technical risk, cost management, and schedule performance associated
with concurrency for those programs using a concurrent strategy. If
confirmed, I will work to ensure that concurrent development is used
only where appropriate.
Question. Department of Defense Instruction 5000.2, which governs
the acquisition of major weapon systems, was recently rewritten to
require that new technologies be demonstrated in a relevant environment
(preferably an operational environment) before they may be incorporated
into DOD acquisition programs.
Are you familiar with the revised version of DOD Instruction
5000.2, and if so, what are your views on this revision?
Answer. Yes, I am familiar with the revised version of DOD
Instruction 5000.2. I believe that the revision supports ``spiral
acquisition'' and provides the testing requirements that will ensure
sailors and marines receive weapons systems that meet their needs in an
operational environment.
Question. Do you believe that the process of testing and
demonstrating new technologies is more efficiently conducted in the
context of major acquisition programs, or in stand-alone technology
program?
Answer. I believe that testing and demonstrating new technologies
is appropriate in both stand-alone technology programs as well as major
acquisition programs. To ensure the efficient use of our limited
resources, new technologies must demonstrate their value before
incorporating them into weapon systems. Once incorporated into a weapon
system, they must demonstrate that they perform as intended and
interact properly with the more complex system of systems. If
confirmed, I will seek to ensure the proper testing and evaluation of
new technologies.
Question. Would the Navy's major acquisition programs be more
successful if the Department were to follow the commercial model and
mature its technologies with research and development funds before they
are incorporated into product development programs?
Answer. The increasing capability, complexity and interdependency
of modern weapons are a result of the application of new technologies.
As I mentioned previously, I believe that demonstrating new
technologies is appropriate in both technology programs as well as
major acquisition programs. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that
new technologies receive the appropriate research and development
funding.
test and evaluation
Question. The Department has frequently been criticized for failing
to adequately test its major weapon systems before they are put into
production.
Would you agree that a strong, independent Director of Operational
Test and Evaluation is critical to the success of the Department's
acquisition program?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review roles and criticality of all
participants in the Navy acquisition process. The critical ingredient
to the success of Navy acquisition programs is a disciplined process
for design, development, testing, and fielding. Success in this process
also requires both adequate funding and sufficient time to complete
thorough testing. If confirmed, I will seek to ensure realistic and
complete testing of systems in development. The DOD Director of
Operational Test and Evaluation provides the Department with an
important assessment of the adequacy of our operational testing.
Question. Would you recommend that the Department proceed with an
acquisition program in the absence of a determination by the
operational test agencies that the system is effective and suitable for
combat?
Answer. No, because under normal circumstances, I believe it would
be unacceptable to proceed with an acquisition program that is not
operationally effective and suitable. Further, it is my understanding
that the Law 10 U.S.C. 2399 does not permit proceeding in the
``absence'' of a favorable operational test agency determination (Title
10 U.S.C.--Sec 2399, Para. 2.(b) 1.(1) and (b) 2.(2) 1.(A) and 2.(B))
and it would be wrong to field a system that has not been tested. In
rare instances where there is an urgent and immediate need for a system
to counter an emergent threat, there are procedures for the Milestone
Decision Authority to determine necessary testing in order to meet the
threat.
acquisition workforce
Question. There has been considerable pressure to reduce
acquisition organizations on the basis of absolute numbers. DOD has
reduced its acquisition workforce approximately 50 percent, from the
end of fiscal year 1990 to the end of fiscal year 1999, while the
workload has essentially remained constant, and even increased by some
measures.
Are you concerned that reductions to the acquisition workforce will
have a negative effect on effective program management, and if so, how
do you plan to address this problem?
Answer. If confirmed, I intend to review this issue carefully and
develop appropriate strategies to ensure that the acquisition workforce
continues to meet the evolving needs of the Department.
Question. As the Department continues to emphasize contracting out
and competitive sourcing, the skills, training and experience of the
acquisition workforce will be critical in effectively managing these
contracts. In addition, the Department's Acquisition Workforce 2005
Task Force has reported that DOD will be faced with a significant
demographic challenge as 50 percent of the acquisition workforce will
be eligible to retire in the next 5 years.
Does current acquisition workforce have the quality and training to
adapt to new acquisition reforms, as well as to the increased workload
and responsibility for managing privatization efforts?
Answer. In my view, the workforce must become increasingly
knowledgeable in all aspects of acquisition reform including
privatization efforts. If confirmed, I will support the Department of
the Navy's current emphasis on training and continuous learning for the
acquisition workforce, with a focus on management and leadership, as
well as technical competencies.
Question. What is your view of the recommendations of the
Acquisition Workforce 2005 Task Force and what role do you expect to
play in implementing these recommendations?
Answer. If confirmed, I will examine the recommendations of the
taskforce to develop a strategy to shape the Department's acquisition
workforce of the future.
acquisition process problems
Question. The committee has been concerned about schedule and cost
problems in a number of Navy acquisition programs. The acquisition
system seems to have been surprised by some of these problems. Various
Department officials have testified that the implementation of earned
value management systems and integrated product teams should have
provided greater visibility into cost and schedule, but there would
appear to have been some shortcomings in that regard.
What structural changes or policy changes to you feel are
appropriate to help avoid similar problems on current and future Navy
programs?
Answer. I share the committee's view of the overall importance of
this area. If confirmed, one of my primary thrusts will be to ensure
that the Navy's acquisition programs are well-managed and that cost and
schedule problems are kept to a minimum. Earned Value Management and
Integrated Product Teams are powerful tools for achieving those
objectives. I believe that it would be appropriate to review the Navy's
acquisition programs and determine how Earned Value Management and
Integrated Product Teams are being employed prior to considering any
structural or policy remedies.
Acquiring a grasp of the true state of the Navy's acquisition
programs, as well as an understanding of the underlying causes of their
condition, are essential precursors to improving performance.
ship acquisition information
Question. In the past, the Navy has not provided Congress
sufficient ``heads-up'' on key information regarding ship acquisition
costs when known cost differences occur.
What will your policy be on providing Congress information in a
timely manner on cost changes regarding ship acquisition programs?
Answer. If confirmed, my policy will be to provide Congress
information on cost performance changes on ship acquisition programs in
conformance with congressional statutory requirements in a timely
manner.
Question. The Navy's DDG-51 Industrial Base Study update provided
to Congress in October 2000 and the Analysis of Certain Shipbuilding
Programs provided in May 2001 were required by Public Law 106-398. Both
studies fell short of the requirements stated in the law.
What will your policy be on providing Congress the information it
requires and specifically how do you intend to change the process to
ensure that required reports provide the information required on the
date required?
Answer. If confirmed, my policy will be to provide Congress the
information required by the requested date. I will review and implement
appropriate internal process improvements as needed to meet
congressional information deadlines.
The Navy has recently rebaselined a number of acquisition programs.
There are some programs that have been rebaselined more than once in
the past 3 years.
Question. What do you intend to do to review the process used to
monitor program managers and the metrics they use to determine problem
areas and progress of programs?
Answer. If confirmed, I will examine the issue and if required
develop metrics to evaluate programs both on a day-to-day management
basis as well as at the corporate level.
Question. What initiatives do you intend to take to correct the
problems with the ship acquisition cost estimates that result in cost
differences as the FYDP outyears become budget years?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the senior leadership of the
Department to develop a better budgetary process that would accurately
reflect shipbuilding cost estimates for out-year ships. My goal would
be to correct the current process to ensure that costs estimates are
accurate and that budgets support these estimates.
aerospace industrial base
Question. The Department has decided to make a winner-take-all
selection for moving to engineering and manufacturing development phase
of the Joint Strike Fighter program. This raises questions about the
future viability of the aircraft industrial base.
To what extent do you see a connection between maintaining a
healthy aerospace production base and maintaining superior warfighting
capabilities?
Answer. The Navy Department has a vital interest in the concern
assessing and ensuring that the aerospace industrial base has its
ability to produce the aircraft and weapon systems needed by the Navy
and Marine Corps in the 21st century. The health of the aerospace
industrial base is a critical component to the future of our combat
capabilities. If confirmed, I will strive to identify aerospace
industrial base issues that may impact Navy acquisition programs and
work with the OSD team and Congress to determine how best to resolve
those issues.
depot maintenance
Question. Some defense contractors have argued for a cradle-to-
grave approach where the production facility becomes the maintenance
facility over the life of a system. Others argue that there are certain
capabilities that must be maintained in government-owned facilities to
ensure that the services will have ready access to this capability
during a national emergency.
How do you believe that the government should decide on the
appropriate balance between these competing views of the maintenance
strategy?
Answer. I am aware that this issue has been studied numerous times
before, both internal and external to the Department of Defense. While
some additional savings may be achieved through further outsourcing, if
I am confirmed, I would not support outsourcing decisions based solely
on unsubstantiated or marginal savings. Alternately, I believe that
outsourcing should be considered as a serious option when such a
strategy is appropriate and can reduce cost and ensure weapon system
performance and readiness.
I believe that it is important to remember that depot maintenance
is a core capability (measured in direct labor hours), which must be
maintained in government-owned facilities to ensure that the services
will have ready access during a national emergency. There are
unacceptable risks associated with the wholesale outsourcing of all
depot maintenance to the private sector.
I am aware that there are public laws that impact this balance. For
example, 10 U.S.C. 2464 requires DOD to maintain or establish core
logistics capabilities to support weapons systems within 4 years of the
initial operating capability. 10 U.S.C. 2466 requires that at least 50
percent of each service's depot maintenance be accomplished by
government employees (measured in dollars). If confirmed, I will work
to ensure that the Department of the Navy complies with these statutes.
modernization and recapitalization
Question. The Navy has just over 300 ships and the average age of
Navy aircraft is approaching 20 years.
Do you believe that the Navy can meet its modernization and
recapitalization goals without a significant infusion of funds?
Answer. I have been advised that the Department has had to realign
significant funding from its recapitalization and modernization
programs in order to meet increasing readiness and manpower demands. As
a result, the shipbuilding and aircraft procurement accounts are
substantially below the levels required to maintain our current force
structure. Additionally, modernization programs have been reduced to
historically low levels.
Question. What, in your view, are ``leap-ahead'' technologies that
the Navy is or should be pursuing?
Answer. Today's complex threat environment, coupled with the
accelerating pace of technological progress and the globalization of
commerce, requires that the Navy pursue a variety of technology options
in order to be ready for an uncertain future. It also means that what
appear today to be ``leap-ahead'' technologies may not look that way
tomorrow. I believe that enhancing the range, survivability, and
precision of Navy and Marine Corps weapons and weapon platforms will
allow the Navy and Marine Corps to defeat all future adversaries. If
confirmed, I will work with both the Navy's in-house research
organizations, the other services and defense agencies, and industry
technology leaders to identify those technologies that have the highest
payoff and transition them to the warfighter in a timely manner.
multi-mission maritime aircraft
Question. The Navy has announced that it is embarking on a multi-
mission maritime aircraft (MMA) program, with procurement scheduled to
commence later in this decade. At that time, the Navy will still be
procuring the F/A-18 E/F and will be about to procure the Joint Strike
Fighter.
Do you think procurement of another major platform at the same time
is possible?
Answer. Clearly, there are many programmatic and fiscal challenges
facing the naval services and Department of Defense at this time. It is
my understanding that the Navy and OSD continue to study a variety of
MMA options to keep procurement and operating costs within projected
fiscal constraints. My experience with remanufacture programs leads me
to believe that new procurement may be a more economical solution than
remanufacture of legacy airframes. If confirmed, I will work with the
senior Department leadership to structure an appropriate program that
meets warfighting requirements within fiscal constraints.
v-22
Question. The V-22 Osprey program is at a critical juncture. If the
recommendations of the Panel to Review the V-22 Program are
implemented, there will be delay in the program, with redesign and
follow-on testing required.
How do you perceive your role, if confirmed, in ensuring that this
program is adequate to ensure a safe, effective, and suitable platform
is delivered to the Marine Corps and the Special Operations Command?
Answer. I have not had an opportunity to review the V-22 Program in
detail regarding the implementation of the Panel recommendations. If
confirmed, I will work closely with the V-22 Program Executive
Committee to establish the proper level of program oversight, and I
will execute all of my assigned and delegated responsibilities and
authorities to ensure a safe, effective and suitable V-22 is produced.
science and technologies issues
Question. Under Secretary Aldridge has testified that the
Department needs to be increasing its level of science and technology
to a level roughly equivalent to 2.5 to 3 percent of the total DOD
budget.
Do you support such an increase in the technology base funding?
Answer. Naval science and technology activities are important to
the Navy, Marine Corps and our Nation. If confirmed, I will review the
S&T budget to ensure the Department and the Nation's needs are met.
Question. Over the last 2 years, the Navy has undertaken a lengthy
planning process to identify ``grand challenges'' and ``future naval
capabilities'' to serve as a focus for prioritizing future S&T program
needs.
Are you familiar with this review, and if so, do you support it?
Answer. I am not familiar with this review. If confirmed, I will
review both the Grand Challenges and the Future Naval Capabilities
science and technology programs.
Question. Do you expect this planning process to result in a
significant realignment of Navy science and technology budgets for
fiscal years 2002 and 2003?
Answer. I have no insight into the fiscal years 2002 and 2003
budget process of the Department of the Navy, so I cannot provide a
response to this question.
Question. Over the last 3 years, a number of outside panels have
been highly critical of the performance of the service laboratories.
These panels have indicated that the civil service system is slowly
calcifying the defense laboratories and depriving them of the new
talent that they need to continue to make a valuable contribution to
defense science and technology. Congress has enacted a number of
legislative provisions to try to address these problems.
Do you believe that these legislative provisions are having the
desired effect, or do we need to consider additional measures, such as
the partial privatization of one or more laboratories?
Answer. I believe there will always be a need for a permanent cadre
of world-class scientists and engineers in the DOD labs and centers.
While some legislative provisions have helped, the current Federal
system may no longer be capable of providing or retaining the very best
scientists and engineers in this economy. As such, additional
legislation may be necessary. If confirmed, I would work with the other
services, OSD and Congress to develop proposals that will improve the
laboratory system.
Question. Are there other steps that you would recommend to
increase the flexibility and performance of the defense laboratories?
Answer. If confirmed, I will examine methods to increase the
performance of the Navy's laboratories and centers.
Question. The Department of Defense has attempted to make
increasing use of technologies developed in the private sector. These
technologies frequently need to be adapted for defense use--either at
the front end, as they are being developed, or at the back end, after
they have been developed. The Dual Use Applications Program (DUAP) and
the Commercial Operations and Support Savings Initiative (COSSI) have
been funding mechanisms through which DOD has supported such
adaptations.
Are you familiar with the DUAP and COSSI programs, and do you know
if the Department plans to continue funding these programs?
Answer. I am familiar with the Department's DUAP and COSSI
programs. I have no insight into the budget process of the Department
of the Navy, so I cannot provide a response to this question.
ocean sciences and policy
Question. There remains an essential need to maintain assured
access in the littoral regions of the world.
How do you intend to assure there are adequate resources available
for such critical ocean science issues as anti-submarine warfare, mine
warfare, ocean surveillance, and environmental prediction capabilities?
Answer. I understand that the research conducted in ocean science
is transitioned to the Navy's operational community. This is
accomplished by close working relationships between the research
community and the operational program sponsors, including the
Oceanographer of the Navy, who identify operational requirements. As
long as these important mission areas are supported by operational
requirements, if confirmed, I will support the allocation of resources
to continue the science necessary to support them.
Question. Do you support the need for a robust Navy budget for
basic and applied research? In this regard, what new priorities in the
ocean sciences would you address?
Answer. Maintaining a robust naval science and technology program
is important to the future of our Navy, Marine Corps and our Nation. If
confirmed, I will become familiar with the Department's ocean sciences
program. In general, I believe that important priorities for all
science and technology programs are maintaining strong support for the
academic community and building industry involvement.
Question. The upcoming Presidential Commission on Ocean Policy
presents the unique opportunity to assess our national ocean programs.
What is the Navy doing to work with other Federal agencies to
support this new commission?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Chief of Naval Operations
has designated the Oceanographer of the Navy as his principal point of
contact for the Commission. Both the Oceanographer of the Navy, and the
Office of Naval Research are coordinating their activities with other
agencies, through formal participation in the Interagency Working Group
of the National Oceanographic Partnership Program, as well as the State
Department Ocean Policy Interagency Working Group.
Question. What role could the National Ocean Research Leadership
Council (NORLC) play to ensure that the Commission is a success?
Answer. I am not familiar with the NORLC. If confirmed, I will gain
an understanding of the Council and the role it plays in the area of
ocean research.
Question. The National Oceanographic Partnership Program (NOPP)
recently took the first steps to manage an evolving integrated ocean
observation system.
Will you support this NOPP effort? Will your support include
financial commitment?
Answer. I am not familiar with the NOPP. If confirmed, I will gain
an understanding of the Program and the role it plays in the area of
ocean research.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as the Assistant Secretary of the
Navy (Research, Development, and Acquisition)?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings, and
other communications of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Strom Thurmond
1. Senator Thurmond. The Department has identified the aging
acquisition workforce as one of the critical issues facing the
Department. What is your understanding of the problem? What
recommendations do you have to resolve this problem?
Mr. Young. It is my understanding that the expected large-scale
retirements of the ``baby-boomer'' generation, coupled with a tight
labor market pose challenges to sustaining workforce capabilities in
the near future. It appears that the Department no longer has the on-
board strength in the younger age groups to naturally replace employees
as they retire or as they simply leave for other work.
To improve this situation, I believe the focus needs to be on both
attrition and retirement. We must reinvigorate the hiring of new
college graduates as well as more experienced people, and we must take
advantage of the best human resource and business management practices
available. As an increasing proportion of our workforce has the
opportunity to retire in the next decade, we must prepare for an
orderly transfer of knowledge. We must offer opportunities for
professional growth and continue to provide interesting and challenging
work to hire and retain the best and brightest.
2. Senator Thurmond. Although our Navy's nuclear submarine fleet is
the envy of all nations, most nations prefer conventional power
submarines because they are cheap and easy to maintain. Since there is
a significant market for these conventional submarines, are you aware
of any interest by U.S. shipyards to build conventional submarines for
foreign military sales and would you support such a program?
Mr. Young. Senator, there are two circumstances in which U.S.
shipyards are expressing interest regarding the construction and export
of conventional submarines for foreign customers. The most recent
circumstance involves the decision made during the 2001 Taiwan Arms
Talks this past April to approve the release of diesel submarines to
Taiwan. Northrop Grumman (Ingalls Shipbuilding) possesses a marketing
license to discuss potential opportunities with Taiwan. General
Dynamics (Electric Boat) has also indicated they will be approaching
the USN in the near future for a marketing license. In the second
circumstance, which is not contemplated as a foreign military sale,
Northrop Grumman (Ingalls Shipbuilding) is seeking to construct, under
license at its yard in Mississippi, two submarines of Dutch design for
Egypt.
I would support the construction of conventional submarines in U.S.
shipyards for export with the adherence to critical submarine
technology transfer restrictions. There must be adequate measures in
place to protect against the transfer of nuclear submarine technology
to foreign nations. In addition, there are other sensitive submarine
construction and design technologies that make modern U.S. submarines
superior to the rest. It is for these reasons that our critical
submarine technologies must be protected. Such a task is challenging,
given that our submarine industry's experience base has been
exclusively in nuclear submarine design and construction for the past
40 years. This issue was addressed in detail in the Secretary of the
Navy's 1992 Report to Congress.
3. Senator Thurmond. What are your views on the vitality and
competitiveness of our shipbuilding industrial base?
Mr. Young. Since 1990, the Navy's active fleet and Navy
shipbuilding infrastructure have seen considerable downsizing: from 550
ships to 316 ships today and from 14 private shipyards to 6 private
shipyards. During the 1980s, the Navy was ordering an average of about
20 ships per year. That average has now fallen to about eight ships per
year during the 1990s leaving the shipbuilding industry with
overcapacity.
I believe the Navy's current shipbuilding plan is barely adequate
to sustain the remaining naval shipbuilding industrial base including
the suppliers that provide supporting equipment and associated
engineering services. Furthermore, I understand that the Office of the
Secretary of Defense has expressed a similar concern and is examining
these critical national shipbuilding issues.
If confirmed, I plan to work with Navy, DOD, other government, and
industry leaders to identify mechanisms to improve our Nation's
shipbuilding industrial base.
______
[The nomination reference of John J. Young, Jr., follows:]
Nomination Reference
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
June 12, 2001.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
John J. Young, Jr., of Virginia, to be Assistant Secretary of the
Navy, vice Herbert Lee Buchanan III.
______
[The biographical sketch of John J. Young, Jr., which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of John J. Young, Jr.
John J. Young, Jr., is currently a Professional Staff Member on the
Senate Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Defense, a position he
has held since 1993. Prior to that, he was an AIAA Congressional Fellow
with the Subcommittee on Defense from 1991 to 1993.
From 1988 to 1993, Mr. Young was a Member of the Technical Staff at
the Sandia National Labs. He was also a Member of the Technical Staff
at Rockwell International from 1987 to 1988. From 1985 to 1986, he was
an Associate Staff Member with the Engineering Group at The BDM
Corporation, and from 1980 to 1985 he was a Co-operative Ed. Engineer
with General Dynamics. Finally, in 1984, he was a Press Intern for
former Senator Sam Nunn.
Mr. Young graduated from the Georgia Institute of Technology with a
B.A. Degree in Engineering in 1985 and from Stanford University with an
M.S. Degree in Aeronautics in 1987.
______
[The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
form that details the biographical, financial, and other
information of the nominee. The form executed by John J. Young,
Jr., in connection with his nomination follows:]
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Room SR-228
Washington, DC 20510-6050
(202) 224-3871
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation
of your answer applies.
Part A--Biographical Information
Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.
1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
John Jacob Young, Jr.
2. Position to which nominated:
Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research, Development, and
Acquisition).
3. Date of nomination:
June 12, 2001.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
5. Date and place of birth:
May 29, 1962; Newnan, Georgia.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Barbara Joan Schleihauf.
7. Names and ages of children:
Nathan Jacob Young, 9.
William Joseph Young, 7.
Kathryn Elizabeth Young, 4.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
Stanford University; 10/85-6/87; Master's in Aeronautics and
Astronautics; Stanford, CA.
Georgia Institute of Technology; 6/80-6/85; Bachelor's in Aerospace
Engineering; Atlanta, GA.
Newnan High School; 9/78-6/80; High School Diploma; Newnan, GA.
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
United States Senate, Committee on Appropriations; Washington, DC,
Professional Staff Member, Defense Appropriations Subcommittee,
Washington, DC; 12/93-Present.
Sandia National Laboratory; Albuquerque, New Mexico, Member of the
Technical Staff serving the U.S. Senate as an American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) Congressional Fellow on the U.S.
Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, Washington, DC; 1/91-12/93.
10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative,
honorary or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State,
or local governments, other than those listed above.
No additional positions.
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
None.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
Member--American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
Member--Jamestown Parent Teacher Association.
Member--National Presbyterian Church.
Member--The Briarean Society, Phi Kappa Phi, Tau Beta Pi, Sigma
Gamma Tau, and Phi Eta Sigma college honor societies.
13. Political affiliations and activities:
(a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or
any public office for which you have been a candidate.
None.
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5
years.
None.
(c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $100 or more for the past 5 years.
None.
14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals, and any other special
recognitions for outstanding service or achievements.
Selected for the 1996 National Security Leadership Course at
Syracuse University.
Selected for the 1996 class of Georgia Institute of Technology
Council of Outstanding Engineering Alumni.
Selected for the 1993-94 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Seminar XXI program.
1993 Who's Who in America in Science and Engineering.
AIAA 1991 Congressional Fellow.
AIAA 1991-1994 National Public Policy Committee.
AIAA 1989-1991 Region IV Deputy Director for Public Policy.
AIAA 1988-1989 Region II Director-at-Large for Young Member
Activities.
AIAA Atlanta Section 1988 Mini-Symposium Outstanding Young Engineer
Award.
1985-87 Stanford University College of Engineering Fellowship.
1986-87 General Electric Foundation Fellowship.
1986 Outstanding Young Men of America.
1983--1984 Sam Nunn U.S. Senate Intern Program. 1984-85 AIAA/
General Dynamics Scholarship.
1980-85 Georgia Tech Lowry, McLendon, Fitten and Towers
Scholarships.
Member of the Phi Kappa Phi, Tau Beta Pi, Sigma Gamma Tau, Phi Eta
Sigma, and The Briarean Society.
1984-85 Briarean of the Year (Cooperative Education Honorary
Society).
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
``Key Objectives for the Strategic Defense Initiative''; American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) Student Journal; Fall,
1986.
16. Speeches: Provide the committee with two copies of any formal
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have
copies of and are on topics relevant to the position for which you have
been nominated.
While I have spoken to groups and conferences occasionally over the
last 5 years, I have not written formal speeches for these sessions.
17. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree,
if confirmed, to respond to requests to appear and testify before any
duly constituted committee of the Senate?
Yes.
______
[The nominee responded to the questions in Parts B-F of the
committee questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set
forth in the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to
Parts B-F are contained in the committee's executive files.]
------
Signature and Date
I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate,
and complete.
John J. Young, Jr.
This 13th day of June, 2001.
[The nomination of John J. Young, Jr., was reported to the
Senate by Senator Warner on July 11, 2001, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on July 12, 2001.]
NOMINATIONS OF JOHN P. STENBIT TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
FOR COMMAND, CONTROL, COMMUNICATION, AND INTELLIGENCE; DR. RONALD M.
SEGA TO BE DIRECTOR OF DEFENSE, RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING; MICHAEL L.
DOMINGUEZ TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE FOR MANPOWER AND
RESERVE AFFAIRS; PAUL MICHAEL PARKER TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE
ARMY FOR CIVIL WORKS; DR. MARIO P. FIORI TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
THE ARMY FOR INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT; H.T. JOHNSON TO BE
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY FOR INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT; AND
NELSON F. GIBBS TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE FOR
INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 31, 2001
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:37 a.m. in room
SD-106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Carl Levin
(chairman) presiding.
Committee members present: Senators Levin, Cleland, Akaka,
E. Benjamin Nelson, Carnahan, Warner, Inhofe, and Allard.
Other Senators present: Senators Lott and Cochran.
Member of Congress present: Mr. Pickering.
Committee staff member present: David S. Lyles, staff
director.
Majority staff members present: Gerald J. Leeling, counsel;
Michael J. McCord, professional staff member; and Arun A.
Seraphin, professional staff member.
Minority staff members present: Romie L. Brownlee,
republican staff director; Judith A. Ansley, deputy staff
director for the minority; Charles W. Alsup, professional staff
member; Brian R. Green, professional staff member; William C.
Greenwalt, professional staff member; Carolyn M. Hanna,
professional staff member; Patricia L. Lewis, professional
staff member; Ann M. Mittermeyer, minority counsel; Suzanne
K.L. Ross, research assistant; Scott W. Stucky, minority
counsel; and Richard F. Walsh, minority counsel.
Staff assistants present: Gabriella Eisen, Michele A.
Traficante, and Nicholas W. West.
Committee members' assistants present: Andrew
Vanlandingham, assistant to Senator Cleland; Davelyn Noelani
Kalipi, assistant to Senator Akaka; Eric Pierce, assistant to
Senator Ben Nelson; Brady King, assistant to Senator Dayton;
John Gastright, assistant to Senator Thurmond; John A. Bonsell,
assistant to Senator Inhofe; George M. Bernier III, assistant
to Senator Santorum; Robert Alan McCurry, assistant to Senator
Roberts; Douglas Flanders, assistant to Senator Allard; and
Derek Maurer, assistant to Senator Bunning.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN, CHAIRMAN
Chairman Levin. Good morning, everybody. The committee
meets today to consider the nominations of seven individuals to
high positions in the Department of Defense. Because of the
number of nominees, we have divided today's hearing into two
panels. During the first panel, we will consider the
nominations of John Stenbit to be Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Command, Control, Communication, and Intelligence;
Ron Sega to be Director of Defense Research and Engineering;
and Michael Dominguez to be Assistant Secretary of the Air
Force for Manpower and Reserve Affairs.
On behalf of the entire committee, I would like to welcome
you and your families to the Armed Services Committee. We have
a tradition of asking our nominees to introduce family members
who are present, so let me start with that. We will start with
you, Mr. Dominguez. If you would, introduce any family members
you have with you.
Mr. Dominguez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have with me
today my wife, Sheila, and my daughter, Michelle.
Chairman Levin. Welcome both of you. Mr. Stenbit.
Mr. Stenbit. I have with me my wife, Albertine.
Chairman Levin. Thank you. Dr. Sega.
Dr. Sega. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to introduce my
wife, Ann, who has provided me tremendous support.
Chairman Levin. We welcome all of you. None of these
nominees would be able to serve in these positions without the
support of their families, so we thank them for their service,
and we also thank you for your service.
Mr. Stenbit previously served as the Deputy Director of
Telecommunications at Command and Control Systems in the
Defense Department, and most recently as an executive vice
president at TRW. Dr. Sega's military and academic career
includes service as a Brigadier General in the Air Force, an
astronaut on two Space Shuttle missions, and most recently at
the University of Colorado.
Mr. Dominguez's military and civilian experience includes
service in the U.S. Army and as Assistant Director of Space
Information, Warfare, and Command and Control, Director for the
Chief of Naval Operations.
The committee looks forward to your testimony. Before I
call upon Senator Allard for his introduction, I will call upon
my good friend and colleague, Senator Warner, for his opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN WARNER
Senator Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I join you in
welcoming the nominees, and would ask unanimous consent that my
statement, which is biographical, be put in the record.
I would just add a personal comment. Senator Levin and I
have been privileged to serve here on this committee some 23
years now. We have seen a lot of appointees, and I say
unreservedly I think our President and the Secretary of Defense
have really picked a first-class team to serve our Nation. I
use the word pick. I have seen several draft choices, and I do
not know how they persuaded you to come back and give up what
you had in the private sector, but that again lends itself to
the commendation of our President and others who have worked so
hard to get you here.
To the families, I have had some modest experience in the
building, and I remember very well the day I sat in this chair
before some of you were on Planet Earth, and I would just be
mindful of the wives particularly, and children, because any
decisions made after 7:00 are usually reversed the next
morning, so bring them home, freshen them up, and send them
back for the next day.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Levin. That is unless they are responding to
congressional inquiries at night. [Laughter.]
[The prepared statement of Senator Warner follows:]
Prepared Statement by Senator John Warner
Thank you, Senator Levin.
I join you in welcoming the nominees and their families. We have a
distinguished group of nominess before us this morning.
first panel
Mr. Sega--Major General Sega--has had a remarkable career in
academia, research, and government service. He was recently promoted to
the rank of Major General in the Air Force Reserve, and is currently
assigned as Mobilization Assistant to the Commander, Headquarters, Air
Force Space Command. General Sega is a former astronaut, having made
flights on the Space Shuttle in 1994 and 1996, and also a distinguished
academician. He is currently the Dean of the College of Engineering and
Applied Science at the University of Colorado. General Sega, welcome,
and thank you for your willingness to serve in this important Defense
position.
Mr. Stenbit, if confirmed, will be returning to the Pentagon for an
additional tour. He served previously in the Office of the Secretary of
Defense as Principal Deputy Director of Telecommunications and Command
and Control Systems and as a Staff Specialist for Worldwide Military
Command and Control Systems. In addition to his impressive credentials
as an Executive Vice President for TRW Corporation's Aerospace and
Information Systems, Mr. Stenbit has served as Chairman of the Science
and Technology Advisory Panel to the Director of Central Intelligence.
Mr. Stenbit was also a member of the Science Advisory Group to the
Directors of Naval Intelligence and the Defense Communications Agency.
Michael L. Dominguez, the President's nominee for Assistant
Secretary of the Air Force (Manpower and Reserve Affairs), has a
distinguished career of military and government service. He is a
graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point, and
served on active duty in Europe with the 1st Battalion, 509th Airborne
Infantry. In 1983, Mr. Dominguez joined the Office of the Secretary of
Defense working in the Program Analysis and Evaluation Division. He
ultimately rose through the ranks to become PA&E's Director for
Planning and Analytical Support. Mr. Dominguez later joined the staff
of the Chief of Naval Operations where he served as the Associate
Director for Programming and, more recently, as the Assistant Director
for Space and Information Warfare within the OPNAV Command and Control
Directorate. Thank you for your willingness to serve in this vitally
important manpower policy position.
second panel
I would like to introduce to the committee a constituent of mine,
Gen. H.T. Johnson.
Gen. H.T. Johnson has over 41 years of service to our Nation in
military and government service. He is a combat veteran with 423
missions as a forward air controller in Vietnam. He became one of the
U.S. Air Force's most accomplished senior leaders, serving as Deputy
Commander in Chief of the U.S. Central Command; Director of the Joint
Staff under Admiral William Crowe; and as Commander in Chief of the
United States Transportation Command and Military Airlift Commands. He
served as TRANSCOM Commander during Operations Desert Shield and Desert
Storm, and led one of the most rapid, concentrated, and highly
successful movements of troops, equipment, and supplies in American
military history. Subsequent to his retirement from the Air Force, he
served as a member of the 1993 Base Realignment and Closure Commission.
We welcome General Johnson and his family, and thank him for his
willingness to return to government service.
Mike Parker has a distinguished career in government. As a member
of the U.S. House of Representatives from 1989 through 1999, Mr. Parker
ably represented the Fourth Congressional District of Mississippi. In
this capacity, he served on the Appropriations Committee and its
Subcommittees on Energy and Water Development and Military
Construction. He also served on the House Budget, Transportation,
Education and the Workforce, and Veterans' Affairs Committees. We thank
you for your willingness to return to service in the Executive Branch
in this most challenging assignment.
Dr. Mario Fiori, the nominee for Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Installations and Environment) has achieved great success in both his
military and government careers to date. After graduating from the U.S.
Naval Academy, he qualified as a nuclear submariner and served in
U.S.S. Pargo (SSN 650), an attack submarine, U.S.S. George Washington
Carver (SSBN 656), a Poseidon missile submarine, and as Commanding
Officer of U.S.S. Spadefish (SSN 668). Following his retirement, he
joined the Senior Executive Service in the Department of Energy. Dr.
Fiori served as the Departmental representative to the Defense Nuclear
Facilities Safety Board. In 1993, the Secretary of Energy assigned Dr.
Fiori to be Manager of the Savannah River Site in Aiken, South
Carolina.
I note that among those in attendance is Dr. Fiori's daughter,
Cristina, who drove down from Allentown, Pennsylvania, for the
occasion. Cris served this committee with great diligence and
dedication as a Staff Assistant, and we are delighted to have her
present with us today.
Nelson Gibbs is currently the Executive Director of the Cost
Accounting Standards Board within the Office of Management and Budget.
Following a tour of active duty in the U.S. Army, he built an
impressive record of accomplishment in the private sector, gaining
expertise in the fields of defense industry management and financial
oversight. After rising to the position of Corporate Comptroller with
the Northrop Grumman Corporation, he assumed his present position in
OMB. Mr. Gibbs, welcome.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing from the nominees.
Chairman Levin. I think we will call on you, Senator
Allard.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD
Senator Allard. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and Senator
Warner, and my fellow members on the committee, I want to thank
you for allowing me to introduce someone who I believe is an
extraordinary individual sitting here on my right, and that is
Dr. Ron Sega. He is the nominee to be the Director of Defense
Research and Engineering.
I have known Ron for many years, and I have found him to be
one of the brightest and most forward-thinking individuals I
have ever met. Each year I hold defense and space roundtables
in Colorado, and Ron has been a very valuable resource with his
participation in those roundtables.
I believe his resume speaks for itself. You reviewed some
of that, Mr. Chairman, but I would like to go and just again
highlight a few of those areas that I think are very
significant. Since 1996, Dr. Sega has been the Dean of the
College of Engineering and Applied Science at the University of
Colorado at Colorado Springs, where he has taught since 1982.
Ron was instrumental in adding six degrees to the college,
realigning the program with the needs of information
technology, aerospace, and complex electronics sectors, and in
1990 Dr. Sega joined NASA, serving as an astronaut from 1991
until 1996. During that time, he participated in two Space
Shuttle missions, STS-60 and STS-74, and was Director of
Operations in Russia and was the coprincipal investigator of
the windshield facility, plus many other technical assignments.
Dr. Sega has also taught physics at the University of
Houston and at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs. In
addition to his teaching duties, Dr. Sega is currently serving
this country in the Air Force Reserve. He has achieved a rank
of Major General, and is the mobilization assistant to the
Commander at Air Force Space Command.
After graduating from the Air Force Academy, Dr. Sega has
been an instructor pilot and has been involved with space
systems operations and plans. To name a few of the many awards
he has received, Dr. Sega has been awarded two honorary
doctorates. He has been named Reserve Officer of the Year by
the U.S. Air Force and the Air Force Space Command, named
Educator of the Year by Inroads Colorado, received the NASA
Outstanding Leadership Award Medal for his service as the
payload commander on STS-76, and was a distinguished graduate
at the Air Force Academy.
However, beyond all these awards and commendations, I can
personally attest to the fact that he is a man of vision,
honor, and dedication. This is seen best through his service to
the students at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs.
He has been a force behind establishing an Office of Student
Support to improve recruiting and training of undergraduate
students, diversity, interaction with K through 12, and
coordination of scholarships and internship activities.
He also sponsored new student clubs for the college,
including the American Indian Science and Engineering Society,
the National Society of Black Engineers, the National Society
of Hispanic Professional Engineers, the American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, and the American Institute of Aeronautics
and Astronautics.
Mr. Chairman, I heard Senator Roberts once say, true
believers are needed in the area of science and technology
research. I believe Dr. Sega fits that description. He is a
true believer, and is perfectly suited to be the Director of
Defense Research and Engineering. I look forward to his
confirmation, and thank you for consideration of this fine man,
Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Allard, for your fine
introduction.
Senator Warner. I join in that, Senator Allard. You have
given him a real rocket-boost take-off.
Chairman Levin. Today's nominees have all responded to the
committee's prehearing policy questions and to our standard
questionnaire, and these responses will be made a part of the
record.
The committee has also received the required paperwork on
each of the nominees, and we will be reviewing that paperwork
to make sure that it is in accordance with the committee's
requirements.
There are several standard questions we ask every nominee
who comes before the committee, and your response to advance
policy questions. Do you agree, each of you, to appear as a
witness before congressional committees when called to ensure
that briefings, testimony, and other communications are
provided to Congress?
Mr. Dominguez. Yes, sir.
Mr. Stenbit. Yes, sir.
Dr. Sega. Yes, sir.
Chairman Levin. Have you adhered to the applicable laws and
regulations governing conflict of interest?
Mr. Dominguez. Yes, sir.
Mr. Stenbit. Yes, sir.
Dr. Sega. Yes, sir.
Chairman Levin. Did you assume any duties or undertake any
actions which would appear to presume the outcome of the
confirmation process?
Mr. Dominguez. No, sir.
Mr. Stenbit. No, sir.
Dr. Sega. No, sir.
Chairman Levin. Will you ensure the Department complies
with deadlines established for requested communications,
including prepared testimony and questions for the record in
hearings?
Mr. Dominguez. Yes, sir.
Mr. Stenbit. Yes, sir.
Dr. Sega. Yes, sir.
Chairman Levin. Will you cooperate in providing witnesses
and briefers to responsible requests?
Mr. Dominguez. Yes, sir.
Mr. Stenbit. Yes, sir.
Dr. Sega. Yes, sir.
Chairman Levin. Will those witnesses be protected from
reprisal for their testimony?
Mr. Dominguez. Yes, sir.
Mr. Stenbit. Yes, sir.
Dr. Sega. Yes, sir.
Chairman Levin. Let me now call upon our nominees for any
opening remarks you may wish to make. Mr. Dominguez.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL L. DOMINGUEZ, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE FOR MANPOWER AND RESERVE AFFAIRS
Mr. Dominguez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Warner, and
other distinguished members of the committee. I am honored to
appear before you this morning as President Bush's nominee to
serve as the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Manpower
and Reserve Affairs. I would like to thank the President, the
Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of the Air Force for
their support and confidence in me by recommending me for this
position. If confirmed, I look forward to the opportunity to
continue service to my country and to the men and women of the
United States Air Force.
Mr. Chairman, I can think of no finer job that directly
affects the lives of Air Force personnel, enlisted, officer,
active, Guard, Reserve, and civilian, than the position for
which I have been nominated. If confirmed, I pledge my full
support and energies to take care of Air Force people. Toward
that end, I would plan to focus my attention on three key
issues. First is recruiting and retention. They go hand-in-
glove, and their importance cannot be overstated, especially in
light of the very competitive tight labor market.
From my perspective, viable recruiting and retention
programs are critical links to keeping the total force ready
for the future. I pledge to you my support to keep this a top
priority.
Second, I believe we must continue to focus on our quality-
of-life programs that are so essential to meeting our
readiness, recruiting, and retention goals. Among those are
top-notch military health care, safe, affordable family
housing, an improved workplace environment, enhanced family and
community programs, improved educational opportunities, and
last, if confirmed, I will work to improve our personnel
systems to facilitate management of the military and civilian
workforce for the 21st century.
Thanks to this committee, we are already on this path. We
need to continue this momentum, improving the hiring process,
addressing compensation and benefits, and focusing on programs
that will help us attract men and women to a life of service to
the Nation.
In closing, if confirmed, I will look forward to an active
relationship with you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Warner, and the
members of this committee as we work together to support and
care for men and women and families who selflessly serve our
Nation and its Air Force.
Thank you.
Chairman Levin. Thank you.
Mr. Stenbit.
STATEMENT OF JOHN P. STENBIT, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY
OF DEFENSE FOR COMMAND, CONTROL, COMMUNICATION, AND
INTELLIGENCE
Mr. Stenbit. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Warner. I
would like to thank Secretary Rumsfeld for picking me, as
Senator Warner said, and President Bush for nominating me. I
have had the opportunity to briefly meet with Senator Warner
and Senator Inhofe. I look forward to meeting with Senator
Nelson and you Mr. Chairman as that need arises, if I am
confirmed. I am very grateful you are taking the time to
consider this application this morning.
I have been nominated to be Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence. That is
quite a mouthful. All of my reviewing of the office says that
it is a handful, and I look forward to having your support as
we move forward, if I am confirmed. Thank you.
Chairman Levin. Mr. Stenbit, thank you very much.
Dr. Sega.
STATEMENT OF DR. RONALD M. SEGA, NOMINEE TO BE DIRECTOR OF
DEFENSE RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING
Dr. Sega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank
Senator Allard for his kind introduction, and Chairman Levin,
Senator Warner, and members of the Armed Services Committee, it
is truly an honor and privilege for me to be here before this
committee today.
I would like to thank President Bush, Secretary Rumsfeld,
and Under Secretary Aldridge for their support and trust in
nominating me for the position of Director of Defense Research
and Engineering. I appreciate their confidence, and I pledge
that, if confirmed, I will do everything that I can to justify
their confidence while serving in this important position.
Thank you.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Dr. Sega. We will just start
with rounds of 6 minutes each. First, Mr. Stenbit, let me ask
you a few questions.
In your response to the advance policy questions you said
the following: ``In light of U.S. dependence on vulnerable
space assets, it would be contrary to U.S. security interests
not to develop, test, and deploy the means of deterring attack
on and defending space systems.''
Now, when you say the United States must develop the means
of deterring attack on our space systems, is it your view that
we should develop and deploy offensive weapons in space?
Mr. Stenbit. I believe that the deterrence is an act that
is in the eyes of the beholder. What we need to do is be very
firm in our demonstrations of how we intend to both decrease
the reward of a potential attack, or increase the risk of a
potential attack. I believe that space includes the assets in
space--it includes the launchers, it includes the ground
stations--and I believe there are passive methods, and there
are defensive active methods. There are sometimes offensive
methods, for example, potentially doing something destructive
to a jammer.
I do not believe that anything I have seen would require
active, full-time on-orbit offensive capability, other than
potentially some ability for a satellite to defend itself
against an attack. I personally have worked on a study of
Gatlin guns on a satellite to shoot something coming at it. I
believe that might be within the realm of what might be
required, but I do not believe there is any one set of answers.
It is, in fact, a broad set of issues that cause deterrence to
exist.
Chairman Levin. Mr. Stenbit, the Defense Department has
been criticized for its failure to completely comply with the
capital planning business process, reengineering and the other
requirements of the 1996 Clinger-Cohen act, which was enacted
to get the Department's chaotic information systems under
control and to improve the security and the interoperability of
those systems. If confirmed, would you make it a priority to
bring the Defense Department into complete compliance with the
Clinger-Cohen act?
Mr. Stenbit. Yes, sir, to the best of my ability.
Chairman Levin. Do you believe you have the authority to
make that happen?
Mr. Stenbit. I believe the authority is appropriate, yes.
Chairman Levin. When you say appropriate, do you also mean
adequate?
Mr. Stenbit. Well, it is a coordination and staff
authority, as opposed to execution authority, and that is the
way the Department works, but certainly the access to the
Secretary and the ability to have access to everything and
review the budget appears to me to be adequate, yes.
Chairman Levin. Dr. Sega, a number of programs have been
established to try to speed the transition of technologies and
other innovations from science and technology programs into the
hands of warfighters. The Director of Defense Research and
Engineering is in a unique position to hasten the insertion of
these technologies into the hands of the warfighters who need
them. Do you believe that it would be helpful to establish a
rapid response fund to help expedite that transition and, if
so, would you support that within the Department to achieve an
appropriate level of funding for it?
Dr. Sega. Yes, Mr. Chairman, if confirmed I would support a
rapid response fund. I believe that it gives a flexibility
during the current year to take advantage of maturing
technologies and accelerate their application to the
warfighter.
Chairman Levin. Congress and the Defense Science Board and
others have expressed concern about the condition of defense
labs and test facilities, the slow implementation of reforms to
improve management, personnel, technology development programs,
and the degree to which defense labs support the needs of the
acquisition and warfighting communities. If confirmed, what
specific reforms would you pursue to ensure that defense
laboratories continue to make a positive contribution to our
defense science and technology programs?
Dr. Sega. Mr. Chairman, if confirmed, I would look into
that and review the situation with respect to the condition of
our laboratories both with respect to infrastructure and
personnel. I think it is a very important and critical problem
that needs to be addressed, and I would take that on as one of
my priorities.
Chairman Levin. Mr. Dominguez, the Air Force projects that
it is going to miss the 2001 statutory end strength by over
4,000 personnel, and the primary reason for this appears to be
lower than expected reenlistment rates, and you mentioned that
in your opening remarks. What is your view as to why the
larger-than-expected numbers of airmen are leaving the Air
Force during their second and their third terms and, if
confirmed, what specifically would you do to improve retention
rates?
Mr. Dominguez. Senator, I think that is one of the most
important issues we must face here in the coming years. I want
to take this opportunity to thank the committee for its
assistance to all of the services, and improving their ability
to recruit and retain qualified personnel.
As to the specific causes for our missing our goals for
second and third-term reenlistment, I am happy to research that
for you and get back with you on that, and to work with your
staff as we understand that problem, but certainly the work
this committee has already done in terms of giving us special
pay authority and aviation pay for the pilots and the quality
of life initiatives that this committee has supported are very,
very important to making the rigors of military life manageable
for families, because it is the families who reenlist.
Chairman Levin. Finally, Mr. Dominguez, do you support the
current Department of Defense homosexual conduct policy?
Mr. Dominguez. Sir, I understand again that is a very
difficult issue. I know that the members of this committee and
the staff of this committee were very involved in the policy
that now appears to be in place, and I presently have no
knowledge of any compelling reason why that policy needs to be
changed. It appears to me to be, and from what I know that it
seems to be working adequately, but I would be happy, if
confirmed, to work with you and your staff on understanding
more about that issue.
Chairman Levin. Senator Warner.
Senator Warner. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will
start off with Dr. Sega. You really have a great challenge, and
having had the opportunity to visit with you and sharing the
views of our distinguished colleague from Colorado, I think you
are eminently qualified to take this thing on. I think you
probably have as much an opportunity as anyone in the
Department of Defense, including the Secretary, to drive the
Department and to drive the cutting edge of the next generation
of weapons.
It has been my experience through the years, regrettably,
that we encounter the old syndrome, which you know well, not
invented here. Sometimes some good ideas emanate from beyond
the Department of Defense, and they are deserving of equal
consideration within the Department once they are presented. Do
you share that view?
Dr. Sega. Yes, Senator Warner, I do. From my background
with the University, as the dean of the College of Engineering,
it was our goal to form partnerships between industry,
Government, and the university. I think various sectors that
develop technology, that have innovative ideas, should be
included in the process to get the very best capability for the
warfighter.
Senator Warner. Also you will be dealing with the annual
battles within the Department to get your share of the budget.
I am concerned that America is not keeping up in its research
and development as much as it should, and we should try and
increase those budgets. I would hope you would commit to this
committee to put on your body armor and go in there with your
fellow colleagues and go for it. Am I understanding that is the
case?
Dr. Sega. Mr. Chairman, I share your concern, and I would
be a strong advocate for the S&T program in the Department of
Defense.
Senator Warner. You also have the DARPA organization. How
familiar are you with that organization?
Dr. Sega. I understand it in an overall sense, sir.
Senator Warner. Well, therein is kind of an uncut diamond.
Do not try and polish it up too much. Leave it rugged and
rough, but give it sufficient support to originate some ideas
and come up with concepts as they go along. Can you commit to
do that?
Dr. Sega. I will.
Senator Warner. This committee last year increased the
President's budget by $200 million for unmanned advanced
capability for combat systems. At that time, we established a
goal for the Department that within 10 years one-third of the
U.S. military operational deep strike aircraft would be
unmanned, and within 15 years one-third of the operational
ground combat vehicles would be unmanned. How does that notion
strike you? It happens to be the law of the land, but what are
your views?
Dr. Sega. I believe the technology in unmanned and robotics
systems has been used in a variety of sectors in the past, has
been used to a certain extent in our Department of Defense, and
I believe that is a good direction, to continue to push
technologies toward unmanned vehicles.
Senator Warner. I find that very reassuring, and I hope
that you will in due course, as you become more fully
understanding of this concept, not only adopt it, but even push
it harder where you think it can be done efficiently to achieve
those goals.
Dr. Sega. Sir, if confirmed I will look seriously at all of
those options.
Senator Warner. Mr. Dominguez, this committee has a
longstanding commitment to ensuring that only military
officers, men and women of the highest character and
qualifications, rise to the most senior positions. The
procedures for identifying adverse information about officers
selected for promotion are in place, and we ensure that these
matters are fully considered.
Senator Levin and I spend a good deal of time together with
our Chairman and Ranking Member of the Personnel Subcommittee
and other members of the committee getting into these cases
very thoroughly, objectively, and fairly. As a matter of fact,
this afternoon I am going to spend some time on these issues.
If confirmed, what do you anticipate your role will be in
reviewing the promotion boards for nominations for senior flag
and general officer positions?
Mr. Dominguez. Senator, I will take as active a role in
that as Secretary Roche requires, but I believe that would
entail at a minimum reviewing oversight of the process to
ensure compliance with applicable laws and records to ensure
the process is fair, and thirdly to ensure that the appropriate
information and relevant information is provided to all of the
decisionmakers involved in this, and I want to ensure you and
the members of this committee that Secretary Roche and I
understand our obligation to this committee in that regard.
Senator Warner. I want you to underline the word fair,
because this system is dependant upon fairness and equity when
it come to promotions. There simply cannot be any compromise
along those lines. Not only the individuals themselves, but
their families make an enormous commitment.
So often the spouse has to move every 2 or 3 years,
relocate the children and care for the children when the spouse
is overseas, or deployed away from home, and this all adds up.
When that promotion board comes, something that is anticipated,
there is great emotion, and as long as they feel it was fair,
they accept the results even though the results might not be
what they had hoped.
It is definitely a family situation, and it is interesting.
In my time here on the committee I have come to learn more and
more about the value of the family in the decisions,
particularly those relating to a second hitch, those relating
to a critical decision by an officer to continue on past the 6
or 7 year mark. Those decisions are made around the family
table, so bear that in mind.
You have a wonderful family yourself. You understand those
values, and I hope that you will follow that with great care.
Mr. Dominguez. I will, sir.
Senator Warner. Now, Mr. Stenbit, we hope you will inject
yourself in this quadrennial review process. That process, no
matter how it comes out, is going to be the subject of
tremendous controversy. But that is for the good, because
unless it engenders that type of constructive controversy, then
little will have been achieved.
It takes forceful personalities like our President and the
Secretary of Defense to deal with those sensitive issues in our
Department. Nothing is so valued as roles and missions, and I
repeat that. Nothing is so valued, and there is a good, strong
competition, as there should be, between the military
departments. But the ability of that eventual report to become
a constructive building block for our Nation's defense will
largely be determined on the extent to which persons with
responsibility and knowledge are able to feel that they made a
contribution, that their voices were heard and their ideas were
considered, even though they may have been rejected.
Is my philosophy generally what yours is? I am just
curious.
Mr. Stenbit. Absolutely. Constructive, adversarial
relationships, and I mean that in the best of senses, in the
process are very important to get good ideas out. I have not
had the privilege of being involved in that so far, but if
confirmed I look forward to being there, and I do not think
they hired me to be a weak voice.
Thank you very much, Mr. Senator.
Senator Warner. I think that is true.
Now, my next question, I think I have said it, and other
members on this committee have said it every time a nominee for
your position has come up, and I do not say that by way of
criticism for those that have preceded you, but there are no
limits to which you can move this particular frontier that will
not enhance our Nation's defense, so listen carefully.
Despite the efforts of the Department of Defense to
establish standards of interoperability in the command and
control systems essential for joint operations, virtually every
significant military operation in the last 2 decades has
experienced communications, intelligence, and operations and
logistics systems of the various services that failed to
properly interact.
I have just a modest, as I explained to you, knowledge of
electronics and so forth from years past, but I am sitting and
watching a process by which central switching areas for
communications, the Army, Navy, and the Air Force, are now up
for rebid and replacement. I find the Army is marching off in
one direction and the Navy and Air Force seem to be pretty well
joined marching off in another direction. Since the switch is
common to the military branches, I cannot figure it out. One
wants one contractor, another one wants another contractor.
I am not here to decide which contractor is best qualified,
but I keep saying to myself, why should there be a different
communications switch for the military services? Why can't one
switch better serve the Nation, and enable some cost savings in
training those who constantly have to go in and repair and
operate the switch, and save us on the spare parts inventory. I
could go on and on. Take a look at that one when you get there.
Mr. Stenbit. I would be happy to, sir, if I am confirmed.
There are times when having two different kinds are useful,
because then the software bug in one will not destroy them all,
but I am absolutely not familiar at all with the details of the
one you are talking about.
Senator Warner. I purposely did not give a lot of detail,
but I am just trying to use an example. You may be right, and
maybe two systems are needed.
Mr. Stenbit. If I am confirmed, that is clearly on the
plate, no question about it.
Senator Warner. If the Navy cannot get its switch to talk
to the Army's switch, where are we?
Mr. Stenbit. Even my solution does not work then, sir. They
do not back each other up.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Warner. Senator Thurmond
has another commitment. We are going to call on him out of
order. We thank Senator Ben Nelson for permitting us to do
that.
Senator Thurmond.
Senator Thurmond. Good morning, gentlemen. I am partial to
my home town of Aiken, South Carolina, and I always have a
special place for those from the Aiken area for going out and
doing well. We have two men before us today who can claim the
Aiken area as home, Gen. Hansford T. Johnson and Dr. Mario
Fiori.
Mr. Johnson grew up in Aiken. I knew his father and had the
utmost respect for his entire family. He attended my alma mater
before transferring to the United States Air Force Academy,
where he graduated in the first class in 1959. Many of us were
fortunate to work with him during his career in the Air Force,
and as a member of the Base Realignment and Closure Commission.
Dr. Mario Fiori is not actually from Aiken, but I claim
him. I got to know him during his tenure as site manager at the
Department of Energy Savannah River Site. I even hired his
daughter to work for me in 1993. After his successful career as
a naval officer, Dr. Fiori was selected to be the manager of
the Savannah River Site. The site manager is a demanding post
that requires the finesse of a politician, the expertise of a
scientist, and the financial skill of a professional
accountant. As manager, Dr. Fiori was all of these and much
more.
Mr. Chairman, we are fortunate to have these two fine men
available to the Department of the Navy and the Department of
the Army. They are fine Americans who have dedicated their
lives to the service of our Nation, and I am confident that,
once confirmed, each will serve with distinction.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Thurmond. I know how
appreciative they are of your comments, and how important those
comments are to this committee. We thank you for them, and we
will make the rest of your statement part of the record at the
appropriate place, right before the second panel comes on as
you have requested.
Senator Nelson.
Senator Ben Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I would
like to welcome all of the nominees and their families to this
gathering today and to say to all of you that it is a daunting
task to enter public life, but it is one that I am sure you
have fully considered, having such a strong background in each
of your cases, so I welcome you and appreciate that very much.
Mr. Dominguez, one of the things that I think can be very
helpful in terms of the retention and the staffing for the
military has already been established in some cases, certainly
where I have some knowledge of the 55th Wing in Omaha at Offutt
Air Force Base they have established what is called a future
total force initiative, where there is a tie-in between the
Nebraska Air National Guard and the regular Air Force, and it
has been suggested also that the Reserve can play a role in
dealing with the staffing needs of the military.
If we look at the staffing in a layering structure so that
you are dealing with the Reserve and the Air Guard putting
together all of the staffing needs, particularly with respect
to the pilot requirements, because there are so many pilots
leaving the regular service who will still be associated with
the Reserves or the Air Guard, I wondered if you have any
particular plans to work with that system or that initiative in
the future and not just with respect to the Air Force, but with
respect to other services as well, whatever you have heard.
Mr. Dominguez. Thank you, Senator. I think the total force
concept is an extraordinarily powerful concept, and
extraordinarily important to all of the services, and the
United States Air Force takes a second seat to no one in the
enthusiasm with which they have embraced and integrated the
Reserve components in the Guard and Reserve into the missions
and life of the active Air Force. I would expect, Senator, that
if I am confirmed that will also be a major focus of mine.
There is enormous value in the Reserve components, and
there are enormous opportunities in front of us to continue to
investigate and explore ways that we can more fully integrate
those Reserve components into our missions and capitalize on
their unique contributions.
Senator Ben Nelson. In that regard, of course, General Sega
is in the Reserves, so who knows, maybe he will be more than a
weekend warrior with respect to that continuing service. We
appreciate that very much, General.
Mr. Dominguez, in that regard, have you seen any studies,
or are you thinking about any studies, that would tie the cost
of, let us say, pilot training or other investment that the
military makes in its personnel as to what the financial
implications and economic implications are in hanging onto
well-trained, qualified staff in the total initiative effort?
Mr. Dominguez. Senator, I am not aware of any particular
studies, and have at present no plans to initiate any, although
cost-effectiveness is a very, very important decision criterion
for us all, as there will always be fewer resources that are
necessary to get all of the jobs done across the services, and
the Air Force is no different.
Senator Ben Nelson. What I am getting at is, even if we did
not have a shortage of available personnel, it probably would
still be cost-effective to try to hang on to trained personnel
in whom we have invested countless thousands of dollars and
have established relationships with, hanging onto old friends,
rather than spending our time making new friends.
Mr. Dominguez. That is absolutely correct, Senator, and
there is no question that, once you have invested in training
these people and bringing them into your culture and aligning
their values and goals with the goals of service to the Nation,
you do want to hang onto those people, and that is one of the
things I understand that the administration will be looking at.
I believe Dr. Chu may have addressed that in his
confirmation hearing, about looking at all of the personnel
policies, including the up-or-out route, but basically we have
to put everything on the table to see how we can retain the
best possible human component of the Air Force of the 21st
century.
Senator Ben Nelson. That is why it is so essential to have
the re-upping be a family-friendly experience, so that all of
the conditions for the families--I guess the comment is often
made that you sign up single individuals but you retain
families. That is why it needs to be family-friendly with
respect to living conditions, benefits, and the quality-of-life
issues. I hope that you will factor those into the staffing and
retention issues.
I see my time is up. I appreciate very much your answers.
Thank you.
Mr. Dominguez. Thank you, Senator.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Nelson.
Senator Inhofe.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I regretfully will
not be able to stay for the next panel, and so I would like to
make just a couple of comments, and perhaps in the opening
statements some references can be made, particularly to General
Johnson. I have had the opportunity, though, Mr. Chairman, to
speak with each of these individuals, and I think we will be
well-served to have them confirmed and on the job as quickly as
possible.
Last Sunday we had an election on the Island of Vieques
which frankly I thought--I was shocked that it came out as well
as it did. Thirty-eight percent of the people said, after being
brainwashed by both the Governor and the mayor, that they liked
our Navy and they wanted the Navy to stay, and it seems to me,
Mr. Chairman, starting with that, and building between now and
November 6, I have very little doubt in my mind that we are
going to be able to save that island, and I say that because we
had a hearing not too long ago where we talked about the value
of live-fire training, and three of the people on the next
panel understand the value of live-fire training.
On March 12 of this year we lost six people, five of whom
were American troops. The accident report showed that range,
and what happened in that tragedy in Kuwait, was because they
did not have live-fire training. Inert training is not the
same, and so I would hope that during the opening statement,
General Johnson, you might address that and express your
commitment to live-fire training on that particular range, and
then maybe the others--this is not going to happen in a vacuum.
If for some reason we are, for the first time in history,
kicked off of the range that we own by a bunch of law-breakers,
then that is going to have a domino effect on all other ranges,
and of course that includes the Air Force and the Army, so you
might make some reference to that during your opening remarks.
I would appreciate that.
Building a little bit, Mr. Dominguez, on questions that
have already been asked of you, the chairman asked you about
those in the second and third terms. Let us go back to the
first term, and I would like to get your idea of the SRB, the
selective reenlistment bonus, how effective it has been. It is
my understanding that we for the first time since 1998 are
getting that first full reenlistment up to 55.6 percent, which
I would like to see get a lot higher.
I am one of the last ones up here, I guess, who is still an
advocate of the draft, but nonetheless I would like to have
your evaluation of that program and how we can build on it.
Mr. Dominguez. Thank you, Senator. I will be happy to look
into that in more detail if confirmed, and get back to you on
that, but I do know that bonus program as a general rule is
very successful and very important to retaining or reenlisting
people in the specified skills where that bonus is targeted.
I do know the Air Force is meeting its goals this year for
its first-term reenlistment. That is a success story, and I
want to thank the members of this committee for the support
they provided to the Air Force in the past.
[The information referred to follows:]
The number of Selective Reenlistment Bonuses (SRBs) skills was
small in the heavy drawdown years fiscal year 1989 through fiscal year
1994. As the economy prospered and at the completion of the drawdown,
we had to compete with the civilian community to retain our highly
trained and marketable enlisted personnel. As such, the number of SRB
skills increased from 68 in fiscal year 1997 ($25 million) to 154 in
fiscal year 2001 ($165 million). SRBs currently apply to 78 percent of
our enlisted skills. In fiscal year 2002 our projected SRB budget
jumped to $258 million. It will likely remain at or about this level
for the next several years.
For the first time in 3 years, the Air Force met its first term
airmen retention target, achieving a 55 percent re-enlistment rate
against a goal of 55 percent. This success continues a positive 1st
term trend, up from 49 percent in fiscal year 1999. A large part of our
success is attributable to an active, aggressive targeted Selective
Reenlistment Bonus program. Further, bonuses have been effective in
enabling the Air Force to maintain second term and career airmen
retention rates. Continued funding of SRBs is a critical element of our
retention strategy.
In addition to SRBs, the Air Force continually works toward and
supports initiatives to improve the overall compensation package in
order to retain our enlisted force. Recent increases in other areas of
compensation include higher Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) rates to
reduce out-of-pocket cost from 18.9 percent in 2000 to 15 percent in
2001. Out-of-pocket expenses will continue to decrease until they
ultimately reach 0 percent in 2005. The fiscal year 2000 National
Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) changed the law to allow military
basic pay raises to be set at 0.5 percent above the ECI through the
year 2006. In 2001, pay table reform raised basic pay for E-5 through
E-7, and in 2002, with support from this committee, we will likely see
the largest targeted basic pay increases since the early 1980s.
Additionally, we have sponsored recent initiatives that have increased
other special and incentive pays for enlisted members such as Foreign
Language Proficiency Pay and Hardship Duty Pay for Location. Though all
of these are positive gains in our overall compensation package, SRBs
continue to fill a significant pay gap for those critical skills
competing with higher private sector salaries. SRBs help boost our
retention and ultimately our readiness.
Senator Inhofe. That is mostly enlisted personnel. Where
the pilot situation is right now we went down--the Navy is a
little bit below the Air Force, but it was down below 20
percent at one time. Do you have that figure now, and the trend
lines, and what you might be able to do to improve that?
Mr. Dominguez. Senator, I do not have the percentage, but I
would be happy to provide that to you. I know that our pilot
retention has leveled off, or appears to be leveling off, and
so the trend line for us is no longer declining in the Air
Force.
[The information referred to follows:]
pilot retention rates
The Air Force is experiencing a 9 percent (1,179) shortage in
pilots. The shortage is reflected in the inventory versus requirements
chart below. The pilot force manning is projected out to fiscal year
2010 based on current and historical retention trends, the increased
active duty service commitment of 10 years for pilot training, bonus
take rates, and a constant production level of 1,100 pilots per year.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requirement.......................................... 13,424 13,306 13,338 13,269 13,318 13,319 13,319 13,319 13,319 13,319 13,319
Inventory............................................ 12,245 12,116 12,161 12,168 12,366 12,292 12,232 12,214 12,020 12,105 12,589
Percent.............................................. -9% -9% -9% -8% -7% -8% -8% -8% -10% -9% -5%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
One measure taken by the Air Force to help lessen the pilot
shortage is Aviator Continuation Pay. The take rates for this program
are shown below. The long-term bonus take rate reflects the percentage
of initially eligible pilots that accept a 5, to 20 or to 25-year
agreement.
The long-term initial eligible acceptance rate for fiscal year 2001
was 30 percent; down 2 percentage points from fiscal year 2000's 32
percent, down 12 percentage points from fiscal year 1999's 42 percent,
and down from the decade high of 81 percent in fiscal year 1994. In the
month since September 11, there has not been any significant increase
in the pilot long-term bonus take-rates.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Long Term Bonus Take Rate....................... 81% 78% 59% 35% 27% 42% 32% 30%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The overall pilot continuation rates are reflected below. These are
referred to as cumulative continuation rates (CCR). The CCR indicates
the percentage of officers entering their 6th year of service that will
complete 11 or 14 years of service given existing retention rates. A 45
percent CCR for Air Force pilots in the 6-14 year group means that for
every 100 pilots entering the 6th year of commissioned service, 45
would complete the 14th year.
Pilot retention, currently estimated at a relatively low 46
percent, has continued to experience challenges in sustainment and
ability to counter current inventory shortfalls.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category FY91 FY92 FY93 FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pilot CCR............................................ 35% 34% 62% 82% 87% 77% 71% 46% 41% 45% 45%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rated retention is a major concern. The push of operations tempo
and historical pull of airline hiring have played major roles in pilot
separation decisions and leading indicators, including pilot
separations, cumulative continuation rates, initial bonus long-term
take rates, and historical airline hiring to date point to a
challenging retention environment.
The AF has a retired rated recall program, which is
currently expanding in light of the Nation's wartime tasking
(currently 96 personnel participating in this program).
Increasing Pilot Production and Service Commitment: In
fiscal year 2000, pilot production increased to 1,100/year from
<500 in fiscal year 1995; pilot training ADSC increased from 8
to 10 years as of 1 Oct 99.
Improving Aviator Compensation: Aviation Career
Incentive Pay increased from $650 to $840 per month in fiscal
year 1999; Aviation Continuation Pay (ACP) restructured in
fiscal year 2000 to increase compensation from $22,000 to
$25,000 per year and extend ACP agreements through 25 years of
aviation service.
Managing Operations Tempo/Quality of Life: AF
transition to new Expeditionary Aerospace Force (EAF) construct
allows better integration of Active, Guard, Reserve, and
Civilian members--improves stability, predictability for Air
Force members. Also, reduced Joint and AF exercises and
restructured inspection system. Post-deployment stand-down
policy, expanded family outreach programs, video/internet email
links with deployed forces, fiscal year 2001 NDAA medical care
improvements, and Basic Allowance for Housing increases
improves quality of life.
Senator Inhofe. Then the Reserve component has been a
problem, and I think primarily, and I have gotten this from
those individuals as well as from some of the papers they have
to fill out when they leave, that the op tempo is the main
villain there, all of these deployments to places where in my
opinion we should not have been deployed in the first place,
and apparently also in the opinion of many of the reservists.
Consequently, some of the critical MOSs are having a serious
problem. Do you have any ideas on how you can improve that
situation with the Reserve component?
Mr. Dominguez. Thank you, Senator, for that question.
The Air Expeditionary Force concept I think, as has been
briefed to me, has gone a very long way to addressing the
concerns of all members of the Air Force with regard to that
problem. So with that concept, they now have some
predictability and stability and in the Reserve components it
is my understanding that again, we are operating without
presidential call-up, so it really is volunteers who go from
the units.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you very much.
Mr. Stenbit, before my time expires I want to get into a
subject you and I talked about in my office, and that is
spectrum. It is a very significant thing. In the event we
should lose the 1.7, 1.8 Gigahertz: number 1, what alternatives
do you see right now, and number 2, what disruptions would take
place, and what is your opinion today as to the significance of
maintaining DOD's control of those bands?
Mr. Stenbit. Thank you for the question. I have not been
deeply involved in those discussions, and have just recently
gotten involved, but I do know that the real issue is, it is
not a question of the DOD's moving. It will probably take about
15 to 17 years for the satellites that are dependent on
frequencies in that band to fly out and be replaced with those
that have other frequencies. It is conceivable there are
alternatives for the DOD in other frequency spectrums, but this
debate appears to me to be the wrong one.
The people who want to pay money, quote-unquote, to have us
move are not accepting the full responsibility to replace the
absolutely fundamental national security capabilities we have.
They want us to take all the risks about whether the actual
other frequency will be there. Whether the costs are correct
and how fast the satellites fly out and so forth, and so there
is a real asymmetry in this particular debate from my point of
view.
We have hard core requirements that are built into major
weapons systems and training systems, and those requirements
have to be met or we are not going to have an effective
military, and that is a little different from whether the
venture capital guy gets his money back fast enough when he
auctions the spectrum.
There is a different risk involved here, and I am very
concerned about the haste with which, on the one side, apparent
financial risk is being measured against real national security
risk. I am very willing to work on that problem, if confirmed,
but it is an asymmetrical battle right now.
Senator Inhofe. Well, that is a very good answer, and I
wish the people would talk in those terms a little bit more,
because all we hear, as Members, is the fact that there is a
very large block of people out there that want it and are going
to pay for it, but there are other problems. It is more
complicated than that.
I guess the request I would make of you, and I know my time
has expired, would be that if we go out, as we did last year,
and we have previously, and fight for the Defense Department to
maintain control of these bands, will you see to it that you do
everything within your power--that the administration does not
change its mind after we have done all of that, and change
their position on whether or not we should keep those bands?
Mr. Stenbit. I can absolutely promise you that if
confirmed, or even if not confirmed, I will try.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you very much.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Inhofe.
We will excuse this panel and move to our second panel. We
have a couple of our colleagues here that are waiting to
introduce one or more of our nominees in the second panel that
we would like to get to immediately. Thank you all.
During this second panel, we will be considering the
nominations of Michael Parker to be Assistant Secretary of the
Army for Civil Works; Dr. Mario Fiori to be Assistant Secretary
of the Army for Installations and Environment; H.T. Johnson to
be Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Installations and
Environment; and Nelson F. Gibbs to be Assistant Secretary of
the Air Force for Installations and Environment.
On behalf of the committee, let me welcome each of you and
your families. In a moment we will ask you to introduce your
family members. We will go a little bit out of order here
because of our colleagues' schedules. We have two of our
colleagues here to introduce Congressman Parker, and we will
call first upon our good Republican Leader, Senator Lott, and
then call upon Senator Cochran for that purpose. Then we will
call upon Senator Cleland.
[The prepared statements of Senators Bingaman, Thurmond,
and Smith follow:]
Prepared Statement by Senator Jeff Bingaman
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this confirmation hearing today
on these seven nominees. These are all very important positions in the
Pentagon, and I am pleased that the administration has sent us these
nominations. I expect the committee will quickly report the nominations
and they will soon be confirmed by the full Senate.
I'd like to take this opportunity to talk for a few minutes about
the position of Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. This
position oversees the Army Corps of Engineers, and the 340-member work
force of the Corps' Albuquerque District.
For nearly 75 years, the Albuquerque District of the Corps has
played a major role in many important water resources development and
management projects in New Mexico. Through a number of projects, the
Corps has helped improve the quality of life for citizens all over my
State. The Corps built the Conchas Dam in San Miguel County and later
built the Jemez, Abiquiu Galisteo, Two Rivers, and Santa Rosa Dams.
These projects provide flood control, irrigation and recreation for the
people of New Mexico.
The Albuquerque District provides design, construction, and
operations and maintenance services to three important Air Force bases
in New Mexico--Kirtland, Cannon, and Holloman. The district also works
with some of our local communities on critical water resource and
flood-prevention projects authorized by Congress, including cooperative
projects in Alamogordo, Las Cruces, Bernalillo County, as well as
others around the state.
The Corp's role was especially visible in the recent emergency
response to last years tragic Cerro Grande Fire. The district provided
temporary housing to 114 families whose homes were destroyed and
responded quickly to the threat of flooding in Los Alamos after the
fire.
I want especially to recognize the Albuquerque District's recent
efforts to implement Section 593 of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1999. With the first-year appropriation Congress provided in fiscal
year 2001, LTC Raymond Midkiff and his staff, especially James White
and Bill Spurgeon, have moved quickly to identify eligible projects and
to implement Project Cooperation Agreements. The first PCA was signed
earlier this month and several more are in the works. I look forward to
seeing soon a number of projects under construction in Central New
Mexico.
I very much appreciate the continuing support the Albuquerque
District has provided the citizens of New Mexico, and I want to express
my thanks to the district's dedicated staff for their always prompt
responses to requests from my office for project information and status
reports.
______
Prepared Statement by Senator Strom Thurmond
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I join you and Senator Warner in welcoming our
distinguished group of nominees. This is the largest group of
nominations that the Armed Services Committee has considered at one
time. It shows this committee's bipartisan effort to provide Secretary
Rumsfeld the quality people that will be key to transforming the
Department of Defense into the organization that it must become to cope
with the post Cold-War era challenges to the United States.
Mr. Chairman, I believe each nominee will bring to the position for
which they have been nominated unique and professional experience. They
are highly qualified and most importantly dedicated to serving our
Nation and the men and women of our Armed Services. Although I will
have make additional comments regarding Dr. Fiori and General Johnson,
I am pleased to have had a role in recommending both individuals to the
President. Each has served in most challenging positions. Dr. Fiori as
the Site Manager for the Savannah River Site. General Johnson, a native
of South Carolina, as the Commander of the Air Mobility Command.
To each of our nominees I want to state that you my support and
that of this committee. I wish you success, and hope that you will
consider the committee a partner in your efforts to improve the
readiness of our Armed Forces.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
______
Prepared Statement by Senator Bob Smith
Good morning. Welcome to Mike Parker, who has been nominated by
President Bush to assume the position of Assistant Secretary of the
Army for Civil Works. Although in the past, the nomination for this
position was referred solely to the Senate Armed Services Committee,
this year I am hopeful that the nomination will be sequentially
referred to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, on which
I am the Ranking Republican Member.
Virtually all of the responsibilities of the Assistant Secretary
relate to matters that are within the legislative jurisdiction of the
Environment and Public Works Committee. The Environment Committee has
jurisdiction over the issues of flood control, improvement of rivers
and harbors (including environmental aspects of deepwater ports),
public works, bridges and dams, and water resources. Members surely are
familiar with the fact that every 2 years, the Environment Committee
considers a Water Resources Development Act, which authorizes projects
nationwide under the Army Corps Civil Works Program.
The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works is responsible
for all aspects of the Army Civil Works Programs, including:
policy formulation and program direction for water
resources development, including: navigation, flood control,
hydropower, water supply, shore protection and beach erosion
control, recreation, fish and wildlife conservation and
enhancement, and emergency response to natural disasters;
regulatory activities conducted under the River and
Harbor Act of 1899, the Clean Water Act, and various other
acts;
legislation, including the biennial Water Resources
Development Act; and
annual budget review, approval and submission.
The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works is the steward
of these areas, which fall directly in the jurisdiction of the
Environment Committee. Thus, it is only fitting that the two committees
share consideration of the nominee for this key position.
I look forward to learning more about Mr. Parker and his background
and qualifications.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
STATEMENT OF HON. TRENT LOTT, U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSISSIPPI
Senator Lott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Warner. It
is a pleasure to be back before this distinguished committee. I
had the pleasure of serving on this committee for 6\1/2\ years,
and enjoyed it, and miss it until this very day. I appreciate
the job that you do and the opportunity to appear before you
today on behalf of my good friend and our former colleague from
Mississippi, Congressman Mike Parker, who has been nominated to
be Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. I am very
pleased with this nomination, and very proud to appear on his
behalf, Mr. Chairman.
Did you say the nominees will introduce their families?
Chairman Levin. We will give them that opportunity.
Senator Lott. I will just have to note Congressman Parker's
wife and daughter and one son are here, and he has one son that
has met with great success in life. He is a golfer, and he is
trying to work with the former Congressman to improve his
capabilities to make some money later on in life, perhaps as a
golfer. [Laughter.]
Chairman Levin. How hopeless is it? [Laughter.]
Senator Lott. There is some real concern that it is
hopeless. [Laughter.]
I promised my friend here that this would not be a roast,
Mr. Chairman, but I am tempted for it to be so, in life, some
of your best friends are the ones you pick on the most, and
Congressman Parker and I have had a lot of fun together
representing the State of Mississippi in years gone by, and we
even used to do an occasional TV show together, and at one
point--before he tells this story on me I am going to tell it
on him. He grew a mustache, and it seemed to have an adverse
effect on the rest of his hair. I noted that on a live
television program, to which, without a crack and a smile, he
said--well, he explained why he was doing that, and he did say
that at least he did not have the temerity to wear a toupee
like I did. [Laughter.]
It went downhill from there and degenerated into a poorly
rated show, and it was eventually canceled. [Laughter.]
But that is the kind of relationship we have had. I just
want to say that I am really pleased to be here on his behalf.
He certainly has the background to do this job. He has good
education credentials. He did serve in Congress, representing
the Fourth Congressional District. He served on all the
important committees in the House, including the Budget
Committee, the Appropriations Committee, Transportation,
Education, and Workforce and Veterans Affairs, and he was a
very active legislator.
He would get engaged to try to find a way to build
consensus. I must confess that in order to build that consensus
he went to great extremes, including sitting on both sides of
the aisle, first as a Democrat and then as a Republican, and so
he clearly has been and can be bipartisan, and I mean that in
the finest sense of the word.
But he showed that he was an active legislator. He was
engaged in issues when he was in Congress and in his private
life that give him the background that he needs to do this job,
and he has been in business. He has been a successful
businessman. He owned a funeral home, a life insurance company
and a funeral insurance company. He has also been involved with
GFT Farms, Incorporated, and Wilkes Resources Incorporated.
He has been involved with wildlife, nature and land
management, and when he was in Congress, of course, serving on
Appropriations, including the Energy and Water Appropriations
Subcommittee, he was involved with civil works with the Army
Corps of Engineer projects, and I think he is just a superior
choice for this position.
His wife, Rosemary, and their kids are just as fine as you
would ever hope for, and so I hope that he will receive
expeditious consideration, and I want you to know with full
confidence that he will handle this job very carefully. He will
make sure that he understands the concerns of Congress, the
House and the Senate, on both sides of the aisle. He will make
sure the job is done ethically, efficiently, and effectively,
and I am delighted to be here on his behalf. Mr. Chairman and
Senator Warner, I commend him to you and to the Environment and
Public Works Committee that I believe will also be involved in
this confirmation.
Thank you for this opportunity.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Lott, for that wonderful
introduction. I know how much Congressman Parker welcomes it,
and we do, too. It is important to us.
Senator Cochran.
STATEMENT OF HON. THAD COCHRAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSISSIPPI
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very happy
to be here to endorse this nomination and to urge the committee
to report favorably on the nomination to the full Senate. I
have known Mike Parker since he began a campaign for Congress
in the district that I used to represent in Mississippi when I
was in the House of Representatives, the Fourth Congressional
District of our State that is in the southwest corner of
Mississippi.
It included parts of the largest county in our State, Hinds
County, where the capital city of Jackson is located, and the
old river counties on the Mississippi River, very historic farm
country. Cattle and dairy farm businesses, as well as colleges
and universities are located in this district. It is really a
microcosm, I think, of the entire State, and Mike represented
it. He was elected in 1988, and he represented that area of our
State with distinction.
He was always conscious of his responsibilities. He took
them seriously. He used his personal experiences as a
businessman and as a farmer to bring to the legislative process
an insight and understanding that was very valuable to the
legislative process. He was always very thoughtful in the way
he approached his job.
I think you can consider him, too, as a conservationist. He
has been involved personally with land management. He
understands timber management. He understands the importance of
preserving soil and water resources, and he has demonstrated
that in his personal businesses as well as his public life as
well. I am hopeful that this committee will appreciate, as I do
and Senator Lott does, the value that he can bring to this job
as Assistant Secretary of the Army, because of his experience
and his talent and his intelligence and his good judgment.
Chairman Levin. Senator Cochran, thank you very much for
your words, very significant, very relevant to this nomination,
to our consideration. We are very appreciative of them.
Senator Lott. Mr. Chairman, could I also just recognize,
and I know he probably would, too, but we do have another one
of our colleagues here, Congressman Chip Pickering from an
adjoining district that served in the House with Congressman
Parker, and he wanted to be here to show his support. Here he
is, right here.
Senator Warner. Why don't we invite him up. He ought to be
recognized and be a part of the record.
Chairman Levin. We will take that wave as an indication of
strong support.
Senator Warner. We thank our colleagues for coming. Those
are two powerful statements. There is little left for the
committee to judge here.
Chairman Levin. Thank you both.
Senator Cleland.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR MAX CLELAND
Senator Cleland. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would
just like to thank you for this hearing. I am sorry I will not
be able to stay for the duration, but I look forward to working
with all of the nominees. I just want to take this opportunity
to introduce Dr. Mario Fiori, who has been nominated by the
administration to be Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Installations and Environment.
Before I begin, I just want to recognize that Michael
Parker, nominated to be Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works, enjoys the support of the Georgia Ports Authority.
I look forward to working with him and hope that his early show
is not canceled. We hope this is just the beginning of his
show, and we look forward to working with him. It is my hope to
talk with him in the near future about Georgia's ports and
Savannah and Brunswick.
Mr. Chairman, my real purpose is to be here to introduce to
the committee today Dr. Mario Fiori. Dr. Fiori is one of my
constituents who currently resides in Hinesville, Georgia, but
he was born in Frankfurt, Germany, and raised in Brooklyn, two
foreign countries. [Laughter.]
Also a 1963 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, after a
year on a diesel submarine, he began his graduate degree at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. While there, he
completed his master's degree in mechanical engineering, a
nuclear degree, and earned a Ph.D. in nuclear engineering.
Upon finishing his education, he continued his Navy career
in various positions. He served as department head aboard the
U.S.S. Pargo, and later as executive officer on the missile
submarine U.S.S. George Washington Carver.
In 1979, he became commanding officer of the nuclear attack
submarine U.S.S. Spadefish. From 1983 to 1985, he served as
Special Assistant to President Reagan's science advisor, Dr.
George Keyworth.
In 1985, he served as commander of Submarine Squadron 4
based in Charleston, South Carolina. He later became Commander
of the Naval Underwater Systems Center in Newport, Rhode
Island, where he served until his retirement in 1989. Following
up on this extremely distinguished naval career, Dr. Fiori was
then appointed by the Secretary of Energy to serve as a
representative to the Defense Nuclear Facility's Safety Board.
He was later assigned by the Secretary of Energy to become
manager of the Savannah River operations, where he continued
Government service.
In 1997, he left the Department of Energy to become founder
and president of Accomplice Associates in Georgia.
Dr. Fiori is married and has three daughters. His daughter
Cristina is here today, accompanying her father.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to a continuation of this
hearing and the early confirmation of Dr. Fiori's nomination.
He is an incredibly qualified individual.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Senator Cleland, thank you.
Dr. Fiori, you cannot do better than getting an
introduction from Senator Cleland. That is as good as it gets.
Senator Warner. Or have a wonderful daughter who worked on
this committee and traveled a long distance to join us today.
Thank you.
Chairman Levin. Senator Warner.
Senator Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am privileged to
say a few words about my constituent, General Johnson. He has
41 years of service to our Nation in the United States military
and other Government service. That is extraordinary. A combat
veteran, he has 423 missions as a forward air controller in
Vietnam. I observed that type of action in a previous conflict,
and I know the risks involved in that type of flying. It is not
exactly high altitude flying.
He became one of the U.S. Air Force's most accomplished
senior leaders, serving as Deputy Commander in Chief of the
U.S. Central Command, Director of the Joint Staff under Admiral
William Crowe--a remarkable responsibility, under a very able
individual. As Commander in Chief, United States Transportation
Command and Military Airlift Commands he served as Transcom
Commander during a critical period in our history, Operation
Desert Shield and Desert Storm. He led one of the most rapid,
concentrated, and highly successful movements of troops,
equipment, and supplies in American military history. Logistics
played a major role in the successes we had in those
operations.
Subsequent to his retirement from the Air Force, he served
as a member of the 1993 Base Realignment and Closure
Commission. Therefore we welcome you today. BRAC is a subject
you can slightly distance yourself from for a while, until you
get across the river. We join you and your family in thanking
you for continuing your willingness to return to public
service.
I was trying to search my mind. I believe you are perhaps
the first four-star that has returned to a military department,
which is a bit of history in itself. I was talking to some of
my Army colleagues here. I remember so well when General
Goodpaster stepped down, with a very distinguished career like
yours, to go back to West Point, where he laid aside his four
stars, and my recollection is he took on two. I am going to
have that checked out.
We talked about that yesterday, and I think it is a
reflection on your humility and love of this country that you
are willing to now undertake another tour of duty in the
Department of Defense. I am confident you will do well, and I
wish you and your family well.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you very much.
Senator Warner. Mr. Chairman, I think we can now proceed to
the panel with questions.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Warner.
Mr. Parker has already been introduced, and is well-known
to members of this committee for the 10 years of service which
has been referred to in the House of Representatives. Dr. Fiori
has also been introduced, as we have been informed served in
the Navy for nearly 30 years, most recently served as manager
for the Department of Energy's Savannah River Site. Mr.
Johnson, as we have just been informed, is an Air Force
veteran, served with great distinction, served on the Base
Closure Commission in 1993, and Senator Warner was right that
you have distanced yourself for a few years from base closures,
but it will not last long.
Mr. Gibbs previously served as corporate comptroller for
Northrop Grumman, and most recently as Executive Director of
Cost Accounting Standards at the Office of Management and
Budget, OMB. We welcome all four of you here today. You have
all responded to the committee's prehearing policy questions to
our standard questionnaire. These responses will be made a part
of the record.
We are reviewing the paperwork required for each of you,
and we will make certain that it is in accordance with the
committee's requirements. We will now ask you the standard
questions which are asked of every nominee who comes before
this committee.
You have agreed already to appear as a witness before
congressional committees when called. You have already agreed
to ensure that briefings, testimony and other communications
are provided to Congress, and we will now ask you the following
questions.
First, have you adhered to applicable laws and regulations
governing conflict of interest?
Mr. Parker. Yes, sir.
Dr. Fiori. Yes, sir.
Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gibbs. Yes, sir.
Chairman Levin. Have you assumed any duties or undertaken
any actions which would appear to presume the outcome of the
confirmation process?
Mr. Parker. No, sir.
Dr. Fiori. No, sir.
Mr. Johnson. No, sir.
Mr. Gibbs. No, sir.
Chairman Levin. Will you ensure the Department complies
with deadlines established for requested communications,
including prepared testimony and questions for the record in
hearings?
Mr. Parker. Yes, sir.
Dr. Fiori. Yes, sir.
Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gibbs. Yes, sir.
Chairman Levin. Will you cooperate in providing witnesses
and briefers in response to congressional requests?
Mr. Parker. Yes, sir.
Dr. Fiori. Yes, sir.
Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gibbs. Yes, sir.
Chairman Levin. Will those witnesses be protected from
reprisal for their testimony?
Mr. Parker. Yes, sir.
Dr. Fiori. Yes, sir.
Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gibbs. Yes, sir.
Chairman Levin. All right. Let me now call upon each of you
for any opening remarks you would like to make, and why don't
you use this occasion also to introduce any family members that
are with you?
STATEMENT OF PAUL MICHAEL PARKER, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF THE ARMY FOR CIVIL WORKS
Mr. Parker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, distinguished members
of the committee. It is a privilege to introduce my family. My
wife of 31 years is Rosemary, sitting over here, and next to
her is a young man that is 2 years older than my son, and is
our next-door neighbor back home in Mississippi, Eli Ferguson,
and my son Thomas, who is 16 and is getting smarter every day,
and my daughter, Marisa, who is a junior in college, at
Millsaps College in Jackson, Mississippi.
I also want to thank Senator Lott and Senator Cochran, and
also Congressman Pickering for coming by. For full disclosure,
Chip is my cousin, and so you have to watch what he says about
me.
It is a great honor and privilege to appear before this
committee as the nominee to be the Assistant Secretary of the
Army for Civil Works. I am very grateful to the President, the
Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Army for the
trust and confidence that they have placed in me. If confirmed,
I pledge that I will work as hard as I possibly can to serve
the soldiers, civilians, and families that make the United
States Army the most powerful and professional army in the
world.
The Corps of Engineers has a proud history stretching back
almost to the beginning of the country. Over the years, the
Corps has evolved to emphasize its major responsibilities of
today, conservation and development of the Nation's water
resources, which includes flood control, navigation, shore
protection, and related purposes. All of these tasks are
important, all are complex and demanding, and all require
significant resources.
With competing demands for the limited dollars, fulfilling
these requirements becomes more and more difficult. However,
the dedicated and able staff of military and civilian employees
who make up the Corps of Engineers has risen to the challenge,
and continues to carry out its responsibilities to the people
of this country in these important areas.
In the 10 years during which I had the honor of
representing the Fourth District of Mississippi in the United
States House of Representatives, I applied my commitment to
finding practical, realistic solutions to problems and issues
of importance to my constituents. Having served on various
House committees that deal with the range of issues I can
expect to face as the Assistant Secretary, I know both the
civil works and the military program aspects of the Corps of
Engineers.
Should I be confirmed, I look forward to serving with the
Army during this landmark era of change and transformation. I
look forward to serving with the Army team of active, Reserve,
and National Guard soldiers who distinguish themselves every
day by their dedication and hard work. I am prepared to
undertake the important responsibilities of this post, and am
enthusiastic about the opportunities it presents to me to
continue to serve this great country.
Mr. Chairman, if confirmed, I look forward to a strong
working relationship with you and this committee. I would be
pleased to answer any questions at this time. Thank you.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Mr. Parker.
Dr. Fiori.
STATEMENT OF DR. MARIO P. FIORI, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF THE ARMY FOR INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT
Dr. Fiori. Chairman Levin, it is an honor and a privilege
to appear before this committee. I am very grateful to
President Bush for the confidence and trust he has shown in me
by nominating me for the position of Assistant Secretary of the
Army for Installations and Environment.
I also appreciate the efforts of Secretary Rumsfeld and
Secretary of the Army Tom White to bring me in as one of their
team. I certainly very much appreciate and sincerely thank
Senator Thurmond and Senator Cleland for their very kind words
and introductions.
I am particularly pleased to have the opportunity to serve
in the Pentagon once again. My two previous tours were
shortened by events beyond my control. Back in 1973, after only
6 months in the Pentagon, my then boss, Rear Admiral Harry
Train, sent me to a civilian agency, the Federal Energy Office,
to assist in efforts to control fuel shortages resulting from
the Arab oil embargo. Then in 1983, after 4 days in the
Pentagon, the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Watkins,
detailed me to work in the White House as Military Assistant to
the President's Science Advisor, Dr. Keyworth. I hope, if
confirmed, that this tour will last the full term.
During my naval assignments, and also while in the
Department of Energy, my highest priority was to take care of
people, nurture their exceptional talents, improve their
quality of life, and make their service both exciting and
rewarding.
Now, I consider myself truly fortunate to be in a position
to make a similar contribution to the support of the Army
family. If confirmed, I will dedicate myself to improve the
living and working conditions of our soldiers, civilians, and
families. Also, I will work very hard to enhance our reputation
as an agency that will attack our environmental legacy problems
efficiently and effectively, and at the same time ensure that
mistakes of the past are not repeated in the future.
If confirmed, I will work closely with the members of this
committee and our sister Services, other Government agencies,
and interested non-Government organizations to ensure that the
Army's installation and environmental programs meet the needs
and goals of the Army of the 21st century.
Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge
the strong support of my family, who have made innumerable
adjustments to their lives in order to support my military and
Government career. I regret that Susan, my wife and advisor of
33 years, could not be here today, but I am delighted that
Cristina, our oldest daughter, is here with me. Cristina, of
course, is also very pleased to visit all of her contemporaries
and friends on the Senate Armed Service Committee staff on
which she served for 2 years between 1996 and 1998.
If confirmed, Mr. Chairman, I will serve the Army with
energy, enthusiasm, and loyally (perhaps with a slight lapse
during the Army-Navy game.) I am eager to get started, and
thank this committee and staff for their significant efforts in
scheduling this hearing so quickly. I thank you for your time
and attention, and look forward to your questions.
Chairman Levin. Thank you. We welcome you and your
daughter. Cris, welcome back. We are delighted to see you
again.
Mr. Johnson.
STATEMENT OF H.T. JOHNSON, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
THE NAVY FOR INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Johnson. I would like to introduce a woman who has been
my best friend and partner throughout my entire life, Linda
Johnson.
Mr. Chairman, Senator Warner, distinguished members of the
committee, it is a distinct honor and privilege to appear
before you again, this time as the nominee to be the Assistant
Secretary of the Navy for Installations and Environment. I
thank President Bush for the nomination, Secretary Rumsfeld and
Secretary England for their strong support to again serve our
Nation, this time with the Department of the Navy.
While serving in the military I had the opportunity to work
with the members and the staff of this committee, and have seen
first-hand your unwavering support to making sure our Nation
has the strongest military in the world. I am very proud, as a
citizen, for the outstanding work that all of you do. Should I
be confirmed, I look forward to working with Secretary England,
the members and staff of this committee, and other Members of
Congress, to provide the Department of the Navy, the sailors,
marines, and civilians, with the tools necessary to ensure the
continued maritime dominance of our naval forces.
As Senator Inhofe mentioned, one of the important parts of
that is live fire training, and I commit to you to work that
issue very hard if confirmed.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, if I may be permitted, I would
like to thank the mentors and associates in the public and
private sector who have given their strong support and
encouragement over the years. Should I be confirmed, I will
focus my entire talents and energies on serving the Department
of the Navy and our great Nation. I thank you for hearing us
today, and this concludes my remarks.
Chairman Levin. Thank you. We welcome you and welcome your
wife, both.
Mr. Gibbs.
STATEMENT OF NELSON F. GIBBS, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY
OF THE AIR FORCE FOR INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you. Before I start my remarks, I would
like to introduce Priscilla Gibbs, my wife of more years than
she allows me to recount publicly any longer. I want to thank
you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Warner, for the opportunity to
appear here today. It is, indeed, an honor to appear before
this committee seeking confirmation of my nomination to be the
Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Installations and
Environment and Logistics.
I want to thank President Bush, Secretary Rumsfeld, and
Secretary Roche for the trust that they have shown in me as the
nominee for this position, and I want to thank you, Mr.
Chairman, and the other members of this committee who have
taken time out of your busy schedules to hold this hearing
today, and to those, the many that have helped me throughout my
entire career, and for the continuing support of my family. I
would like to take this opportunity to give a public thank you
to all of them.
Mr. Chairman, if confirmed, I will work closely with you
and this committee to ensure that the resources allocated by
Congress to programs under my jurisdiction are used wisely and
with fiscal integrity. Our Air Force men and women who put
themselves in harm's way deserve no less than my full
attention.
My goals are three: installations that are model places to
work and to live, a responsive logistics system, and a program
of fiscally sound environmental stewardship. I promise my best
effort to carry out the mandates of the office for which I have
been nominated. I know the issues I will face directly impact
readiness and quality of life and, if confirmed, I accept that
challenge.
Again, Mr. Chairman, it is indeed an honor to appear before
this committee, and I will be pleased to accept any questions
from the committee. Thank you.
Chairman Levin. Thank you very much, Mr. Gibbs. We would
all echo your sentiments about the role of your families in
getting to where you have been able to come, and the role that
they are going to play in your lives from here on out. The
demands are great in these jobs, and their commitment to your
service is just as essential as your own commitment to that
service, and we commend and thank them for that commitment.
Mr. Parker, let me start with you, relative to the Army
Corps of Engineers and the question of whether or not there
should be peer review. Currently, the Corps does not have a
system in place to assure that independent peer review by
experts from outside of the agency takes place for studies
which support major projects before such projects are approved.
You have indicated that you believe such independent peer
review would have value. Would you institute such independent
peer review if you are confirmed?
Mr. Parker. Mr. Chairman, it would have great value, but
certain questions have to be answered. Number 1 would be the
cost, and what types of projects, what the level of funding
would be before a peer review would be required. You also would
have to have in place some type of structure where the peer
review would not delay the projects. So the answer to your
question is yes, I would support a peer review of some type.
I believe that it could be done on certain types of
projects, but it would take a tremendous amount of work on the
part of all the interested parties to come up with the concept
of how it would be instituted. If confirmed, I will be working
with not only the Corps, but also with the House and the Senate
and all the interested parties involved to come up with some
concepts to see what we can do to make that work.
The reason it is so important is because the Corps has had
a lot of bad publicity in the last couple of years. It is
necessary that not only Members of Congress but the American
people know that when the Corps says something they can depend
upon it, and that they can rely on the facts that are given by
the Corps and know they are valid. A peer review would serve
that purpose, and I think it is something that needs to be
explored. If confirmed, I would look forward to working with
you and other Members of the House and Senate to make that a
reality.
Chairman Levin. Would you let us know after you are
confirmed, after a reasonable period of time in the office, the
status of your consideration and deliberation on that issue so
we can keep track of how you are doing?
Mr. Parker. Yes, I will, and let me point out that I do not
know all the information as far as where the Corps is now
looking at that. But if confirmed I will let you know. Also, I
want to make sure the committee understands that a decision
will not be made until consultation is made with the House and
Senate to make sure we all understand where we are going with
this, because it would be a major change as far as policy.
Chairman Levin. Thank you. The General Accounting Office
has found some problems with the Army Corps of Engineers
program for mitigation of wetlands loss. Last month, the
National Academy of Sciences released a report in which it
concluded the program was falling short of its stated goal,
which was no net wetlands loss, and I know you have not had a
chance to review those reports yet, but do you generally
support the goal of no net wetlands loss?
Mr. Parker. I totally support that.
Chairman Levin. Let me ask our other three nominees this
question. Each of you, relative to base realignment and
closure, or the BRAC process, the President's February budget
blueprint says that with 23 percent in estimated excess
infrastructure it is clear that new rounds of base closures
will be necessary to shape the military more efficiently. I
would ask each of you, do you believe that the Defense
Department has excess infrastructure and that we need more base
closings to address the problem? Why don't I start with you,
Dr. Fiori.
Dr. Fiori. Sir, I definitely believe we have excess
infrastructure, and to run an organization or business we
should eliminate as many of the mortgages as we can. As for the
process of eliminating these extra properties or facilities, I
come to the table with no preconceived notions about it. I know
that there are difficult decisions, and it must be done in an
open and fair process, and with that I would dedicate our
abilities to accomplish the closures in a satisfactory manner
that would satisfy the committee and also help us reach our
goals for the 21st century.
Chairman Levin. Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson. Sir, from all indications, we do have excess
infrastructure, and we need to do something about that. I know
from personal experience from the 1993 BRAC that the system is
fair and equitable and certainly can be refined, but it is a
very good system for handling the excess. If confirmed, I will
work the issues very hard with no previous suggestions on how
to do it, but will have an open mind.
Chairman Levin. Mr. Gibbs.
Mr. Gibbs. Yes, I also concur with my two colleagues that
there appears to be excess facilitization in the military
services, and if confirmed it will be very high on my agenda to
ensure that whatever process is chosen by the President and
Congress to pursue the rationalization is carried out in a fair
and equitable manner.
Chairman Levin. Thank you. Mr. Gibbs, do you believe as a
general proposition that the Air Force should clean up property
due to base realignment, property which has been closed due to
that realignment? Do you believe that it should clean up that
property to a level which is consistent with the local reuse
plan developed by a community, assuming that it is feasible and
cost-effective to do that?
Mr. Gibbs. Yes, sir. I believe that the Air Force needs to
comply with the environmental laws and regulations of the land.
Chairman Levin. But where the local community has a local
reuse plan, do you believe that the property should be cleaned
up pursuant to that plan, provided it is cost-effective, and
provided it is feasible to do that?
Mr. Gibbs. Yes, sir, I certainly do, sir.
Chairman Levin. My time is up. Senator Warner.
Senator Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Parker, I think we are as a Nation indeed fortunate
that you are willing to step up and take on this very difficult
task. I think most Members of Congress have at one time or
another a need to receive consultation from the person in your
position with regard to their projects back home. You bring to
this office a knowledge of Congress which will help you and
those of us here in Congress to achieve a fair and unbiased
analysis of the programs.
You are going to have to make tough decisions. As I have
come to know you, and as your two former colleagues have
stated, you can handle it, and so I wish you well. I am also
the senior Republican on the Environment Committee, and I will
communicate today with the chairman of that committee so that
hopefully we can expedite your hearing and move you through the
Senate as expeditiously as we can.
Now a question about this Nation-wide permits issue. The
Corps has established 41 Nation-wide permits, in addition to
the regional and local permits for specific activities. There
are indications that additional Nation-wide permits may be
appropriate and necessary. The Corps, however, has been under
considerable pressure to restrict access to Nation-wide
permits. If confirmed, how would you begin to address the
Corps' ongoing efforts to define the use of Nation-wide
permits. I am a great supporter of the concept of preserving
the current wetlands, and no loss, and I think it is a good
one. I think this issue impacts on it.
Mr. Parker. I think it does also, and I personally support
the continuation of Nation-wide permitting, and also regional,
the purpose of which is to speed up the process and also cut
down paperwork when those things are identified, and it is an
ongoing process. It is not something that is just done, and you
sit back and say, well, we have done the process and it is
over.
I think the Corps has an ongoing process to look at ways
that the system can be utilized properly and be able to protect
the environment and at the same time not put undue regulatory
burdens on the public. It is a matter that will be of constant
discussion because the permitting process is dynamic, it is not
a passive thing, and so there will always have to be discussion
from here on out.
We are not talking about just this administration, but from
here on out, whoever is head of the Corps is going to have to
be discussing Nation-wide permitting and regional permitting as
things change, and as technology changes, in order to keep the
process moving forward.
Senator Warner. I like your phrase, it is dynamic. That is
a good approach to this issue. It is highly sensitive.
The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works is
historically responsible for oversight of our national
cemeteries. Included is the guidelines for the burial, and
again are subjects that involve tremendous sensitivity
occasionally with our constituents.
Arlington, where I have more than a passing interest--my
father is buried there--is reaching capacity, and soon there
will be before you, I hope, an option by which we could
increase the acreage at Arlington. I want to make certain that
the local community is going to join us in this endeavor to do
so, but I think some expansion of the cemetery to accommodate
World War II, Korea and Vietnam veterans is in the national
interest, so let us work together on that. I just want you to
know you have a partner, certainly when it comes to Arlington,
and indeed it is a magnificent asset for our Nation.
Now, gentlemen, I want to go into the area that involves
facilities. Through the years on this committee we have seen a
growing risk to our force structure overseas. I think this
Secretary of Defense, as have his predecessors, put the correct
emphasis on protecting our forward-deployed forces.
But I have commended the President many times and will
continue to do so for his speech at the Citadel, where he drew
the attention of America to the phrase, homeland defense, and
that is a reality. It is a sad one, but we have a problem here
at home now with regard to our military installations, indeed,
Government-wide, but I have always felt that the military is
particularly vulnerable.
I am going to ask you to represent to this committee that
you will commit to work amongst yourselves. It should be a
uniform challenge in the Department of Defense to make sure
that our bases and installations and the families and others
who work thereon, whether they are uniformed or civilian, are
accorded that level of force protection that is required to
repel, discourage, and deter any attack on these installations.
We will start with you, Mr. Gibbs, if you have some views on
that.
Mr. Gibbs. Certainly, Senator. The protection of our
resources is paramount, both from an installations point of
view and from a personnel point of view, and if confirmed I
will assure you that I will make that a high priority that it
is carried out effectively.
Mr. Johnson. I agree, sir, the protection of our facilities
and our installations is very important. Perhaps the most
important is the people, and that also involves the local
communities, so I commit to you to work the entire spectrum of
homeland defense.
Senator Warner. Dr. Fiori.
Dr. Fiori. I certainly commit myself to working this issue,
sir. We have to work not only to protect our military assets
and our facilities and our people and their welfare and health,
with our communities, who are so much integrated with our
military facilities in many, many fashions. We have to work
with them to ensure the maximum safety that we can for our
people, and I will certainly work very hard to make that
happen.
Senator Warner. On the subject of a future round of BRAC
decisions, as late as last evening I met with senior officials
at the Department of Defense and suggested, if it indeed is
their intent to have legislation this year, that it be sent
forward as quickly as possible, and it might, as I told the
chairman, come this week. I say that because the House in all
likelihood will not incorporate that into its markup, Mr.
Chairman. I do not know if you are aware of that, and therefore
significant responsibility would fall on the Senate for
initiating such that it could become a conference item.
In the past, I have supported these BRAC rounds, and in
fact I was coauthor with Senator Dixon years ago of the
statute. Regrettably in the last administration, and I am
speaking just for myself, I felt there were some errors made
which violated the spirit of trying not to let political
influence make the decisions.
So I would hope that each of you would commit to the
committee two things: one, to keep a watchful eye out to
preclude any political decisions that might influence, or, make
it impossible for the Department of Defense to eliminate in a
fair and careful way such infrastructure as it deems no longer
necessary for our national security--assuming we do get
legislation through.
Second, as this procedure is followed by the military
departments, that you be ever mindful of the impact of these
closures on the local communities. I have had an opportunity to
travel through all of our 50 States and spent a lot of time on
military installations. It is not just an economic connection
between the community and the installation. It goes back for
generations.
The communities embrace the men and women who come
periodically and stay for only 2 or 3 years, and then go on to
other assignments, but they embrace them as a family, and this
is a very difficult decision for these communities to accept
if, in fact, a BRAC commission decides that this particular
installation in their community which they have loved and cared
for so well for many years is no longer needed.
So take into consideration those two things, and I will
start with you, Dr. Fiori, one, the politics, two, the
communities.
Dr. Fiori. I will absolutely commit to you, sir, that I
will keep a watchful eye to prevent political decisions, or
effects of the decisions of the BRAC. I think it should be an
open and fair process, whatever the follow-on to the BRAC might
be.
As far as being with the community, having been in the
military for many years, I always remember how kind and helpful
the communities have been in the years I was in, and I have in
the past worked quite a bit to helping communities. That is, as
they downsize Government facilities, and working with the
community, if it can be done in a fair and equitable manner,
that is what I will dedicate myself to once we know what
facilities have to be shut down.
Mr. Johnson. I would redouble the comments of my colleague.
Certainly, the communities are very, very important, and it is
important to make sure that the process is fair. I was a little
naive, perhaps, in 1993, but I saw that as an open and fair
process and did not feel political pressures. I was hosted very
well at these communities that you speak of, sir, and I could
feel the pain, and I have also seen it from the other side, and
I appreciate your support, and I commend to you that we will be
open, fair, and also work with the communities.
Senator Warner. I thank you very much for that, and I did
not suggest that it was the BRAC commission, but the problem
came subsequent to the actions of the BRAC commission.
Mr. Gibbs.
Mr. Gibbs. Yes, Senator, I certainly will do all that I
can, if confirmed, to ensure that the process for right-sizing,
if you will, the military installations and establishments is--
the political influence is reduced to the minimum amount
possible. Having had some experience in the right-sizing of the
defense industry during the 1990s, and having had two closed
facilities, I have seen first-hand the impact that it has on
communities. It is essential that it be done in all fairness to
the communities involved, and it will be if I am confirmed by
you.
Senator Warner. Mr. Chairman, I am very satisfied with our
hearings today. I thought we had an excellent round, and again
I commend the President and the Secretary and each of you who
come forward to volunteer your services for continuation in
public office. I wish you well, and you are going to have my
support.
Thank you.
Chairman Levin. Senator Warner, thank you. While Senator
Warner and I may not agree as to whether or not there was a
political factor that intruded in the last round, we do agree
that there needs to be an additional round of base closings.
That is what is important, because this is a question that we
are going to face in the Senate.
Senator McCain and I have already introduced a BRAC bill.
The administration's version, as I understand it, coming to us
perhaps this week, and we welcome that.
There is no way we are going to be able to adopt an
additional round or rounds of base closings and realignments
without the full support of the Pentagon and the
administration. It just will not happen.
A political factor that was debated last time, frankly, was
not a relevant concern in the last vote, because the last vote
had nothing to do with the last administration running around
the base closing. It had to do with the next administration,
whichever it might be, and yet it was defeated also. It was
defeated for the reason that Senator Warner gave, I think,
which is the fear that local communities understandably have,
and the closeness that local communities have to our bases.
We have been through it in Michigan many times. I know
first-hand the pain, and I know that fear. I also know that it
can be overcome. That if, after closings, we really work with
the local communities well, that some of those fears can, in
fact, be overcome, that the reuses can be very economically
productive, indeed, to the local community. They do not have to
represent the feared loss. They can be a plus instead of a
minus. In many cases where the fear was the most severe, it
turned out that the benefit turned out to be the greatest.
So we just simply have to be efficient with the use of our
resources. We are going to look to you, the three of you
particularly that have addressed this issue this morning, to
give us the best advice you can on why it is we will be saving
money if there is another BRAC, and what those savings are. We
need the three of you to look immediately upon confirmation at
the history of base closings.
Mr. Johnson, you have been personally involved in one, but
we need all three of you to look at the history, to tell us
what savings, in fact, there have been, or cost avoidances, as
it is sometimes called, because there is some skepticism here
on the Hill as to whether or not our defense agencies have
shown savings.
Now, common sense tells us if you have excess
infrastructure, you close it. That is the business common sense
that I think most of us have. You cannot afford to keep
something going if it is not serving a full purpose, an
efficient purpose, but I have to tell you, there is a great
deal of skepticism about the numbers involved here as to
whether or not the reported savings are, in fact, accurate.
So I would encourage and urge each of you, when you get to
your offices, to weigh in on that issue, because our colleagues
do need the assurance that, in fact, this is not just a
theoretical savings that we are talking about, but that history
has shown that in fact the reported savings have been fairly,
indeed, assessed.
Senator Warner. If I might further comment. We have a
rather challenging schedule before the committee as far as our
markup, and a decision has to be made by the committee as to
whether or not we will have a hearing before our markup and if
not, whether this action should be reviewed by the committee
and then brought in as a floor amendment. I think you and
Senator McCain could come back to the committee with a
recommendation. I want to try to be supportive in this matter.
Chairman Levin. We appreciate that, and I think as you have
suggested we will try to work a hearing in if we possibly can
in the schedule that we have. There has been a great deal of
debate on this subject, and a great number of votes over the
years. Nonetheless, if we can plan a hearing I think it would
be valuable.
Senator Warner. But that issue of the savings to the
Defense Department is an integral question, if not the pivotal
one, that has to be answered, in my judgment, in a favorable
way, before you would get sufficient votes on both sides of the
aisle.
Chairman Levin. Thank you again, Senator Warner. Thank you
for your support of this issue.
Senator Carnahan.
Senator Carnahan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to
welcome this distinguished panel here this morning, and I look
forward to working with you on issues that affect the
Department of Defense.
I would like to direct my comments specifically to the
nominee for Assistant Secretary for Civil Works. Congressman
Parker will have considerable influence over an issue that
greatly affects Missouri's agriculture, recreation,
environment, and economy, and that is the Missouri River. As
many of you will recall, 8 years ago Missourians faced one of
the worst floods in memory. This year, we saw communities up
and down the river battling against a flood once again.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has proposed to
shift the flow of the Missouri River so more water passes
through our State in the spring and less in the summer. If this
so-called spring rise proposal goes into effect, it could have
devastating consequences, including increased likelihood of
flooding, a shutdown of the barge industry and hundreds of
millions of dollars of economic loss. It is up to one agency,
the Army Corps of Engineers, to decide whether or not to
implement the Fish & Wildlife Service's plan.
The Corps could propose an alternative plan, one that would
protect endangered species and yet not pose such a threat to
farmers and families and businesses in Missouri. Just recently,
Senators Kit Bond, Tom Harkin, Chuck Grassley and I added
language to the Energy and Water Development Appropriations
bill that would give the Corps more leeway in choosing a plan
to manage the Missouri River.
Should this language survive the House-Senate conference,
which we fully expect it to, the Corps of Engineers should no
longer feel obligated to adopt the Fish and Wildlife Service's
recommendation for spring rise. Certainly, we want and fully
expect the Corps to assist in recovery of endangered species
along the Missouri River, but we believe the Corps can do this
without implementing a spring rise or a summer low flow on the
river.
Congressman Parker, I would welcome your comments on this
issue before asking you a couple of questions.
Mr. Parker. Senator Carnahan, first of all let me thank you
for sending some questions over to the Corps. When I walked
into the hearing they handed me the status and so if you would
permit me, let me just read their statement to you on what is
the current status.
The master manual revision has been on hold for a little
more than a year, during which the Army Corps of Engineers has
been involved in a consultation process with the Fish &
Wildlife Service under the terms of the Endangered Species Act.
By the end of the summer, the Corps will produce a revised
draft environmental impact statement on the master manual
revision.
At this point, no preferred alternative has been selected
by the Corps, nor will a single alternative be identified as a
recommended alternative in the revised draft environmental
impact statement. A Corps recommendation for the operation of
the Missouri River system will not be developed before the end
of the National Environmental Policy Act process.
Now, in saying that, I do not understand all the details
about the situation. A lot of that information has not been
shared with me, but I can assure you that the Missouri Master
Water Control Manual will not be revised without the personal
oversight of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil
Works, if I am confirmed, and in that process I will be dealing
directly with your office on that, and with you.
Senator Carnahan. Well, that takes care of most of my
questions, but I will just follow up with this one, because I
am concerned about a report that the process is currently being
driven by Corps officials out in the field. Can you assure me
that upon taking office this process will receive your
attention and the attention of high-level Corps officials?
Mr. Parker. I can assure you of that, if confirmed.
Senator Carnahan. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Carnahan.
Senator Akaka.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to
thank you for having this hearing. I want to add my welcome to
the distinguished panel, and also your families that are here
gathered. I know how important the families are to your future,
and to what you will be doing for our country. I have some
questions here.
My first one is to Mr. Gibbs. In dealing with privatization
of services and outsourcing, how do you plan to ensure that the
goal of cost-savings is actually achieved? What are your views
in requiring contractors to account for their performance?
Mr. Gibbs. Well, certainly I support the concept, Senator,
of having the most effective and most cost-efficient manning of
our installations and facilities, privatization being one of
those, the public-private competition done under A-76.
Certainly I think it is incumbent upon the agencies that do go
into that to report back periodically as best they can as to
how the actual outcomes compare to those estimated at the time
the process is undertaken and a decision is made.
I do not have any specific plans at this point to develop a
reporting process, but I can assure you that, if I am
confirmed, there will be one.
Senator Akaka. Thank you.
Mr. Johnson, in your position as Assistant Secretary for
Installations and Environment for the Department of the Navy,
what role will you have in addressing the training needs of the
Navy and Marine Corps with respect to the situation on Vieques,
and what are your thoughts regarding finding an alternative
training site to replace the training facility in Vieques?
Mr. Johnson. I am sure, if you confirm me, one of my
largest tasks will be to find the opportunity for sailors and
marines to train and, as Senator Inhofe mentioned, in a live
fire situation. I believe that, as we go forward, we have to
find good ranges, but we also have to have a good balance
between the military needs and the environmental and other
encroachment needs, so I will work that very, very hard for the
proper balance.
Senator Akaka. Do you have a place in mind, an alternative?
Mr. Johnson. No, sir. I have not been involved in any
discussions on Vieques. I have read a lot, but I have not been
involved, and do not know the status, sir.
Senator Akaka. I took note of your assessment that
encroachment is a serious problem, and it is, and it is a
serious problem that is having a negative impact on training.
What are your thoughts regarding the relationship between
communities and the military in addressing the issue of
encroachment?
Mr. Johnson. In everything that we do, we have to involve
the communities. As proud as I am of our Armed Forces, first we
are citizens of our country and our community, so we have to
work very closely with the community. Normally we can find a
balance with the community, and we will work on that.
Senator Akaka. I think you know that in Hawaii we are
working with the community on Koamokoa. It is a training site
with live fire, and I must commend the Army there, General
Dubik, who has been dealing with this and has, I thought,
worked very well with the community, and you are correct, you
have to work with the community in dealing with this.
Dr. Fiori, I took note of your support for increasing the
contract threshold under the Davis-Bacon Act. What assurances
can you provide to mitigate the negative impact this would have
on Federal workers and local economies, and what steps would
the Department take to avoid problems experienced by States
that have repealed prevailing wage laws, which include cost
overruns and expensive change orders, to correct mistakes and
poor workmanship?
Dr. Fiori. Senator, the Davis-Bacon laws and requirements
have been very successfully addressed in activities that I have
participated in in the past, whereby we were able to meet those
requirements, and also perhaps not prevent cost overruns and
other contractual problems by working together with the
appropriate unions, the appropriate people.
I think we can be very successful working with Davis-Bacon.
The question I was asked is, should we increase the limits, and
I think I answered that in a positive fashion, but until I get
confirmed and really study the problem in depth, I doubt that I
could be much more proficient in my answer, based upon my past
experiences.
Senator Akaka. My time is up.
Chairman Levin. Please finish. I have no more questions, so
when you are done, we are done.
Senator Akaka. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am pleased to see, Dr. Fiori, your willingness to work
with both the military and civilian workforce to accomplish
your mission. I also took note of your assessment that the
establishment of policy and programs to address the legacy of
unexploded ordnance and munitions need to be a top priority.
What types of procedures and techniques do you believe should
be developed to characterize the properties to gain public and
regulatory agency acceptance for the proposed cleanup plans?
Dr. Fiori. The UXO, the unexploded ordnance, is certainly a
major issue, and one of the three, actually one of my four top
priorities. I think we can address it in many ways, and the
most important way is to prioritize the difficulty of the
different facilities, because there have been all sorts of
predictions on how many years and how much money it will take
to clean everything up, and I am accepting that as factual for
the moment at least, and with that in mind we have to look at
those areas that need immediate cleanup, those areas that
affect the local communities, or our military capabilities the
most.
We need to do additional research and development when it
is appropriate. I would say the different explosives have
different problems, and I am not an explosives expert, and I do
intend to be much more involved in the whole issue of
unexploded ordnance. I think we can develop a priority listing
and go after the highest priority things. How do you go after
the highest priority things? You look at what your R&D base is,
and in many cases you are going to find solutions. So we have
to be very smart in looking at the entire research and
development community.
I am not aware at the moment how much work we have done
with the national laboratories on high explosives, and I would
be very willing and anxious to inquire much more about how we
work with the national labs. It is a very difficult problem. We
also have to work with the community, because in some cases, as
was testified recently, it could affect people's property and
their safety where they are living, and we have programs in
place to make that a very high priority.
So with that, I would share with you, Senator, that I look
forward to studying this issue a lot more and trying to come up
with an intelligent solution that can serve the Army and also
our communities.
Senator Akaka. Thank you for your responses.
Mr. Chairman, I do not want to leave Mr. Parker out. I want
to say, Mr. Parker, that I feel the Corps of Engineers has
served the Pacific very well, and I hope we can continue to do
that.
As you pointed out, there are some problems, but that is
what we are here for, to try to correct them as best we can.
They have done well and helped the communities out in the
Pacific as well, all the way down to Asia, and I hope we can
continue to do that.
Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Akaka. We will leave the
record open for the usual period of 48 hours. We will continue
to review the various paperwork which has been presented to us,
to get answers to questions which have been asked relative to
that paperwork, and to try to get these nominations before the
full committee for markup and consideration as soon as
possible, and then before the Senate as quickly as possible,
and we will stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the committee adjourned.]
[Prepared questions submitted to John P. Stenbit by
Chairman Levin prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
July 27, 2001.
Hon. Carl Levin,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Enclosed herewith are the answers to the advance
questions the Senate Armed Services Committee asked me to complete.
Sincerely,
John P. Stenbit.
cc: Senator John Warner,
Ranking Member.
______
Questions and Responses
defense reforms
Question. More than a decade has passed since the enactment of the
Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and
the Special Operations reforms.
Do you support full implementation of these defense reforms?
Answer. Yes, I whole-heartedly support full implementation of the
Goldwater-Nichols and Special Operations reforms.
Question. What is your view of the extent to which these defense
reforms have been implemented?
Answer. I am not yet fully familiar with the Department's efforts
to implement these reforms. However, if confirmed, I will review the
extent to which these reforms have been implemented and assess
appropriate actions I can take to promote further implementation.
Question. What do you consider to be the most important aspects of
these defense reforms?
Answer. It is my understanding that these reforms have
significantly improved the organization of the Department of Defense,
focused our joint warfighting capabilities, enhanced the military
advice received by the Secretary of Defense and provided for more
efficient and effective use of defense resources in responding to
national security challenges.
The goals of Congress in enacting these defense reforms, as
reflected in Section 3 of the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense
Reorganization Act, can be summarized as strengthening civilian
control; improving military advice; placing clear responsibility on the
combatant commanders for the accomplishment of their missions; ensuring
the authority of the combatant commanders is commensurate with their
responsibility; increasing attention to the formulation of strategy and
to contingency planning; providing for more efficient use of defense
resources; and enhancing the effectiveness of military operations and
improving the management and administration of the Department of
Defense.
Question. Do you agree with these goals?
Answer. Yes, I agree with these goals.
Question. Recently, there have been articles which indicate an
interest within the Department of Defense in modifying Goldwater-
Nichols in light of the changing environment and possible revisions to
the national strategy.
Do you anticipate that legislative proposals to amend Goldwater-
Nichols may be appropriate? If so, what areas do you believe it might
be appropriate to address in these proposals?
Answer. My understanding is that the Department is continuing to
examine ways to better support the goals of the reform in light of our
ever-changing environment. If confirmed, I will fully support the
intent of the reforms and advocate legislative proposals and policies
that will enhance the Department's ability to respond to national
security challenges of the 21st century.
duties
Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Command, Control, Communications,
and Intelligence)?
Answer. If confirmed, my principal duty will be to advise the
Secretary of Defense on space and information superiority. I will
exercise policy, guidance, planning, resource management, and program
oversight of mission areas.
Question. What background and experience do you possess that you
believe qualifies you to perform these duties?
Answer. I have over 30 years of practical and managerial
engineering experience in the defense industry and with the DOD. As an
industry executive I was ultimately responsible for fulfilling
corporate obligations on a myriad of defense contracts ensuring
successful program delivery to the government and a reasonable profit
for our employees and shareholders. I saw and experienced both the best
and worst in DOD program management and execution. If confirmed, I will
consider and recommend any changes that might improve the
organizational process.
I received both my undergraduate and master's degree in electrical
engineering from CalTech and was later fortunate enough to study and
teach for 2 years as a Fulbright and Aerospace Corporation Fellow at
the Technische Hogeschool in the Netherlands.
In addition to the 4 years that I served in the Pentagon as a DOD
employee I have also served on Defense Science Boards, Air Force and
Navy Study Boards, Science Advisory Groups for Naval Intelligence and
the Defense Communications Agency (now DISA), S & T Panel Chairman for
the Director of Central Intelligence, and Chairman of an Advisory
Committee for the Federal Aviation Administration Administrator.
I believe that my education, government and industry experience,
and successful, executive level defense industry career have prepared
me to face the exciting challenges and opportunities resident in the
position of ASD C\3\I.
Question. Do you believe that there are actions you need to take to
enhance your ability to perform the duties of the Assistant Secretary
of Defense (Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence)?
Answer. I am unaware of any specific actions that I should take to
further prepare myself for the position as ASD C\3\I.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what duties and functions do
you expect that the Secretary of Defense would prescribe for you?
Answer. The ASD C\3\I is principal adviser to the Secretary of
Defense for space and information superiority. As DOD's Chief
Information Officer, the ASD C\3\I is also responsible for oversight of
all DOD information systems and information management activities.
Question. Are these roles--advocate, operator and overseer--in
conflict?
Answer. I am aware of the debate regarding the ASD C\3\I and the
DOD CIO being dual-hatted. If confirmed, I will solicit views on both
sides, analyze the pros and cons, and develop my position based largely
on what is in the best interest of the Department.
Question. Do you believe the CIO function should be separated from
the ASD C\3\I position?
Answer. It is my understanding that there are cogent arguments for
and against separation. This issue merits a more in-depth study and
assessment of the benefits and impacts. If confirmed, I will examine
the pros and cons and offer a recommendation to the Secretary of
Defense on a way ahead.
Question. In carrying out your duties, how will you work with the
following:
The Secretary of Defense
Answer. If confirmed, I will function as DOD Chief Information
Officer (CIO) and as the principal staff assistant and advisor to the
Secretary of Defense for all space and information superiority matters.
In particular I will be responsible for providing policy, guidance and
oversight for functions including:
Command, control, communications, intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance sensors;
Information technology, management, operations,
assurance, and superiority;
Electronic commerce and business process reform;
Intelligence and counterintelligence;
Personnel, industrial, and classification security;
Frequency-spectrum management;
Space systems; and
Critical infrastructure protection.
Question. The Deputy Secretary of Defense
Answer. If confirmed, my relationship with the Deputy Secretary of
Defense will be the same as that described above in relation to the
Secretary of Defense.
Question. The Under Secretaries of Defense
Answer. If confirmed, my relationship with the Under Secretaries of
Defense and other senior officials of the Department will be based on
the role of each principal official within the Department of Defense
with respect to my functions as described above in the relationship to
the Secretary of Defense. With respect to acquisition of information
superiority and space systems, I will report to the Deputy Secretary of
Defense through the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology and Logistics.
Question. The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations
and Low Intensity Conflict
Answer. If confirmed, my relationship with the Assistant Secretary
of Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict will be
similar to that described below in relation to the other Assistant
Secretaries of Defense. In particular, I will coordinate the
Psychological Operations aspect of Information Operations.
Question. The other Assistant Secretaries of Defense
Answer. If confirmed, my relationship with the Assistant
Secretaries of Defense and other senior officials of the Department
will be based on the role of each principal official within the
Department of Defense with respect to my functions as described above
in the relationship to the Secretary of Defense.
Question. The General Counsel of the Department of Defense
Answer. If confirmed, my relationship with the General Counsel will
be based on my role as principal staff assistant to the Secretary of
Defense for space and information superiority matters and as DOD CIO.
Question. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Answer. If confirmed, I will continue to coordinate and exchange
information with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on space and
information superiority matters to ensure all policy and guidance
issues under my cognizance are supportive of the Commanders in Chief
and Military Services.
Question. The Commander in Chief United States Special Operations
Command
Answer. If confirmed, my relationship with the Commander in Chief
United States Special Operations Command will be based on my role as
the CIO and as principal staff assistant to the Secretary of Defense
for space and information superiority functions. I will coordinate and
exchange information with the Commander in Chief United States Special
Operations Command and Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special
Operations and Low Intensity Conflict on matters of mutual interest to
ensure policy and guidance matters under my cognizance are supportive
of the CINC's roles and missions.
Question. The regional combatant CINCs
Answer. If confirmed, my relationship with the regional combatant
CINCs will be based on my role as principal staff assistant to the
Secretary of Defense for space and information superiority functions
and as CIO, and I will coordinate and exchange information with the
CINCs on matters of mutual interest to ensure management policy and
guidance are supportive of the CINCs' roles and missions.
Question. The Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency
Answer. If confirmed as the Secretary of Defense's principal staff
assistant for space and information superiority functions, I will
exercise authority, direction and control over the, Defense
Intelligence Agency. Accordingly, I will work with the Director of
Central Intelligence to ensure that their space and information
superiority programs follow DOD guidance in the areas of architecture,
interoperability, security, acquisition and related areas.
Question. The Director of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency
Answer. If confirmed as the Secretary of Defense's principal staff
assistant for space and information superiority functions, I will
exercise oversight of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency.
Accordingly, I will work with the Director of Central Intelligence to
ensure that their space and information superiority programs follow DOD
guidance in the areas of architecture, interoperability, security,
acquisition and related areas.
Question. The Director of the National Security Agency
Answer. If confirmed as the Secretary of Defense's principal
assistant for space and information superiority functions, I will
exercise oversight of the National Security Agency. Accordingly, I will
work with the Director of Central Intelligence to ensure that their
space and information superiority programs follow DOD guidance in the
areas of architecture, interoperability, security, acquisition and
related areas.
Question. The Under Secretary of the Air Force.
Answer. If confirmed, I will coordinate and exchange information
with the Under Secretary of the Air Force on space and information
superiority matters particularly relating to space matters, appropriate
to ensure all policy and guidance issues under my cognizance are
supportive of the Commanders in Chief and Military Services.
major challenges and problems
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will
confront the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Command, Control,
Communications, and Intelligence)?
Answer. If confirmed, one of my major challenges will be to help
the Department achieve space and information superiority. Information
needs to be seen as a strategic asset rather than a supporting element.
I believe that key challenges include: promoting secure, reliable,
interoperable solutions that break down stovepipes and enable joint and
coalition operations, transforming business practices to accelerate
acquisition and development to keep pace with commercial world,
changing the mind set throughout DOD to examine and incorporate
transformational concepts, ensuring intelligence capabilities keep pace
with the emerging threats, paying more attention to people and
protecting critical cyber and physical infrastructures, information,
and advanced technologies.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure that ASD C\3\I is properly
organized to address these challenges. In coordination with my
counterparts elsewhere in the Department, I will develop a strategy for
addressing each of these areas and implement it through policy,
planning guidance, and effective oversight.
Question. What do you consider to be the most serious problems in
the performance of the functions of the Assistant Secretary of Defense
(Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence)?
Answer. If confirmed, I will look to address the following:
Need to reform business practices for the information
age;
Be able to acquire key IT on commercial time scales;
Need to leverage the limited numbers of acquisition
professionals within C\3\I;
Need to fix outdated IT infrastructure within OSD.
Question. If confirmed, what management actions and time lines
would you establish to address these problems?
Answer. If confirmed, my focus will be on creating management
mechanisms and metrics to transform the military in space,
intelligence, information operations and assurance, C\3\ and IT.
priorities
Question. If confirmed, what broad priorities will you establish in
terms of issues which must be addressed by the Assistant Secretary of
Defense (Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence)?
Answer. If confirmed, my priorities will be to implement actions to
achieve space and information superiority.
information superiority
Question. Many have described the major responsibility of the
Assistant Secretary of Defense (Command, Control, Communications, and
Intelligence) as ``information superiority.''
Describe your vision of information superiority for DOD, including
any major impediments to information superiority facing the Department.
Answer. To me, information superiority means the right information,
to the right place and the right people, at the right time, assured and
protected while denying our adversaries the same.
information operations
Question. Joint Vision 2020 and most defense experts advocate
``information superiority'' as a critical element of success in 21st
century conflict. Disrupting the information systems of adversaries,
while protecting our own systems from disruption ( i.e., information
operations) may well be a major element of warfare in the future.
Describe your vision for the role of information operations in the
conduct of military operations.
Answer. It is my understanding that as discussed in Joint Vision
2020 and the Quadrennial Defense Review, the vision is to evolve
Information Operations from a supportive capability to a ``core''
capability and a mission area not unlike air, land, sea, and fully
integrated into the full spectrum of military operations. I believe we
should continue to evolve our capabilities, enabling us to shape the
information environment and provide pre-conflict management courses of
action. If conflicts arise, we will ensure that IO capabilities will
integrate with our traditional kinetic force capabilities.
Question. What is your assessment of the unity of the efforts
across the Department, the Defense Agencies and the respective military
services in this area?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review this topic aggressively. I feel
that there are well meaning, dedicated professionals working for the
best interests of their organizations or programs. As IO continues to
evolve within DOD, I believe we should look for refinements in how the
Department organizes to plan and execute IO.
information assurance
Question. The vulnerability of Department of Defense information
systems has been repeatedly demonstrated. The protection of our
critical information infrastructure has become a high priority.
Training and retention of personnel in this developing profession of
computer security and infrastructure protection has been challenging.
Are you satisfied with the current level of effort to protect
critical Department of Defense information infrastructures?
Answer. I believe that the Department has made significant progress
over the past few years to protect its information infrastructure,
however, protection of defense information infrastructure is an ongoing
effort that will never reach a final conclusion. Not only can we not
rest on our laurels, but also we need to find new ways to do business
to respond more rapidly. If confirmed, this will be a focus area.
Question. Have sufficient resources been allocated for this task in
the President's budget request for defense?
Answer. For Information Assurance, it is my understanding that
there are sufficient resources allocated for protection of our
information infrastructure. That does not mean that an increase in
resources would not improve the situation--clearly it would. But
resource needs for this task must be balanced against other critical
requirements.
Question. What are your views on the professional development and
retention of the highly skilled personnel required to assure the
security of our Department of Defense information systems?
Answer. I believe that in DOD, as in most organizations,
development and retention of skilled people is a critical task and one
of the most challenging. It is my understanding that the DOD has been
making strides to identify and improve the management of these critical
personnel, but there is a lot of work to be done, especially in the
development and retention arenas. We can't employ technical solutions
without the trained personnel to implement them and operate the
networks correctly.
Question. In Section 922 of the Fiscal Year 2001 Floyd D. Spence
National Defense Authorization Act, an Information Security Scholarship
Program was authorized. The purpose of this program is ``to encourage
the recruitment and retention of Department of Defense personnel who
have the computer and network security skills necessary to meet
Department of Defense information assurance requirements.''
What is the status of implementation of this program?
Answer. It is my understanding that this upcoming Academic Year
2001-2002 will serve as a pilot year in which the Department will
prototype programs at schools that have been designated by DOD as
Centers of Academic Excellence in Information Assurance Education.
These will provide scholarships with internships for non-DOD students
at these institutions, as well as scholarships for current DOD civilian
employees and military members, in exchange for a period of obligated
service with the Department as provided for by the statute. These
prototype approaches will be evaluated for cost effectiveness and
management efficiencies, and lessons learned will be incorporated into
program planning for future years. A request for proposal has been
released to the 23 institutions designated as Centers of Academic
Excellence and DOD is awaiting their response.
responsibilities in space
Question. In the past, the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Command,
Control, Communications, and Intelligence) has been assigned the lead
within the Office of the Secretary of Defense for military space
matters. With the realignment of responsibilities identified by the
Secretary of Defense in implementing the recommendations of the Space
Commission, it is not clear exactly what role the Assistant Secretary
of Defense (Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence) will
have in oversight of military space matters.
Please describe the role you will fill in overseeing military space
matters if you are confirmed.
Answer. If confirmed, it is my understanding that my role would be
to ensure appropriate senior-level policy, guidance, oversight, and
advocacy for space. I will work closely with the heads of DOD
components in carrying out my responsibilities.
Question. Please describe the most significant challenges facing
the Department of Defense and the intelligence community in providing
space support to the warfighter.
Answer. With respect to challenges facing the United States, the
DOD is increasingly dependent on its civil, commercial, and defense and
intelligence space assets. With that dependence comes vulnerability to
hostile acts. The Nation needs a capability to deter attack on space
assets, and systems to defend satellites in orbit, the ground stations
that control them, and the electronic links between them.
The U.S. and other nations that make use of space face real threats
to the operations of their satellites. We know that other nations have
jammed telecommunications, that Russian entities market devices that
can jam GPS signals, and that foreign satellites manufacturers market
so-called ``micro satellites'' to other foreign countries that can be
used for offensive actions against satellites. In light of U.S.
dependence on vulnerable space assets, it would be contrary to U.S.
security interests not to develop, test, and deploy the means of
deterring attack on and defending space systems.
In addition, U.S. space capabilities must be modernized to support
our 21st century needs. Space is critical to strengthening our
intelligence, to serve both our short-term and our long-term national
security needs. If confirmed, I will personally make establishing a
strong spirit of cooperation between the Department of Defense and the
rest of the intelligence community, under the leadership of the DCI,
one of my top priorities. I believe we must strengthen our intelligence
and our space capabilities, along with the ability to protect those
assets against various forms of attack.
funding challenges
Question. During testimony before the Senate Armed Service
Committee, the previous incumbent in the position for which you have
been nominated indicated that the Department of Defense faced
significant funding shortfalls in the area of information assurance.
What is your opinion of the status of the Department's information
assurance program?
Answer. It is my understanding that the program is in relatively
good shape, but there is always room for improvement--especially in a
field where technology is changing rapidly, the threat is enabled by
this same technology, and the operational concepts are still maturing.
I believe there are improvements that have to be made with how we
manage and retain our people, how fast we develop and deploy
information assurance technology, and how we operationalize that
technology.
Question. If you believe that there are shortfalls, and assuming
you are confirmed, will you seek increases in funding in this area as
part of future budget preparations?
Answer. It is my understanding that this issue is being addressed
as part of the Quadrennial Defense Review. I believe that additional
resources for information assurance must, of course, be balanced
against other critical Department requirements.
smart cards
Question. In November 1999 the Deputy Secretary of Defense directed
all Department of Defense (DOD) components to implement the use of a
standard smart card containing integrated circuit chips, magnetic
stripes and bar codes for use as the Department-wide common access card
and as a Public Key Infrastructure authentication device, and assigned
responsibility for this program to the DOD Chief Information Officer.
To date the Department has not fully implemented the deployment of this
technology.
If confirmed, what steps would you plan to take to provide central
direction to fully implement the use of smart card technology within
DOD?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Department is embarked on
an aggressive and accelerated program to implement smart card
technology as a common access card. Smart card technology can be used
in many areas to do the business of the Department smarter and faster
while providing security for our classified information and the
proprietary property of our business partners. I feel that the
application of smart card technology will contribute to the
Department's efforts to transform business processes, enhance missions,
increase security, reduce costs, and improve quality of life.
Understandably, implementation of such cutting-edge technology in a
large, worldwide organization takes time and has many challenges.
Nonetheless, if confirmed, I would support the implementation of this
technology in the Department. To this end, I would direct my attention
to the implementation plan of the program to ensure the Department is
leveraging the many smart card technologies.
Question. Do you believe that the Navy, which has served as the
lead agency for development of this technology, should be designated as
the executive agent for smart cards within DOD?
Answer. My understanding is that the Navy is working diligently as
the lead for the development of the smart card technology in the
Department. This and continued significant progress in this program
would certainly be important factors in any consideration of a designee
for executive agency. If confirmed, I will work quickly to consider
this decision.
navy/marine corps intranet program
Question. The committee understands that there may be differences
of opinion within the Department about the pace at which the Navy/
Marine Corps Intranet (NMCI) program is proceeding. At least some of
these differences appear to focus on the extent of testing that must be
conducted to ensure that the program is ready to proceed to broader
implementation.
What are your views on the appropriate level or duration of testing
the Department should conduct on the NMCI program?
Answer. I believe that systems such as NMCI must demonstrate that
the capabilities satisfy user requirements and that interoperability
with military systems are fully demonstrated. It is my understanding
that the ASD C\3\I staff is currently working with Director Operational
Test and Evaluation and other OSD offices to develop a final test
strategy that is consistent with a reasonable fielding rate for NMCI.
intelligence programs
Question. With the development of increasingly advanced information
technologies, and the evolving role of intelligence in support of
military forces and operations, the current intelligence categories--
NFIP, JMIP, and TIARA--appear to be increasingly blurred.
In your view, should these categories be reevaluated?
Answer. I agree. There is a blurring of these categories. I feel
that it may be useful to revamp our intelligence categories to more
effectively focus on the customer and mission capabilities.
Question. Do you believe that the current management and budgeting
oversight of these programs between the Secretary of Defense and the
Director of Central Intelligence is adequate?
Answer. I believe the existing legislation is adequate.
Nonetheless, if confirmed, I would like to study this issue in more
detail before I make any recommendations for change.
Question. If not, what changes would you recommend?
Answer. N/A.
Question. In your view, do the Office of the Secretary of Defense
and the Joint Staff have sufficient influence over major programmatic
and architecture decisions within the National Foreign Intelligence
Program?
Answer. I have no knowledge of the effectiveness of this influence,
but it is certainly critical that it be effective. If confirmed, I'll
work to enhance communication and improve the quality of the budget
dialog to reach consensus with the DCI in this important area. I look
forward to engaging on these issues if confirmed.
oversight of modernization of intelligence programs
Question. There have been continuing questions about whether the
National Security Agency (NSA) will be able to modernize signals
intelligence mission capabilities to respond to new intelligence
challenges.
The Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2001 directed the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense
(Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence), the Director of
Central Intelligence's Senior Acquisition Executive and the Director of
NSA to establish a disciplined acquisition strategy with strong
oversight mechanisms for NSA's modernization program. In part, this
direction resulted from concerns about NSA's capability to implement
better acquisition management techniques and conduct rigorous,
enterprise-wide systems engineering.
In addition, recent conflicts have illustrated continuing
deficiencies in the area of map production, analysis, and
dissemination. Unfortunately, there have also been questions about the
ability of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) to manage and
implement a major modernization and transformation of its capabilities.
What is your view of the appropriate oversight role that the
Assistant Secretary of Defense (Command, Control, Communications, and
Intelligence) should play in management of major acquisition programs
at NSA and NIMA?
Answer. I believe that the ASD C\3\I oversight role is to ensure
that appropriate acquisition processes are in place and executed to
ensure the successful delivery of the NSA and NIMA programs so critical
to our Nations security. For NSA and NIMA acquisition programs, the ASD
C\3\I staff has worked extensively with the DCI's Senior Acquisition
Executive. If confirmed, I will actively work with my DCI counterpart
to build on the progress made to date.
commercial vs. military requirements for frequency spectrum
Question. In recent years, growing demands for the use of the
frequency spectrum for defense and civilian communication needs have
increased the competition for this finite resource.
If confirmed, what would be your role in spectrum management issues
within the Department of Defense?
Answer. If confirmed, my responsibility in spectrum management is
to ensure DOD has assured access to the necessary spectrum it needs to
conduct operations and warfighter training to effectively execute those
operational missions.
Question. If confirmed, would you represent the Department of
Defense (DOD) in interagency and international negotiations regarding
spectrum management issues?
Answer. Yes.
Question. What steps would you recommend the Department of Defense
take to improve its spectrum management policies?
Answer. If confirmed, I would make one of my highest priorities the
review of current policies and processes, and the development of a
strategy to make full use of emerging spectrum-efficient technologies.
Question. If confirmed, what actions would you take to review the
Department's total spectrum requirements and ensure that new systems
are designed to ensure efficient spectrum utilization by the Department
of Defense?
Answer. If confirmed, I expect to update requirements projections
and to identify solutions that include new spectrum-efficient
technologies.
Question. What do you see as the proper balance between defense and
other uses of the frequency spectrum, and what is your view of the
current process by which those needs are balanced?
Answer. Although I am not familiar with the details, I understand
the current process for spectrum allocation provides equal opportunity
to both the private sector and our government to request and debate
frequency spectrum based upon requirements. If confirmed, I will
continue to support this process.
Question. What are your views of proposals to reallocate spectrum
in the 1755-1850 frequency band from DOD and other Federal users to
make this band available for third-generation internet (3G) use?
Answer. Although I am not completely familiar with all the details
of this issue, it is important to protect the military capabilities
that need the 1755-1850 MHz band. If additional spectrum is needed, I
would encourage exploring all alternative bands and I will, if
confirmed, work with concerned parties to help us reach the best
decision for the Nation on this matter.
Question. If confirmed, what actions would you take if the study
currently being conducted within the Department of Defense determines
that there will be a significant cost and operational impact if the
military services surrender the 1755-1850 MHZ band of frequencies?
Answer. If I understand correctly, studies have already indicated
the defense of our Nation is at risk by vacating this spectrum. If
confirmed, I will work with other branches to help determine the best
decision for the Nation on this matter.
Question. Do you believe that potential solutions exist that would
allow DOD to shift to other frequency bands, assuming sufficient
funding were available to compensate DOD for its relocation costs?
Answer. I understand this is a matter that is still under study. If
confirmed, I will work with the spectrum regulators to determine if
potential solutions exist that would allow DOD to shift to other
frequency bands.
information management
Question. In 1995, GAO designated the Department of Defense effort
to streamline business operations and deploy more efficient standard
information systems as a ``high-risk'' area, indicating that it was
especially vulnerable to waste and mismanagement. Since 1995, GAO has
continually reported that the Department of Defense has lacked
effective management and oversight controls of the information
technology (IT) investments. The areas of concern include controls and
processes to:
(1) ensure that the costs and risks of multimillion-dollar
projects are justified;
(2) monitor progress and performance; and
(3) stop projects shown to be cost ineffective or technically
flawed.
A significant change in the Department of Defense IT management and
oversight process occurred in July 1998 when the Department of Defense
disestablished the Major Automated Information Review Council which was
the primary body for overseeing major automated information systems and
other IT investments.
What is the status of efforts to improve the Department of Defense
IT oversight process?
Answer. I understand the implementation of the Paperwork Reduction
and Clinger-Cohen Acts provides a strong statutory foundation for IT
oversight. I support the progress the Department has made in building
on that foundation by developing information and oversight controls in
areas such as capital planning and investment, acquisition regulation
revisions, major acquisition programs, and mission critical systems
tracking.
The Department of Defense reported on December 1, 1998 to the
Defense Committees that the Department recognizes that its current IT
management process has the following shortfalls:
(1) minimal linkage between IT investments and functional
process changes;
(2) individual systems narrowly focused on specific functions
and organizations rather than mission; and
(3) fragmented systems and infrastructure, resulting in a
lack of fully integrated and interoperable capabilities.
Question. Please comment on each of these problems and explain what
the Department of Defense is doing to correct them.
Answer. The Clinger-Cohen Act calls for the need to improve
management processes, including the selection and management of IT
resources. It is my understanding that DOD is developing an investment
portfolio process to improve investment oversight for families of
systems. This process would establish direct links between IT
investment decisions and DOD mission priorities--not only those of
individual organizations--ensuring functional outcomes as well as
compliance with the Clinger-Cohen Act and related reform legislation.
Portfolio management and oversight would also promote synchronized
development of individual systems and their supporting infrastructures.
By the same token, I feel that the Global Information Grid (GIG)
policy and implementation should significantly improve the
interoperability and integration of DOD's IT communications and
computing infrastructure. In essence, GIG is the globally
interconnected, end-to-end set of information capabilities, associated
processes and personnel for collecting, processing, storing,
disseminating and managing information on demand to warfighters, policy
makers and support personnel. This overarching model will provide at
once, a blueprint and an overlay for the development, implementation
and integration of dependent and sub-architectures. By using or
building to this model, the Department and its components will be able
to overcome much of the fragmentation and narrowly focused IT
solutions.
Question. The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 introduced requirements
emphasizing the need for the Department of Defense to significantly
improve management processes, including how it selects and manages IT
resources. For instance, a key goal of the Clinger-Cohen Act is that
the Department of Defense should have institutionalized processes and
information in place to ensure that IT projects are being implemented
at acceptable costs, within reasonable time frames, and are
contributing to tangible, observable improvements in mission
performance.
What is the status of the Department's efforts to implement the
Clinger-Cohen Act?
Answer. As I understand it from a brief review, the Department's
approach to implementing the act has been one that builds on past
successes and seizes the opportunities the act offers to reinvent and
reinvigorate how information is delivered to warfighters and those who
support them. Specifically, it is my understanding that the Department:
Established a governance structure that fosters a more
collaborative approach to policy-making and IT budgeting.
Uses the Planning, Programming and Budget System in
conjunction with the requirements and acquisition processes, to
ensure that the correct information investments are selected.
Changes have been made in the budget process to ensure full
participation of the DOD CIO in the decision making process.
Included procedures for implementing the Clinger-Cohen
Act and related legislation in the most recent version of its
acquisition regulations.
Made significant progress on actions to manage its
worldwide information infrastructure as a coherent GIG,
including the development of an IT architecture with
operational, systems and technical views that can be applied to
IT investment decisions.
Has a Defense-wide Information Assurance Program to
build and sustain a secure information infrastructure.
Is engaged in a number of initiatives to improve the
processes for recruiting, hiring, retaining and training
information technology professionals.
automation and management reform
Question. GAO and others have criticized various DOD's business
units (such as finance, accounting, personnel, inventory,
transportation) for failing to change their business processes to take
advantage of new commercial information technology products.
If confirmed as DOD's Chief Information Officer, what would you do
to ensure that DOD changes the way it does business before it spends
new money on automation?
Answer. I understand that the DOD CIO is responsible for promoting
improvements to DOD work processes and supportive information
resources. IT and process reforms are critically interrelated and
represent a major focus for the DOD CIO. If confirmed, I intend to make
``business process improvement'' a key factor in determining whether to
support IT investments. In addition, for reforms to be durable, a clear
relationship to the basic business of the Department must be
established in the context of a sound enterprise architecture.
defense information systems agency
Question. Over the past several years, a number of concerns have
been expressed about the growth in the ``tooth-to-tail'' ratio and the
resource drain that the defense agencies impose on the military
services. The Defense Information Systems Agency is often used as an
example of how defense agencies continue to grow and continue to absorb
resources that should otherwise be dedicated to weapons procurement.
If confirmed, what actions would you take to examine the defense
agencies under your jurisdiction to ensure that they are providing the
most effective support in the most efficient manner?
Answer. I believe the Defense Information Systems Agency is an
example of an entity that has a critical role in this era of
information superiority and ``the network as a weapons system.'' The
oversight responsibility for defense agencies and activities is a
serious charge. If confirmed, I intend to review, scrub, and set
serious goals, while applying the best management principles.
joint command and control
Question. A recurring theme within the on-going strategic review
process is that U.S. Armed Forces lack an agile, deployable joint
command and control system. After-action analyses of all major U.S.
military operations in the past decade similarly conclude that
communications and information technology systems of our respective
military services are not fully interoperable.
In your view, what are the major impediments to the development of
an interoperable, deployable command and control system for our
military forces?
Answer. In my opinion, there are several major impediments:
1. Services develop their own Command and Control (C\2\)
systems and there is no process or central engineering
authority in place
2. There are insufficient joint Tactics, Techniques, and
Procedures
3. In addition to these above, the greatest impediment to
operating closely with coalition forces is restrictions on
national information sharing policies.
If confirmed, I would address these issues and work with Department
leaders to resolve them.
Question. What role should ASD C\3\I play in ensuring the
development of reliable and agile command and control systems?
Answer. If confirmed, my role would be to issue policy, planning
guidance, and to integrate and oversee service Command and Control
acquisition. I firmly believe that OSD, working closely with Congress,
the Services, agencies, and industry can achieve huge progress in this
challenging and critical area of support for our warfighters. If
confirmed, I will make this effort a primary goal during my tenure and
hold myself personally accountable to achieve measurable progress that
I will report annually to Congress.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as the Assistant Secretary of
Defense (Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence)?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings and
other communications of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Edward M. Kennedy
1. Senator Kennedy. The Federally Funded Research and Development
Centers (FFRDCs) are unique organizations that assist the U.S.
Government with scientific research and analysis, systems development,
and systems acquisition. They bring together the expertise and outlook
of government, industry, and academia to solve complex technical
problems that can't be solved by any one group alone. The Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, Communications, and
Intelligence (C\3\I) sponsors a C\3\I FFRDC that is run by MITRE
Corporation.
The MITRE C\3\I FFRDC is a vital part of the Electronic Systems
Command (ESC), the Air Force's Center of Excellence for Command,
Control, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C\2\ISR). ESC
is located at Hanscom Air Force Base. Like all of the FFRDCs, MITRE has
demonstrated the value of focused and unbiased research and development
in meeting our defense and governmental technology needs. ESC has
recognized the exceptional value and contributions of MITRE by naming
them the Chief Engineer for ESC. In addition to software integration
and interoperability, MITRE has become a leader in the field of
information security and information superiority.
Mr. Stenbit, what is your opinion of the contributions of the
FFRDCs to our Nation and the Department of Defense?
Mr. Stenbit. The Federally Funded Research and Development
Corporations are the Department of Defense's primary source of
objective expertise for meeting emerging national security priorities
and procuring key defense programs. As our strategic partners, they are
essential elements of the Department's competency to accomplish the
Secretary of Defense's direction for the services, intelligence
agencies and acquisition communities to transform military operations
to achieve joint capabilities. The FFRDCs bring special talent to bear
in high interest areas, acting as the ``honest broker'' with the depth
and breadth of knowledge and experience built through long-term
involvement with our systems, substantial domain knowledge and thorough
understanding of today's technological opportunities.
In the case of the C\3\I FFRDC, for which I am the Primary Sponsor,
MITRE Corporation is mission critical to the principal DOD
organizations pursuing the SECDEF's priority to ``modernize U.S.
command, control, communications, intelligence and space
capabilities.'' The C\3\I FFRDC has played a critical role in
modernizing U.S. C\4\ISR capabilities to provide commanders with the
right information at the right time--securely--to dominate the
battlefield. The C\3\I FFRDC brings special talent to bear in the high
interest areas of missile defense, exploitation of space, acquisition
reform, as well as in the development of the C\3\I infrastructure. With
their in-depth, unbiased understanding of the advanced IT available in
the commercial marketplace, the C\3\I FFRDC provides critical modern
C\2\ architecture and general systems engineering and integration of
joint C\4\ISR capabilities. More pointedly, the C\3\I FFRDC is
particularly well positioned to support the Secretary of Defense's
objective of working across the DOD and intelligence communities to
realize both efficiencies and synergies.
In addition to the profound contributions to the Air Force and the
Electronic Systems Command, MITRE is helping the Army to develop its
vision of network centric operations and the Navy in enhancing its
capability for joint battle management. The C\3\I FFRDC is supporting
the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, National Security Agency and
the National Reconnaissance Office, as well as the services, in laying
out architectures and acquisition strategies that integrate and exploit
resources and improve dissemination and operational utility. The C\3\I
FFRDC is providing expertise to many of our organizations in assessing
and countering new world threats such as cyber terrorism, which can
undermine critical infrastructure and endanger information assurance.
The C\3\I FFRDC is assisting with the evolution of communications,
surveillance and reconnaissance functions in space, contributing its
technical capabilities to solving problems in areas ranging from
frequency spectrum conflicts to radar detection to information
processing and management. The C\3\I FFRDC is working with Joint Chiefs
of Staff and the Combatant Commanders on improving interoperability and
integrating existing systems for interdependent joint and multinational
operations.
2. Senator Kennedy. Mr. Stenbit, does the Department of Defense
plan to continue, or possibly expand, their investment in the C\3\I
FFRDC?
Mr. Stenbit. The ASDC\3\I fully supports the continued use of the
MITRE C\3\I FFRDC as a vital part of the Electronic Systems Command
(ESC). However, we are constrained with respect to expansion by the
number of staff years of technical support (STE) authorized by Congress
annually. Requests from C\3\I FFRDC customers throughout DOD on both
the Air Force and Army programs continually exceed the authorized
limits. Therefore, careful prioritization and focus on critical
national and DOD information superiority goals is a key controlling
factor in making STE allocations.
3. Senator Kennedy. Mr. Stenbit, the federally Funded Research and
Development Centers (FFRDCs) are unique organizations that assist the
US government with scientific research and analysis, systems
development, and systems acquisition. They bring together the expertise
and outlook of government, industry, and academia to solve complex
technical problems that can't be solved by any one group alone. The
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, Communications,
and Intelligence (C\3\I) sponsors a C\3\I FFRDC that is run by MITRE
Corporation.
The MITRE C\3\I FFRDC is a vital part of the Electronic Systems
Command (ESC), the Air Force's Center of Excellence for Command,
Control, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C\2\ISR). ESC
is located at Hanscom Air Force Base. Like all of the FFRDCs, MITRE has
demonstrated the value of focused and unbiased research and development
in meeting our defense and governmental technology needs. ESC has
recognized the exceptional value and contributions of MITRE by naming
them the Chief Engineer for ESC. In addition to software integration
and interoperability, MITRE has become a leader in the field of
information security and information superiority.
The President's Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection
noted that our Nation is increasingly vulnerable to cyber attacks from
both foreign and domestic sources.
What role do you see for the FFRDC organizations, such as the MITRE
Corporation, in protecting our Nation's critical infrastructure from
cyber attack?
Mr. Stenbit. FFRDCs, including the MITRE Corporation, provide the
Department of Defense (DOD) a unique support capability. They provide a
depth of specialized research talent that would otherwise not be
available to DOD. The operational readiness of the Department, and the
successful execution of the spectrum of its national security missions,
depend on the reliability of physical infrastructure products and
services including fuels, transportation, electricity, and water.
Because of the inextricable interdependencies between information and
physical infrastructures, FFRDC talent is needed to address physical,
cyber, and human (to include ``insider''), threats to all Defense-
related critical infrastructures.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd
4. Senator Byrd. Mr. Stenbit, intelligence systems will come under
your purview as Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control,
Communications, and Intelligence (C\3\I). Measurement and Signature
Intelligence (MASINT) is one system in which I am very interested. What
is your view of the importance of MASINT to the U.S. intelligence
community?
Mr. Stenbit. Measurement and Signature Intelligence (MASINT)
continues to be a vitally important component of the U.S. intelligence
community and has the potential to assist with tracking some of the
most difficult and challenging intelligence problems facing the United
States in the 21st century. The design and development of future U.S.
ballistic missile defensive systems will rely heavily on MASINT derived
data to complement multi-int data in an all source analysis process.
MASINT has the capability to help overcome some of the foreign denial
and deception techniques employed against U.S. collection and to gather
critical intelligence against hard targets. MASINT systems are unique
in their capability to collect against key aspects of foreign nuclear,
chemical, and biological capabilities. Decisions made by our national
leadership and tactical decisions made by our operating forces will
rely heavily on data and analyses provided by MASINT and fused with
other information and data.
5. Senator Byrd. Mr. Stenbit, what role can MASINT play in
developing a comprehensive homeland security strategy, as a means of
protecting the U.S. against terrorism and weapons of mass destruction?
Is an effective MASINT architecture necessary to defend the Nation
against such activities?
Mr. Stenbit. The primary contributions MASINT can make to homeland
defense and counter terrorism are in the identification and analysis of
foreign weapon systems, reducing technological surprise, and developing
U.S. countermeasures. MASINT provides unique insight on State and non-
State actors who are engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction (nuclear, chemical and biological). MASINT-derived analyses
assess the technological progress of potential adversaries having the
capability of initiating global crises, and provides timely and
accurate intelligence to the counter/non-proliferation community,
national policymakers, and warfighters.
The development of U.S. national strategies that deal with stopping
the proliferation of the technologies used in WMD, weapon delivery
systems (e.g. ballistic missiles), and fully operational WMD rely in
part on MASINT. Therefore, I support efforts within the intelligence
community that prioritize and maximize the intelligence resources
required for current and future MASINT systems, and incorporate them
into the overall intelligence architecture.
6. Senator Byrd. Mr. Stenbit, do you believe that additional
funding resources for MASINT could be used to improve our national
security?
Mr. Stenbit. MASINT is a key contributor, along with the other
intelligence disciplines, in assessing the intent and capabilities of
potential U.S. adversaries. Over the last decade the demand for MASINT
data and analysis has significantly increased. This demand is for data
against geographically dispersed targets, targets more difficult to
collect against, and data required in near-real time. Furthermore, the
collection environment is complicated by denial and deception
techniques. Current funding profiles are capable of sustaining existing
systems; but, some systems are reaching their end of life, and some
require replacement with more capability.
To meet anticipated national and operating forces' requirements
additional investments would be required to modernize and deploy new
MASINT capabilities. The intelligence community is thoroughly examining
MASINT requirements, current system capabilities, system life cycles,
R&D investments, and is developing strategies to address the
prioritization of competing requirements. shortfalls, gaps in providing
certain data, and alternative solutions. The demand for more MASINT
data and analysis will require a corresponding increase in resources
for processing and exploitation (analysis).
7. Senator Byrd. Mr. Stenbit, we have discussed a proposal to
better manage MASINT data resources. Do you support the concept that
better coordination of MASINT data resources would be a benefit for our
national security? Would you consider the establishment of a
centralized coordination center?
Mr. Stenbit. The ability to deliver MASINT-derived intelligence in
a timely user-friendly and usable format to the widest possible
community of analysts and consumers is something I strongly support.
The best approach, and what the associated cost estimates are, is a
topic that the DOD Central MASINT Organization and the Director of DIA
are currently working. I eagerly await their findings.
8. Senator Byrd. Mr. Stenbit, biometrics is the use of a person's
physical traits, such as fingerprints, or patterns of the iris of the
eyes, or veins in the arm, to provide access to secure computers,
facilities, or other equipment. What is your view of the importance of
biometrics to the Department of Defense and to the information
assurance needs of the Nation?
Mr. Stenbit. Biometrics has the potential to provide increased
security to DOD networks through positive identification of users prior
to network access. In addition to assisting in protecting networks from
outsiders, biometrics can play an important role in mitigating the
insider threat through positive identification of individual network
users in trusted environments. Currently the Department of Defense is
exploring the use of biometrics and has implemented over 50 ``Quick
Look'' projects that test the feasibility of biometric devices. These
``Quick Look'' projects explore the use of biometric devices for
facility access, shipboard security and, computer access control. One
of these ``Quick Look'' projects is in the C\3\I Directorate,
Information Assurance. This quick look is testing the feasibility of
using an Iris Scanner to allow access to a sensitive area.
Additionally, the Department has created the Biometric Management
Office to further the study of biometrics within the department and to
foster partnerships between Government, industry and academia for the
future of the biometric program.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator John Warner
9. Senator Warner. Mr. Stenbit, despite efforts of the Department
of Defense to establish standards of interoperability for the command
and control systems essential for joint operations, virtually every
significant military operation in the last two decades has been plagued
by communications, intelligence, operations and logistics systems of
the various services that cannot efficiently interact.
How do you propose to make substantive progress in this area that
has, heretofore, proved so elusive to your predecessors?
Mr. Stenbit. We have learned that standards are necessary but not
sufficient for achieving interoperability for information. The DOD
defines information interoperability as the exchange and use of
information in any form electronically that allows us to operate
effectively together whether on the warfighting or business sides of
the department. Information interoperability is one of the critical
enablers for effective joint, interagency, and multinational
operations. Joint Vision 2020 describes this operational environment as
composed of doctrine, organization, materiel, training, leadership,
personnel, and facilities (DOMTLPF). Further we have learned that
interoperability must be balanced with information assurance. Both
interoperability and information assurance are essential enablers to
network centric warfare, our analogy to the role of the Internet in
commercial and personal worlds.
The Department in compliance with Clinger-Cohen Act (CCA) of 1996
uses the terminology of Information Technology (IT) and National
Security Systems (NSS) to cover any system which gathers, processes, or
presents information in any electronic form to include what is
considered an integral part of weapons or weapon systems. In compliance
with CCA, the DOD is using integrated information technology
architectures to describe how we do ``business'', the systems that
assist in the business process, and the standards that underpin the
systems. We call this an integrated architecture composed of three
interrelated views: operational, systems, and technical. These are
living documents, which will evolve as business practices and
technology changes. We now have integrated architectures for each of
the combatant commanders (i.e. CINCs), as well as many of the
functional or mission areas (e.g. Airborne SIGINT, Health Affairs) of
the department. To provide the overarching context for all of these
integrated architectural efforts and as the initial effort toward an
organizing construct leading to network centric operations, I as the
DOD Chief Information Officer approved on August the first in a series
a Joint Task Force Global Information Grid integrated architecture. The
standards piece of integrated architectures (i.e. the Technical View)
uses the Joint Technical Architecture, the codified listing IT and NSS
standards that apply across the DOD now beginning the development of
Version 5.0, to assure a common base. The JTA contains approximately 85
percent non-government standards in conformance with congressional
direction to use voluntary consensus-based standards. Interestingly,
the DOD is recognized as setting the best practices for the development
and use of integrated architectures and related documents.
As the DOD Chief Information Officer, using the authorities
provided by CCA and Title 10, I am providing the leadership in
revamping the interoperability process of the DOD, as well as how
interoperability is handled within our requirement generation,
acquisition, and budgetary processes. I am also using my Title 10
authorities to develop a DOD strategy to synchronize and rationalize
the department's involvement in the development of IT and NSS
standards. Notwithstanding my statutory authorities, the pragmatics of
achieving the network centric interoperability (and information
assurance) underpinning Joint Vision 2020 requires the teaming of
USD(AT&L), VCJCS, CINC Joint Forces Command, the DOD Comptroller, and
the Director of Operational Test & Evaluation. Lastly, we are
continuing to make other improvements such as a small fund to be used
to make the down payment on interoperability (to include information
assurance) DOTMLPF remedy sets for field capabilities as well as
improved facilities and processes for verifying interoperability.
I believe that through the use of teamed leadership and integrated
architectures, as well as changes in organization, funding, and
verification, we will make progress on interoperability that has proven
so elusive to my predecessors.
10. Senator Warner. Mr. Stenbit, communications systems are
critical to the men and women that serve in our Armed Forces. The Joint
Staff has mandated specific telecommunications certification standards
and I understand that tough standards have been part of military
procurement contracts for telecommunications equipment as well. It is
important that we maintain the highest standards.
What will you do to ensure these tough telecommunications
certification requirements are implemented on all manufacturers on a
uniform basis?
Mr. Stenbit. We take very seriously our responsibility to ensure
the Department acquires only telecommunications equipment and systems
that meet our requirements for interoperability and security. Our
certification process guards us against acquisitions that might
jeopardize the vital ability of our forces to share information
seamlessly and securely. Our Joint Interoperability Test Command (JITC)
implements that process in testing and certifying system performance.
The process includes utilizing common test requirements for all testing
such as the DOD's Generic Switching Center Requirements (GSCR) and
commercial standards such as the Bellcore Local Access and Transport
Area (LATA) Switching System Generic Requirements (LSSGR). These
specifications are typically included in the governments Request for
Proposal, so the prospective vendors know up front what we expect.
Results of the JITC testing and certification are provided to
vendors and acquisition activities to allow corrections to be made in
system performance prior to acquisition, and to enable prudent
acquisition decisions. Those same results are used by the Defense
Information Systems Agency in granting approvals for equipment and
systems to interconnect with our global networks. Our standards are
applied equally to all vendors and commands, and our testing process is
open. Vendors are made aware that they are welcome on-site throughout
the testing process. This not only ensures openness of the process, but
it also enables a far freer exchange of technical information so
necessary in the testing of today's complex telecommunications systems.
I intend to vigorously enforce this policy of openness.
As a final step to ensure fairness and objectivity, we have
instituted a process where any test certification issue that can not be
resolved by JITC is forwarded to an interoperability test panel that is
chaired by the Joint Staff. This independent group reviews test results
that are used to make final or interim fielding decisions.
11. Senator Warner. Mr. Stenbit, how will you ensure vendors are
held accountable for meeting these vigorous procurement requirements?
Mr. Stenbit. We currently utilize a standard process for the test
and certification of switches to be installed in the DOD system. The
test and certification process is documented in DOD policy Directives
and Instructions for all acquisition organizations to use in the
execution of the procurement and test process. As a further step to
ensure adherence to the test requirements, many of the recent contracts
stipulated that switches had to pass these standard interoperability
tests before the government paid the full contract amount for the
switches. By tying testing and certification to full payment the DOD
can ensure that these vital requirements are met. We will not
compromise our standards of interoperability or security. The risks are
too great to our fighting men and women. We will continue to report our
certification testing results openly and honestly, and our reports will
continue to be available to all acquisition activities for their use in
determining what systems do and don't meet Department standards.
12. Senator Warner. Mr. Stenbit, at this point in the process, what
role do you anticipate playing in the QDR?
Mr. Stenbit. Although arriving towards the end of the review, I am
fully engaged in the discussions. Space and information superiority are
key contributors towards the Department's transformation efforts. My
main role will be to lead the implementation of the C\3\I action items
resulting from the QDR. I will keep a close eye on how we lay the
transformation base and then support the transformation efforts to
achieve information dominance.
13. Senator Warner. Mr. Stenbit, are you confident that the
intelligence community has had the opportunity to make appropriate
contributions to the QDR process?
Mr. Stenbit. Yes. From the start, we invited the DCI's staff to
participate in the Space, Information and Intelligence (SII) Integrated
Project Team (IPT) efforts. They have participated and helped shape the
SII input into the QDR; we have briefed members of the Community
Management Staff, and have also stayed abreast of the DCI's Quadrennial
Intelligence Community Review and NSPD 5 efforts.
14. Senator Warner. Mr. Stenbit, the U.S. Commission on Space
(Rumsfeld Commission) recommended the establishment of an Under
Secretary of Defense for Space and Intelligence. Shortly after taking
office, Secretary Rumsfeld indicated he would implement most of the
recommendations of the Space Commission, but declined to elevate your
prospective position to an Under Secretary, indicating he wanted to
evaluate the functions of ASD(C\3\I).
In your view, are your responsibilities in military space policy
clear?
Mr. Stenbit. Yes, my space policy responsibilities, pending
completion of the review of the ASD(C\3\I)'s responsibilities and
functions, are currently to develop, coordinate, and oversee the
implementation of policies regarding space and space-related activities
and, in coordination with the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy,
ensure that space policy decisions are closely integrated with overall
national security policy considerations.
15. Senator Warner. Mr. Stenbit, the U.S. Commission on Space
(Rumsfeld Commission) recommended the establishment of an Under
Secretary of Defense for Space and Intelligence. Shortly after taking
office, Secretary Rumsfeld indicated he would implement most of the
recommendations of the Space Commission, but declined to elevate your
prospective position to an Under Secretary, indicated he wanted to
evaluate the functions of ASD, C\3\I.
What is the status of this review of the functions of ASD, C\3\I,
and when do you anticipate it will be completed?
Mr. Stenbit. The review is ongoing. With my confirmation, I am now
directly engaged in the process and expect to bring the review to a
conclusion in the near future.
16. Senator Warner. Mr. Stenbit, there has been much discussion of
the potential benefits of augmenting our space reconnaissance efforts
with commercially available imagery. In theory, use of these commercial
assets would free up national systems for the most important missions.
To date, however, the investment in commercial imagery has remained
relatively modest, in relation to the overall cost of space
reconnaissance.
What role do you see for commercial imagery in our overall space
reconnaissance effort? Has the investment in commercial imagery, to
date, been satisfactory?
Mr. Stenbit. The National Commission for the Review of the National
Reconnaissance Office, the Independent Commission on the National
Imagery and Mapping Agency, and the Commission to Assess United States
National Security Space Management and Organization recommended that
the U.S. Government take a fresh look at its strategy for using the
U.S. commercial remote sensing industry to satisfy some of its
geospatial and imagery information requirements. The Secretary of
Defense and the Director of Central Intelligence agree that an
effective U.S. Government commercial imagery strategy is necessary and
have initiated a thorough review of the strategy being developed by the
Directors of the National Reconnaissance Office and the National
Imagery and Mapping Agency. This review will be conducted with the
advice of an outside panel and will include the government's future use
of commercial imagery, how we acquire it, and how we should incorporate
it into our intelligence products. The funding required to implement
the strategy is part of this assessment.
17. Senator Warner. Mr. Stenbit, despite efforts of the Department
of Defense to establish standards of interoperability for the command
and control systems essential for joint operations, virtually every
significant military operation in the last two decades has been plagued
by communications, intelligence, operations, and logistics systems of
the various services that cannot efficiently interact.
How do you propose to make substantive progress in this area that
has, heretofore, proved to elusive to your predecessors?
Mr. Stenbit. We have learned that standards are necessary but not
sufficient for achieving interoperability for information. The DOD
defines information interoperability as the exchange and use of
information in any form electronically that allows us to operate
effectively together whether on the warfighting or business sides of
the department. Information interoperability is one of the critical
enablers for effective joint, interagency, and multinational
operations. Joint Vision 2020 describes this operational environment as
composed of doctrine, organization, materiel, training, leadership,
personnel, and facilities (DOTMLPF). Further we have learned that
interoperability must be balanced with information assurance. Both
interoperability and information assurance are essential enablers to
network centric warfare, our analogy to the role of the Internet in
commercial and personal worlds.
The Department in compliance with Clinger Cohen Act (CCA) of 1996
uses the terminology of Information Technology (IT) and National
Security Systems (NSS) to cover any system which gathers, processes, or
presents information in any electronic form to include what is
considered an integral part of weapons or weapon systems. In compliance
with CCA, the DOD is using integrated information technology
architectures to describe how we do ``business'', the systems that
assist in the business process, and the standards that underpin the
systems. We call this an integrated architecture composed of three
interrelated views: operational, systems, and technical. These are
living documents, which will evolve as business practices and
technology changes. We now have integrated architectures for each of
the combatant commander (i.e. CINCs), as well as many of the functional
or mission areas (e.g. Airborne SIGINT, Health Affairs) of the
department. To provide the overarching context for all of these
integrated architectural efforts and as the initial effort towards an
organizing construct leading to network centric operations, I as the
DOD Chief Information Officer approved on 1 August the first in a
series a Joint Task Force Global Information Grid integrated
architecture. The standards piece of integrated architectures (i.e. the
Technical View) uses the Joint Technical Architecture, the codified
listing IT and NSS standards that apply across the DOD now beginning
the development of Version 5.0, to assure a common base. The JTA
contains approximately 85 percent non-government standards in
conformance with congressional direction to use voluntary consensus
based standards. Interestingly, the DOD is recognized as setting the
best practices for the development and use of integrated architectures
and related documents.
As the DOD Chief Information officer, using the authorities
provided by CCA and Title 10, I am providing the leadership in
revamping the interoperability process of the DOD, as well as how
interoperability is handled within our requirement generation,
acquisition, and budgetary processes. I am also using my Title 10
authorities to develop a DOD strategy to synchronize and rationalize
the department's involvement in the development of IT and NSS
standards. Notwithstanding my statutory authorities, the pragmatics of
achieving the network centric interoperability (and information
assurance) underpinning Joint Vision 2020 requires the teaming of
USD(AT&L), VCJCS, CINC Joint Forces Command, the DOD Comptroller, and
the Director of Operational Test & Evaluation. Lastly, we are
continuing to make other improvements such as a small fund to be used
to make the down payment on interoperability (to include information
assurance) DOTMLPF remedy sets for field capabilities as well as
improved facilities and processes for verifying interoperability.'
I believe that through the use of teamed leadership and integrated
architectures, as well as changes in organization, funding, and
verification, we will make progress on interoperability that has proven
so elusive to my predecessors.
18. Senator Warner. Mr. Stenbit, what actions will you take to
examine the defense agencies under your jurisdiction to ensure that
they are providing the most effective support in the most efficient
manner?
Mr. Stenbit. The oversight responsibility for defense agencies and
activities is a primary responsibility for me. I intend to conduct
regular defense agency reviews to monitor progress in order to ensure
the most effective use of funding and resources.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Wayne Allard
19. Senator Allard. Mr. Stenbit, the ``Tail to Tooth Commission''
Report, a 3-year study led by Senator Rudman, recommended that
outsourcing DOD's long haul communication infrastructure could result
in $30 billion in savings, while satisfying requirements for security
and interoperability.
a. What is your position on the commission's recommendations?
b. How would you propose going about achieving these vitally
important savings?
Mr. Stenbit. The $30 billion figure in the report was the dollar
figure that the commission ascribed to the total cost of intelligence,
space, and other command and control programs per year. I am unable to
find a $30 billion figure related to outsourcing long haul
communication infrastructure. DISA, as our primary long haul provider,
spends less than $1 billion per year on this. Even if we included
intelligence assets, that number does not seem feasible.
With regard to the assumption that DISA is replicating what already
exists in industry, this is definitely not the case. Commercial
providers have been and will be employed to meet the vast majority of
DOD wide area network communications needs. It is how they are employed
to provide DOD secure and interoperable solutions of best value that
matters. The context in which decisions should be made is a mission
context that ensures our forces can communicate with each other in a
secure way and reach back from deployed locations, where commercial
infrastructure is unavailable, to the sustaining base that supports
them. Further, this enterprise view of our global requirements,
infrastructure, and systems is also the most economical way to satisfy
requirements. Without this view, we will continue the wasteful cycle of
stovepipe individual organizational implementations followed by a wave
of mandated consolidations. This cycle is a recipe for high total
costs, the inability of forces to communicate, and gaps and lapses in
security.
The right way to partner with industry is to leverage industry to
the maximum extent possible but within the context of the military
mission and the enterprise view, as depicted in our Global Information
Grid architecture. The Defense Information Systems Network (DISN) is a
good example of this. The DISN supports military missions and our
deployed forces worldwide. It is designed and operated with the
assumption that communications and the computing connected to
communications will be a high priority target, both physically and
electronically, of any adversary. Let me assure you that even in times
of peace, this is the case. Therefore, we engineer the DISN
specifically for security and robustness and require that our vendors
provide critical military features. These relate to such areas as
personnel and physical security, mix of routes and media diversity, and
precedence and preemption capabilities. The recent performance problems
experienced by business customers with one major vendor as a result of
the Baltimore tunnel fire points to the types of problems you can have
when you don't engineer with these types of considerations in mind. It
is not whether the DISN is outsourced, because over 90 percent of its
costs are for commercial products and services. It is how it is
outsourced that matters.
To have the reliability and trust needed when lives and national
security are at stake, DOD provides an augmentation of capabilities
above what is normal commercial practice. These capabilities include
robust NSA-approved encryption and an active network and computer
defense capability through our network operations and security centers,
with their associated sensor and reporting systems. They also include
computer emergency response teams and mandatory accreditation and
certification procedures for the networks and systems attached to them.
Further, the DISN can extend voice, data and video services
communications to deployed forces rapidly through the tie-in to
military satellite capabilities from various strategic locations. If
you are on the DISN, you have guaranteed interoperability. The
capabilities of the DISN stand in fairly stark contrast to buying
communications services from a general service, where security and
configuration management practices are unknown, the customer base could
consist of active adversaries, and the ability to locate and respond to
information attack are limited, or do not have extensions to remote
locations where our forces are in harms way. The lessons of the past
are replete with examples of mission failure and loss of life where we
did not attend to these concerns. The mix of employing industry
strengths, while never forgetting our military mission, is the right
way ahead.
Information technology is strategic to almost all businesses and
modern organizations. The loss of in-house expertise, the turnover of
infrastructure without the ability to recapitalize, the failure to
adequately define baselines or requirements, and the absence of
expertise in outsourcing negotiations can and has frequently spelled
real trouble. This is especially difficult when de facto private
monopolies emerge without the customer having a viable exit strategy.
Several major corporations are now engaged in lawsuits with outsourcing
vendors as a result of these very issues. Much research on outsourcing
promotes the use of selective outsourcing, with the ability to maintain
competitive suppliers, vice total outsourcing as a much lower risk and
higher payoff strategy. Indeed, that has been our experience. For
example, by a combination of consolidation, modernization, and
selective outsourcing, DOD has been able to reduce its mainframe
computer processing costs from over one billion dollars annually to
$331M, while successfully completing Y2K and accomplishing a
dramatically increased processing workload. Further, we have integrated
the computing with our networks and provided robust security for both.
We are going to scrub every process we have, employ technology to
positive advantage, and use the competitive marketplace effectively to
maintain a mission edge and reduce cost.
20. Senator Allard. Mr. Stenbit, on DOD's long haul policy, has the
Secretary's Strategic Review reached a conclusion on DOD policy to
contract out for such services versus DISA providing the DISN Enhanced
Program (DEP) network and competing against industry?
Mr. Stenbit. The revised DOD network policy, which resulted from a
broad review of alternatives for the Global Information Grid (GIG)
supports increased use of commercial sources for Defense networking. In
the case of DISN, commercial services and capabilities, such as DEP,
have been integrated to provide effective and assured wide area
networking. In particular the DEP provides a degree of mandated diverse
routing, and accommodates the requirements for security, the visibility
of it to the Computer Network Operations Joint Task Force, and the
economics of scale provided to all DOD by bundling requirements. The
DEP is part of the Defense Information Systems Network (DISN), and the
benchmarking studies conducted by a third party last year show DISN
costs to be in general below pure commercial service rates. The DEP is
a good example of DOD partnering with industry to meet military needs
while obtaining significant economies. It is able to handle classified
and unclassified voice, data, and video traffic consistent with
critical national security missions, while at the same time exploiting
best business practices.
21. Senator Allard. Mr. Stenbit, many experts have stated that
DISA's mission should be ``standards and policy.'' DISA, on the other
hand, has the clear intention to become a ``telephone company,''
including voiding existing contracts with domestic carriers and
providing the service with in-house resources. What is your position?
Mr. Stenbit. DISA has a significant and critical mission within DOD
that goes well beyond standards and policy. The Defense Information
Systems Agency (DISA) is the Combat Support Agency responsible for
planning, developing, and operating key Joint command, control,
communications, and computing (C\4\) systems that serve the needs of
the National Command Authorities. the Services, CINCs, Agencies, and
deployed forces under all conditions of peace and war. DISA enables
information and decision superiority by providing and operating high
quality information-based products and services that form the core of
DOD's Global Information Grid (GIG). No other component or Agency has
this joint mission. DISA's contributions include:
(1) Planning, building, and operating the Global Command and
Control System, the Defense Information System Network, the Defense
Message System, and the Global Combat Support System. DISA also
operates the six major data processing centers for the combat support
functions within the department. These systems and capabilities
constitute the core DOD enterprise level systems for C\4\.
(2) Providing the DOD capstone Computer Emergency Response
capability and leadership for many DOD information assurance
activities. DISA's Vice Director is dual-hatted as the Commander of the
Computer Network Operations Joint Task Force, a SPACECOM activity.
(3) Managing the end-to-end integration of components of the GIG
and providing technical support to the compatibility, integration, and
interoperability activities of the entire GIG (to do this, DISA
provides direct hands-on support in the areas of engineering,
standards, interoperability testing and certification, spectrum
management, planning, modeling and simulation).
(4) Providing direct operational support to the Joint Staff, CINCs,
and deployed forces in peace and in all crisis, conflict, humanitarian,
and wartime roles through DISA's worldwide field commands and offices
and flyaway assets.
(5) Providing key IT products and services in support of the
electronic commerce, business and public affairs activities of the
department and the sharing of scientific and technical information
throughout the department.
(6) Providing operational support to the National Command
Authority, including White House Communications and National Security/
Emergency Preparedness missions.
It is not in DISA's charter to act as a phone company. In fact GSA
commercial service offerings or other commercial service providers meet
the majority of the Departments long distance and local telephone
requirements. For example, for long distance telephone service the DOD
is GSA's largest customer on the FTS 2001 contracts (with MCI Worldcom
and Sprint) with over $90 million of the DOD budget spent annually on
the FTS contracts alone. In addition, last year the DOD moved from an
Army contract to GSA's WITS commercial services (with Verizon) to meet
the department's local telephone service for the national capitol
region. Again the DOD is the largest customer on this contract with
approximately 150,000 DOD customers. While most of the DOD's
administrative telephone services is provided from commercial carriers,
DISA's focus is on satisfying command and control and critical combat
support telecommunications requirements for voice, data, and video
capabilities and for integrating and extending these services to
deployed forces.
In summary, DISA is not a telephone company although it does have a
mission to provide secure, interoperable. and global communications
from the deployed force back to the sustaining base. It uses many
commercial providers, while adding military value added features that
relate to security, robustness, and global extension to do this. DISA
was especially active and effective at getting communications in place
to support the Kosovo operations. Within the US, DISA uses domestic
providers but obtains the economics of scale provided by bundling DOD
requirements. It is not building networks as a competitor to industry,
but it is managing the conditions under which DOD obtains
communications support and ensuring that the sum of capabilities
provide a joint coherent mission oriented capability.
22. Senator Allard. Mr. Stenbit, do you plan to revisit the prior
administration's OSD/JCS DISN long haul policy?
Mr. Stenbit. Critical policies impacting the evolution and
management of Information Technology, including the long haul policies,
have been revamped under the GIG initiative. The genesis of our
policies were the types of interoperability and communication problems
that occurred when there was not effective joint communications and
command and control. These types of problems have reappeared whenever
we did not pay attention to the integration of our forces or their
ability to reach back for support: Cuban Missile Crisis, Pueblo,
Grenada, Desert Shield and Desert Storm, and in the Balkans.
The underlying assumption with the current long haul policy is that
an enterprise-wide telecommunication network to meet the majority of
the DOD's military requirements is the best approach. At the level of
the transport layer, I intend to further review and adjust policy as
necessary to ensure a cost effective basis for Wide and Metropolitan
Area Networks. This assumption is consistent with provisions of the
Clinger-Cohen Act, and the GIG architecture. While the details of how
the policy is implemented may be adjusted, the basic premise is to have
an integrated and secure network across the DOD.
23. Senator Allard. Mr. Stenbit, there are industry claims that
DISA is competing against an NMCI commercial provider, possibly in
violation of A-76, which prohibits the government from competing
against the private sector. Will you investigate those allegations and
report back to the committee in a timely manner?
Mr. Stenbit. I will of course investigate any allegations. However,
as I have pointed out, from the information I have, it is not a
question of in-house versus commercial provider but a question of how
industry is partnered with to provide service, the degree to which the
military mission is recognized in the acquisition, particularly with
regard to security, and the degree to which DOD achieves economies of
scale and essential levels of interoperability and how we take best
advantage of low density/high demand assets, particularly overseas.
A key factor in this discussion is the unique requirements for
security and robustness that the military must have to meet the needs
of the warfighter. These requirements were based on experience and were
validated by the Joint Staff. The DISN is not in competition with
industry but works with industry to meet these requirements.
24. Senator Allard. Mr. Stenbit, what is your position on the prior
administration's NMCI Memorandum of Agreement among OSD, USN, and DISA
regarding NMCI? Does it make good business sense for DISA to try to
replicate what industry has already developed, given DOD's limited
financial and information technology resources?
Mr. Stenbit. I support both the letter and the spirit of the NMCI
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA).
Under its terms, DISA has first right of refusal to provide wide-
area telecommunications services for the NMCI. If DISA cannot provide
the service then the USN may pursue those services through another
source. It is my understanding that in crafting the MOA, the parties
sought to ensure that DOD enterprise interoperability, security, and
economy are maintained, and that the USN would receive the best service
possible.
As discussed in previous answers, DISN does not replicate what
industry already offers, because no commercially available service
provides the interoperability and security services available under
DISN. DISN does depend heavily on industry components and services to
develop and provide DISN offerings. DISA has contracted with firms who
specialize in wide-area telecommunications services and has added
services and procedures that promote security and interoperability for
the warfighter. DISA's partnership with industry has resulted in an
environment where joint systems are interoperable, with known and
rigorous security, global extension, diverse routing, and dynamically
shared bandwidth. The best approach is to develop a strategy that best
fits the needs of the deployed force, rather than obtaining and
evolving them one function or one uniformed service at a time.
______
[The nomination reference of John P. Stenbit follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
July 12, 2001.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
John P. Stenbit of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of
Defense, vice Arthur L. Money.
______
[The biographical sketch of John P. Stenbit, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of John P. Stenbit
John P. Stenbit has had a long and distinguished career
with TRW, Inc., first joining them in 1968. In January 2000, he
was named Executive Vice President, Special Assignment, for TRW
Aerospace and Information Systems. Prior to that position, he
had served since early 1998 as Executive Vice President and
General Manager of TRW's telecommunications business, where he
helped identify a number of significant opportunities for TRW
in the burgeoning commercial telecommunications market.
In 1994, Mr. Stenbit was named Executive Vice President and
General Manager of TRW Systems Integration Group, which he had
led since 1990 as Vice President and General Manager. Under his
leadership, the group broadened its business base from
primarily defense to include industry contractors,
international customers, and government agencies. The group
performed systems engineering services and systems integration
and developed and installed systems for strategic and tactical
command and control, information processing, and security. Mr.
Stenbit was Vice President and General Manager of TRW Command
Support Division from 1984 to 1990. Previously, he was Director
of Requirements and Group Development for TRW Defense Systems
Group.
Mr. Stenbit was with the Department of Defense for 4 years,
2 of which were spent as Principal Deputy Director of
Telecommunications and Command and Control Systems. Earlier, he
served as Staff Specialist for Worldwide Military Command and
Control Systems in the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
Mr. Stenbit joined TRW in 1968 and was responsible for the
planning and analysis of advanced satellite surveillance
systems. Before joining the company, he was with the Aerospace
Corporation, where he worked on command and control systems for
missiles and satellites and on satellite data compression and
pattern recognition. During this time and under an Aerospace
Corporation fellowship, he studied and taught for 2 years as a
Fulbright Fellow at the Technische Hogeschool, Eindhoven,
Netherlands, concentrating on coding theory and data
compression.
Mr. Stenbit is a member of the Board of Directors for AETC,
an analysis company. In 1999 he was inducted in the National
Academy of Engineering. Previously, Mr. Stenbit served as
chairman of the Science and Technology Advisory Panel to the
director of Central Intelligence and was a member of the
Science Advisory Group to the directors of Naval Intelligence
and the Defense Communications Agency. He also chaired the
Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee for
the administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration. Mr.
Stenbit received a Bachelor's and a Master's degree in
Electrical Engineering from the California Institute of
Technology. He is a member of Tau Beta Pi, the engineering
honorary society.
------
[The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
form that details the biographical, financial and other
information of the nominee. The form executed by John P.
Stenbit in connection with his nomination follows:]
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Room SR-228
Washington, DC 20510-6050
(202) 224-3871
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation
of your answer applies.
Part A--Biographical Information
Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.
1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
John Paul Stenbit; Nickname Pre 1970: Skip.
2. Position to which nominated:
ASD(C\3\I).
3. Date of nomination:
July 12, 2001.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
5. Date and place of birth:
June 1, 1940; Oakland, CA.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Albertine (Heederik) Stenbit.
7. Names and ages of children:
Elisabeth Johnson, 33; Dr. Antine Stenbit, 31.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
Palo Alto High School, Palo Alto, CA, 1954-57, Graduated 6/57.
California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, 1957-62, BS, 6/
61; MS, 6/62.
Techniscite Hoge School, Eindhoven, Netherlands, 1962-63, 1965-67,
No Degree.
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
TRW, Inc., Fairfax, VA, 1977-April 30, 2001; Exec/VP General
Manager, Systems Integration Group, 1990-98; Exec/VP
Telecommunications, 1998-99; Exec/VP Special Assignments, 1999-2001;
Retired May 1, 2001.
AETC, Inc. La Jolla, CA, 1999-Present, Member of Board ofDirectors
and Consultant.
10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative,
honorary or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State,
or local governments, other than those listed above.
Civil Servant in OSD, 1973-77.
Chair, Science & Technology Advisory Panel to DCI.
Chair, Research & Development Advisory Panel to FAA Administrator.
Defense Science Board.
National Research Council
Scientific Advisory Group, Director, Naval Intelligence.
Scientific Advisory Group, Director, Defense Communications Agency.
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
Member, Board of Directors, AETC, Inc.
Limited Partner, Vast Oaks Properties.
Active Partner, Wayfarers Investment Club.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
Member, Board of Directors, Arts Council of Fairfax County.
Member, National Academy of Engineering.
Member, Naval Studies Board.
13. Political affiliations and activities:
(a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or
any public office for which you have been a candidate.
None.
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5
years.
None.
(c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $100 or more for the past 5 years.
Representative Tom Davis, $100.
TRW PAC, $150.
14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals, and any other special
recognitions for outstanding service or achievements.
Fulbright Fellow.
Aerospace Corp. Fellow.
Member, National Academy of Engineering, TAU BETA PI.
Secretary of Defense Award for Outstanding Public Service.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
None.
16. Speeches: Provide the committee with two copies of any formal
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have
copies of and are on topics relevant to the position for which you have
been nominated.
None.
17. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree,
if confirmed, to respond to requests to appear and testify before any
duly constituted committee of the Senate?
Yes.
______
[The nominee responded to the questions in Parts B-F of the
committee questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set
forth in the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to
Parts B-F are contained in the committee's executive files.]
------
Signature and Date
I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate,
and complete.
John Paul Stenbit.
This 13th day of July, 2001.
[The nomination of John P. Stenbit was reported to the
Senate by Chairman Levin on August 2, 2001, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on August 3, 2001.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to Dr. Ronald M. Sega by
Chairman Levin prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
July 27, 2001.
Hon. Carl Levin,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Enclosed herewith are the answers to the advance
questions the Senate Armed Services Committee asked me to complete.
Yours truly,
Ronald M. Sega.
cc: Senator John Warner,
Ranking Member.
______
Questions and Responses
defense reforms
Question. More than a decade has passed since the enactment of the
Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and
the Special Operations reforms.
Do you support full implementation of these defense reforms?
Answer. If confirmed, I will fully support the intent of the
reforms and advocate policies that will facilitate accomplishment of
joint operations, streamline acquisition management and oversight, and
enhance the Department's ability to respond to our 21st century
national security challenges.
Question. What is your view of the extent to which these defense
reforms have been implemented?
Answer. I think the Department has done a creditable job in
implementing defense reforms. However, without periodic Department
policy reviews, these reforms can lose their effectiveness and, if
confirmed, I will conduct such a review in my area to ensure we are in
keeping with today's environment.
Question. What do you consider to be the most important aspects of
these defense reforms?
Answer. I agree with Mr. Aldridge that the most important aspects
of the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act is
strengthening civilian control; improving military advice; placing a
clear responsibility on the combatant commanders for the accomplishment
of their missions; providing for more efficient use of defense
resources; and enhancing the effectiveness of military operations and
improving the management and administration of the Department of
Defense.
Question. The goals of Congress in enacting these defense reforms,
as reflected in Section 3 of the Goldwater-Nichols Department of
Defense Reorganization Act, can be summarized as strengthening civilian
control; improving military advice; placing clear responsibility on the
combatant commanders for the accomplishment of their missions; ensuring
the authority of the combatant commanders is commensurate with their
responsibility; increasing attention to the formulation of strategy and
to contingency planning; providing for more efficient use of defense
resources; and enhancing the effectiveness of military operations and
improving the management and administration of the Department of
Defense.
Do you agree with these goals?
Answer. Yes, I agree with the goals.
Question. Recently, there have been articles which indicate an
interest within the Department of Defense in modifying Goldwater-
Nichols in light of the changing environment and possible revisions to
the national strategy.
Do you anticipate that legislative proposals to amend Goldwater-
Nichols may be appropriate?
Answer. If confirmed as Director of Defense Research and
Engineering (DDR&E), I will work with the Under Secretary of Defense
(Acquisition, Technology and Logistics) and other senior DOD leaders to
review the extent to which the reforms have been implemented and the
extent to which they have achieved their stated goals. As Secretary
Rumsfeld has noted, we would consult with Congress on any changes that
might be appropriate.
Question. If so, what areas do you believe it might be appropriate
to address in these proposals?
Answer. It would be premature to offer any thoughts on the question
at this time.
duties
Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
the Director of Defense Research and Engineering?
Answer. If confirmed, I understand my duties and functions to
include those stated in DOD 5134.3 issued on August 31, 1994, to be
``the principal staff assistant and advisor to the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition and Technology (USD(AT&L)) for DOD scientific
and technical matters, basic and applied research, and advanced
technology development.'' I would report directly to the USD(AT&L),
with the responsibilities like a chief technology officer for the
Department to focus on developing capabilities for the warfighter. I
would be working with the Director, Ballistic Missile Defense Office
(BMDO) and the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear,
Chemical, & Biological (ATSD(NCB)), who report to the USD(AT&L) as well
as organizations outside of USD(AT&L), such as Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Command, Control, Communication, and Intelligence
(ASD(C\3\I)), to provide support in matters related to technology. I
also understand that, if confirmed, the results of ongoing reviews may
require adjustments in the DDR&E responsibilities.
Question. What background and experience do you possess that you
believe qualifies you to perform these duties?
Answer. If confirmed, I will bring a background and experience in
research, technology and program management, military and civil air and
space operations, and strategy planning from roles as a Professor,
Laboratory Technical Director, Pilot, Dean of a College of Engineering
and Applied Science, Astronaut and Military Officer to the position of
the DDR&E. My background includes basic and applied research, and
advanced technology development, working with the Army, Navy, Air
Force, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), Defense
Nuclear Agency (DNA), and industry. Management and leadership
experience is found in several organizations with activities spanning
technical system integration to setting strategic goals. I have also
been an operator of systems from line aircraft and spacecraft to
experimental vehicles. Additional details of my experience with the
University of Colorado, University of Houston, Frank J. Seiler Research
Laboratory, NASA, U.S. Air Force and the U.S. Air Force Reserves are in
the biography provided to the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Question. Do you believe that there are actions you need to take to
enhance your ability to perform the duties of the Director of Defense
Research and Engineering?
Answer. If confirmed, I need to review and refine the strategic
direction of the Department's S&T plan to ensure the Department seeks
innovative solutions. To do this, I would develop a strategic plan by
first reviewing warfighter needs, and then assessing the capability of
the Department's S&T plan to meet these needs. From there, I would have
to align the technical programs to best meet the areas not being
addressed. Finally, I would have to set priorities with clear goals and
objectives to maximize the output of the S&T program. I plan to listen
to subject matter experts, people in the field, warfighters, and
consistently communicate with the Military Departments, Joint Staff,
and Congress. Of course, quality people to carry out the mission are
our most important asset and I will, if confirmed, work to sustain and
hire good people to build a great team.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what duties and functions do
you expect that the Secretary of Defense will assign to you? Unlike
some of your predecessors, do you expect to have regular meetings with
the Secretary of Defense on issues such the level of S&T funding,
missile defense technology, defense industrial base, and export
controls?
Answer. In my meeting with Secretary Rumsfeld, it was clear that he
supported a strong S&T program. If confirmed, I understand that I would
normally accompany or represent the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD(AT&L)), Mr. Pete Aldridge,
in meetings with the Secretary on matters relating to technology.
Question. If confirmed, how will you work with the following:
The Under Secretaries of Defense
Answer. If confirmed, one of the Under Secretaries of Defense, Mr.
Aldridge, would be my reporting official, and I would support him to
the best of my ability. With respect to the three remaining Under
Secretaries of Defense, I will work with Mr. Aldridge to gain their
support for all S&T initiatives and policies.
Question. The Assistant Secretaries of Defense
Answer. If confirmed, I will work to gain their support for all S&T
initiatives and policies Mr. Aldridge and I are seeking to implement
through personal contact and routine staffing coordination.
Question. The Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Science and
Technology
Answer. If confirmed, the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for
Science and Technology will work for me and be my principal deputy.
Question. The Service and Agency officials responsible for science
and technology funding and program management
Answer. If confirmed, I will work most closely with these high
level DOD officials. I am aware of a formal group called the Defense
Science and Technology Advisory Group (DSTAG) that meets regularly. If
confirmed, I intend to continue to hold DSTAG meetings on a regular
basis.
Question. The Intelligence Community
Answer. If confirmed, I intend to work closely with the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for C\3\I concerning the role the DOD S&T program
can play in supporting the intelligence and space community, as well as
to gain insight and leverage other intelligence agency technology
development programs.
Question. The Joint Chiefs of Staff
Answer. The Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) represents the warfighting
community, which is the customer of the Department's S&T program. If
confirmed, I will foster close formal and informal communication with
the JCS to understand warfighter requirements and priorities. For
example, if confirmed, I would work with the Deputy Director for
Resources and Requirements, Joint Staff, (J-8) as a member of the
Defense Science and Technology Advisory Group (DSTAG).
Question. The regional combatant CINCs
Answer. If confirmed, I will strive to understand the CINCs
requirements both formally, through interface with the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, and informally, through the CINCs S&T representatives.
major challenges and problems
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will
confront the Director of Defense Research and Engineering?
Answer. If confirmed, I see that there are many challenges and
these challenges will run the full spectrum of my responsibilities.
These challenges are consistent with challenges which drive the goals
of the USD(AT&L). These USD(AT&L) goals are:
Achieve Credibility and Efficiency in the Acquisition
and Logistics Support Process;
Revitalize the Quality and Morale of the Acquisition
Workforce;
Improve the Health of the Defense Industrial Base;
Rationalize the Weapon Systems and Infrastructure With
the New Defense Strategy; and
Initiate High Leverage Technologies to Create the
Weapon Systems and Strategies of the Future.
I believe that the challenges facing the DDR&E are largely the
same. The first is to achieve credibility and efficiency of the
technology development process, leading to efficient technology
transition. The second is to retain and recruit high quality scientists
and engineers. Third is continue to foster partnerships, both within
and outside of government. Finally, consistent with Mr. Aldridge's
fifth goal, the DDR&E will be firmly involved in developing high
leverage technologies to create weapons systems of the future. To
accomplish this last goal, if confirmed, I will need to address budget
stability for DOD science and technology, and maintain DARPA at the
leading edge of technology.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, I intend to develop a plan to address the
challenges by setting specific S&T related goals and objectives
responding to each USD(AT&L) goals as briefly outlined in the previous
answer.
Question. What do you consider to be the most serious problems in
the performance of the functions of the Director of Defense Research
and Engineering?
Answer. I consider people, budget, and technical direction to be
the most serious problems to address in performing the functions of the
DDR&E. Additionally, I believe it is very important to align the
technology program with the strategic goals of this Department, the
goals of the USD(AT&L), and if confirmed, I would intend to establish
goals for DDR&E. The DDR&E challenges are largely the same as the
USD(AT&L), so the goals should be very consistent.
Question. If confirmed, what management actions and time lines
would you establish to address these problems?
Answer. Similar to my answer above, if confirmed, I would base a
management action on objectives and metrics derived from the USD(AT&L)
goals. These objectives would also reflect the Department's S&T
challenges. If confirmed, I will begin working on these upon my
assumption of duties. Without fully understanding the magnitude of the
task, it is too early to set any time lines.
priorities
Question. If confirmed, what broad priorities would you establish
in terms of issues which must be addressed by the Director of Defense
Research and Engineering?
Answer. If confirmed, the broad priorities areas I would establish
as DDR&E are budget, workforce, technology transition and partnerships.
To support an innovative, capabilities driven science and technology
program, it is critical to have funding stability, and sufficient
resources, to allow the Department to develop technologically superior
weapons. Stability is especially important so researchers can work on
problems over a period of time, instead of having to start and stop
projects. Additionally, the Department needs to continue to emphasize
recruiting and retaining a quality workforce to address the technology
challenges confronting the Department of Defense. Along with budget and
people, there is an added priority to ensure technology is ready to be
delivered to enhance operational capability of our military. Finally,
if confirmed, I intend to strengthen our partnerships with other
government agencies (NASA, Department of Energy, Department of
Commerce, etc), industry, and universities, as well as with other
nations. This is a priority because the DOD should leverage what is
available, and then develop the technology to provide our military a
superior capability. I believe that there already is an emphasis on
each of these areas within the Department and it should be maintained.
investment in science and technology
Question. Although the S&T budget has steadily increased over the
past several years, it is at the lowest share of Total Obligation
Authority (TOA) in nearly a decade.
Do you think that this level of funding is adequate given current
Departmental priorities?
Answer. I believe that establishing the level of Department-wide
S&T investment must be set in the overall context of Department
priorities. It is my understanding that Secretary Rumsfeld has
established a goal to increase the overall level of the investment to
3.0 percent of the overall DOD Total Obligation Authority. Mr. Aldridge
has also publicly supported this goal. While the 3.0 percent figure is
a goal, this priority must be carefully weighed against other
Department needs for maintaining and equipping the force. If confirmed,
I see my job as one that must continue to advocate the value of S&T
investment to the Department as a whole, and to demonstrate the value
of technology.
Question. Secretary Rumsfeld stated publicly in his June 28, 2001,
testimony that the Department's investment goal for Science and
Technology is 3 percent of the entire defense budget.
Is this an adequate and realistic goal for Science and Technology,
and, if you agree, when do you foresee that this goal will be achieved?
Answer. I believe that the Secretary's goal is both adequate and
realistic. Using the benchmark of high technology industry, the 3.0
percent figure seems to be about right to enable technology
development. Mr. Aldridge has indicated that he supports the S&T
investment getting to the 3.0 percent level as soon as possible, and
wants to achieve this level as early as next year. I believe there is a
real momentum within this administration to increase the priority of
science and technology, and if confirmed, I will encourage it to
continue.
Question. If confirmed, would you recommend that the services set a
similar percent of the service budgets as a goal? If so, in what time
frame would you recommend that this be achieved?
Answer. If confirmed, I would not recommend setting specific
percentage investment goals for individual Services. The stated
Department-wide goal of increasing Defense-wide investment to 3.0
percent of the DOD Total Obligation Authority is overarching, and
includes the total investment of the Services and Agencies, such as the
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the Defense Threat
Reduction Agency (DTRA) and others. The actual allocations of this
investment should be one that best responds to meeting desired
capabilities that result from on-going studies such as the Quadrennial
Defense Review.
Question. Are there any S&T areas that you feel are currently
underfunded by the Department?
Answer. I don't know if there are specific S&T areas that are
underfunded at present. If confirmed, one of my first tasks will be a
detailed review of the S&T investment in specific areas to meet
emerging threats and desired capabilities articulated in on-going
studies. For instance, as mentioned previously, the on-going
Quadrennial Defense Review should refine the capabilities the
Department seeks to develop. Once these important studies are
completed, the Department must review its current and planned S&T
investment and determine which areas need more or less funding. The
administration has articulated a goal of developing revolutionary or
leap-ahead capabilities. The S&T program should respond to these
desired capabilities. One of the key functions of the DDR&E is to work
with the warfighters and present technology options for future
capabilities. By iterating the technological possibility with the
warfighters, I believe we will get a clearer definition of the adequacy
of funding in specific areas.
Question. Will the funding levels in these areas affect our ability
to meet the threats of the future?
Answer. As the Department refines the desired capabilities of the
future, the level of S&T investment will affect how the Nation can meet
future threats. There will be capabilities that can be developed more
quickly, while other areas will require more fundamental scientific
discovery. However, in general, those areas that are most important to
the defense of the Nation will get the highest investment priority.
Question. What are the weaknesses of the current Defense S&T
strategic planning process? If confirmed, how would you work to ensure
that these plans are utilized during the budget planning and
programming process?
Answer. I believe the S&T strategic planning process needs to be
linked with the planning processes of the Department. I am aware of The
Joint Warfighting Science and Technology Plan, which is a document
updated annually to describe how the Department S&T program will
deliver near-term capabilities to the warfighter. The warfighter and
technology communities within the Department cooperatively develop this
plan. This seems to be an example of an effective near-term process. If
confirmed, I will review the total planning process, and will emphasize
near-term and strategic planning throughout the S&T community.
Question. Are you satisfied with the level of communication and
coordination among the technical, policy and warfighting communities in
the formulation of the S&T budget planning, prioritization, and
management process?
Answer. It is too early to answer this question. Good communication
and coordination is critical, and if confirmed, will be a high priority
for me. This includes communication between the stakeholders in the
Pentagon, as well as communication with other government agencies and
Congress. Communication and coordination between the S&T and
acquisition communities is also critical to enable effective technology
transition. However, it is too early to answer the question regarding
my satisfaction with the level of communication between stakeholders.
coordination with s&t in other agencies
Question. The Department of Defense currently executes
approximately half of the total Federal science and technology
portfolio. Its S&T budget is remaining relatively flat, while those of
other agencies, namely the National Institutes of Health, are greatly
increasing. Additionally, many scientific advances made in programs
managed by civilian agencies are increasingly applicable to military
needs.
Do you feel the mechanisms of coordination between Federal civilian
agencies and DOD are adequate to ensure that the military can best
leverage the advances of agencies such as NSF, NASA, and NIH?
Answer. Coordination between Federal agencies and DOD is extremely
important, but I am unable at this time to assess whether the
mechanisms are adequate. If confirmed, I will examine the existing
mechanisms of coordination and recommend improvements, if warranted.
Question. Do you feel the mechanisms of coordination between
Federal civilian agencies and DOD are adequate to ensure that we avoid
duplication and overlap and that we get the best results with limited
resources?
Answer. Coordination between Federal agencies and DOD is extremely
important, but I am unable at this time to assess whether the
mechanisms are adequate. If confirmed, I will examine the existing
mechanisms of coordination and recommend improvements, if warranted.
Question. If not, and assuming you are confirmed, how will you work
with other Federal agencies and the Office of Science and Technology
Policy to improve this coordination?
Answer. N/A.
Question. With the increasing importance of the interdependency
between the sciences what actions would you take, if confirmed, to
ensure an appropriate balance among investments in the various
scientific disciplines in order to achieve military objectives?
Answer. If confirmed, one of my initial priorities is to review and
refine the S&T strategic plan to influence and balance investments in
various scientific areas. Some specific actions that I would explore
include greater encouragement of multidisciplinary teams attacking
problems or exploring opportunities in basic and applied research. I
would seek advice from the National Academies, the Defense Science
Board, and other established groups to provide valuable input to the
Department's scientific program.
defense laboratories and test facilities
Question. Congress, the Defense Science Board, and other entities
have expressed concern regarding the condition of defense laboratories
and test facilities. Implementation of management and personnel reforms
and the establishment of innovative cooperative technology development
programs have been slow and limited.
What is your opinion of the condition and size of the defense
laboratory system?
Answer. I am aware that the Department has conducted a number of
internal studies regarding technical personnel and laboratory
infrastructure, but I have not seen them. My work in the academic arena
has given me first hand insight into the technical workforce problems
we are facing as a Nation in government, industry and university
communities. The situation in the Department of Defense was outlined on
July 12 by Mr. Aldridge who stated before the HASC, ``Another non-
technical challenge and important priority is maintaining a strong S&T
workforce. The number of scientists and engineers we have is down
15,300 from the 1990 level of 43,800. This workforce is also aging with
the average age of the laboratory technology at about 45 years and a
significant portion of the workforce able to retire in the next 3
years. There have been numerous studies to look at these and related
issues, and new efforts are now underway to address.'' If confirmed,
the defense laboratory system will be given high priority during my
tenure. For example, a separate office for laboratory oversight would
be an option under DDR&E.
Question. If confirmed, how will you work to ensure that the
defense labs communicate and facilitate the needs of the acquisition
and warfighting communities?
Answer. I believe that the defense-wide S&T planning and review
process should be linked to the DOD strategic planning process
involving the Commanders in Chief (CINCs), the Joint Staff, the
Military Departments, and the S&T community. If confirmed, I intend to
challenge my staff and the S&T executives to continually assess,
update, and modernize our processes to achieve an active working
environment with the acquisition and warfighting communities.
Question. If confirmed, what new regulatory reforms dealing with
personnel will you propose to ensure that the finest technical talent
is resident at these facilities?
Answer. If confirmed, I will assess the various personnel
initiatives currently being worked in the Department and be open to
innovative approaches. It is my understanding that the Under Secretary
of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (USD(P&R)) and the USD(AT&L) are
in the process of implementing provisions previously approved by
Congress. If confirmed, I will strive to ensure that options for hiring
highly skilled scientific and technical staff remain a Departmental
priority. I will also review existing legislative proposals, and
recommend options for additional reforms as appropriate.
technology transition
Question. A number of programs have been established to try to
speed the transition of technologies and other innovations from science
and technology programs into the hands of warfighters.
If confirmed, what new ideas will you propose to assist in
technology transition efforts?
Answer. I believe enhancing technology transition is one of the
more important functions of the DDR&E. If confirmed, I will continue to
push for efficient technology transition to rapidly provide new
capabilities for the warfighter. For example, as an Air Force Reserve
officer, I was involved with the TENCAP (Tactical Exploitation of
National Capabilities) program, designed to bring capabilities of
national intelligence systems to operational warfighters. In this role,
I saw first-hand the value of transitioning previously unavailable
technologies to the warfighter. I understand that there are existing
DOD programs, such as the Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration
(ACTD) Program that can provide technology quickly to the warfighter
for validation, thus streamlining acquisition. I also believe that the
establishment of a current year source of funds could provide a
mechanism to speed transition of rapidly maturing technology to system
capabilities for warfighter use. If confirmed, I would support an
approach of continual involvement of the technology, acquisition, and
warfighting communities to give the Department a more efficient
technology transition process.
Question. What is the role of the Office of Director of Defense
Research and Engineering in facilitating communication between
technical communities to speed technology transition?
Answer. If confirmed, I believe my role will be as an active
participant in establishing strong communication among the Military
Services, Defense Agencies, academia, industry, and other government
agencies to share best practices and build new initiatives and metrics
to ensure mature technologies are ready for insertion into weapon
systems.
other science and technology issues
Question. What is your assessment of the value of cooperative
research and development programs with international partners?
Answer. I believe that cooperative R&D programs have the potential
to be very valuable. These cooperative programs can reduce duplication
and improve interoperability. At the same time we would need to ensure
that our national security interests are protected and that these
programs support competitiveness. If confirmed, I would support
international programs meeting appropriate criteria.
Question. What are the obstacles to more effective international
cooperation and, if confirmed, how would you address those obstacles?
Answer. While I understand the importance of effective
international cooperation, this is an area I will, if confirmed, need
to investigate further. Issues such as export control procedures and
intellectual property rights are factors that will need to be
understood and addressed.
Question. How will increased international technology cooperation
affect our domestic defense industrial base?
Answer. I am not an expert in this area. From one perspective,
international cooperation could assist our industrial base in the
development of joint technical ventures and increase our suppliers'
potential business base. If confirmed, I will explore this area with
Government and industry leaders.
Question. What are the biggest challenges in R&D related to theater
and national missile defense systems?
Answer. The lead for the development of near-term missile defense
systems is the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO). For the
long-term program, I understand that R&D efforts would be coordinated
throughout the S&T community to provide technology options for future
system designs. If confirmed, I will encourage innovative technology
approaches to enable future capabilities to include missile defense.
Question. If confirmed, what role do you expect to play in
addressing these challenges?
Answer. DDR&E will play a support role to BMDO as required for the
near-term missile defense programs. R&D challenges for the future
missile defense systems include: discrimination, command and control,
directed energy, propulsion, software, etc.
Question. If confirmed, how will you strengthen the ability of
Service and Agency officials to oversee and adequately test these and
other rapidly expanding and technically complex programs?
Answer. I will begin by saying that, if confirmed, under the
current organization of USD(AT&L), neither formal operational or
developmental test and evaluation are under the responsibility of the
DDR&E. However, with any technology demonstration, continual design
test and evaluation should be part of the technology development
process. If confirmed, I will strive to ensure the science and
technology community is responsive to the formal test and evaluation
communities, and explore appropriate organizational placement of test
and evaluation as part of the overall system development process.
Question. The domestic defense industrial base, particularly the
industrial research and development base, continues to be an issue of
concern.
What is your vision of the future of the private sector defense R&D
enterprise?
Answer. I believe the Nation needs a strong private sector defense
R&D enterprise. The past decade has seen major changes in the defense
industrial base caused by downsizing and consolidation, and, at the
same time, the Department of Defense has downsized. I believe the
Department needs to continue to treat the defense industrial sector as
a partner in delivering capabilities for the warfighter. If confirmed,
I will review the current government-industry cooperative arrangements
and explore potential innovative arrangements to provide optimum future
capabilities.
Question. If confirmed, how will your work to ensure that the
private sector technology and research base is adequate to meet our
national needs for technical innovation and engineering expertise in
militarily critical technologies?
Answer. I believe the issue of ensuring that the private sector
technology and research base is adequate is a national level issue, and
one that, if confirmed, will receive significant attention from my
office. I also believe there is no simple solution to ensuring an
adequate technology and research base. Sustained investment is
important, and certainly industry operates to make a profit. If
confirmed, I will strive to establish and maintain an information
exchange with leaders of industry as one step toward addressing this
enabler for future military capabilities.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as the Director of Defense
Research and Engineering?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings and
other communications of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Joseph I. Lieberman
national nanotechnology initiative
1. Senator Lieberman. Dr. Sega, despite DOD's participation in an
interagency working group and Subcommittee of the National Science and
Technology Council as part of the planning process for the National
Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), I am concerned that the Department is
not honoring its commitments to this initiative for fiscal year 2002. I
am particularly concerned that, due to significant cuts in the
University Research Initiative line in the OSD budget, DOD will not be
able to fund the second year of multi-year awards from fiscal year
2001.
How do you plan to ensure DOD is able to honor both its multi-year
awards and its fiscal year 2003 and beyond commitments to multi-agency
research initiatives such as the National Nanotechnology Initiative?
Dr. Sega. The DOD's fiscal year 2002 budget request and fiscal year
2003-2006 plans for the University Research Initiative include the
funding needed for the multi-year awards begun in fiscal year 2001
under the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI). Although no
commitments for specific NNI funding levels in fiscal year 2002 or
later years have been made, it is my belief that the Department will
continue to strongly support initiatives in research areas important to
national defense, including nanoscience and nanotechnology.
2. Senator Lieberman. Dr. Sega, what are your plans for future DOD
participation in interagency coordination activities for the National
Nanotechnology Initiative?
Dr. Sega. DOD will continue to participate in the coordination
activities for interagency initiatives in nanoscience and
nanotechnology. Our current plans are to continue these activities and
provide the support stated in the Memorandum of Understanding amongst
the participating agencies, which established the National
Nanotechnology Coordination Office.
s&t leadership
3. Senator Lieberman. Dr. Sega, particularly given the trends
toward modernization and transformation, and the fact that emerging
threats are driving us to consider new defenses, it is my opinion that
we need very strong leadership in S&T both in the Services and in OSD.
How do you plan to ensure the voice of the S&T leadership is
prevalent in the highest levels of DOD? Will you hold formal briefings
to the Secretary or the Joint Chiefs on both S&T and T&E programs?
Dr. Sega. I am the principal staff assistant and advisor to the
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics
(USD(AT&L)) for DOD scientific and technical matters, basic and applied
research, and advanced technology development. I report directly to the
USD(AT&L) and act as the Department's chief technology officer to focus
efforts on developing improved capabilities for the warfighter. I will
provide formal briefings to the Secretary or the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
with the concurrence of the USD(AT&L), when requested or as advocacy
for programs with the potential for high payoff. As stated in my
Confirmation Hearing, Mr. Aldridge, the USD(AT&L), has told me I will
either accompany or represent him in meetings with the Secretary that
involve science and technology.
4. Senator Lieberman. Dr. Sega, given the significant potential of
Network Centric Warfare to exploit the power of information and
information technology to achieve battlefield dominance, how do you
plan to:
a. Carry out a joint experimentation program to develop new
operational concepts which take full advantage of the advances in
network-centric capabilities?
Dr. Sega. As you may be aware, DOD has in place a number of
activities that deal with experimentation of new ideas and joint
matters. These include Joint Warfighting Experiments, joint test and
evaluation to develop training tactics and procedures, advanced concept
technology demonstrations (ACTDs), and so on. An example of these is
the ACTD called Coalition Aerial Surveillance and Reconnaissance
(CEASAR), which provides interoperability of ground moving target
indicator assets of the U.S. and seven of our allies, and will be
demonstrated via NATO military exercises. Another example is the
Network-Centric Collaborative Targeting (NCCT) ACTD. NCCT includes
numerous sensor types and is developing and applying network-centric
techniques, collaborative concepts, and front-end processing to multi-
Service intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets to
provide target-quality information on time-critical targets. From the
results of this and other similar demonstrations and experiments, the
Department will gain residual capabilities and valuable experience that
will help us move towards the overarching vision of Network-Centric
Warfare. The Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Advanced Systems and
Concepts) reports to me. I will ensure the ACTD program supports the
fulfillment of this vision.
4b. Senator Lieberman. Ensure that OSD and the services place the
requisite priority on development of the associated technologies?
Dr. Sega. One of the initiatives I will undertake is to increase
the emphasis on our defense technology base. I also plan to monitor the
progress we make on our tech base activity via the various tools that
will be available to me. One of these tools is the Department's science
and technology (S&T) Reliance process, which includes the conduct of
Technology Area Review and Assessments. These assessments involve
panels composed of members from the DOD, academia, and industry. They
are chartered to review various technology areas, such as information
systems technology. Recommendations from these panels are presented to
senior Defense officials, including the top Service S&T
representatives. They in turn take appropriate action (i.e., enforce
adjustments to investments) to ensure the Services and Agencies place
the requisite priority on the development of associated technologies
that support the concept of network-centric warfare. In addition to
defense-unique technology, we need to leverage the commercial sector
technology. The commercial sector offers great opportunities in
information and communication technologies, which are in the heart of
network-centric warfare. We can take advantage of these sectors to get
better results faster and at less cost.
5. Senator Lieberman. Dr. Sega, although DARPA has long been
recognized as a major leader in developing revolutionary military
technologies, there has been some concern lately that, due to the lack
of an effective transition mechanism, many of these promising
technologies are not fully leveraged in the services. How do you intend
to address these concerns?
Dr. Sega. The Department is making progress in the area of
transitioning promising revolutionary technologies to the Services.
DARPA has established a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Army to
develop technology for Future Combat Systems. Another MOA has been
established with the Air Force to develop technology for Unmanned
Combat Air Vehicles. Each of the three Military Departments actually
provide contracting services and technical oversight for a sizable
portion of DARPA's S&T investment, and gain in-depth understanding of
technology that is available for leveraging. The Department has also
established a Technology Advisory Committee to recommend and advise on
unique military technologies for ``war winning'' capabilities. An
annual report will outline new opportunities for the DOD S&T program,
including DARPA. The report will also track the number of technologies
moving to higher technology readiness levels. Finally, the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics has
instituted a process to track specific high priority metrics in areas
of special interest. One of these metrics will actually track the
number of technologies maturing and transitioning from DARPA to the
Services.
darpa
6. Senator Lieberman. Dr. Sega, in a recent report evaluating
DARPA's investment strategy, the Defense Science Board expressed
concern that DARPA has shifted much of its portfolio from a focus on
revolutionary technologies to a focus on short-term procurement. The
DSB called on DARPA to modify their current investment strategy and
refocus on mid- and longer-term programs, in an effort to build on
their original strengths of funding the types of high-risk, high-payoff
programs that have led to our current military technological dominance.
How do you intend to work with the DARPA Director to make sure the
agency considers the DSB study recommendations in planning future
investments?
Dr. Sega. As the Director of Defense Research and Engineering, I am
responsible for the overall direction, quality, and content of the DOD
S&T program. The Director of DARPA reports directly to me. We are
currently reviewing the integrated strategic planning and assessment
process that supports the S&T program and DARPA is a major player in
that process. Our strategic planning process seeks to achieve a
balanced DOD S&T program investment that supports the development of
advanced emerging operational concepts and systems in the evolutionary
acquisition process, as well as investments in technologies and systems
that can provide significant improvements in military capability. In
the mid-1990s, DARPA was asked to help develop and adapt technologies
to help address near-term military capability shortfalls that became
apparent during the Gulf War especially in Command, Control,
Communications and Computer; and Intelligence, Surveillance, and
Reconnaissance. DARPA is increasing its focus on technologies that
support the development of long-term, high-risk, and high-payoff
military capabilities.
dod laboratories and civilian personnel provisions
7. Senator Lieberman. Dr. Sega, in the past several years, we have
been particularly concerned about personnel and management issues in
DARPA and the Service Laboratories. We have worked hard to provide
legislative relief in the form of several innovative provisions aimed
specifically at improving the ability to recruit and retain high-
quality personnel. These provisions include both the Pilot Program for
Revitalizing DOD Laboratories and Civilian Personnel Provisions (fiscal
year 1999, Section 246; fiscal year 2000, Section 245), and a provision
to expand the experimental civilian personnel program (fiscal year
2001, Sections 1113 and 1114).
How do you intend to implement these provisions and are there other
ideas you have regarding strategies to revitalize the laboratories?
Dr. Sega. Revitalization of the defense labs and their workforce is
a priority discussion and action area for us. Section 246 pilot labs
and centers have been designated and appropriate authorities granted to
explore innovative ways of improving partnering and efficiency. Section
245 pilot labs and centers have been designated and on June 21, 2001 we
issued instruction to the DOD Components initiating the Department's
efforts to achieve ``expedited hiring'' authority and to begin the
process of exploring innovative ways of improving the workforce and
efficiency in the DOD. I feel these authorities will enable selected
DOD laboratories and test and evaluation centers to develop a
revitalized workforce with the appropriate mix of skills and experience
and to effectively compete in hiring the finest scientific talent.
Additionally, I will continue to work with the Department and the
Services to find additional ways to expedite hiring for our Defense
Laboratories.
I believe Section 1113 will help in the recruitment and appointment
of eminent experts in science and engineering. DARPA is aggressively
seeking new employees using the special hiring authority under Sections
1102 and 1113. On May 18, 2001, the Deputy Secretary of Defense
delegated Section 1113 authority to the Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness. In turn, the USD (P&R) re-delegated this
authority to the Secretaries of the Military Departments on July 17,
2001. In order to maintain a corporate perspective, the re-delegation
to the Service Secretaries contained a provision that requires them to
develop a single allocation plan for 40 positions and present it to
Director Defense Research & Engineering (DDR&E) for coordination. I
will work with the Services to ensure we utilize this authority and I
will maintain oversight of this program.
On April 26, 2001, the Secretary delegated authority for
implementing Section 1114 to the Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness with the coordination of the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. The Department is
examining potential initiatives and options that innovatively utilize
the Section 1114 authority. As an example, we have instituted
procedural changes to the processing of Federal Register announcements,
which has already served to expedite personnel demonstration
initiatives.
Throughout the implementation process of these legislated
authorities, we will continue to work with Congress to identify
additional areas which may support laboratory revitalization.
8. Senator Lieberman. Dr. Sega, with cooperation from Congress, do
you feel that you can make noteworthy progress toward revitalizing the
labs through incremental improvements such as the ones previously
mentioned, or do you foresee the need for a major reform of the civil
service?
Dr. Sega. As we go forward, I am confident that we will make
progress in lab revitalization. I do not foresee, at present, a need
for a major civil service reform to accomplish the revitalization. But,
I will be attentive to this issue and will seek assistance if current
Civil Service law becomes an insurmountable barrier to defense lab
revitalization.
dod's highest priority research areas
9. Senator Lieberman. Dr. Sega, in the Fiscal Year 2000 National
Defense Authorization Act, Section 241, Congress requested a report on
Emerging Operational Concepts and Technological Objectives for Research
and Development. I hoped this report would elucidate DOD's priorities
and serve as a roadmap in establishing current research investment
strategy.
Either reflecting the results of this report or from your own
perspective, could you briefly summarize DOD's highest priority
research areas?
Dr. Sega. The Section 241 report on Emerging Operational Concepts
was based on the framework of Joint Vision 2020; however, this
administration has asked the Department to examine leap-ahead
technologies in the context of the ongoing Quadrennial Defense Review
(QDR). As part of the preparation for the QDR, the Office of the Deputy
Under Secretary of Defense (Science & Technology) and the Science and
Technology (S&T) Executives from the Services and the Defense Agencies
developed a set of 12 S&T Strategic Initiatives this past spring. They
are: Counters to Asymmetrical Threats; Time Critical, Standoff, and
Concealed Target Defeat; Chem-bio Defense Modeling and Stand-Off
Detection; Cruise and Ballistic Missile Defense; Military Operations in
Urban Terrain; Network Centric Warfare; Fuller Dominance of Space;
Unmanned Systems for Land, Air, Space, Sea, and Underwater; Nanoscience
and Advanced Materials; Directed Energy; Advanced Power; and Human
Dimension and Psychological Factors. Adjustment of these Strategic
Initiatives and associated S&T investment in the highest priority areas
may be made following the results of the Quadrennial Defense Review
(QDR).
s&t funding
10. Senator Lieberman. Dr. Sega, I am concerned that, as a whole,
DOD is not investing in S&T at a level which will allow our Nation to
maintain technological superiority. A recent Defense Science Board
study recommended, based upon trends in industrial research investment,
that the Department of Defense should be investing at least 3 percent
of its total budget in S&T. The S&T request for fiscal year 2002, at
$8.8 billion, is both less than the request for fiscal year 2001, and
less than that which would track the DSB recommendations ($10 billion).
How will you make the case for increased S&T funding, to meet or
exceed these recommendations, in fiscal year 2003?
Dr. Sega. It is the Department's objective to grow the S&T budget
to be 3 percent of the total DOD top-line budget as soon as possible.
However, we also need to ensure that the funding levels of the various
components in the Department's total budget are balanced based on our
assessment of the most urgent requirements at any given time. The
fiscal year 2002 S&T request for $8.8 billion is a 17.3 percent
increase over the fiscal year 2001 S&T request for $7.S billion, and
moves the Department toward the 3 percent goal.
______
Question Submitted by Senator John Warner
defense laboratories
11. Senator Warner. Dr. Sega, this committee continues to be
concerned about the loss of scientific talent in our Nation's defense
laboratories. As you are aware, the labs have experienced a tremendous
drop in personnel over the past 10 years and the next 5 years we are
faced with an additional 50 percent retirement eligibility.
How will you ensure that these national treasures are revitalized
and can provide our military with the best scientific talent available?
Dr. Sega. Revitalization of the defense labs and their workforce is
a priority discussion and action area for both the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (USD(AT&L)) and
myself and we are paying close attention to this matter. There are a
number of personnel initiatives currently being worked in the
Department and I will ensure they remain a high priority within
Director Defense Research & Engineering (DDR&E). Additionally, I will
work very closely with the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness (USD(P&R)) in developing and initiating activities to take
advantage of legislative authorities for hiring and retaining a highly
skilled scientific and technical workforce. To help laboratory
directors better compete for highly skilled scientific and technical
personnel, DDR&E is working hand in hand with USD(P&R) to implement the
provisions in Section 245 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2000 that gives
the laboratory directors ``expedited hiring authority''. This
initiative should provide additional flexibility to the defense
laboratories' personnel system and make it easier for the laboratory
directors to recruit highly qualified scientific and technical
individuals in a timely manner. I will ensure this plan remains on
track.
Another legislative authorization that will aid in the recruitment
and appointment of eminent experts in science and engineering is
Section 1113 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2001. This reform provides
another means to enable the laboratory directors to attract technical
talent. The Military Departments, in coordination with DDR&E, are
currently planning implementation procedures to enable the laboratories
to appoint up to 120 eminent experts in science and engineering to
temporary employment positions without regard to existing civil service
laws concerning appointment and compensation. I will work with the
Services to ensure we utilize this authority and I will maintain
oversight of this program.
The Department will work with the Office of Personal Management and
the Office of Management and Budget to define additional authorities
that would benefit the laboratory directors. This will be an ongoing
process, and I am committed to working with Congress for the purpose of
defense laboratory revitalization. Ultimately, DOD is only one of
several Federal agencies, which will benefit from enhancing science,
mathematics and engineering at the national level.
______
[The nomination reference of Dr. Ronald M. Sega follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
July 12, 2001.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Dr. Ronald M. Sega, of Colorado, to be Director of Defense Research
and Engineering, vice Hans Mark, resigned.
______
[The biographical sketch of Dr. Ronald M. Sega, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Dr. Ronald M. Sega
Ronald M. Sega assumed his current position as Dean, College of
Engineering and Applied Science, University of Colorado at Colorado
Springs in 1996. He has had an extensive career in academia, research,
and government service. Dr. Sega began his academic career as a faculty
member in the Department of Physics at the U.S. Air Force Academy. As
an Assistant Professor, he taught physics courses, designed and
constructed a Microwave/Infrared Advance Laboratory, and conducted
research in applied electromagnetic field theory. This led to his
appointment as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Electrical
and Computer Engineering at the University of Colorado at Colorado
Springs in 1982. In addition to teaching and research activities, he
also served as the Technical Director of the Laser and Aerospace
Mechanics Directorate at the F.J. Seiler Research Laboratory at the
U.S. Air Force Academy and at the University of Houston as the
Assistant Director of Flight Programs and Program Manager for the Wake
Shield Facility. Dr. Sega has authored or co-authored over 100
technical publications and was promoted to Professor in 1990.
In 1990, Dr. Sega joined NASA, becoming an astronaut in July 1991.
He served as a mission specialist on two Space Shuttle Flights, STS-60
in 1994, the first joint U.S./Russian Space Shuttle Mission and the
first flight of the Wake Shield Facility, and STS-76 in 1996, the third
docking mission to the Russian space station Mir where he was the
Payload Commander. He was also the Co-Principal Investigator for the
Wake Shield Facility and the Director of Operations for NASA activities
at the Gagarin Cosmonaut Training Center in 1994-1995.
Dr. Sega is also an officer in the Air Force Reserve, recently
promoted to the rank of Major General. A Command Pilot in the Air Force
with over 4,000 hours, he has served as an Instructor Pilot and in
various operational assignments. Since 1987 he has held many positions
in the Air Force Reserves in support of planning and operational
activities of the Air Force Space Command. Currently, he is assigned as
the Mobilization Assistant to the Commander, Headquarters Air Force
Space Command (AFSPC), Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado.
He graduated from the U.S. Air Force Academy in 1974 with a B.S.
Degree in Math and Physics, from Ohio State University in 1975 with an
M.S. Degree in Physics, and from the University of Colorado in 1982
with a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering.
______
[The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
form that details the biographical, financial and other
information of the nominee. The form executed by Dr. Ronald M.
Sega in connection with his nomination follows:]
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Room SR-228
Washington, DC 20510-6050
(202) 224-3871
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation
of your answer applies.
Part A--Biographical Information
Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.
1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
Ronald Michael Sega.
2. Position to which nominated:
Director of Defense, Research and Engineering.
3. Date of nomination:
July 12, 2001.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
5. Date and place of birth:
December 4, 1952; Cleveland, Ohio.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Ann Elizabeth Flemke.
7. Names and ages of children:
N/A.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
Nordonia High School, 1965-1970, Diploma (1970).
U.S. Air Force Academy, 1970-1974, Bachelor of Science in Math and
Physics (1974).
Ohio State University, 1974-1975, Master of Science in Physics
(1975).
Squadron Officers School, 1977-1979, Correspondence Program (1979).
University of Colorado, 1979-1982, Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering
(1982).
Air Command and Staff College, 1982-1985, Seminar Program (1985).
Air War College, 1988-1991, Seminar Program (1991).
Harvard University, 1997, Management Institute.
Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government, 2001,
Executive Program in Global Security.
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
Civilian Positions Held:
1996-Present............................ Dean, College of Engineering
and Applied Science,
University of Colorado at
Colorado Springs (UCCS),
Colorado Springs, CO 80933-
7150.
1990-Present............................ Professor, Department of
Electrical and Computer
Engineering, University of
Colorado at Colorado
Springs (UCCS), Colorado
Springs, CO 80933-7150.
1990-1996............................... Astronaut.
1994-1995............................... Director of Operations,
Russia (Star City).
1990-1991............................... Astronaut Candidate,
National Aeronautics and
Space Administration,
Lyndon B. Johnson Space
Center, Houston, TX 77058.
1990-1996............................... Adjunct Professor of
Physics, University of
Houston, Houston, TX 77004.
Military Assignments (Air Force Reserves):
Oct 1989-Aug 1991....................... Individual Mobilization
Augmentee to the Director,
Force Enhancement,
Headquarters, Air Force
Space Command, Peterson Air
Force Base, CO.
Aug 1991-July 1993...................... Individual Mobilization
Augmentee to the Director
of Space Applications,
Headquarters, Air Force
Space Command, Peterson Air
Force Base, CO.
Jul 1993-Nov 1996....................... Individual Mobilization
Augmentee to the Director
of Plans, Headquarters, Air
Force Space Command,
Peterson Air Force Base,
CO.
Nov 1996-Mar 1998....................... Mobilization Assistant to
the Director of Operations,
Headquarters, Air Force
Space Command, Peterson Air
Force Base, CO.
Mar 1998-Feb 2000....................... Mobilization Assistant to
the Commander, Space
Warfare Center, Schriever
Air Force Base, CO.
Feb 2000-present........................ Mobilization Assistant to
the Commander, Headquarters
Air Force Space Command
(AFSPC), Peterson Air Force
Base, CO.
10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative,
honorary or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State,
or local governments, other than those listed above.
2000-present.............................. Service Academy Review Board
for Senator Ben Nighthorse
Campbell.
2000...................................... International Space Station
Operations Architecture
Study (Study for NASA
through Computer Sciences
Corporation).
1999-present.............................. Senator Allard's Round
Tables on Space/High
Technology.
Colorado Space Strategy
Initiative--Oversight
Committee.
1998-1999................................. Manufacturers Steering
Group, Chamber of Commerce.
1996-present.............................. NASA Commercialization
Advisory Committee.
1997-present.............................. NASA Space Station
Utilization Advisory
Committee.
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
1996-present.............................. Dean, College of Engineering
and Applied Science,
University of Colorado at
Colorado Springs.
2000-present.............................. Board of Directors--INROADS
Colorado.
Trustee--Aerospace Education
Foundation.
2000...................................... International Space Station
Operations Architecture
Study, (Study for NASA
through Computer Sciences
Corporation).
1998-present.............................. Board of Directors (Ex-
Officio)--Greater Colorado
Springs, Economic
Development Corporation.
Board of Directors--Colorado
Springs Challenger Learning
Center.
Chair, Board of Directors--
Pikes Peak Observatory.
Board of Directors--Pikes
Peak YMCA Southeast and
Armed Services Y.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
1996-present.............................. Dean, College of Engineering
and Applied
Science,University of
Colorado at Colorado
Springs.
2000-present.............................. Board of Directors--INROADS
Colorado.
Trustee--Aerospace Education
Foundation.
1999-present.............................. U.S. Air Force Academy
Association of Graduates.
Colorado Space Strategy
Initiative--Oversight
Committee.
1998-present.............................. Board of Directors (Ex-
Officio)--Greater Colorado
Springs Economic
Development Corporation.
Board of Directors--Colorado
Springs Challenger Learning
Center.
Chair, Board of Directors--
Pikes Peak Observatory.
Board of Directors--Pikes
Peak YMCA Southeast and
Armed Services Y.
1996-present.............................. NASA Commercialization
Advisory Committee.
1997-present.............................. NASA Space Station
Utilization Advisory
Committee.
Space Technology Hall of
Fame Selection Committee.
1991-present.............................. American Institute of
Aeronautics and
Astronautics (AIAA).
1979-1999................................. American Physical Society
(APS).
1994-present.............................. Association of Space
Explorers (ASE).
1984-present.............................. Eta Kappa Nu.
1980-present.............................. Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers
(IEEE).
1983-present.............................. Reserve Officer Association.
13. Political affiliations and activities:
(a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or
any public office for which you have been a candidate.
None.
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5
years.
None.
(c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $100 or more for the past 5 years.
None.
14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals, and any other special
recognitions for outstanding service or achievements.
Major Military Awards and Decorations:
Legion of Merit.
Defense Meritorious Service Medal.
Meritorious Service Medal with one oak leaf cluster.
Air Force Commendation Medal with one oak leaf cluster.
Air Force Achievement Medal.
Air Force Outstanding Unit Award.
Air Force Organizational Excellence Award with one oak leaf
cluster.
Other Awards/Achievements:
Aerospace Education Foundation--Elected Trustee, 2000.
Educator of the Year 1998-1999, INROADS, Colorado.
Honorary Doctorate, Bridgewater State College, 1998.
NASA Outstanding Leadership Medal (Payload Commander, STS-76),
1997.
American Astronautical Society Flight Achievement Award, 1996.
NASA Acquisition Improvement Award (X-33), 1996.
NASA Space Flight Medal (STS-76), 1996.
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers--Elected Senior
Member, 1996.
Group Achievement Award (NASA--Crew Exchange Working Group with
Russia), 1995.
Superior Achievement Award (NASA--Director of Operations, Russia),
1995.
Group Achievement Award (Microgravity Measurement Device
Development Team), 1994.
NASA Space Flight Medal (STS-60), 1994.
Ohio Veterans Hall of Fame, 1994.
Honorary Doctorate--Clarkson University, 1993.
Fellow, Institute for the Advancement of Engineering, 1992.
Associate Fellow, American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics (AIAA), 1992.
Selected as an Astronaut, 1991.
Reserve Officer (IMA) of the Year--U.S. Air Force, 1988.
Reserve Officer (IMA) of the Year--Air Force Space Command, 1988.
Sustained Superior Service Award--Frank J. Seiler Research
Laboratory, 1988.
Academic Hall of Fame--Nordonia High School, Macedonia, Ohio, 1988.
Outstanding Faculty Award--Department of Electrical Engineering,
University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, 1985.
Air Force Research Fellow--Air Force Office of Scientific Research,
1985.
Regional Finalist--White House Fellowship, 1984.
Officer of the Year in the Physics Department, U.S. Air Force
Academy, 1980.
Top Graduate of Pilot Instructor Training Course, 1976.
Distinguished Graduate, U.S. Air Force Academy, 1974.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
16. Speeches: Provide the committee with two copies of any formal
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have
copies of and are on topics relevant to the position for which you have
been nominated.
Speech/presentation topics have not addressed policy issues or
systems trade studies, but rather have focused on such topics as my
technical research, space flight experiences, importance of math and
science education, and the need for a technical workforce. Speeches/
presentations (over 100 in the last 5 years) are given extemporaneously
or from notes (to my knowledge, transcripts have not been made).
Examples from the last 5 years:
-- Commencement--Trinidad State Junior College (Trinidad, CO)
-- Educational Speaking Tour through Europe (AF Bases)
-- National Science Teachers Conference (Las Vegas, NV)
-- University of Colorado Founders Night
-- Commencement--Bridgewater State College
-- South Bay Economic Development Council (Los Angeles, CA)
-- Electronics Industries Association (Mexico)
-- Bulgarian Air Force Academy (Bulgaria)
-- Josef Stephan Institute (Slovenia)
-- Commencement--Front Range Community College
-- Nuclear and Space Radiation Effects Conference
-- National Association of Newspaper Editors
-- ROTC Dining Outs and Awards Ceremonies
-- Commencement--Tohatchi High School (New Mexico)
-- International Council of Systems Engineers
-- Air Force Reserve Senior Leader Meeting
-- Commencement--Widefield High School
-- National Character and Leadership Symposium (AF Academy)
-- Aurora Economic Development Quarterly Meeting
-- Blue and Gold Banquet (Boy Scouts)
-- Retired Officer Association
17. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree,
if confirmed, to respond to requests to appear and testify before any
duly constituted committee of the Senate?
Yes.
______
[The nominee responded to the questions in Parts B-F of the
committee questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set
forth in the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to
Parts B-F are contained in the committee's executive files.]
------
Signature and Date
I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate,
and complete.
Dr. Ronald M. Sega.
This 13th day of July, 2001.
[The nomination of Dr. Ronald M. Sega was reported to the
Senate by Senator Allard on August 2, 2001, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on August 3, 2001.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to Michael L. Dominguez by
Chairman Levin prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
July 25, 2001.
Hon. Carl Levin,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Enclosed herewith are the answers to the advance
questions the Senate Armed Services Committee asked me to complete.
Sincerely,
Michael L. Dominguez.
cc: Senator John Warner,
Ranking Member.
______
Questions and Responses
defense reforms
Question. More than a decade has passed since the enactment of the
Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and
the Special Operations reforms.
Do you support full implementation of these defense reforms?
What is your view of the extent to which these defense reforms have
been implemented?
What do you consider to be the most important aspects of these
defense reforms?
Answer. Yes, I support full implementation of Goldwater-Nichols.
Considerable effort has been made to implement these reforms over the
past 15 years, and the right mechanisms are in place and working. In my
opinion, Goldwater-Nichols is probably one of the most significant
pieces of legislation enacted in the second half of the 20th Century--
greatly improving the organization of the Department of Defense and
focusing our joint warfighting capabilities.
Question. The goals of Congress in enacting these defense reforms,
as reflected in Section 3 of the Goldwater-Nichols Department of
Defense Reorganization Act, can be summarized as strengthening civilian
control; improving military advice; placing clear responsibilities on
the combatant commanders for the accomplishment of their missions;
ensuring the authority of the combatant commanders is commensurate with
their responsibility; increasing attention to the formulation of
strategy and to contingency planning; providing for more efficient use
of defense resources; and enhancing the effectiveness of military
operations and improving the management and administration of the
Department of Defense.
Do you agree with these goals?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Recently, there have been articles which indicate an
interest within the Department of Defense in modifying Goldwater-
Nichols in light of the changing environment and possible revisions of
the national strategy.
Do you anticipate that legislative proposals to amend Goldwater-
Nichols may be appropriate? If so, what areas do you believe it might
be appropriate to address in these proposals?
Answer. Goldwater-Nichols has served the Department of Defense well
since 1986; however, there are dynamics today different from 15 years
ago that may warrant review of some provisions, such as the personnel
assignment rules and how we select joint specialty officers. If
confirmed, I would like to explore those issues, in cooperation with
Congress, to ensure we have sufficient flexibility in the management of
our personnel resources in a joint environment.
duties
Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Manpower and Reserve
Affairs)?
Answer. The principle duties of the Assistant Secretary are to
support the tasks assigned by the Secretary of the Air Force. Based on
my understanding, the duties will include providing guidance,
direction, and oversight for Air Force manpower/personnel programs;
medical readiness and health care; plus Reserve component affairs. I've
been briefed that the Assistant Secretary also is responsible for
programs to prohibit discrimination and oversight of the operation of
the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council and its component
boards--the Air Force Civilian Appellate Review Office and the Air
Force Board for the Correction of Military Records.
Question. What background and experience do you possess that you
believe qualifies you to perform these duties?
Answer. I am humbled that the President would nominate me for this
Assistant Secretary position, and, if confirmed, pledge my sincere
efforts to uphold the duties with honor and integrity. There are
several components of my background that I believe make me well suited
for this position. First, I am a veteran who, as a graduate of the
United States Military Academy at West Point, proudly served our Nation
at home and abroad. Those experiences shaped my appreciation for the
sacrifices made by our men and women who serve in uniform-both Active
and the Reserve component. Second, I bring over 15 years experience as
a civil servant--serving at various levels of responsibilities within
the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Department of the Navy.
That has provided me an invaluable insight into the day-to-day workings
of the Department, its civilian/military structure, and its
relationship with Congress and other Federal agencies. Last, I bring a
strong background in program analysis, the Planning, Programming, and
Budgeting System, and business acumen that will provide me the basis to
review and assess our various manpower and personnel issues.
Question. Do you believe that there are actions you need to take to
enhance your ability to perform the duties of the Assistant Secretary
of the Air Force (Manpower and Reserve Affairs)?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to learning more about the Air
Force, its mission and its people, in order that I can best work the
recruiting, retention, health, and quality of life issues impacting our
Total Force
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what duties and functions do
you expect that the Secretary of the Air Force would prescribe for you?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to being a part of Secretary
Roche's management team, and I would expect him to assign me duties
consistent with the position--providing guidance and oversight for the
various Air Force manpower and Reserve component programs.
Question. In carrying out your duties, how will you work with the
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Force Management Policy, the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs, the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Health Affairs, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, and
the Chief of Air Force Reserve?
Answer. If confirmed, I plan to foster a close working relationship
with my civilian counterparts in the Office of the Secretary of Defense
and the other Services, plus with the Air Force Chief of Staff and the
Chiefs of the Reserve components, in order to effectively oversee our
``people'' programs.
priorities
Question. What broad priorities will you establish in terms of
issues which must be addressed by the Assistant Secretary of the Air
Force (Manpower and Reserve Affairs)?
Answer. From my perspective, the challenges of recruiting and
retaining an all-volunteer force in a tight, competitive job market
cannot be overstated. If confirmed, I will focus my attention on those
two principle areas to ensure we maintain the right level of emphasis
and resources. The Air Force must have competitive, flexible personnel
programs to attract and retain the best and the brightest in service to
their country. Also, I will continue the focus on the Air Force's
quality of life programs, such as health care; workplace environment;
and affordable housing.
major challenges and problems
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will
confront the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Manpower and Reserve
Affairs)?
Answer. Air Force people--active military, Reserve, guard and
civilian employees--are the key ingredient to our mission success. As
such, I would consider the top challenges to be recruitment, retention,
civilian force management, and preservation of quality military health
care.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, I would plan to consult with the Secretary of
the Air Force and other key leaders to immediately address these four
priorities, establishing timelines and working toward comprehensive
solutions. Also, I look forward to working with this committee and
other members of Congress to ensure we have a supportable gameplan.
Question. What do you consider to be the most serious problems in
the performance of the functions of the Assistant Secretary of the Air
Force (Manpower and Reserve Affairs)?
Answer. Not having served in that position, I am not able to
identify any shortcomings at this time.
Question. If confirmed, what management actions and time lines
would you establish to address these problems?
Answer. Not having served in that position, I am not prepared to
identify those at this time.
officer management issues
Question. We consider promotions to general and flag officer ranks
as identifying military officers for very senior positions that should
be filled only by officers with the very highest moral and ethical
values.
Do you believe the officer corps has confidence in the integrity of
the officer promotion system in the Air Force?
Answer. I wholeheartedly agree that integrity, character, moral and
ethical values are critical qualities for those serving in the Air
Force's senior leadership positions. Although I have not been involved
personally in the Air Force officer promotion process, my initial
impression is that the system appears to be working well.
Question. If confirmed, what role do you, as Assistant Secretary of
the Air Force (Manpower and Reserve Affairs), expect to play in the
officer promotion system?
Answer. From my viewpoint, the integrity of the officer promotion
system is a critical responsibility of the Assistant Secretary. If
confirmed, I will have the opportunity to work with the Secretary of
the Air Force to provide oversight of every aspect of the promotion
process. My goal will be to continue the fair and equitable
consideration of all officers, to ensure confidence and integrity in
the system, and to ensure boards are conducted in accordance with
applicable laws and Department of Defense directives.
Question. If confirmed, what role do you, as Assistant Secretary of
the Air Force (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) expect to play in the
general officer management and nomination process?
Answer. I will have no active role in the general officer
nomination process, but will support the Secretary of the Air Force, as
needed, on any general officer issue.
Question. If confirmed, what steps will you take to ensure that
only the most highly qualified officers are nominated for promotion to
general and flag officer rank?
Answer. I understand that there are ongoing activities in the Air
Force to institute a comprehensive leadership development system
focused on core competencies needed for future aerospace leaders. If
confirmed, I will ensure that leadership development continues to be
high priority for the Air Force.
protected communications
Question. Section 1034, Title 10, United States Code, prohibits
taking retaliatory personnel action against a member of the Armed
Forces as reprisal for making a protected communication. By definition,
protected communications include communications to certain individuals
and organizations outside of the chain of command. We continue to see a
lack of understanding in the senior military leadership of the policy
that it is appropriate and necessary to protect service members who
report misconduct to appropriate authorities outside of the chain of
command.
Do you support prohibiting retaliatory personnel actions for making
protected communications?
Answer. Yes, most definitely.
Question. If confirmed, what actions will you take to ensure that
senior military leaders understand the need to protect service members
who report misconduct to appropriate authorities within or outside the
chain of command?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the Secretary of the Air
Force to ensure we continue to educate and communicate to the senior
military leadership the provisions of this important section of the
law.
operating tempo
Question. The services have been very concerned in recent years
about the impact of the pace of operations or ``optempo'' on the
quality of life of our people in uniform and specifically on their
willingness to reenlist.
If confirmed, what steps do you plan to take to address the Air
Force optempo concerns?
Answer. Sustained TEMPO takes a toll on the personnel of any
organization, and, if confirmed, I pledge my efforts to explore ideas
that will help alleviate the burden on Air Force people. Having read
about the new Aerospace Expeditionary Force (AEF), I am encouraged that
the Air Force's senior leadership shares that same concern, as the AEF
appears to provide greater predictability and stability for Air Force
members.
recruiting and retention
Question. For its Active Duty forces, the Air Force achieved its
recruiting goal for 2000 and projects that it will meet its fiscal year
2001 objective. However, it does not appear that the Air Force will
meet its 2nd and 3rd term retention goals and will miss its required
end strength by 4,100. When this shortage is combined with the Air
Force request for an end strength increase of 1,800 for fiscal year
2002, the Air Force may have a significant recruiting challenge next
year.
What steps will you take, if confirmed, to assist the Air Force in
meeting its recruiting and retention goals?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to focusing attention on this
difficult challenge. Specifically, I believe that improving retention
goes a long way to resolving recruiting challenges. Since retention
decisions are generally family decisions in today's military, I'd like
to address issues that impact both the member and his or her family.
Question. What steps will you take, if confirmed, to assist the
Reserve components in achieving their recruiting and retention goals?
Answer. If confirmed, I will support the Reserve components
recruiting and retention initiatives, including seeking sufficient
funding for various quality of life and advertising programs and
working to ensure a reasonable parity of benefits.
homosexual conduct policy
Question. Do you support the current Department of Defense
Homosexual Conduct Policy?
Answer. Yes.
Question. If confirmed, do you plan to make any changes to the
basic policy or its implementation? If so, what changes will you
propose?
Answer. I am unaware of any need for change, however, if confirmed,
I will work with DOD to ensure fair and equitable personnel policies
for all members.
anthrax vaccine immunization program
Question. DOD considers the biological agent anthrax to be the
greatest biological weapon threat to our military force because it is
highly lethal, easy to produce in large quantities, and remains viable
over long periods of time. The anthrax vaccination program has been
curtailed because of limited quantities of FDA-approved vaccine.
If confirmed, will you support and enforce the Anthrax Vaccine
Immunization Program if DOD reinstates it?
Answer. Biological warfare is a very real threat and I believe we
need to provide the best protection available to the men and women
serving our Nation. If confirmed, I will pursue all avenues of medical
readiness for our troops.
Question. How do you believe the Air Force should respond to
service members who refuse to take the vaccine when ordered to do so?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the Secretary of the Air
Force to ensure our policies are consistent and that each case is
handled fairly and on its merits.
montgomery gi bill
Question. Almost all new service members enroll in and contribute
to the Montgomery GI Bill. Only about half use their benefits, and many
do not use all of their entitlement. Many sailors and marines say they
would like to stay in the Service, but feel they have to leave so that
they can provide for the education of their spouses and children. Some
of these service members might stay in the service if they could
transfer all or a part of their unused entitlement to GI Bill benefits
to family members in return for a service commitment. Service
Secretaries could use this retention tool selectively, just as they use
reenlistment bonuses.
If confirmed, will you give serious consideration to how the Air
Force could use the transfer of unused GI Bill benefits to family
members as a retention tool and provide your thoughts on how we best do
this?
Answer. From my viewpoint, the significant contribution of the
Montgomery GI Bill to the military, and to the Nation as a whole,
cannot be overstated. I would be glad to consider the use of
transferability and provide thoughts on the proposal to the committee,
if confirmed.
Question. If confirmed, will you give serious consideration to how
the Air Force could use the award of U.S. Savings Bonds as a flexible
means to enable sailors and marines to save money for the education of
themselves and their dependents?
Answer. If confirmed, I will be happy to consider how U.S. Savings
Bonds may be used as a reenlistment incentive.
gender integrated training
Question. Basic training, which may be the single most important
phase of an individual's life in the military, is structured and
defined differently by each Service.
Do you believe the current DOD policy of allowing each of the
Services to establish its own policy for gender integration in Basic
Training is effective?
Answer. From my understanding, gender integrated training has
worked well for the Air Force and has been in effect for the last 20
years. I believe that Service Secretaries must have the flexibility to
determine the most effective training methods for their individual
environment as they are held accountable for training, organizing and
equipping their forces.
Question. If confirmed, will you propose changes to Air Force
policies? If so, what changes will you propose?
Answer. I am unaware of the need for any changes.
concurrent receipt
Question. Military retirees with disabilities incurred during their
military service are eligible to receive military retired pay from the
Department of Defense and veterans' disability compensation from the
Department of Veterans' Affairs. However, current law requires that
military retired pay be reduced by the amount of the veterans'
benefits.
If confirmed, would you support a change in the law to permit
disabled military retirees to receive their full retired pay as well as
their disability compensation?
Answer. Any such change in the law would obviously carry a
significant monetary impact and I have not had the opportunity to
examine this in detail. I appreciate the importance of this issue to
our disabled military retirees, and, if confirmed, will look into the
merits of this proposed change.
management of the congressional fellowship program
Question. For the past several years, the committee has expressed
concern about the management of legislative fellows by the military
departments and the Department of Defense.
If confirmed, will you review the Department's policies pertaining
to the management of legislative fellows and provide the committee your
assessment of which management reforms have been implemented and which
require additional action?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review the Department's policies and
provide the committee an assessment.
Question. What are your personal views on the value and current
management of the legislative fellowship program within the Air Force?
Answer. I have not had the opportunity to evaluate the management
of the program within the Air Force. However, I do believe that
legislative fellowship programs are valuable to the individual from a
career broadening perspective, and that they enhance the important
relationship between the military and Congress.
Question. After completing their fellowships, are legislative
fellows assigned to positions in which the experience and knowledge
they gained during their fellowship are used effectively?
Answer. I have no knowledge of individual assignment actions that
may have taken place in the past. However, I would expect the
experience gained by these individuals from a legislative fellowship
should enhance their professional development and pay dividends for
years to come, wherever they are assigned.
Question. In your opinion, is it appropriate to bring a Reserve
component member on Active Duty solely to participate in a legislative
fellowship program?
Answer. Yes. The Reserve components are a critical part of the
Total Force and they would benefit from the same exposure and
experience.
management of deployment of members
Question. Increasing operational demands on military personnel
resulted in enactment of Section 991 of Title 10, United States Code,
and Section 435 of Title 37, United States Code. Those provisions
require the Services to manage the deployments of members and, if
operational necessity so dictates, to pay per diem compensation to
members whose deployed periods exceed prescribed limits. Additionally,
each Service Secretary is required to establish a system for tracking
and recording the number of days that each member of the Armed Forces
under the jurisdiction of the Secretary is deployed.
Do you support the statutory framework set forth in the sections
cited above? If so, do you believe any modifications to the law are
necessary?
Answer. I am not sufficiently familiar with the law to determine if
modifications are necessary, but will look into the issue if confirmed.
Question. What is your understanding of the ability of the Air
Force to comply with these statutes and implement the prescribed
tracking and recording system?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Air Force is implementing a
tracking and recording system that will comply with the full intent of
the law.
armed forces retirement home
Question. The Soldiers' and Airmen's Home in Washington, DC, and
the Naval Home in Gulfport, Mississippi, provide unique services to
eligible military retirees but have experienced problems in funding and
management.
Do you support an increase in the amount of money automatically
deducted from the pay of Active Duty enlisted personnel as a means of
better funding the retirement homes?
Answer. I support the unique services provided by the Armed Forces
Retirement Homes to retired military personnel. However, I have no
current knowledge of the funding requirements and cannot advise on the
appropriateness of budget adjustments.
Question. If confirmed, what actions would you take to ensure the
successful operation of the retirement homes?
Answer. The retirement homes are an important commitment to our
retirees, and, if confirmed, I will actively work to ensure their
successful operation.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as Assistant Secretary of the Air
Force (Manpower and Reserve Affairs)?
Answer. Yes.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Question Submitted by Senator John Warner
1. Senator Warner. Mr. Dominguez, at a recent Personnel
Subcommittee hearing, the subcommittee received testimony from enlisted
recruiters. These recruiters indicated that gaining access to high
school directories and students on an equal basis with colleges and
certain vendors (e.g., class ring salesmen) was difficult. Legislation
was passed last year to respond to this problem. That legislation will
become effective in July of next year.
What will you do to ensure that high school and local school boards
are aware of the legal provisions aimed at ensuring equal access by
recruiters?
Mr. Dominguez. Squadron Flight Chiefs, Superintendents, or
Commanders of Air Force Recruiting Service will visit Air Force-
responsible high schools (those of which we have ASVAB responsibility)
that do not provide equal access to recruiters and inform them of the
provisions of law. The initial meeting will be with the high school
principal or vice principal. In fact, this is a common practice for the
Air Force Recruiting Service. For the Air Force, 92 percent of schools
already provide equal access.
In accordance with the provisions of the law, the Air Force
Recruiting Service will schedule one-on-site visits between principals
and Air Force colonels (O-6) beginning this summer for the remaining
Air Force-responsible high schools that have not provided access.
______
[The nomination reference of Michael L. Dominguez follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
July 12, 2001.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Michael L. Dominguez, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of
the Air Force, vice Ruby Butler DeMesme.
______
[The biographical sketch of Michael L. Dominguez, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Michael L. Dominguez
Mr. Dominguez was born in Austin, Texas and, as an Air Force
dependent, grew up at various U.S. Air Force bases around the world. He
attended the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York and
graduated in 1975 with a Bachelor of Science Degree. He was
commissioned a Second Lieutenant, U.S. Army, and reported to Vicenza,
Italy, where he served in a variety of assignments with the 1st
Battalion, 509th Infantry (Airborne) and the Southern European Task
Force.
After leaving the Army in 1980, Mr. Dominguez went into private
business and attended Stanford University's Graduate School of Business
where he earned a Masters Degree in Business Administration. In 1983 he
joined the Office of the Secretary of Defense's Program Analysis and
Evaluation (PA&E) organization as a program analyst in PA&E's Theater
Assessments Division. He prepared analyses of management systems and
processes which led the Deputy Secretary to adopt landmark changes in
the DOD's Planning, Programming, and Budgeting System that preceded by
2 years many of the concepts and ideas embodied in the Goldwater-
Nichols Defense Reorganization Act of 1986. He conducted cost-
effectiveness analyses of alternative defense programs supporting the
President's nation-building and counter-insurgency efforts in Central
and South America. He also conducted cost-effectiveness analyses of
DOD's force projection programs and programs designed to achieve DOD's
military objectives in the Middle East and Southwest Asia. From 1988 to
1991 Mr. Dominguez served as the Executive Assistant to the Assistant
Secretary for Program Analysis and Evaluation and was responsible for
the smooth and efficient operation of the Assistant Secretary's office.
He also attended Harvard University's resident program for Senior
Officials in National Security.
Mr. Dominguez entered the Senior Executive Service in 1991 as
PA&E's Director for Planning and Analytical Support. In this position,
Mr. Dominguez oversaw the production of the DOD's long range planning
forecast (the Defense Program Projection), exercised program oversight
of DOD's $12 billion in annual information technology investments, and
directed the modernization of PA&E's own computing, communications, and
modeling infrastructure. He joined the staff of the Chief of Naval
Operations in 1994 where he served as the Associate Director for
Programming, and assisted in development of the Navy's multi-year
program and annual budgets. He advised the Chief of Naval Operations on
the selection of programs and program funding levels for incorporation
into the Navy's funding plans.
In 1997, Mr. Dominguez left the Federal Government to join a small
technology services organization and in 1999 he become a Research
Project Director at the Center for Naval Analyses where he organized
and directed analyses of complex public policy and programs issues. In
January 2001 he rejoined the staff of the Chief of Naval Operations as
the Assistant Director, Space, Information Warfare, Command and Control
Directorate, OPNAV (N\6\B).
Personal awards include the Army Commendation Medal, the Defense
Meritorious Civilian Service Medal on two occasions and the Defense
Civilian Service Award. In 1998 Mr. Dominguez was designated a
Meritorious Executive, a Senior Executive Service Presidential Rank
Award.
______
[The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
form that details the biographical, financial and other
information of the nominee. The form executed by Michael L.
Dominguez in connection with his nomination follows:]
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Room SR-228
Washington, DC 20510-6050
(202) 224-3871
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation
of your answer applies.
Part A--Biographical Information
Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.
1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
Michael Luis Dominguez.
2. Position to which nominated:
Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Manpower and Reserve
Affairs).
3. Date of nomination:
July 12, 2001.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
5. Date and place of birth:
September 4, 1953; Austin, TX.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Sheila J. MacNamee.
7. Names and ages of children:
Michelle C. Dominguez, age 19; Michael C. Dominguez, age 17.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
U.S. Military Academy, West Point, NY; 7/71 to 6/75; BS; 6/75.
Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, CA; 8/81 to 6/83;
MBA; 6/83. J.F.K. School of Government, Harvard University, MA; 4/89 to
5/90; Certificate of Completion; 5/90.
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
01/01 to Present, Assistant Director, Space, Information Warfare,
Command and Control; Chief of Naval Operations, 2000 Navy Pentagon,
Washington, DC 20350;
9/99 to 01/01, Project Director; Center for Naval Analyses, 4825
Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22311;
4/97 to 9/99, General Manager, Tech 2000 Inc., 520 Herndon Parkway
#200, Herndon, VA 20170;
10/94 to 4/97, Associate Director, Chief of Naval Operations, 2000
Navy Pentagon, Washington, DC 20350;
10/91 to 10/94, Director, Planning and Analytical Support, Office
of the Director, PA&E, 2000 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20350;
11/88 to 10/91, Executive Assistant, Office of the Director, PA&E,
2000 Navy Pentagon, Washington, DC 20350.
10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative,
honorary or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State,
or local governments, other than those listed above.
None.
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
None.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
Assistant Scoutmaster, Boy Scouts of America;
West Point Alumni Association;
Stanford Business School Alumni Association.
13. Political affiliations and activities:
(a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or
any public office for which you have been a candidate.
None.
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5
years.
None.
(c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $100 or more for the past 5 years.
None.
14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals, and any other special
recognitions for outstanding service or achievements.
U.S. Army Commendation Medal, June 1980;
Defense Meritorious Civilian Service Award, August 1988;
Defense Civilian Service Award, January 1993;
Defense Meritorious Civilian Service Medal, September 1994;
Department of the Navy Superior Civilian Service Award, April 1997;
Senior Executive Service Presidential Rank Award (Meritorious
Executive), January 1998.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
None.
16. Speeches: Provide the committee with two copies of any formal
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have
copies of and are on topics relevant to the position for which you have
been nominated.
None.
17. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree,
if confirmed, to respond to requests to appear and testify before any
duly constituted committee of the Senate?
Yes.
______
[The nominee responded to the questions in Parts B-F of the
committee questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set
forth in the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to
Parts B-F are contained in the committee's executive files.]
------
Signature and Date
I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate,
and complete.
Michael L. Dominguez.
This 13th day of July, 2001.
[The nomination of Michael L. Dominguez was reported to the
Senate by Chairman Levin on August 2, 2001, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on August 3, 2001.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to Paul Michael Parker by
Chairman Levin prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
July 20, 2001.
Hon. Carl Levin,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Enclosed herewith are the answers to the advance
questions the Senate Armed Services Committee asked me to complete.
Sincerely,
Paul Michael Parker.
cc: Senator John Warner,
Ranking Member.
______
Questions and Responses
defense reforms
Question. More than a decade has passed since the enactment of the
Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and
the Special Operations reforms.
Do you support full implementation of these defense reforms?
Answer. Yes, I support full implementation of these reforms. I
believe that the objectives of the Goldwater-Nichols Act most directly
relevant to the mission of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil
Works) are as important today as when the act was passed. They provide
for more efficient and effective use of defense resources and they
improve the management and administration of the Department of Defense
(including the Department of the Army).
Question. What is your view of the extent to which these defense
reforms have been implemented?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Army has fully implemented
the Goldwater-Nichols reforms.
Question. What do you consider to be the most important aspects of
these defense reforms?
Answer. The important goals of Congress in enacting these defense
reforms, as reflected in Section 3 of the Goldwater-Nichols Department
of Defense Reorganization Act, can be summarized as strengthening
civilian control; improving military advice; placing clear
responsibility on the combatant commanders for the accomplishment of
their missions; ensuring the authority of the combatant commanders is
commensurate with their responsibility; increasing attention to the
formulation of strategy and to contingency planning; providing for more
efficient use of defense resources; and enhancing the effectiveness of
military operations and improving the management and administration of
the Department of Defense.
Question. Do you agree with these goals?
Answer. Yes, I agree with the goals of Goldwater-Nichols.
Question. Recently, there have been articles that indicate an
interest within the Department of Defense in modifying Goldwater-
Nichols in light of the changing environment and possible revisions to
the national strategy.
Do you anticipate that legislative proposals to amend Goldwater-
Nichols may be appropriate? If so, what areas do you believe it might
be appropriate to address in these proposals?
Answer. I have not yet had an opportunity to consider whether
changes to Goldwater-Nichols may be warranted.
duties
Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works?
Answer. The duties and functions of the Assistant Secretary of the
Army for Civil Works are specified in Section 3016 of Title 10 of the
United States Code and Department of the Army General Orders No. 1,
dated January 12, 2001. Section 3016 of Title 10 states that the
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) ``shall have as his
principal duty the overall supervision of the functions of the
Department of the Army relating to programs for conservation and
development of the national water resources, including flood control,
navigation, shore protection, and related purposes.'' General Order No.
1 further specifies that this includes:
developing, defending, and directing the execution of
the Army Civil Works policy, legislative, and financial
programs and budget;
developing policy and guidance for and administering
the Department of the Army regulatory program to protect,
restore, and maintain the waters of the United States in the
interest of the environment, navigation, and national defense;
developing policy guidance and conducting oversight
for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers activities in support of
other Federal and non-Federal entities, except those activities
that are exclusively in support of the United States military
forces;
in coordination with the Deputy Under Secretary of the
Army (International Affairs), developing policy for and
directing the foreign activities of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, except those foreign activities that are exclusively
in support of United States military forces overseas; and
overseeing the program and budget of Arlington
National Cemetery and Soldiers' and Airmen's Home National
Cemetery.
Question. What background and experience do you possess that you
believe qualifies you to perform these duties?
Answer. I have always believed that progress is achieved and
problems are solved by collaborative efforts of many talented and
dedicated people. In bringing this fundamental philosophy to the
position of Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), I would
establish a professional environment in which communication and
cooperation are the watchwords.
In the 10 years during which I had the honor of representing the
Fourth District of Mississippi in the United States House of
Representatives, I applied my commitment to finding practical,
realistic solutions to problems and issues of importance to my
constituents. This common-sense approach to issues also stood me in
good stead in my role as a member of several House Committees dealing
with very difficult issues of national significance. I have served on
five different House Committees whose responsibilities span the range
of issues I can be expected to face as Assistant Secretary: Budget
Committee, Appropriations Committee, Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee; Education and Workforce Committee; and Veterans' Affairs
Committee. I served on both Energy and Water Development and Military
Construction Appropriations Subcommittees, so I know both the Civil
Works and military programs aspects of the Corps of Engineers role in
the Army.
One of the principal skills I have developed over my career in the
public sector is the ability to work effectively with government and
industry leaders, non-governmental organizations, Members of both
parties in Congress, and with officials in the Executive Branch.
Question. Do you believe that there are actions you need to take to
enhance your ability to perform the duties of the Assistant Secretary
of the Army for Civil Works?
Answer. Yes, I intend to take several actions to enhance my
expertise as Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works). If
confirmed, I will travel to each Corps of Engineers division to see
first-hand many of the infrastructure development and environmental
restoration projects. My goal is to gain a fuller understanding of the
issues that surround the planning, design, construction, operation and
maintenance of these projects. I also intend to reach out to Members of
Congress, the other Federal agencies, state and local interests, study
and project sponsors, and other stakeholders to gain a deeper
appreciation of their perspectives in areas of mutual concern. If
confirmed, I also will develop a closer working relationship with other
offices within the Department of the Army and the Department of Defense
in order to make better use of resources and advance the interests of
the Civil Works program.
I also will work closely with the Chief of Engineers and the
Director of Civil Works to ensure that I am fully informed and prepared
to address the important issues I would oversee as Assistant Secretary
of the Army (Civil Works). I look forward to the challenge and
experience this position affords if confirmed.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what duties and functions do
you expect that the Secretary of the Army would prescribe for you?
Answer. If confirmed, I expect to be asked to carry out the duties
and functions of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) as
articulated in General Orders Number 1, dated January 12, 2001.
relationships
Question. In carrying out your duties, how will you work with the
Secretary of the Army?
Answer. If confirmed, I expect to work closely with the Secretary
of the Army in furthering the goals and priorities of the President.
However, consistent with the General Orders, I expect the Secretary to
rely on me to oversee the Civil Works program of the Army Corps of
Engineers and the programs of Arlington National Cemetery and Soldiers'
and Airmen's Home National Cemetery.
Question. How will you work with the Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense (Installations and Environment)?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work to form a close and constructive
relationship with the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations
and Environment) in areas of shared responsibility.
Question. How will you work with the Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense (Logistics, Materiel Readiness)?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work to form a close and constructive
relationship with the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Logistics,
Materiel Readiness) in areas of shared responsibility.
major challenges and problems
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will
confront the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works?
Answer. Communities across the country rely on Army Corps of
Engineers water resources projects to reduce flood damages, to enable
efficient competition in world trade, to provide needed water and
power, and to protect and restore our rich environmental resources. The
Civil Works program provides a sound investment in the Nation's
security, economic future, and environmental stability. I believe the
greatest continuing water resources challenge is to find sustainable
ways to strengthen the Nation's economy, while protecting and restoring
unique water and related land resources for the benefit of future
generations.
I feel that two other challenges the Corps faces are the need to
maintain its existing infrastructure and to repair damages to the
natural environment. I believe that an efficient water transportation
system is critical if we are to remain competitive in international
trade. Our system of ports and inland waterways must enable us to
efficiently transport goods in an environmentally acceptable manner.
Flooding also continues to threaten communities. We must use the Corps
limited resources not only to respond to natural disasters when floods
and hurricanes occur, but also to work more creatively with nature to
prevent or reduce flood damages. Flood damages are a growing drain on
the Nation's economy, and we must find ways to reduce them.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. I believe that we must all work together to define the
appropriate role for the Corps of Engineers in addressing these
problems. The challenges the Corps faces are complex, and there are
many difficult decisions to make. It is of paramount importance that we
bring all interests to the table and that all have a voice in the
development of solutions to our Nation's problems. The Corps must
engage in an open and cooperative dialogue with Congress, other Federal
agencies, States, Tribes and local governments on the many important
challenges that the Army Corps of Engineers faces.
Question. What do you consider to be the most serious problems in
the performance of the functions of the Assistant Secretary of the Army
for Civil Works?
Answer. The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works has
wide-ranging responsibilities arising from the varied purposes of the
Civil Works Program. I believe that the Assistant Secretary must set
clear policy and direction so the Corps can effectively execute its
important Civil Works mission.
Question. If confirmed, what management actions and time lines
would you establish to address these problems?
Answer. I have not yet developed a specific plan. If confirmed, one
of my first priorities will be to meet with the Chief of Engineers and
others in the administration and Congress to seek their input and to
develop a plan for how the Corps can best meet the Nation's water
resources needs.
priorities
Question. If confirmed, what broad priorities will you establish in
terms of issues that must be addressed by the Assistant Secretary of
the Army for Civil Works?
Answer. If confirmed as Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil
Works I would work to improve the management and administration of the
Army Civil Works Program and the Army's national cemetery program and
would seek ways to more efficiently use Army's resources in the
development and execution of these programs.
army corps of engineers
Question. The Army Corps of Engineers does not currently have a
system in place to ensure the independent peer review--by experts from
outside the agency--of studies supporting major projects before such
projects are approved.
Do you believe that it would be appropriate to institute such an
independent peer review program? Why or why not?
Answer. I believe that an independent peer review would have value.
However, we must find a way to do this so it does not needlessly
increase the cost of projects or delay decisions. Any independent peer
review program should complement both the existing technical and policy
reviews conducted by the Corps and the reviews conducted by the
stakeholders, the public and other agencies. Moreover, we must find a
way to accomplish the review when it is most effective, that is, as an
integral part of the Corps planning process.
Question. In recent years, the senior military leadership of the
Army Corps of Engineers is alleged to have placed pressure on Corps
economists to change economic assumptions during a study of navigation
projects on the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers. The Office of Special
Counsel found ``substantial likelihood'' that senior Corps officials
violated regulations and engaged in a ``gross waste of funds'' in
connection with these projects.
What is your view of these allegations?
Answer. I have no personal knowledge of the facts surrounding these
allegations; however, it is my understanding that all matters relating
to these allegations have been resolved. The Chief of Engineers is
considering changes in the management and scope of the navigation study
in response to the Army Inspector General report and the study
conducted by the National Research Council.
Question. What is your view of the degree of independence that
should be provided to the economists charged with assessing the
economic viability of Corps projects and the role of the senior
civilian and military leadership of the Corps in reviewing the work of
those economists?
Answer. I believe the technical and policy reviews conducted by the
Corps of Engineers are an effective way to manage feasibility studies.
The process ensures that the many engineers, economists, biologists and
other professionals who are involved in those studies are afforded an
appropriate level of independence.
Question. In testimony earlier this year by Lieutenant General
Flowers before congressional committees, he indicated that if the Army
Inspector General had had the benefit of the National Academy of
Sciences' review of the Corps' Upper Mississippi Navigation Study and
whistleblower allegations, the Inspector General would have taken an
entirely different view of the proceedings.
Do you agree with Lieutenant General Flowers' opinion? Please
explain your answer.
Answer. It is my understanding that the Army Inspector General and
the National Research Council were evaluating different aspects of the
conduct of the Upper Mississippi River Navigation Study. I am not in a
position to speculate on whether the Inspector General would have
reached different conclusions because of the National Academy of
Sciences' review.
Question. The National Academy of Sciences' report found that the
Army Corps of Engineers used faulty models to forecast future demand
for barge traffic and to estimate benefits. The Academy determined that
predictions of future grain exports were overestimated and did not
provide a way to account for key factors such as policy changes and
weather that affect global markets. The report urged consideration of
the less expensive option of improved scheduling of barges and
recommended that future studies by the Army Corps of Engineers be
subject to review by outside experts.
Do you believe that the criticism of the Army Corps of Engineers in
the National Academy of Sciences' report is valid?
Answer. The National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council
recognized the challenges the Corps faced in developing the projections
and models used in the study. They complimented the Corps for
attempting to advance forecast modeling. I believe that the Council
provided extremely valuable and constructive criticism of the Corps
efforts. I understand the Corps is responding by making changes to the
study.
Question. What is your view of the recommendations of the National
Academy of Sciences' report?
Answer. I support recommendations of the National Academy of
Sciences/National Research Council report.
Question. A February 24, 2000, article in the Washington Post
reported that the senior military leadership of the Corps developed a
``Program Growth Initiative'' providing financial targets for each of
the agency's activities and divisions, without consulting the civilian
leadership of the Department.
What is your view of this initiative?
Answer. In light of the current Civil Works construction backlog,
reported to be $40 billion to complete, it is my feeling that the Corps
has no need to grow its program. However, I do believe that there
should be honest debates about what activities the Corps should be
involved in and their priority.
Question. What is your view of the role of the civilian and
military leadership of the Army Corps of Engineers in developing goals
for Corps programs and presenting these goals to the legislative
branch?
Answer. If confirmed, it is my intent to provide the civilian
leadership needed to enable the Corps to be an even more valuable asset
to the Nation. Representing the administration, I will work with
Congress to set the proper direction for the Corps.
Question. On March 30, 2000, Secretary Caldera announced a series
of reforms to strengthen civilian oversight and control over the Army
Corps of Engineers civil works program. The Secretary's memorandum
stated: ``The [Assistant Secretary] shall have full authority to
establish the final position of the Department of the Army on any
policy, programmatic, legislative, budgetary, or other organizational
matter involving or affecting the civil works functions and their
implementation, unless directed otherwise by me.''
What is your view of this memorandum?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Assistant Secretary of the
Army for Civil Works is responsible for the overall supervision of the
Army's Civil Works program, including programs for conservation and
development of the national water resources, flood control, navigation,
and shore protection. The complex issues that arise in this area demand
a close, professional relationship between the Assistant Secretary and
the Chief of Engineers, based on mutual respect, trust, cooperation and
full communication. If confirmed, I am committed to establishing and
maintaining such a relationship with the Chief, in order to respond
effectively to the President's priorities and the policy directives of
Congress.
Question. In a press conference in April of this year, Deputy
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Management and Budget, Claudia L.
Tornblom, indicated that the Army is considering options for
strengthening the ability of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Civil Works to ensure policy oversight of project planning.
What are these options? Do you believe that they are necessary and
that they are sufficient to ensure policy oversight?
Answer. I believe Deputy Assistant Secretary Tornblom was referring
to improvements noted by President Bush in his Fiscal Year 2002 Budget
Blueprint. It is my understanding that no final decisions have been
made yet on how to proceed. If confirmed, I intend to work with the
Chief of Engineers to identify the correct amount of oversight and
project review appropriate to be conducted by the Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Civil Works and an efficient means of achieving
it. Given the issues that have arisen and the importance of restoring
the credibility of the Army Corps of Engineers, I do believe it is
necessary to strengthen policy oversight of Civil Works project
planning.
Question. What is your view of the relative authority of the Chief
of Engineers, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, the
Secretary of the Army, the Army Chief of Staff, and the Secretary of
Defense with regard to the civil works function of the Army Corps of
Engineers?
Answer. My view of the relative authority of the Chief of
Engineers, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, the
Secretary of the Army, the Army Chief of Staff, and the Secretary of
Defense with regard to the civil works function of the Army Corps of
Engineers follows:
Question. Secretary of Defense
Answer. As head of the Department of Defense, the Secretary of
Defense has full authority, direction and control over all its
elements. He exercises this power over the Corps of Engineers through
the Secretary of the Army, whose responsibility for, and authority to
conduct, all affairs of the Army is subject to the authority, direction
and control of the Secretary of Defense. If confirmed, I will cooperate
fully with the Secretary of Defense in fulfilling the administration's
national defense priorities and efficiently administering the Corps of
Engineers in accordance with the policies established by the Office of
the Secretary of Defense.
Question. The Secretary of the Army
Answer. As head of the Department of the Army, the Secretary of the
Army is responsible for, and has the authority necessary to conduct,
all affairs of the Department of the Army. He may assign such of his
functions, powers and duties as he considers appropriate to the Under
Secretary of the Army, as well as the Assistant Secretaries of the
Army, and require officers of the Army to report to these officials on
any matter.
Question. The Chief of Staff of the Army
Answer. The Chief of Staff of the Army performs his duties under
the authority, direction and control of the Secretary of the Army and
is directly responsible to the Secretary. The Chief of Staff also
performs the duties prescribed for him by law as a member of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff. If confirmed, I will establish and maintain a close,
professional relationship with the Chief of Staff. I will communicate
with him directly and openly as he performs his prescribed duties.
Question. The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works
Answer. The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works is
principally responsible for the overall supervision of the Army's civil
works program, including programs for conservation and development of
the national water resources, flood control, navigation, and shore
protection. The complex issues that arise in this area demand a close,
professional relationship between the Assistant Secretary and the Chief
of Engineers, based on mutual respect, trust, cooperation and full and
open communication. If confirmed, I am committed to establishing and
maintaining such a relationship with the Chief, in order to respond
effectively to the President's priorities and the policy directives of
Congress.
Question. The Chief of Engineers
Answer. As a member of the Army Staff, the Chief of Engineers
reports to the Chief of Staff, through the Vice Chief of Staff, with
respect to military matters. The Chief of Engineers reports to the
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) on civil works functions
of the Army, including those relating to the conservation and
development of water resources and the support for others program. The
Chief of Engineers also reports to the Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Civil Works) with respect to most other matters for which the Chief
may be responsible. In the area of installation activities, the Chief
reports to the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Installations &
Environment), who has principal responsibility for all Department of
the Army matters related to installations and the environment.
Question. Do you believe that environmental restoration projects
are part of the central mission of the Army Corps of Engineers?
Answer. Yes. I believe that projects and programs that protect and
restore the natural environment are a priority to the American people
and a central mission for the Corps of Engineers. Ecosystem protection
and restoration projects, projects that reverse the effects of prior
human activities, have become a priority purpose of the Corps' Civil
Works Program. Importantly, this current status has been achieved
because of changing national priorities, rightfully setting the
direction of the Civil Works Program.
Question. In your view, how can the Corps be more responsive to
environmental concerns?
Answer. I believe the Corps can and must carry out its missions in
an environmentally responsible manner. The Corps has a long record of
accomplishing its mission in accordance with environmental laws and
using the National Environmental Policy Act process to obtain input
from interested parties and agencies. This approach will continue to
lead to more environmentally sensitive projects and projects
specifically for environmental restoration and protection. Under the
Regulatory Program processes are in place to ensure that permit
applicants avoid or minimize environmental impacts and compensate for
unavoidable impacts. In those instances where impacts to significant
resources cannot be avoided, a mitigation plan for the impacts will be
developed.
Question. In your view, does the Corps need to make fundamental
changes in the way it operates?
Answer. No. I believe the Corps is a fundamentally sound
organization. It has strong technical abilities and has proven time and
time again that it can solve difficult problems. It has served this
Nation for many years and can be counted on to continue to do so in the
future. However, based on recent findings, the Corps does need to re-
examine the way it manages policy and technical reviews in order to
ensure projects will receive broad support. Also, I feel that the Corps
must find better, more effective ways of communicating with the broad
range of interests that have a stake in its projects.
wetlands permits
Question. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act requires landowners or
developers to obtain U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permits to carry out
activities involving disposal of dredged or fill material into
navigable waters of the United States, including wetlands. Controversy
has grown over the extent of Federal jurisdiction and the impact on
private property, the burdens and delay of permit procedures, and roles
of Federal agencies and states in issuing permits. Some landowners
maintain that changes are needed to lessen the burdens of the
regulatory program. Other landowners believe they should be compensated
if adversely affected by regulatory ``takings'' due to Section 404
requirements, particularly since an estimated 74 percent of all
remaining wetlands are on private lands.
If confirmed, how would you propose to address such issues in your
role as assistant secretary?
Answer. It is my understanding that the objective of the Army's
Regulatory Program is to provide fair, flexible and efficient
evaluations for activities involving waters of the United States. The
Corps balances development objectives with the Clean Water Act's
requirements to protect the Nation's aquatic ecosystems. The Corps
works with permit applicants to allow proposed activities to be
authorized, but in ways that are not contrary to the public interest
and that protect important aquatic resources. I believe that we can
continue to achieve our environmental protection goals while addressing
public concerns about regulatory burdens and delays. For example, if
confirmed, I will work with the Corps over the coming months to see
that the Nationwide permits are reissued. Nationwide permits are
designed to provide project authorizations with little or no paperwork.
If confirmed, I will work to ensure that we continue to carefully
consider all comments we receive from other Federal agencies, but make
sure that the public understands that the Corps of Engineers runs the
program and makes the permit decisions, as provided for by law.
Question. The General Accounting Office has found significant
problems with the Army Corps of Engineers program for mitigation of
wetlands losses. Last month, the National Academy of Sciences released
a report in which it concluded that this program has fallen short of
the stated goal of no net wetlands loss.
What is your view of the findings of the General Accounting Office?
Answer. I have not yet had the opportunity to review the findings
of this report. If confirmed, one of my first priorities will be to
discuss this matter with the Chief of Engineers and others in the
administration and Congress to seek their input and to develop a plan
for addressing the recommendations of the report.
Question. What is your view of the findings of the National Academy
of Sciences report?
Answer. I have not yet had the opportunity to examine the report.
If confirmed, I plan to meet with the Corps to seek their input and to
develop a plan for addressing the report recommendations.
Question. Do you support the goal of no net wetlands loss?
Answer. Yes. The goal of ``no overall net loss of wetlands'' was
established by President George Bush in the early 1990s. It is a
programmatic goal for the Regulatory Program, and Corps data clearly
indicates that the Regulatory Program has exceeded this goal by working
with permit applicants to avoid and minimize impacts and by requiring
compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts. I understand the Corps
has required more than one-for-one mitigation for permitted wetland
loss (during the period 1993 to 2000 the annual average permitted loss
nationwide was 24,000 acres and the annual average mitigation required
was 42,000 acres).
Question. Do you believe that the Army Corps of Engineers has given
wetlands mitigation efforts the priority and attention that it
deserves?
Answer. I believe that the Corps has worked hard over the years to
develop mitigation approaches that offset the losses of wetland
functions, such as mitigation banks and in lieu fee operations, while
being fair and reasonable to the regulated public. However, I
understand the Corps intends to focus more attention on ensuring
compliance with the mitigation conditions for permitted activities.
Question. The Army Corps of Engineers issues general permits to
developers for draining and filling wetlands. Last year, the rules for
this program were tightened to limit the types of activities that may
be conducted pursuant to a general permit. The Corps is currently
reevaluating the new rules.
What is your view of recently adopted changes to the rules
governing the issuance of general permits by the Army Corps of
Engineers?
Answer. I have not yet had the opportunity to review the changes
that were made to the Nationwide permit program last year. If
confirmed, I will discuss this matter with the Chief of Engineers in
order to understand the impacts of these changes on the regulated
public and on the Army's charge to protect the Nation's aquatic
resources
Question. What is your view of proposed revisions to those rules?
Answer. I understand that most of the Nationwide permits will
expire in February in 2002 unless they are reissued. If confirmed, I
will work with the Corps as they publish draft and final permit
packages for public review and comment. I have not yet been briefed on
proposed changes, but will make this a priority should I become the
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works.
use of military personnel
Question. Like many Federal agencies, the Corps of Engineers
workload is declining in all areas other than operations and
maintenance of facilities. Most of this work is done by civilian
contractors or civilian employees.
What role do you see for the hundreds of military Corps of
Engineers personnel currently working in the districts and divisions?
Answer. It is my understanding that there are approximately 275
Active Duty military personnel serving in Districts, Divisions and
Headquarters of the Army Corps of Engineers. Although they represent
less than 1 percent of the 35,000 personnel within the Corps, they
serve a variety of important roles. First, they provide experienced
organizational leadership at the District level and higher. Second,
they represent the organization's fundamental linkage to the Army.
Third, the Army, in conducting operations that range from stability and
support to actual war, has successfully leveraged the experience
obtained in managing the large construction projects and response to
natural disasters characteristic of the Civil Works programs.
state water quality standards
Question. In the past, the United States Army Corps of Engineers
has not been required to meet state water quality standards in
constructing and operating its water resources projects.
Do you believe that the Army Corps of Engineers should be required
to meet state water quality standards in constructing and operating
Corps projects in order to protect fishery resources?
Answer. Yes, I do.
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that the Army Corps of
Engineers obtain certification from states, or interstate water control
agencies, that a proposed water resources project is in compliance with
established effluent limitations and water quality standards. If a
state in question has assumed responsibilities for the Section 404
regulatory program, a state 404 permit would be obtained which would
serve as the certification of compliance.
Section 404r of the Clean Water Act waives the requirement to
obtain the state water quality certification if the information on the
effects of the discharge are included in an Environmental Impact
Statement on the proposed project submitted to Congress before the
discharge takes place and prior to either authorization of the project
or appropriation of construction funds. Nevertheless, it is the policy
of the Corps to seek state water quality certification rather than
utilizing the Section 404r exemption provision.
relationships
Question. If confirmed, how do you propose to ensure a reasonable
balance between your oversight authority and the program execution
responsibilities of the Chief of Engineers?
Answer. If confirmed, I propose to ensure a reasonable balance
between my oversight authority and program execution responsibilities
of the Chief of Engineers through development of a close professional
relationship with the Chief based on mutual respect, trust, cooperation
and communication. If confirmed, I am committed to establishing and
maintaining such a relationship in order to respond effectively to the
President's priorities and the policy directives of Congress.
consultation with congress
Question. In performing the duties of Assistant Secretary of the
Army for Civil Works, you will be confronted with difficult,
politically charged issues.
How would you view your role in addressing such matters with
Congress?
Answer. I would view my role in addressing difficult, politically
charged issues as one of facilitating full and open communication among
all interested parties, be they others within the Executive Branch,
Members of Congress, or the public. In performing my statutory duties,
if confirmed, I intend to appropriately involve all interested parties
and make decisions that take into account all relevant information.
Question. Specifically, would you plan to consult with Congress
prior to issuing any secretarial decisions or announcements regarding
reforms that may affect the execution of the civil works functions of
the Army Corps of Engineers?
Answer. Yes.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as the Assistant Secretary of the
Army for Civil Works?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings and
other communications of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Carl Levin on behalf of Senator Richard
J. Durbin
mccook and thorton reservoirs, il
1. Senator Levin. As you begin to address the wide array of water
resources needs of this country, I would like to direct your attention
to a very significant regional project in the Chicagoland area which is
critical in addressing the very real flood protection and water quality
issues facing Chicago and its suburban surroundings.
The McCook and Thornton Reservoirs are part of the Corps of
Engineers' Chicago Underflow Plan (CUP) and were fully authorized in
the Water Resources Development Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-676). The CUP is
a comprehensive flood protection and water quality protection plan for
the Chicago metropolitan area. The State of Illinois, Cook County, the
City of Chicago are all supporters of the project and the Metropolitan
Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago is the local sponsor for
the CUP. The CUP, which includes a series of underground tunnels and
storage reservoirs, was established in order to address the diminished
capacity of the area's waterways to handle sewer overflow discharges.
This system has been enormously effective in achieving its goals as
evidenced by the elimination of 86 percent of combined sewage pollution
in a 325 square mile area. The result of this progress is the dramatic
increase in water quality of the Chicagoland waterways and the
protection of Lake Michigan, our drinking water source. However, the
job is far from complete.
The overall project, which is the Tunnel and Reservoir Plan (TARP),
consists of 110 miles of tunnels, which have been under construction
since the 1970s and now almost complete, by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. The project's other significant component, the
McCook and Thornton Reservoirs are under construction by the Corps and
will provide the comprehensive solution to the flood control and water
quality needs by providing significant stormwater storage capacity.
Once completed, these reservoirs will provide a storage capacity of
15.3 billion gallons and will produce annual benefits of $104 million.
This translates into protection of over 500,000 homeowners from
flooding. Delaying this project results in lost benefits and additional
inflation costs of $120 million per year. This is unacceptable.
Mr. Parker, is this the type of project you will be supporting and
will you commit to providing full funding under the Corps' program to
keep the project on schedule?
Mr. Parker. I do support this type of project and, if confirmed, I
assure you that I will give McCook and Thornton Reservoirs full
consideration during the annual budget process.
2. Senator Levin. Mr. Parker, in order for you to better understand
the complexity and uniqueness of the McCook and Thornton Reservoir
Project and the significant positive impact it is having not only on
the health and safety of Chicago land, but on the local and regional
economy, as well, will you agree to come to Chicago in the near future
to see this important project?
Mr. Parker. If confirmed, I would welcome an opportunity to visit
Chicago to see this project so that I can gain a better appreciation of
its complexity and its importance to the Chicago area.
chicago shoreline, il
3. Senator Levin. Mr. Parker, the Chicago Shoreline project is
addressed in a 1999 Project Cooperation Agreement (PCA) signed by the
City of Chicago, the Chicago Park District, and the Corps. The PCA
provides a roadmap for a shared work and funding approach for the
project. In short, it sets a 2005 completion date. Will you agree to
personally review the Chicago Shoreline PCA and to work with OMB to
ensure full funding and continued federal cooperation for this
important project?
Mr. Parker. If confirmed, I will review the PCA, as you request,
and will work to ensure continued funding and federal cooperation to
the extent possible within overall budget priorities and funding
constraints.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mark Dayton
project backlog and funding priorities (addressing the backlog)
4. Senator Dayton. Mr. Parker, the Corps of Engineers has an
enormous backlog (over $50 billion) of already authorized projects that
have received some construction funding.
How would you address this backlog?
Mr. Parker. If confirmed, I would work closely with OMB and
Congress to seek increased funding to reduce the backlog. I would also
work with Congress and within the administration to consider other
options to reduce the backlog. This could include a review of the
current deauthorization process to deauthorize projects that do not
satisfy today's needs or do not have adequate local support. Limiting
the number of new authorizations could also be considered. All of these
considerations would necessitate full consultation with the appropriate
committees of the House and Senate.
project backlog and funding priorities (budget recommendations)
5. Senator Dayton. Mr. Parker, how would you develop your
recommendations for which projects should receive study and
construction funding in the Corps' proposed budget?
Mr. Parker. If confirmed, I would give priority to the efficient
continuation and completion of efforts that had been initiated in prior
years and to properly operating and maintaining the existing water
resources infrastructure. I also would propose funding for new studies
and projects that provide the highest return or meet the most urgent
water resources needs.
project backlog and funding priorities (project deauthorization)
6. Senator Dayton. Mr. Parker, should any projects be deauthorized?
Mr. Parker. Yes. As I understand it, hundreds of projects already
have been deauthorized under a process established by Congress in 1986
and modified in 1996. This process, or something like it, should
continue so that projects that do not meet today's water resources
needs are deauthorized. However, any deauthorization should occur only
after consultation with Congress.
project backlog and funding priorities (deauthorization criteria)
7. Senator Dayton. Mr. Parker, what would you recommend for
criteria for determining which projects should be deauthorized to
reduce this huge backlog?
Mr. Parker. If confirmed, I would need to give this matter careful
study. That said, if there are authorized projects that would not
survive scrutiny using today's standards and do not provide
satisfactory solutions to today's water resources problems, such
projects would be prime candidates for deauthorization.
environmental restoration (part of corps central mission)
8. Senator Dayton. Mr. Parker, do you believe that environmental
restoration projects are part of the Corps' central mission?
Mr. Parker. Yes, I believe that projects and programs that protect
and restore the natural environment are a priority for the American
people and a central mission for the Corps of Engineers. Ecosystem
restoration and protection projects, projects that reverse the effects
of prior human activities, have become a priority purpose of the Corps'
Civil Works Program because of changing national priorities.
environmental restoration (florida everglades)
9. Senator Dayton. Mr. Parker, do you support funding for the Corps
work on the Everglades?
Mr. Parker. Yes. The Everglades is truly a national treasure and I
believe the Army Corps of Engineers, in partnership with the State of
Florida, and working with the Department of the Interior and others,
have worked hard in developing a long-term ecosystem restoration plan
that will provide for both ecological and economic demands for water in
South Florida for the next 50 years. The entire region has experienced
growth, and this growth has exerted tremendous pressure on the natural
resources of the region, especially the Everglades. It is my
understanding that the plan to be implemented over the next 25 years
will improve the health of over 2.4 million acres of South Florida
ecosystem, including Everglades National Park, Lake Okeechobee, and
Florida and Biscayne Bays.
Timely implementation and funding of the Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan will ensure the protection of the Everglades and
future water supply for the people of South Florida. One of my first
priorities, if I am confirmed, will be to discuss this plan's
implementation with the Chief of Engineers and others in the
administration and Congress, state and local agencies, project
sponsors, and other stakeholders, to gain a deeper understanding of the
issues and funding needs involving implementation of this important
initiative.
environmental restoration (salmon restoration in the pacific northwest)
10. Senator Dayton. Mr. Parker, do you support salmon restoration
in the Pacific Northwest?
Mr. Parker. Yes, I fully support rebuilding populations of salmon
in the Pacific Northwest that are listed under the Endangered Species
Act (ESA). I recognize that this requires a concerted effort by many
government agencies and other interests to improve and better manage
habitat, harvest, hatcheries and hydropower. If confirmed, I will use
the available authorities and funding to advance this effort.
wetlands mitigation backlog (mitigation commitments)
11. Senator Dayton. Mr. Parker, the law requires the Corps to do
wetlands mitigations either prior to or concurrently with construction
of its civil works projects. Based on reports, the Corps has failed to
complete about two-thirds of the mitigation it has committed to
complete.
Mr. Parker. It is my understanding also that the Corps is required
to accomplish fish and wildlife mitigation either prior to or
concurrently with construction of its water resources projects. I am
not familiar with the reports you refer to that indicate that the Corps
has failed to complete about two-thirds of the mitigation it has
committed to complete. The Corps has informed me that, while there is a
backlog of uncompleted mitigation, something over two-thirds of
required mitigation has been accomplished. If I am confirmed, I will
make it a priority to work with the Corps and Congress to more
precisely identify the fish and wildlife mitigation backlog, and
develop a strategy for addressing this important issue.
wetlands mitigation backlog (addressing the backlog)
12. Senator Dayton. Mr. Parker, are you committed to addressing
this mitigation backlog? How would you proceed to do so?
Mr. Parker. The Corps has a very large construction backlog,
estimated at $40 billion. Included in this backlog is uncompleted fish
and wildlife mitigation. This entire backlog must be addressed to
satisfy the water resources needs of the Nation. If confirmed, I will
work within the administration and with Congress to develop a plan for
addressing the backlog of fish and wildlife mitigation, and seek the
necessary funds to implement that plan.
wetlands mitigation backlog (corps vs. private sector requirements)
13. Senator Dayton. Mr. Parker, do you believe that the Corps
should be required to meet the same mitigation requirements as the
private sector (at least 1:1 mitigation and more for certain types of
water resources damages)?
Mr. Parker. It is my understanding that the Corps approach to
mitigation (i.e., assessing impacts through functional analyses) is
generally similar to mitigation approaches used by the private sector.
Evaluation of impacts and mitigation using only acreage dimensions can
be misleading. Under an acre-for-acre requirement, distinctions may not
be made among varying qualities of habitat. The Corps' Civil Works
Program approach of looking at habitat value is consistent with the
policies of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife.
wetlands mitigation backlog (meeting future mitigation requirements)
14. Senator Dayton. Mr. Parker, how will you ensure that in the
future that all mitigation is completed prior to or concurrently with
project construction, as the law requires?
Mr. Parker. If confirmed, I will work within the administration and
with Congress to see that project construction scheduled provide for
the completion of mitigation at least concurrently with construction of
other project features.
corps reform--business processes
15. Senator Dayton. Mr. Parker, many Members of Congress have
called for significant reforms in the way the Corps conducts its
business.
Do you think the Corps needs to make fundamental changes in the way
it does business?
Mr. Parker. The Corps has open and inclusive business processes and
a tradition of working with private citizens, stakeholders, State and
local governments, and other Federal agencies. However, improvement is
possible and, if confirmed, I will work with the Chief of Engineers to
identify further improvements in the Corps business practices so as to
improve the service of the Corps to the Nation.
corps reform--independent review
16. Senator Dayton. Mr. Parker, would you support an independent
review--outside of the Corps--of costly or controversial projects?
Mr. Parker. The Water Resources Development Act of 2000 authorized
a National Academy of Sciences study of independent peer review of
Corps projects. I understand that the Academy report on independent
review is scheduled for completion in the summer of 2002. In addition,
the Chief of Engineers has been examining the question of independent
review of large, complex, or controversial studies and has developed
some preliminary recommendations. If confirmed, I plan to actively
examine the question of independent review, in consultation with the
Chief of Engineers and considering the views of the National Academy of
Sciences, and to develop a recommendation on this matter.
wetlands (relaxing wetlands protection)
17. Senator Dayton. Mr. Parker, do you think protections for
wetlands under the Clean Water Act should be relaxed?
Mr. Parker. No. I believe that we can maintain, and even enhance in
some ways, protection of the aquatic environment, while improving our
responsiveness to the regulated public. Wetlands are one of many
critical elements of the Nation's aquatic resources, which also include
open water streams, lakes, coastal bays, estuaries, and near shore open
waters. I am committed to continued strong protection of wetlands under
the Corps Clean Water Act regulatory program, and for other Corps
activities. The Corps must conduct its review and evaluation of permit
applications in a manner that reflects the functions and values of the
entire aquatic environment and balances that with the need for proposed
development. If confirmed, I will work with the Corps to ensure that
they improve permitted compliance with permit conditions, which require
wetland mitigation so that the impacts to wetlands will be successfully
offset.
wetlands (epa's oversight role)
18. Senator Dayton. Mr. Parker, do you believe EPA's oversight role
on wetlands protections under the Act should be weakened or eliminated?
Mr. Parker. No. I believe that EPA and its various programs under
the Clean Water Act provide important protections for wetlands, and
work to integrate Federal wetlands protection with efforts by the
states and local communities. EPA is clearly the lead on working with
states regarding assumption of the Section 404 program and works
effectively at improving state and local programs that protect
wetlands. They also play an important role in Federal wetlands
protection, including the Section 404 program. As we move to ensure
that the taxpayer receives maximum benefit from resources expended in
all programs, including wetlands protection, we must ensure that there
is not an unnecessary level of duplication among any Federal agencies,
including the Corps and EPA. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that
the administration makes the best use of both agencies' capability
while not doing things twice.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator John Warner
wetlands (recent supreme court ruling)
19. Senator Warner. Mr. Parker, if confirmed, what experience will
you bring to bear in developing a definition that follows the recent
Supreme Court ruling and does not exceed the authority of the Clean
Water Act?
Mr. Parker. If confirmed, I will bring my experiences as a Member
of Congress on the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee of the
Appropriations Committee, as a landowner, as a businessman and as a
private citizen to help develop an appropriate implementation of the
important Supreme Court decision in the Solid Waste Agency of Northern
Cook County (SWANCC) case. In arriving at the appropriate
implementation, I will work closely with Department of Defense and Army
leaders, legal experts, and other policy officials within the
administration. I will also consult with Congress prior to adopting
significant guidelines. While completing this process, it will be
important to clearly identify what the Corps will continue to regulate
under the Supreme Court's decision. By doing so states can determine
the appropriate level of regulation they may want to do in areas where
the Corps does not have authority to regulate under the Court's
decision.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Strom Thurmond
national cemeteries
20. Senator Thurmond. Mr. Parker, the Assistant Secretary of the
Army for Civil Works has the responsibility of oversight of our
National Cemeteries. In that regard, he sets the guidelines on who may
be buried in these hallowed grounds. Since cemetery space, especially
Arlington National Cemetery, is reaching capacity, one of your
challenges will be to accommodate the increasing need for burial space
for the men and women who served in World War II and the Korean War. In
regard to Arlington Cemetery, our Nation's most hallowed ground, you
have a choice of expanding the cemetery or limiting the number of
burials.
As you reviewed the responsibilities of the Assistant Secretary of
the Army for Civil Works, what thought have you given this matter?
Mr. Parker. In reviewing the responsibilities of the Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, it is clear there is a challenge
in accommodating the burial needs of our service men and women.
Arlington National Cemetery is very active with thousands of funerals
each year. As I understand it, all currently available space will be
used up by 2025. A Master Plan was developed in 1998 to address this
issue. The Plan's vision was that Arlington remain open into the 22nd
century. The Plan considered several alternatives for extending the
cemetery's life, including land expansion and more restrictive burial
eligibility. I am told that the last time there was a change in burial
eligibility was in 1967. Although the 1998 Master Plan did not suggest
further changes, it did recommend reevaluation of burial policy every 5
years. The first review will take place in 2003. The Master Plan also
addressed expansion by looking at potential sites adjacent to the
cemetery. A more in-depth analysis of adjacent government-owned sites
was performed in a Concept Land Utilization Plan, which I understand
was submitted to Congress last year.
I believe the process described above provides a reasonable way to
consider options for extending the cemetery's life. If confirmed, I
will place a high priority on early coordination with Congress as the
review of these options proceeds.
role of the military in civil works
21. Senator Thurmond. Mr. Parker, the Corps of Engineers that most
of the country is familiar with is essentially a civilian organization,
yet based on the historic role the Army Engineers have had in exploring
and developing our Nation there are hundreds of military personnel
working in the Corps of Engineer Districts.
As the Army reviews its role and undergoes the transformation to
meet the new challenges, should we review the role of the military as
it relates to civil works and possibly assign the functions to an
agency outside the Department of Defense?
Mr. Parker. The Corps has a long history of successful development,
management and protection of the Nation's water resources. The Civil
Works program also brings to the Army an experienced engineering and
construction management workforce that can contribute to the defense
needs of the Nation. The Army, in conducting operations that range from
stability and support to actual war, has successfully leveraged the
experience obtained in managing the large construction projects and
response to natural disasters characteristic of the Civil Works
programs. Transfer of the Civil Works mission to a non-defense agency
would compromise this attribute. Therefore, my inclination would be
retain the Corps role in Civil Works within the Defense Department.
role of corps engineers
22. Senator Thurmond. Mr. Parker, although the Corps of Engineers
had a significant role in building our Nation's infrastructure, there
are many who believe we should now turn over the Corps' Civil Works
mission to the private sector.
What is the Corps of Engineers' Civil Works role and what new
missions do you expect the Corps to assume in the coming years?
Mr. Parker. The Army's Civil Works mission is to contribute to the
national welfare and serve the public by providing the Nation and the
Army with quality and responsive development and management of the
Nation's water resources; protection, restoration, and management of
the environment; disaster response and recovery; and engineering and
technical services in an environmentally sustainable, economically, and
technically sound manner. I do not foresee any major new missions in
the coming years.
hunting island state park (expedite the section 206 aquatic ecosytem
restoration study)
23. Senator Thurmond. Mr. Parker, as you may be aware, the beach
renourishment project at Hunting Island State Park is the top priority
for the South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism
(PRT). There is currently a joint project between the Corps of
Engineers and the South Carolina Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource
Management regarding Hunting Island. Discussions between the parties
have been cordial and productive. I appreciate that the Corps has
supported this project, and that a feasibility study is underway. Given
the beach condition at Hunting Island, I would appreciate your response
to the following concerns:
In 1998, PRT funded a feasibility study to identify options and
costs associated with the beach restoration project. The Corps is now
conducting its own Feasibility Study as part of a Section 206 Aquatic
Ecosystem Restoration Study. Giventhe earlier study, what measures can
be undertaken to expedite the study process and move to the next phase
of this project?
Mr. Parker. I understand that the Corps' feasibility study is
evaluating the impacts of high erosion rates on Hunting Island's
delicate ecosystem and the park infrastructure, and that the Corps has
examined the findings from the study funded by the South Carolina
Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism. If confirmed, I will
examine the process for completing this study and determine if it can
be expedited.
hunting island state park (best-case scenario to start construction
earlier)
24. Senator Thurmond. Mr. Parker, in a best-case scenario, the
Corps would start project construction in October of 2002. This date
has been determined to be problematic because of potential loss of the
access road and water line serving the south end of the island. Can
project construction begin earlier, to prevent this loss and related
consequences?
Mr. Parker. I am informed that you are correct about the best-case
scenario. If confirmed, I will give this matter close attention and
keep Congress informed of the status.
hunting island state park (use of section 14 emergency streambank
protection authority)
25. Senator Thurmond. Mr. Parker, as an interim measure to save the
road, discussion has been held between the parties regarding an
emergency Section 14 Corps project. Will the Corps support this
emergency project and provide adequate resources to proceed in an
expedited manner?
Mr. Parker. I understand that in June, 2001, the Corps' Charleston
District received a request from South Carolina Department of Parks,
Recreation and Tourism to provide emergency protection for the access
road and utilities located at the south end of the island under the
authority of Section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946. I am told
that the District has determined that emergency protection is likely to
be justified and has initiated a Planning and Design Analysis. This
analysis is scheduled to be completed early in fiscal year 2002 and
would include plans and specifications. If funds are available, the
emergency protection could be constructed after that.
charleston district engineer
26. Senator Thurmond. Mr. Parker, as I am sure you remember, we
recently discussed my concerns about, the current rank of the
Charleston, South Carolina, District Engineer. I am greatly concerned
that this office is the only one in our division where the District
Engineer is not a full colonel. From hurricanes on the coast to
cleaning up Former Utilized Defense Sites in the Upstate, this office
has a huge responsibility over a wide range of matters throughout South
Carolina. There is also the issue of the high costs associated with
moving a new District Engineer every 2 years rather than 3. I also
think that you would agree it is often times very difficult to start
and complete a project within a 2 year time frame. Having an additional
year for the District Engineer would allow a continuity with other
parties involved in projects that is now missing. Given all these
factors, I cannot understand why our District Engineer is not equal in
rank with his counterparts in the South Atlantic Division.
How do you propose to rectify this situation?
Mr. Parker. If confirmed, I will examine the process the Corps is
using to determine assignment of officers to District Offices. I will
specifically reassess the current rank of the Charleston District
Office in light of the many challenging missions that the office has.
dredging projects
27. Senator Thurmond. Mr. Parker, throughout South Carolina and the
United States, there are many projects that I feel are not receiving
the appropriate attention of the Corps of Engineers. With costs
continually rising for proper disposal of dredge spoil, numerous
smaller dredging proposals at marinas and harbors are being overlooked
for the larger plans. Many people associated with these local and
smaller projects rely on this business for their livelihood. They
cannot compete with the larger companies and plans. As a result of
this, I feel that there may be the need to establish a special program
within the Corps to specifically assist these smaller projects.
Would you support creating a program that would be solely
established to assist these smaller dredging projects?
Mr. Parker. I have been told that in fiscal year 2000 the Corps
spent $135 million for dredging, structural repairs and other
operations at the smaller, shallow draft projects and $562 million at
deep draft harbors. The amount expended on shallow draft projects was
19 percent of the total. While this represents a fair share of
resources, I will, if confirmed, look into whether a special program is
needed.
environmental restoration (corps' role in dod environmental clean-up
efforts)
28. Senator Thurmond. Mr. Parker, a major problem facing the
Department of Defense is environmental restoration of current and
former military installations. We are dedicating billions of dollars to
this effort and I am not certain the Nation's taxpayers are getting the
most out of this effort.
What is the Corps of Engineer's role in the Department of Defense's
environmental clean-up efforts? Should it be increased or decreased?
Mr. Parker. I understand that while the Assistant Secretary of the
Army (Installations and Environment) has the Army lead for
environmental restoration, the Corps does play an important role. The
Corps currently provides environmental support to other Defense
Department agencies, the Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation
Management, other Major Army Commands and installation commanders. The
Corps serves as executing agency for the Formerly Used Defense Sites
Program and for assigned projects for the Army Installation Restoration
Program and the Base Realignment and Closure Program. The Corps also
administers the Defense and State Memorandum of Agreement/Cooperative
Agreement Program for the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for
Environmental Security. In addition, the Corps plans and develops the
Army Environmental Quality Program, and also integrates the Army
Materiel Command's acquisition and industrial pollution prevention
programs into the total Army program.
Based on its demonstrated expertise, it would appear that the Corps
has the capability for an increased role in the Defense Department's
environmental clean-up efforts. However, whether or not it is desirable
to increase the Corps' role is a matter for review by the entire DOD
and Army leadership.
contracting reform (benefits to army)
29. Senator Thurmond. Mr. Parker, in Secretary Rumsfeld's recent
testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee he stressed the
need to reform the outdated management and acquisition processes in the
Department of Defense. As a result of that testimony, Senator Allard
and I contacted the Secretary concerning the innovative contracting
mechanism being used by the Army for the environmental restoration of
the Rocky Mountain Arsenal. According to information I have received,
this innovative approach has produced impressive results. It will
reportedly reduce program costs by $200 million and the project
completion time by 3 years, while maintaining planned annual
expenditures of approximately $70 million with a competent, yet
reduced, Government core oversight team. I have also been informed that
the contractor has received numerous accolades due to the meaningful
small business involvement they have cultivated.
I believe this is an innovative and dynamic concept that can be
applied throughout the Armed Services, especially at the Corps of
Engineers, that will allow each of you to quickly and efficiently adopt
best commercial practices. In other words, this contracting model may
yield dramatic and immediate savings for the Department.
Do you believe that the Department could benefit from contracting
reform?
Mr. Parker. The Corps has benefitted from reforms made possible by
the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act (1994), and the Federal
Acquisition Reform Act (1996), especially the development of
performance-based contracting, adoption of commercial practices,
partnering, teaming, and contractual incentives. These initiatives
changed the way the Corps acquires supplies and services, moving from a
process-oriented, rules-based, risk avoidance culture, to one
emphasizing performance outcomes, business judgment, streamlined
procedures, and risk management. If confirmed, I will look forward to
working with the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Army and
others to find ways to adopt additional contracting reforms that would
benefit the Corps.
contracting reform (applicability of rocky mountain arsenal contract)
30. Senator Thurmond. Will you commit to studying the Rocky
Mountain Arsenal Program Management Contract in order to evaluate its
applicability to other projects in your Department?
Mr. Parker. If confirmed, I will study the Rocky Mountain Arsenal
Program Management contract process and consider whether that could
serve as a model for other projects. I understand the Army is currently
evaluating the benefits of several innovative contracting initiatives
for environmental cleanup, including the Rocky Mountain Arsenal Program
Management Contract concept. The lessons learned in contracting at
Rocky Mountain Arsenal should be considered for possible application to
other cleanup projects, particularly large, complex, multi-year
projects.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Bob Smith
construction and o&m backlog
31. Senator Smith. Mr. Parker, as you are well aware, the Army
Corps Civil Works Program faces a construction backlog of $40 billion
in unfunded, but authorized projects. The Senate Environment and Public
Works Committee is currently on schedule to report the next biennial
Water Resources Development Act in the year 2002. While the
Appropriations Committees have adhered to a ``no new starts'' policy,
this seems to unfairly penalize otherwise meritorious projects.
What do you recommend Congress do to fairly address both the
massive construction backlog and the backlog of operations and
maintenance?
Mr. Parker. The majority of the construction backlog is made up of
projects that are supported in the President's budget. Should I be
confirmed, one of my priorities would be to strive for the efficient
construction and completion of these projects. I also would propose
funding for new projects that would provide the highest return or meet
the most urgent water resources needs. Another of my priorities would
be to accomplish the most critical maintenance needed to arrest further
deterioration of existing Civil Works projects and to ensure adequate
project performance. Only with the closest cooperation and consultation
with Congress can we decrease these backlogs.
distribution of responsibilities and reporting authority
32. Senator Smith. Mr. Parker, in November of 2000, then-Assistant
Secretary Joseph Westphal and Chief of Engineers General Robert Flowers
signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) outlining the distribution of
responsibilities and reporting authority between the two positions. Is
it your intent to honor this MOA?
Mr. Parker. I intend to honor this MOA.
upper mississippi river navigation study
33. Senator Smith. Mr. Parker, what measures do you recommend the
Army Corps take to avoid a recurrence of the situation encountered with
the Upper Mississippi River Navigation Study?
Mr. Parker. As I understand it, there were some technical problems
with the Upper Mississippi Navigation Study. The Chief of Engineers has
corrected those problems and the study is back on track. The National
Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences found that the
model for economic analysis was flawed. The Council also suggested a
number of other improvements that could be made in the study. The Corps
has subsequently taken a number of actions on the Upper Mississippi
Study that will have broader application to similar large-scale studies
in the future. The Corps has established a Washington-level principals
group, composed of senior people from other key Federal agencies, to
advise the Corps on the Upper Mississippi Study. This principals group
has contributed to formulating guidance on the resumption of the study.
This guidance includes a restructuring of the study to investigate
navigation, ecosystem, and related needs in a comprehensive, holistic
manner that will consider modifying the navigation system to meet
transportation needs and achieve environmental sustainability. The
Corps has also formed an Interagency Regional Work Group that will
collaborate in the development of a new Project Management Plan for the
study.
environmental restoration (primary mission of corps of engineers)
34. Senator Smith. Mr. Parker, do you consider environmental
restoration to be a primary mission of the Army Corps and will you
support it to the same extent you do the other missions of the Corps?
Mr. Parker. The environmental protection and restoration of fish
and wildlife habitats is a primary mission of the Corps and, if
confirmed, I would accord it the same priority as flood damage
prevention and commercial navigation.
homestead air force base and everglades restoration
35. Senator Smith. Mr. Parker, on January 15, 2001, the Air Force
issued a Record of Decision (ROD) on redevelopment of Homestead AFB,
rejecting the plan to convert the base into a commercial airport and
instead approving a plan for mixed use development. The 700 acres of
land will be transferred to Miami-Dade County, which prefers the
airport alternative. If the county declines the surplus property, the
ROD stipulates that the Air Force will consider a request for the
property to be transferred instead to the Department of Interior.
Homestead AFB is located approximately 10 miles from Everglades
National Park and 2 miles from Biscayne National Park. Last year, the
Environment and Public Works Committee authorized an $8 billion
restoration effort in the Everglades. Included in this statute is a
Sense of Congress that any redevelopment of the Homestead AFB be
consistent with restoration of the Everglades.
What is your position regarding the disposal of Homestead AFB?
Mr. Parker. I believe the disposal and/or redevelopment of the
former Homestead Air Force Base should be consistent with the
restoration goals and preservation and protection of the Everglades
ecosystem. Further, disposal and redevelopment of the site should also
be consistent with other goals of the restoration plan, including
providing for water supply and flood protection and maintaining the
economic viability of South Florida.
corps reforms
36. Senator Smith. Mr. Parker, do you think that any reforms are
needed in the Corps to restore the faith of the public and Congress in
this agency?
Mr. Parker. I believe the Corps is a fundamentally sound
organization. It has strong technical abilities and has proven time and
time again that it can solve difficult problems. It has served this
Nation for many years and can be counted on to continue to do so in the
future. However, based on recent findings, the Corps does need to re-
examine the way it manages policy and technical reviews in order to
ensure projects will receive broad support. In addition, in this era of
scarce resources, the Corps must find better, more effective ways of
communicating with the broad range of interests that have a stake in
its projects.
principles and guidelines
37. Senator Smith. Mr. Parker, would you support updating the
Principles and Guidelines to reflect recent policy and social changes,
such as the inclusion of environmental restoration as a federal
purpose, and advances in analytical techniques and technologies?
Mr. Parker. If confirmed, I would be willing to look at this matter
in more detail.
______
[The nomination reference of Paul Michael Parker follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
June 19, 2001.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Paul Michael Parker, of Mississippi, to be an Assistant Secretary
of the Army, vice Joseph W. Westphal.
______
[The biographical sketch of Paul Michael Parker, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Paul Michael (Mike) Parker
Since 1996, Mr. Parker has been the owner and President of GFG
Farms, Inc. and Welch Resources, Inc., companies with timber, farming
and leasing operations.
In 1999, Mr. Parker ran unsuccessfully as the Republican nominee
for Governor of the State of Mississippi. The race was in the closest
in Mississippi history, with neither candidate receiving a majority of
the popular vote and ending in a tie in the Electoral College. The
Mississippi House of Representatives elected the democratic candidate.
In 1989, Mr. Parker was elected to represent the Fourth
Congressional District of Mississippi in the United States House of
Representatives. While serving in the House from 1989 to 1999, Mr.
Parker served on the Budget, Appropriations, Transportation, Education,
and Workforce, and Veteran's Affairs Committees. While on the
Appropriations Committee, Mr. Parker sat on the Energy and Water
Development and Military Construction Subcommittees.
From 1978 to his election to the House, Mr. Parker was the owner of
three companies: Brookhaven Funeral Home, Inc.; Community Life
Insurance Company; and Brookhaven Funeral Insurance Company.
Mr. Parker graduated from William Carey College, Hattiesburg,
Mississippi, with a B.A. degree in 1970. In 1995, he was awarded an
Honorary Doctor of Humanities from William Carey College.
Mr. Parker has been married for 31 years to his wife Rosemary. They
have three children.
______
[The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
form that details the biographical, financial and other
information of the nominee. The form executed by Paul Michael
Parker in connection with his nomination follows:]
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Room SR-228
Washington, DC 20510-6050
(202) 224-3871
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation
of your answer applies.
Part A--Biographical Information
Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.
1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
Paul Michael (Mike) Parker.
2. Position to which nominated:
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works.
3. Date of nomination:
June 19, 2001.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
5. Date and place of birth:
October 31, 1949; Laurel, MS.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Rosemary Prather Parker.
7. Names and ages of children:
Michael Adrian Parker, 26; Marisa Parker, 20; Thomas Welch Parker,
16.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
Franklin High School, 506 Edison Street, Meadville, MS; January
1966-May 1967; High School Diploma, May 1967.
Dallas Institute of Mortuary Science, 3909 South Buckner Blvd.,
Dallas, TX; September 1972-August 1973; Funeral Director's License,
August 1973.
William Carey College, 498 Tuscan Avenue, Hattiesburg, MS;
September 1967-May 1970; BA, May 1970.
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
Parker-Malvaney Consulting, Inc., 50 Creekview Lane SE, Brookhaven,
MS, President/Owner, January 2000 to Present.
Welch Resources, Inc., 50 Creekview Lane SE, Brookhaven, MS,
President/Owner, October 1997 to Present.
U.S. Government, 2445 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington,
DC; Member of Congress MS 4, January 1989 to January 1999.
Brookhaven Funeral Home, Inc., 230 North Jackson Street,
Brookhaven, MS; President/Owner, March 1978 to December 1992.
Franklin Funeral Home, Inc., 230 North Jackson Street, Brookhaven,
MS; President/Owner, March 1978 to December 1992.
Brookhaven Funeral Insurance Company, Inc., 230 North Jackson
Street, Brookhaven, MS; President/Owner, March 1978 to December 1992.
Community Life Insurance Company, Inc., 230 North Jackson Street,
Brookhaven, MS; President/Owner, May 1982 to December 1992.
The Mississippi Hush Puppy Company, Inc., 50 Creekview Lane SE,
Brookhaven, MS; President/Owner, June 1996 to December 1999.
M&R Services, Inc., 50 Creekview Lane SE, Brookhaven, MS;
President/Owner, January 1993 to December 2000.
GFG Farms, Inc., 50 Creekview Lane SE, Brookhaven, MS; President/
Owner, October 1996 to present.
10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative,
honorary or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State,
or local governments, other than those listed above.
None.
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
Parker-Malvaney Consulting, Inc., 50 Creekview Lane SE, Brookhaven,
MS; President/Owner, January 2000 to present.
(Clients of Parker-Malvaney Consulting, Inc.) CSX Corporation, RJ
Reynolds Tobacco Company, Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians.
Welch Resources, Inc., 50 Creekview Lane SE, Brookhaven, MS;
President/Owner, October 1997 to present.
GFG Farms, Inc., 50 Creekview Lane SE, Brookhaven, MS; President/
Owner, October 1996 to present.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
None.
13. Political affiliations and activities:
(a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or
any public office for which you have been a candidate.
Member of Congress, 1989 to 1999, Representing the 4th
Congressional District of Mississippi.
Republican Gubernatorial Nominee for the State of Mississippi in
1999.
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5
years.
None.
(c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $100 or more for the past 5 years.
I have made only one personal contribution to a political
candidate. On March 20, 1998, I gave $1,000 to my Chief of Staff, Art
Rhodes, a candidate for Congress in the 4th District of Mississippi.
My campaign committee has given the following contributions:
03/29/00........................... Jim Talent for $ 1,000
Governor of Missouri.
10/18/00........................... The New Century 25,000
Project.
10/18/00........................... Rankin County 10,000
Republican Executive
Committee.
02/08/01........................... Friends of John 1,000
Roberts.
02/08/01........................... Lincoln County 5,000
Republican Executive
Committee.
05/15/01........................... Republican National 100,000
Committee.
05/16/01........................... Mississippi Republican 87,000
Party.
14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals, and any other special
recognitions for outstanding service or achievements.
William Carey College, 498 Tuscan Avenue, Hattiesburg, MS, Honorary
Doctor of Humanities, Received: 1995.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
None.
16. Speeches: Provide the committee with two copies of any formal
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have
copies of and are on topics relevant to the position for which you have
been nominated.
While serving for 10 years as a Member of Congress and as a
candidate for governor, I gave hundreds of speeches on a variety of
subjects; however, there are no formal copies of these speeches, nor
have I given a speech specifically on the Corps of Engineers.
17. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree,
if confirmed, to respond to requests to appear and testify before any
duly constituted committee of the Senate?
Yes.
______
[The nominee responded to the questions in Parts B-F of the
committee questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set
forth in the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to
Parts B-F are contained in the committee's executive files.]
------
Signature and Date
I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate,
and complete.
Paul Michael (Mike) Parker.
This 14th day of June, 2001.
[The nomination of Paul Michael Parker was first reported
to the Senate by Chairman Levin on August 2, 2001, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. Also on August
2, 2001, the Senate agreed to a unanimous consent agreement
which provided that once this nomination was reported from the
Committee on Armed Services that it be referred to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works for a period of 20
days of session. On August 3, 2001, however, the Senate agreed
to another unanimous consent agreement, which provided that all
nominations be returned to the President on August 3, 2001,
pursuant to Rule XXI paragraph 6 of the Standing Rules of the
Senate. The nomination of Michael Parker was resubmitted to the
Senate by the President on September 4, 2001. On September 5,
2001 the Senate agreed to another unanimous consent agreement
which again provided that the Parker nomination, once reported
by the Committee on Armed Services, be referred to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works for a period of 20
days of session. On September 6, 2001 the nomination of Michael
Parker was reported to the Senate by Chairman Levin, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The Parker
nomination was then referred to the Committee on Environment
and Public Works. That committee held a hearing on the
nomination on September 21, 2001. On September 25, 2001, the
Committee on Environment and Public Works reported the
nomination to the Senate, with the recommendation that the
nomination be confirmed. The nomination was confirmed by the
Senate on September 26, 2001.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to Dr. Mario P. Fiori by
Chairman Levin prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
July 26, 2001.
Hon. Carl Levin,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Enclosed herewith are the answers to the advance
questions the Senate Armed Services Committee asked me to complete.
Sincerely,
Mario P. Fiori.
cc: Senator John Warner,
Ranking Member.
______
Questions and Responses
defense reforms
Question. More than a decade has passed since the enactment of the
Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and
the Special Operations reforms.
Do you support full implementation of these defense reforms?
Answer. Yes, I fully support the Department of Defense
Reorganization Act of 1986 and related Special Operations initiatives
for defense reform.
Question. What is your view of the extent to which these defense
reforms have been implemented?
Answer. From what I have learned to date, these defense reforms
have been implemented and have achieved the desired results. Having
said that, I believe it is important, and consistent with the intent of
the reform legislation, that the Army continues to assess and modify
its operations and internal procedures to meet the challenges of a
dynamic security environment.
Question. What do you consider to be the most important aspects of
these defense reforms?
Answer. The most important aspects of these reforms were
strengthening civilian control, streamlining the operational chain of
command, improving the efficiency in the use of defense resources,
improving the military advice provided to the National Command
Authorities, clarifying authority for combatant commanders, and
enhancing the effectiveness of military operations.
Question. The goals of Congress in enacting these defense reforms,
as reflected in Section 3 of the Goldwater-Nichols Department of
Defense Reorganization Act, can be summarized as strengthening civilian
control; improving military advice; placing clear responsibility on the
combatant commanders for the accomplishment of their missions; ensuring
the authority of the combatant commanders is commensurate with their
responsibility; increasing attention to the formulation of strategy and
to contingency planning; providing for more efficient use of defense
resources; and enhancing the effectiveness of military operations and
improving the management and administration of the Department of
Defense.
Do you agree with these goals?
Answer. Yes, I fully support the congressional goals reflected in
the Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and other related
defense reform legislation.
Question. Recently, there have been articles which indicate an
interest within the Department of Defense in modifying Goldwater-
Nichols in light of the changing environment and possible revisions to
the national strategy.
Do you anticipate that legislative proposals to amend Goldwater-
Nichols may be appropriate? If so, what areas do you believe it might
be appropriate to address in these proposals?
Answer. At this time, I have not had an opportunity to consider
whether changes to Goldwater-Nichols may be warranted. If confirmed as
the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Installations and Environment)
(ASA (I&E)), I will remain open to proposals within the Department that
will increase the effectiveness of the organization and missions within
my areas of responsibility.
duties
Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Installations and Environment)?
Answer. Under current Army policy, the Assistant Secretary is
responsible for policy development, program oversight, and coordination
for a wide variety of Army activities, including installation
management, safety, and occupational health programs, and environmental
cleanup, compliance, prevention, and conservation. I understand that
the ASA (I&E) is responsible for the stewardship of 12 million acres
and facility investment totaling more than $160 billion.
Question. What background and experience do you possess that you
believe qualifies you to perform these duties?
Answer. I have had a diverse background of engineering management,
nuclear power discipline, major laboratory management, and most
recently, manager of a major Department of Energy facility (Savannah
River Site.) In many of these positions I was responsible for landlord
functions, research and development, and downsizing and economic
development. For example, at Savannah River Site, I was responsible for
this 320 square mile area of forest and industrial area. Downsizing of
the industrial complex, combined with environmental controls of this
large area, including major environmental research (conducted by the
University of Georgia as a contractor to DOE), were all part of the DOE
manager's area of interest and responsibility. Such experiences,
including those in the Naval Service earlier, prepare me very well for
the challenges of the ASA (I&E) position.
Question. Do you believe that there are actions you need to take to
enhance your ability to perform the duties of the Assistant Secretary
of the Army (Installations and Environment)?
Answer. It is never too late to find new and innovative ways to
accomplish the very important tasks at hand. If confirmed, I plan to
utilize the expertise of the Army's military and civilian workforce,
supplemented by independent advice from standing groups such as the
Army Science Board, the Institute for Defense Analyses, and from
private sector organizations and individuals. For many of the issues
that I will face I would utilize a multi-disciplinary project team
drawing on expertise in I&E, other Army Secretariat organizations, DOD
and outside organizations as appropriate. In my past experiences I
always have sought the best talent available both in employees and in
advisors to supplement and enhance my personal experience and
expertise. I have learned that providing the people an opportunity to
perform is key to the success of the organization. People must be
challenged and be held accountable.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what duties and functions do
you expect that the Secretary of the Army would prescribe for you?
Answer. The duties of the Assistant Secretary are currently defined
in a General Order. If confirmed, I will advise the Secretary on
issues, initiatives and ideas that fall within my areas of
responsibility and I will accept any other assignments he may deem
necessary for the successful accomplishment of the Army mission. I look
forward to working closely with the Secretary and making the Army team
an example for others to emulate.
Question. In carrying out your duties, how will you work with the
Secretary of the Army, the Under Secretary of the Army, and the Deputy
Under Secretary of Defense (Installations and Environment)?
Answer. The organizational relationship between the ASA (I&E) and
the Under Secretary of the Army is defined by the Secretary of the
Army. The Under Secretary is the Secretary of the Army's principal
civilian assistant and senior advisor and I will be available to assist
him at all times and always keep him informed of significant issues
under the ASA (I&E) purview. If confirmed, I will establish a
cooperative and open relationship with the Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense and assist him in developing programs that are cost effective
and would benefit the entire military structure.
major challenges and problems
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will
confront the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Installations and
Environment)?
Answer. I believe there are three major challenges in managing I&E.
First, the Army faces a major ongoing challenge in its effort to meet
mission requirements and provide for the quality of life for soldiers
and their families in this era of diminishing resources. Second, the
Army needs to move forward aggressively in reducing and realigning its
infrastructure to match its requirements into the 21st century. Third,
the Army needs to strive to achieve more efficient and cost effective
remediation of its properties. The identification and resource
programming for the Army's requirements to cleanup munitions and
Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) at its non-operational ranges and disposal
areas are one of our major challenges.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, I will quickly evaluate the action plans in
place, and with the assistance of staff and other experts, develop
changes that have proven effective in other areas or have significant
promise to effectively and economically address the challenges. There
is a wealth of knowledge in the Army, other government agencies, and in
the private sector. I would not reject any help that makes sense and
assists the Army in properly marshalling its resources to address these
challenges.
Question. What do you consider to be the most serious problems in
the performance of the functions of the Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Installations and Environment)?
Answer. With shrinking budgets, I believe that the Army must strive
to achieve an effective balance between the quality of life for Army
soldiers and their families, force sustainment, and the modernization
necessary to build an effective Army for the future. Moreover, it will
be a continuing challenge for the Army to achieve the optimum balance
among the competing tools available to meet these needs, such as
private sector performance of functions, use of emerging technologies,
and the development of innovative programs.
The Army's ability to address requirements for munitions cleanups
and dispose of real property is controlled by the absolute need to
protect the health of the affected communities and meet the regulatory
requirements for environmental cleanup.
Question. If confirmed, what management actions and time lines
would you establish to address these problems?
Answer. If confirmed, I will quickly assess the nature and scope of
the problems and challenges that ASA (I&E) faces. I will retain those
programs that appear to be working well, develop new programs where
required, and modify those that have promise. I would work very closely
with Congress, the regulators, other stakeholders, and other DOD and
Executive Departments.
priorities
Question. If confirmed, what broad priorities will you establish in
terms of issues that must be addressed by the Assistant Secretary of
the Army (Installations and Environment)?
Answer. Establishment of policy and programs to address the legacy
of unexploded ordnance and munitions residues at closed, closing and
formerly used military ranges and disposal areas will be one of my top
priorities. The Army must ensure that our legacy of past military
activities is addressed in a responsible and timely manner and also
ensure that past mistakes are not repeated. Additionally, I will work
to streamline the Army's property disposal process and address
environmental cleanup concerns so that excess properties are returned
to reuse in the public or private sector as rapidly and efficiently as
possible.
housing privatization
Question. Congress has repeatedly expressed its support for
improving military family housing. In recent years the Department of
Defense and Congress have taken significant steps to improve family
housing. However, it will take many more years and a significant amount
of funding to meet the Department's housing needs. An alternative
option that was created to speed the improvement of military family
housing and relieve base commanders of the burden of managing their
family housing is the housing privatization program. If confirmed for
the position of Assistant Secretary of the Army (Installations and
Environment) you will have a key role in any decisions regarding
military family housing.
What are your views regarding the privatization of family housing?
Answer. The legislation enabling privatization initiatives within
DOD and the military services provides an effective mechanism to
leverage the military Services' limited resources, thereby increasing
the availability and quality of family housing for Service members and
their families. It appears that privatization may prove to be the most
effective and affordable method of revitalizing the Army's large and
aging family housing stock and providing essential new housing. I
understand that there is enormous interest among the Nation's leading
developers in partnering with the Army in this program. It is essential
to approach housing issues with a broad-based program perspective that
addresses long-term development and management of Army communities--not
simply the construction of housing units. Army communities, like
civilian communities, include all of the facilities and services that
accommodate and support soldiers and their families. If confirmed, my
primary goal in this area would be to develop appropriate program
strategies to effectively use scarce Army resources and significantly
improve the quality of life for our soldiers.
Question. What is your view of the structure, pace, and general
goals of the Army's current housing privatization program? Do you think
the program should be continued, and if so do you believe the program
should be modified in any way?
Answer. The privatization authorities that were provided by
Congress in 1996 in the Military Housing Privatization Initiative
provide a good structure and the appropriate tools to carry out family
housing privatization. If confirmed, I will become fully engaged in the
Army's housing privatization program and will conduct periodic reviews
and/or lessons learned sessions to identify modifications to improve
the process.
Question. The Army has contracted for a major housing privatization
effort at Fort Hood, Texas using a request for qualifications (RFQ)
process instead of the more traditional request for proposals (RFP)
process.
What are your views on the relative merits of these contracting
approaches?
Answer. I understand the Army is using a Request for Qualifications
(RFQ) solicitation process in the housing privatization program because
this allows the Army to partner with a highly qualified, world-class
development partner to design the best residential community for a
given installation.
Question. The Department of Defense has established 2010 as a goal
to improve all of its military family housing.
Do you believe the Department of the Army can achieve this goal?
Answer. Yes, I believe that the Army can achieve the DOD goal of
eliminating inadequate family housing by fiscal year 2010 using a
combination of traditional MILCON, increases in the Basic Allowance for
Housing, and housing privatization.
competitive sourcing
Question. Over the past several years, DOD has increased its
reliance on the private sector to perform activities that are
commercial in nature, including many functions relating to running and
maintaining our military installations.
What approach would you recommend to balance the need to maintain
necessary decision-making functions and technical capabilities in the
government's civilian workforce, including the knowledge necessary to
be a ``smart buyer,'' and skills such as civil engineering within the
military, with the savings that may be available from outsourcing?
Answer. Although inherently governmental functions normally cannot
be performed by contractors, I understand that there is a credible
process within the Army for identifying those core commercial
capabilities required for maintaining a smart buyer capability, and I
intend to support that process. In all cases, the military and civilian
employees must be trained to be ``smart customers.'' I believe the
smarter the customer, the better will be the performance of the
supplier and frequently at less cost.
Question. Do you support the principle of public-private
competition as the preferred means to make the ``sourcing'' decision
for such functions?
Answer. Generally, OMB Circular A-76 and Federal law require
public-private competition as the means to make the ``sourcing''
decision.
Question. Do you believe that public-private competition results in
significant savings to the Department of Defense regardless of which
side wins the competition?
Answer. Yes, according to experts familiar with the process,
public-private competition typically results in savings in excess of 30
percent, regardless of which side wins the competition. I feel that
these savings are important and must be considered as we plan to manage
in the future.
Question. OMB Circular A-76, which establishes the guidelines for
outsourcing most government functions, is slated for scrutiny by a
congressionally-mandated panel of government and private experts in
this area. The panel, chaired by the Comptroller General, is scheduled
to report to Congress with specific policy and legislative reforms and
recommendations for changing the way the government conducts
outsourcing decisions and implements them.
What is your view of the current A-76 process?
Answer. If confirmed, I intend to thoroughly familiarize myself
with the process and ensure the process is effective and will continue
to provide substantial savings and efficiencies.
Question. Are there other effective alternatives to achieve the
benefits of public-private competition?
Answer. This is a complex issue, and I believe it is prudent to
wait until the Commercial Activities Panel has provided its analysis of
the question before I make a final judgment as to whether other
effective alternatives exist.
base closures
Question. The President's February 2001 budget blueprint document
states that ``with 23 percent in estimated excess infrastructure, it is
clear that new rounds of base closures will be necessary to shape the
military more efficiently''.
Do you believe that we need more base closures?
Answer. The Secretary of Defense initiated a broad review of the
Department of Defense that is currently ongoing. I would expect
recommendations about reshaping our infrastructure to emerge as a
result of this review. The Secretary recently indicated that with a
round of base closings and adjustments that reduced unneeded facilities
we could focus the funds on facilities we actually need.
Question. Do you believe the Army has excess infrastructure that
uses resources that could be applied to higher priorities within the
Department of the Army?
Answer. In an April 1998 DOD report to Congress, the Army reported
that it had excess infrastructure. A final determination on this point
cannot be made until ongoing Defense reviews are completed and the
impacts are assessed. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that the Army
retains the infrastructure that it needs to support current and future
Army force structure, training, and readiness requirements.
Question. Do you believe the process established by the Defense
Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 is a fair and effective way to
reduce excess military infrastructure and return the property to local
authorities?
Answer. Improvement is always possible in a process as complex as
the Act of 1990. In the future, the Army will need to reshape its
infrastructure to support the Army of the future. Once there is a clear
understanding of the direction the Army needs to take, it can be
determined if the Act of 1990 is the right process or whether
recommendations to modify the process should be made.
Question. In your view, would changing the base closure process to
exempt some bases from the independent commission's review make the
process more or less open, fair, and stressful to communities with
military installations?
Answer. If confirmed, I will carefully consider any proposed
changes to improve the process. I do believe that communities deserve
to know the status of their base as quickly as possible. Above all, we
need to ensure that the process is open and fair and achieves that
objective.
real property maintenance
Question. The military departments have consistently struggled to
maintain their base infrastructure. The backlog of real property
maintenance has remained high whether budgets were increasing or
decreasing, and the military is far behind industry standards for
maintaining and modernizing its facilities.
Are there any new approaches to this issue that you believe could
help the Army move toward a solution of this perennial problem?
Answer. I understand that the Army is taking several approaches to
the problem of maintaining its base infrastructure in the face of
inadequate funding, including utility privatization. In addition, the
military services' leasing authority under Title 10 USC, Section 2667
is an important tool for addressing real property maintenance and
revitalization. Also, the Army is involved in an effort to relocate
from leased facilities to on-post facilities. All of these programs
work together toward eliminating the funding delta for the maintenance
of base infrastructure.
environmental issues
Question. The Senior Readiness Oversight Committee is currently
reviewing a group of readiness challenges it has characterized as
``encroachment'' issues. These include population growth near military
installations, environmental constraints on military training ranges,
airspace restrictions to accommodate civilian airlines, and the
conflicts with civilian users over the use of radio frequency spectrum.
In your opinion, how serious are these problems for the Department
of the Army?
Answer. I believe that the Army must provide our soldiers with
tough, realistic, battle-focused training in preparation for a wide
variety of mission-essential warfighting scenarios ranging from
tropical to desert to cold region operations. Ensuring our soldiers
have access to the most realistic training possible is a challenge for
both our operations and environmental personnel.
Army environmental programs help support this core mission by
conserving training lands, preventing pollution, complying with laws
and regulations, partnering with local communities, and cleaning up
contamination at Army installations.
Question. If confirmed, what role do you expect to play in
addressing these challenges and what actions would you propose to take
to address them?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that the Army has a
holistic approach to land management. Doctrinal changes and advances in
equipment capabilities require that we use more of our land resources
than ever before. If confirmed, I seek ways to improve our stewardship
so that this valuable resource continues to be available for training
our soldiers.
Question. The Department of Defense makes it a practice to request
funding only for those environmental compliance areas that are already
out of compliance and subject to an enforcement action, and those that
will be out of compliance before the next budget cycle.
Do you believe that continuing funding for this type of
environmental cleanup is critical to maintaining a positive
relationship with local regulatory authorities and the communities
around our military bases?
Answer. Continued funding of the Army environmental compliance
program is critical to all stakeholders, and I will, if confirmed,
ensure that we approach our commitments to make sure our communities
are protected from harm. I believe that the Army's commitment to comply
with Federal, State, and local regulations and laws is sound and it is
a key in maintaining good community relations. Americans want to feel
safe living and working on or near our installations. This compliance
strategy also supports the Army training and readiness goals for
mission sustainment. Compliance with environmental requirements builds
and maintains community trust and tolerance of our installations
activities.
Question. Do you believe that the Department of Defense should be
exempt from the application of environmental laws?
Answer. I feel that the military should comply with environmental
laws and regulations, just as civilian entities must comply. I am
mindful that some laws do provide a limited exemption for national
security reasons where the activity is uniquely military and critical
to the maintenance of national security.
Question. Do you support the basic principle of the Federal
Facility Compliance Act and other laws that Federal facilities,
including DOD facilities, should be subject to the same standards as
comparably situated civilian facilities?
Answer. I believe that the military should be subject to the same
environmental laws and regulations as comparably situated civilian
facilities. Nonetheless, I believe it is important to acknowledge that
the military has a unique mission that distinguishes it from the
civilian sector. Every opportunity must be explored to identify the
impacts of the rules/regulations on our mission before the Federal,
State, or local law or regulation goes into effect.
Question. The Department of Defense faces a bill for the clean up
of unexploded ordnance (UXO) that is at least in the tens of billions
of dollars and could well be in the hundreds of billions of dollars. At
current funding levels, it has been estimated that it would take the
military Services several thousand years to remediate UXO problems on a
DOD-wide basis.
What do you believe would be an acceptable time period for cleaning
up unexploded ordnance problems throughout the Department of Defense?
Answer. This is a complex issue with many factors. It would be
difficult at this time to define an ``acceptable'' period. I do
appreciate the importance of this matter, and if confirmed, will make
it one of my top priorities.
Question. Do you believe that increased investment in UXO
remediation technologies would be likely to produce more effective and
efficient remediation processes and substantially reduce the
Department's long-term clean-up liability (and the time required to
complete such clean-up)?
Answer. Yes, the Army needs to continue to invest in UXO and
munitions response technologies to improve its ability to discriminate
ordnance from non-ordnance items. I further believe that the Army
should develop procedures and techniques to characterize UXO properties
to gain public and regulatory agency acceptance of proposed cleanup
plans.
energy efficiency
Question. Executive Order 13123 lays out a number of specific steps
that agencies should take to promote energy conservation. These include
the use of energy savings performance contracts, utility energy
efficiency contracts, and other contracts designed to achieve energy
conservation; conducting energy efficiency audits for approximately 10
percent of an agency's facilities each year; and exploring
opportunities for energy efficiency in industrial facilities for steam
systems, boiler operation, air compressor systems, industrial
processes, and fuel switching.
Do you support the use of these energy conservation approaches?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Are there other steps that you would take, if confirmed,
to promote energy conservation by the Department of the Army?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I would encourage the increased use of
renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, photovoltaic, and
geothermal when cost effective. I would also support the development
and use of new energy saving technologies and business-oriented
management techniques.
Question. Do you believe that the energy conservation goals
established in the Executive Order are achievable?
Answer. Yes.
integration of installations with local communities
Question. The Department of Defense is in the midst of an effort to
increase the Basic Allowance for Housing to eliminate out-of-pocket
housing costs for military families who choose to live off base. This
policy is intended to encourage more military families to live off base
and reduce the demand for government housing. In recent years,
outsourcing of base operations functions on military installations has
increased substantially. Secretary Rumsfeld has proposed examination of
additional contracting out in certain areas, including the operation of
commissaries. All of these policies tend to increase the integration of
the military into the local community and increase the non-military
population on our bases.
At the same time, force protection concerns are leading the
military services to take steps to close or restrict access to military
installations and to build force protection measures into the
construction of schools and other non-military facilities on those
installations.
What do you believe is the appropriate level of integration, or
separation, between military installations and the surrounding local
communities?
Answer. I believe that the military Services have expanded the
integration between the military community and adjoining civilian
communities. Where once posts were opened only on Armed Forces Day,
they now are more accessible and share facilities and areas--
recreational areas such as parks and lakes and space in schools located
on Army facilities. With respect to economic activity, the Army has
never been separated from communities surrounding our posts. The
civilian community is a source of medical, health and welfare, and
comfort for the military community. If confirmed, I would continue to
look for ways to develop or improve partnerships while maintaining
focus on force protection, readiness and mission accomplishment.
davis-bacon act
Question. 40 U.S.C. Sec. 276a, commonly known as Davis-Bacon,
requires that for every contract in excess of $2,000 involving
construction, alteration, and/or repair of public buildings or public
works, the prevailing wage in that state shall be paid. When the
contract cost-floor was set in the 1930s, $2,000 was a substantial sum
of money, however, inflation during the intervening years has eroded
the value of the dollar to the point were there is virtually no project
that is not covered by Davis-Bacon.
If confirmed, would you support raising the contract threshold to a
more current standard before Davis-Bacon can be invoked?
Answer. Yes.
Question. In your personal opinion, what would be an appropriate
contract cost before Davis-Bacon should apply?
Answer. I have not examined the issue of raising the contract
threshold, and would have to look at the impact of various contract
cost levels before making a recommendation. I understand that this is a
sensitive issue, which warrants thorough analysis and considered
judgment.
installation management
Question. One of the obvious handicaps to the implementation of the
Family Housing Privatization initiative is the lack of specialists in
real estate and financial management throughout the Department of
Defense. A similar shortfall is said to exist in the area of business
managers and installation managers.
If the Army is experiencing similar shortfalls, should these
positions be filled with contract or civil service personnel? Please
explain.
Answer. I understand that the Army generally has sufficient
personnel resources to meet its mission requirements in the real estate
and financial management areas. However, if confirmed, I will review
the training of our personnel in this area to independently evaluate
their expertise and take action as is necessary.
Question. As the Army enters a new era of defense reform and
business practices, does it have a program to ensure it has a cadre of
real estate and business managers?
Answer. The Army has established a real estate career and other
personnel programs to provide trained professionals to meet current and
future staffing requirements. In addition, contingency real estate
support teams provide trained professionals to support deployed forces
to assist in national emergencies. I will examine these programs for
opportunities to make improvements and to apply commercial practices
and concepts to better meet the Army's real estate and business
management needs.
environmental encroachment
Question. Some of the Service Chiefs have asserted that they spend
more money each year complying with environmental regulations than they
spend on training. In visits to military installations, committee
members have observed first hand the barriers to training caused by
compliance with environmental regulations.
If confirmed, what steps would you take to reduce the cost to the
Department of environmental compliance?
Answer. I believe that better management practices are the keys to
cost effective environmental program funding and spending while the
Army continues to fund all ``must fund'' requirements. The Army expects
to be more effective in minimizing environmental program costs through
the implementation of the Environmental Management System approach to
identifying and solving environmental problems. I encourage
continuation of the effort to promote environmental program tracking,
environmental audits, contract management and savings, levering science
and innovative technologies, and integration of environmental
considerations in planning. These are sound and prudent environmental
management practices that will continue to engender smart sound program
efficiencies.
Question. If confirmed, how would you propose to facilitate the
development and implementation of a comprehensive strategy to address
readiness concerns related to these encroachment issues?
Answer. I understand that the Army's Sustainable Range Program
(SRP) maximizes the capability, availability, and accessibility of
ranges and training land, and in a manner that provides sound
environmental stewardship, all in order to support overall doctrinal
training and testing requirements.
In order to sustain readiness in light of increasing encroachment,
if confirmed, I will work to ensure that the Army improves its
management of ranges and land.
overseas installations
Question. The Army maintains a network of bases to support our
forward deployed forces. In testimony before the Senate Armed Services
Committee, both the Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, and the
Commander, United States Forces, Korea, stated that the installations
in their commands are in serious need of repair. The implication of
these statements is that overseas installations are not faring well in
the funding allocation process.
In your view, what share of resource allocation should go to our
overseas bases?
Answer. If I am confirmed, I will study the concerns expressed by
the commanders of the Army's overseas forces to ensure that the needs
of their commands are adequately addressed.
67-year facility replacement goal
Question. One of Secretary Rumsfeld's more significant goals is to
fund facility replacement on a 67-year standard, rather than the almost
200-year cycle on which the Department is currently operating. Although
this standard is still short of the industry standard of 57 years, it
will significantly increase the readiness of our military
installations.
In your view, is it realistic to hold the Army to such a standard
when there are fluctuating budget demands and priorities?
Answer. I believe that it is realistic to hold the Army to the 67-
year facility replacement cycle. There will always be fluctuating
budget demands and priorities, but the only way to plan for facilities
that can maintain readiness and support the Army's mission is to set a
standard. I feel that facilities requirements should not be determined
by the resources remaining after funding the other mission accounts.
Question. Other than increased funding for military construction
and repair and maintenance, what other tools would you suggest the
Department employ to achieve the 67-year replacement goal?
Answer. Although increased modernization funding is necessary to
achieve the 67-year replacement goal, I believe it must be tied to
increased sustainment funding as is proposed in fiscal year 2002 to
continue to properly maintain the facilities.
modernization/new mission costs
Question. All components, including both active and Reserve Forces,
face the challenge of providing facilities required for a new weapon
system or the assignment of a new mission. This is especially
challenging to the Reserve components, which have been assigned new
missions or weapons systems and then expected to fund the new
facilities from their limited military construction funds.
Do you believe the funding for new equipment support facilities
should be programmed as part of any given program's acquisition cost?
Answer. Yes, I believe that the Army should include the RC
infrastructure costs as part of the acquisition development program.
Funding should be provided in sufficient lead-time for additional
modification or construction of the facilities that will support the
systems being fielded. These facilities improvements could include the
upgrade and construction of new buildings, training ranges, training
areas and communications backbone (i.e., digital backbone on
installations to tie-in equipment with integrated testing/training
components in the motor pools and on ranges). Providing funding for the
infrastructure cost as part of the fielding of new equipment allows for
better planning, because the full requirement is captured and allows
the Program Manager to control the phasing/sequencing of facilities as
the new system(s) are acquired or new units activated.
Question. What are your views on the assignment of new missions to
the Reserve components without specifically programming the funds in
the military construction program to support those missions?
Answer. I feel that any new missions should be supported by the
appropriate military construction projects.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as the Assistant Secretary of the
Army (Installations and Environment)?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings and
other communications of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator John Warner
integrated training area management
1. Senator Warner. Dr. Fiori, in response to advance questions
regarding development and implementation of a comprehensive strategy
for encroachment issues, you indicated that you would work to improve
the Army's management of ranges. The Integrated Training Area
Management (ITAM) program supports sustainable range use and compliance
with environmental laws and regulations. It is my understanding,
however, that the fiscal year 2002 budget request reflects funding
shortfalls for the ITAM program. Dr. Fiori, if confirmed, how would you
propose to address such funding shortfalls in the out years?
Dr. Fiori. I recognize that the ITAM program is a critical
component to sustainable ranges and long-term readiness. I will make
sustainable ranges a priority within my office. The Army staff will
continue to work with the Major Commands to document and prioritize
ITAM funding requirements. The ITAM program will continue to compete
for funds along with other high priority programs that are critical to
readiness. The Army funds ITAM as an Operational Readiness (OPRED)
program and will continue to work to meet critical program funding
requirements.
family housing improvement
2. Senator Warner. Based on what you know of the department's
ongoing efforts to improve military family housing, do you believe the
2010 goal is achievable and are you committed to the goal?
Dr. Fiori. The Army believes that the 2010 goal is achievable and
is strongly committed to it. The Army has a long-range investment plan
that reaches the Secretary of Defense's goal to eliminate all
inadequate family housing by 2010. It also supports the Department's
three-pronged initiative to eliminate out-of-pocket housing expenses
for soldiers living in private houses by 2005, to increase the use of
housing privatization in the United States, and to continue reliance on
traditional military construction for revitalizing Army-owned housing.
facility conditions
3. Senator Warner. The condition of our military facilities is
deplorable. After years of insufficient resources for the construction
of new facilities or the maintenance of those in existence, many of the
buildings in which our military personnel live and work have
deteriorated to an unacceptable level. What actions will you pursue to
correct this problem?
Dr. Fiori. The Army plans to implement the Army Facility Strategy
(AFS). The AFS is the centerpiece of our efforts to fix the deplorable
current status of Army facilities and requires a two-pronged approach.
The first prong is full sustainment funding to halt further
deterioration of our facilities. The second prong is to restore and
modernize those critical facilities that are in the worst shape. We
have identified 10-year increments of funding that will bring critical
facilities to a C1 condition We cannot wait on a 67-year
recapitalization rate to fix these key facilities. The first 10-year
increment includes Vehicle Maintenance Facilities and Supporting
Hardstand, General Instruction Buildings, Physical Fitness Facilities,
Trainee Complexes (spread over two 10-year increments), and U.S. Army
Reserve Centers and National Guard Readiness Centers (both spread over
three 10-year increments). The AFS continues the investment strategy
that we have followed successfully in the Army barracks upgrade
program. We will continue with our current programs to upgrade
facilities. The Army began upgrading or replacing its barracks
complexes in 1994. This will continue through fiscal year 2008. We are
also proceeding on a master plan to privatize or upgrade with Military
Construction the Family Housing stock by 2010.
encroachment
4. Senator Warner. What actions will you propose to ensure that
encroachment does not prevent the Armed Forces from effectively
training and operating both at home and abroad?
Dr. Fiori. The Army uses the term ``encroachment'' to refer to all
external influences threatening or constraining testing and training
activities required for force readiness and weapons acquisition. Such
encroachment stems from environmental (e.g., noise, endangered species,
unexploded ordnance, and munitions constituents), social (e.g., urban
sprawl), and economic (e.g., changing land values) influences. Impacts
include, but are not limited to, restrictions on available testing and
training locations; restrictions on available times and duration for
testing and training; reduced effectiveness of testing and training
activities; and, restrictions on weapons systems, equipment, and
munitions used during testing and training.
Unit commanders have not reported lowered training ratings solely
due to encroachment issues. However, several units reporting reduced
readiness ratings have provided comments on their Unit Status Reports
identifying training constraints. Instead of allowing these constraints
to reduce unit training status, commanders have developed ``work-
arounds'' to continue training to maintain their readiness posture and
to accomplish the mission. Although these ``work-arounds'' must support
training requirements based on doctrinal standards, they make the
training experience sub-optimal. When training combines a number of
``work-arounds,'' the adverse impacts on training are magnified and
cumulative.
The Army's comprehensive effort to ensure readiness and minimize
impacts of encroachment is the Sustainable Range Program (SRP). The
objective of SRP is to maximize the capability, availability,
accessibility of ranges and training land to support doctrinal training
and testing requirements. SRP is based on three tenets: (1) Develop and
Maintain Scientifically Defensible Data--have complete data on all
aspects of our ranges--their operational characteristics as training
facilities, their physical characteristics as real property, and their
characteristics as part of the natural and cultural environment. (2)
Integrate Management across the four disciplines that directly affect
ranges: range operations and modernization; facilities and installation
management; explosives safety; and environmental management. (3)
Establish Outreach Campaign to inform and influence decision-makers and
leaders to improve community understanding of why the Army must conduct
training and testing, and how we are moving to a more sophisticated
management approach to ensure that the concerns of the public are
addressed. The Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans
(DCSOPs) has the lead on this initiative and is working with my office
and the other functions within the Army staff to develop and implement
SRP.
We would ask Congress to support the Army's effort to ensure that
encroachment does not prevent effective training in the following ways.
1. Support and resource implementation of the Army's SRP program.
SRP is the foundation for sustaining live training and the environment
on our ranges. As we have in the past, we will continue to improve
range operations, range modernization, state-of-the-art land
management, research on munitions effects and management of unexploded
ordnance, and public outreach. Although final funding levels have not
yet been established, we ask Congress to support this important
program.
2. Support and foster cooperation among regulators and the
military, emphasizing the need to balance military readiness concerns
and environmental regulation. The Army believes that Congress should
continue to recognize that the training required for Army readiness is
a positive societal good and a legal mandate. Defense of our Nation is
an important requirement that benefits all citizens. I believe there
are ways to balance the needs of the military with the needs of the
environment. Congress should encourage regulatory agencies to work with
the DOD Components to develop compliance methods that support both
regulatory and military objectives.
3. Undertake legislative initiatives to clarify statutory
requirements that apply to military operations. As currently written,
several statutes contain broad discretionary enforcement thresholds
that are based on the assessment of the regulatory authority as to
whether a given condition presents a ``potential'' risk or ``imminent''
hazard to human health or a particular natural resource. While the Army
is not seeking to avoid our responsibilities to the American people or
seeking relief from compliance with environmental statutes, the lack of
consistent and measurable standards limits the Army's ability to plan,
program, and budget for compliance requirements. In light of the
Secretary's current strategic review, it would be premature to discuss
specific proposals, but I look forward to working with other Federal
agencies and Congress.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Strom Thurmond
family housing improvement
5. Senator Thurmond. Based on what you know of the department's
ongoing efforts to improve military family housing stock, do you
believe the 2010 goal is achievable and are you committed to that
effort?
Dr. Fiori. The Army believes that the 2010 goal is achievable and
is strongly committed to it. The Army has a long-range investment plan
that reaches the Secretary of Defense's goal to eliminate all
inadequate family housing by 2010. It also supports the Department's
three-pronged initiative to eliminate out-of-pocket housing expenses
for soldiers living in private houses by 2005, to increase the use of
housing privatization in the United States, and to continue reliance on
traditional military construction for revitalizing Army owned housing.
67-year replacement standard
6. Senator Thurmond. Although funding is key, proper management of
the assets is critical if the Department is to achieve this goal. Based
on your knowledge of how the Department currently manages its
facilities, what management improvements would you recommend?
Dr. Fiori. The Army manages its installations in an expert and
professional manner. We will continue to improve by establishing
accountability that ensures maximum performance with funds provided by
Congress as measured by well defined metrics.
We have implemented several efficiency initiatives to cut the cost
of installation operations and become more business oriented. These
initiatives include competitive sourcing, lease reduction, facilities
demolition, utilities privatization, family housing privatization, and
public/private partnership. Public/private partnership and
privatization show great promise for the future and are tools that will
help us achieve the desired 67-year facility replacement cycle. Public/
private partnership and privatization allow us to maximize use of our
resources to manage and maintain our real property assets while taking
advantage of private sector experience expertise, and funding. We are
working closely with Congress to make these initiatives successful and
establish the necessary authorities to achieve ours and DOD's
management goals.
After doing all we can to minimize the cost of sustaining our
infrastructure, we must fully fund that cost. To that end, our most
important recommendation is to fully support the Army's request for
sustainment, restoration, and modernization (SRM) funding.
base closures
7. Senator Thurmond. Since each of you, if confirmed, will have a
significant role in any future base closures I would like your views on
how we can minimize the impact of the base closure process on our
communities.
Dr. Fiori. We have learned valuable lessons from implementing the
results of previous base realignment and closure (BRAC) decisions.
Reducing base closure impacts can best be achieved by early involvement
of the public/private sector in determining potential property reuse,
financing of reuse development, and the environmental clean up. The
ability to simultaneously plan the reuse in conjunction with the
necessary environmental efforts saves limited resources, reduces
timelines and is crucial to both the Army and the communities involved.
Leveraging private sector funding will significantly increase the
communities' ability to move forward with the creation of new jobs.
Additionally, the Army should inform the affected communities early-on
of the various options available for disposal. The communities must
quickly determine whether they want to be directly involved in the
disposal or allow the Army to market the closing properties based on
Community Reuse Plans. Mutual cooperation, sharing of information and
early private sector involvement will greatly lessen the impact the on
local communities.
force protection
8. Senator Thurmond. One of the greatest issues facing our military
services is force protection. Although the focus in this area is on
protecting our forward deployed forces, we must be concerned with our
Continental United States (CONUS) installations, which in many
instances are integrated into our communities. Dr. Fiori, how do we
ensure force protection on the installation without completely
separating the community from the installation?
Dr. Fiori. Open communication, community interaction, and a
thorough information campaign help implement and maintain an
installation force protection plan. Each installation Commander
performs a risk analysis to make informed decisions on the required
levels of restricting access to installations, as well as Random
Antiterrorism Measures (RAMs).
Key to this is the involvement of public affairs officers and
liaison activities with leaders in local government, public agencies,
civic organizations, and the local public media. In drafting and
executing the information campaign we begin by identifying installation
and community issues while educating the local populace as to the
necessity of the decision. In many cases, not all, the local community
concerns can be alleviated thus insuring community knowledge while
establishing the appropriate force protection measures to counter the
threat.
utilities privatization
9. Senator Thurmond. Based on your knowledge of the utility
privatization effort, what are your concerns regarding the total
reliance on contractors to provide utility services?
Dr. Fiori. Our main concerns for total reliance on contractors for
utilities services focus on security and cost effectiveness. If a
privatization effort does not pass these two tests, we do not
privatize. Otherwise, we believe it is in the Army's best interest to
privatize these non-core functions to entities better equipped to
operate and maintain the utilities we need.
support for the reserve components
10. Senator Thurmond. Dr. Fiori, what assurance can you provide
that the National Guard and Army Reserve will receive funding at levels
sufficient to sustain their readiness and quality of life?
Dr. Fiori. We are one Army--Active, Guard, and Reserve. I will
continue to develop requirements for all three components alike. The
Army Facility Strategy fully integrates Active, Guard, and Reserve
requirements into a unified funding posture. I believe funding
distributed in this manner will be sufficient to sustain all
components' readiness and quality of life.
relationship with assistant chief of staff for installation management
11. Senator Thurmond. Dr. Fiori, what is the relationship between
the Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management and the Office
of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations and
Environment?
Dr. Fiori. We have a very close working relationship between the
two staffs. Our mission and objectives are closely related,
intertwined, and mutually supportive.
We have a small Secretariat staff focused on policy and oversight
of installation and environmental concerns. The Assistant Chief of
Staff for Installation Management (ACSIM) has a staff responsive to the
needs of the Secretariat while programming for installation and
environmental functions, and providing implementing guidance and
execution oversight.
The separate functions of the two staffs provide the benefits of
civilian leadership and oversight of the military on installation and
environmental operations, and the opportunity to separate the day-to-
day oversight from the long-term vision and policy development. They
also provide two separate perspectives on the requirements and
solutions to the challenge of furnishing top quality installations for
our soldiers, their families and our civilian workforce.
12. Senator Thurmond. Dr. Fiori, what, if any, functions are
redundant between the two positions?
Dr. Fiori. While the roles of the two offices are closely related,
the only overlap seems to be in the execution of the Residential
Communities Initiative (RCI) and Historic Properties initiatives. While
these functions have recently been managed from the Army Secretariat, I
am considering returning these functions to the Assistant Chief of
Staff for Installation Management (ACSIM).
contract1ng reform
13. Senator Thurmond. Do you believe that the Department could
benefit from contracting reform?
Dr. Fiori. The Army must continue to look for innovative
contracting approaches to achieve cost-effective cleanup. However, I do
not think that we need major contracting reform within the Department's
cleanup program. The Rocky Mountain Arsenal program management contract
concept, while the right contract mechanism for Rocky Mountain Arsenal,
is not the solution for all cleanup projects. Many sites will benefit
from contracting methods such as Guaranteed Fixed Price Remediation and
privatization initiatives, while other cleanups will be effectively
executed using existing approaches in which we have established a broad
base of expertise. I will make every effort to use the best contracting
methodology depending of the specific circumstances.
14. Senator Thurmond. Will you commit to studying the Rocky
Mountain Arsenal Program Management Contract in order to evaluate its
applicability to other projects in your Department?
Dr. Fiori. Yes, I will ensure the Rocky Mountain Arsenal Program
Management Contract process is considered in other projects when it
makes sense. The Army is currently evaluating the benefits of several
innovative contracting initiatives for environmental cleanup, including
the Rocky Mountain Arsenal program management contract concept. We will
consider the lessons learned in contracting at Rocky Mountain Arsenal
for possible application to other cleanup projects, particularly large,
complex, multi-year projects.
______
[The nomination reference of Dr. Mario P. Fiori follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
July 12, 2001.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Dr. Mario P. Fiori of Georgia, to be an Assistant Secretary of the
Army, vice Mahlon Apgar IV.
______
[The biographical sketch of Dr. Mario P. Fiori, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Dr. Mario P. Fiori
Mario P. Fiori, born in Frankfurt Germany, was raised in
Brooklyn, NY. After graduating from Brooklyn Technical High
School, he attended and graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy
in 1963. After serving 1 year on a diesel submarine, he entered
the graduate program at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
He earned a Masters in Mechanical Engineering (1966), a Nuclear
Engineer degree (1966), and a Ph.D. in Nuclear Engineering
(1968).
He then served in the nuclear submarine force as a
department head in attack submarine U.S.S. Pargo (SSN 650),
Executive Officer in Poseidon missile submarine U.S.S. George
Washington Carver (SSBN 656), commanding officer in attack
submarine U.S.S. Spadefish (SSN 668), and Squadron Commander of
Submarine Squadron 4. His shore assignments included: submarine
analyst on the CNO staff, DOD representative to the Federal
Energy Administration, Special Assistant to the President
Reagan's Science Advisor, Dr. George Keyworth II, and, prior to
retirement, Commander, Naval Underwater Systems Center,
Newport, RI.
In 1990-1991, he was President of MPF Associates, his
consulting firm. In 1991, Dr. Fiori joined the Senior Executive
Service in the Department of Energy and served as the
Departmental Representative to the Defense Nuclear Facilities
Safety Board. The Board, a congressionally mandated body, has
safety oversight of all DOE weapon's facilities. In 1993, the
Secretary of Energy reassigned Dr. Fiori to be Manager,
Savannah River Site, Aiken, SC.
He left DOE in October 1997 to start his own company,
Compass Associates, Inc., a consulting company focusing on
proper conduct of operations, safety of operations and business
development.
He is married to Susan Bayles and has three daughters,
Cristina, Alison, and Katherine.
------
[The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
form that details the biographical, financial and other
information of the nominee. The form executed by Dr. Mario P.
Fiori in connection with his nomination follows:]
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Room SR-228
Washington, DC 20510-6050
(202) 224-3871
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation
of your answer applies.
Part A--Biographical Information
Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.
1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
Mario Peter Fiori (Guenter Georg Kohl--birth name changed upon my
adoption by my stepfather, Silvano Louis Fiori in 1951).
2. Position to which nominated:
Assistant Secretary of the Army, Installations and Environment
(ASA-I&E).
3. Date of nomination:
July 12, 2001.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
Compass Associates Inc. is an S-Corp established and owned by Dr.
Fiori. He is the only employee.)
5. Date and place of birth:
December 14, 1941; Frankfurt/M, Germany.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Susan Wintfield Bayles.
7. Names and ages of children:
Cristina Fiori Argeles, 28; Alison Paige Fiori, 26; Katherine Leigh
Fiori, 23.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
Brooklyn Technical High School, Brooklyn, NY, 9/55-6/59--Diploma.
U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD, 7/59-6/63--Bachelor of Science.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 9/64-9/68--Master of
Mechanical Engineer and Nuclear Engineer Degree, 9/66 and Doctor of
Philosophy in Nuclear Engineering, 2/69.
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
10/97 to Present--Founder and Owner/President of consulting
company, Compass Associates Incorporated. I was sole employee and the
company address was the same as my home address. I provided business
development advice, served as President of a software company, RTS-
Enabling Technology in Richland, WA, served as advisor to different
CEOs and participated in several significant ``red-team'' efforts for
various nuclear related companies.
10/91-10/97--Served as SES-6 in the Department of Energy. I
initially worked as the liaison officer between the Department of
Energy and the Defense Nuclear Weapons Facility Board. In 1/93 I was
reassigned to assume the responsibilities of Manager, Savannah River
Site, Aiken, SC.
5/90-9/91--Sole Proprietor of ``MPF Associates,'' a consulting firm
concentrating on business development and defense related studies.
Served as a Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute, and had several
other commercial clients.
11/89-3/90--Engineer, Stone and Webster Engineering Corp,
Washington DC office. I was under training as a senior business
developer in the Wash DC office.
6/63-10/89--U.S. Naval Officer. Served in various nuclear submarine
billets including Commanding Officer of an attack submarine, U.S.S.
Spadefish (SSN 668) stationed in Norfolk, VA. Submarine Squadron
Commander of Submarine Squadron 4 in Charleston, SC, and Commander,
Naval Underwater Systems Center, Newport, RI. Shore duties included 4
years at MIT, 2 years as a System Analyst for submarine naval programs
in the Pentagon, Washington DC (6 months) and then the DOD Liaison with
the Federal Energy Office/Administration for 18 months, 2 years as
Executive/Military Assistant to Dr. George Keyworth, President Reagan's
Science Advisor.
10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative,
honorary or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State,
or local governments, other than those listed above.
None.
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
President/Owner of Compass Associates Inc. (At present I have no
consulting work with the exception of providing management and business
development assistance to Trans-Digital Corp, located in Arlington,
VA.)
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organization Type of Organization Inclusive Dates Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citizen's for Nuclear Technology Educational............ 1995-Present........... This is org supports
Awareness. all things nuclear.
Inter Agency Seminar Group........... Social/Educational..... 1983-Present........... This group meets approx
monthly and invites
speakers for
luncheons.
West Lake Country Club............... Social................. 1993-Present........... This supports our local
community.
United Way........................... Charity................ 1995-Present........... Member of the Board.
American Nuclear Society............. Professional........... 1989-Present...........
Republican National Comm (President's Political.............. 1998-Present...........
Club).
Norwood's Capitol Club............... Political.............. 2000-Present........... Charlie Norwood (R) is
GA 10th District
Congressman.
USNA Alumni Assoc.................... Fraternal.............. 1963-Present...........
USNA Athletic Assoc.................. Other.................. 2001................... I have been member in
past but allowed
membership to lapse.
Church of the Good Shepherd, Augusta Religious.............. 1993-Present...........
GA.
Naval Submarine League............... Professional........... 1980-Present...........
Navy League.......................... Professional........... 1989-Present...........
Association for the Advancement of Civic.................. 1991-Present...........
Retired People.
The Retired Officers Association..... Civic.................. 1989-Present...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Political affiliations and activities:
(a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or
any public office for which you have been a candidate.
None.
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5
years.
I was a volunteer and surrogate speaker (never actually provided
such service) for the Virginia Bush for President Committee. I also
prepared a position paper regarding nuclear submarines.
(c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $100 or more for the past 5 years.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Individual/Campaign organization Political Party Contribution
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lindsey Graham for Senate.......... Republican........... 200.00
Charlie Norwood for Congress....... Republican........... 250.00
Charlie Norwood for Congress....... Republican........... 200.00
The Presidents Club................ Republican........... 110.00
Citizens to Elect Tom Cross........ Republican........... 250.00
Lindsey Graham for the Senate...... Republican........... 100.00
Charlie Norwood for Congress....... Republican........... 200.00
Committee to Elect Lindsey Graham.. Republican........... 200.00
Norwood for Congress............... Republican........... 200.00
Norwood for Congress............... Republican........... 200.00
Norwood for Congress............... Republican........... 150.00
Bush for President................. Republican........... 500.00
Charlie Norwood for Congress....... Republican........... 100.00
Bush Primary for President......... Republican........... 500.00
Miscellaneous contributions........ Republican........... 200.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals, and any other special
recognitions for outstanding service or achievements.
Department of Defense Superior Service Medal.
Four Navy Legion of Merit Medals.
Department of Defense Commendation Medal.
Three Navy Commendation Medals.
Two Navy Unit Commendations (NUC).
Three Navy Meritorious Unit Commendations (MUC).
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
Except for a Ph.D. thesis synopsis, I have had nothing published.
16. Speeches: Provide the committee with two copies of any formal
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have
copies of and are on topics relevant to the position for which you have
been nominated.
I have made no speeches on the topics relevant to the position for
which I have been nominated.
17. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree,
if confirmed, to respond to requests to appear and testify before any
duly constituted committee of the Senate?
I do agree.
______
[The nominee responded to the questions in Parts B-F of the
committee questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set
forth in the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to
Parts B-F are contained in the committee's executive files.]
------
Signature and Date
I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate,
and complete.
Dr. Mario Peter Fiori.
This 13th day of July, 2001.
[The nomination of Dr. Mario P. Fiori was reported to the
Senate by Senator Cleland on August 2, 2001, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on August 3, 2001.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to H.T. Johnson by Chairman
Levin prior to the hearing with answers supplied follow:]
July 17, 2001.
Hon. Carl Levin,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Enclosed herewith are the answers to the advance
questions the Senate Armed Services Committee asked me to complete.
Sincerely,
H.T. Johnson.
cc: Senator John Warner,
Ranking Member.
______
Questions and Responses
defense reforms
Question. More than a decade has passed since the enactment of the
Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and
the Special Operations reforms.
Do you support full implementation of these defense reforms?
Answer. I am committed to the complete and effective implementation
of these reforms.
Question. What is your view of the extent to which these defense
reforms have been implemented?
Answer. I believe these reforms have been accepted and implemented.
They have clarified the responsibilities and authorities of the
Secretary of Defense, the Secretaries of the Military Departments, the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. These
reforms have improved our joint war fighting capabilities.
Question. What do you consider to be the most important aspects of
these defense reforms?
Answer. I believe the most significant improvement has been to
strengthen the joint war fighting capability of our country. Our
military is more capable and more lethal because our Services can work
better together. If confirmed, I will continue the Department of the
Navy's commitment to the principles of joint war fighting.
Question. The goals of Congress in enacting these defense reforms,
as reflected in Section 3 of the Goldwater-Nichols Department of
Defense Reorganization Act, can be summarized as strengthening civilian
control; improving military advice; placing clear responsibility on the
combatant commanders for the accomplishment of their missions; ensuring
the authority of the combatant commanders is commensurate with their
responsibility; increasing attention to the formulation of strategy and
to contingency planning; providing for more efficient use of defense
resources; and enhancing the effectiveness of military operations and
improving the management and administration of the Department of
Defense.
Do you agree with these goals?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Recently, there have been articles which indicate an
interest within the Department of Defense in modifying Goldwater-
Nichols in light of the changing environment and possible revisions to
the national strategy.
Do you anticipate that legislative proposals to amend Goldwater-
Nichols may be appropriate? If so, what areas do you believe it might
be appropriate to address in these proposals?
Answer. I am unaware of legislative proposals to amend Goldwater-
Nichols, and do not have any specific suggestions to offer. If
confirmed, I will evaluate any proposal to amend Goldwater-Nichols on
its merits.
duties
Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Installations and Environment)?
Answer. According to existing practices, the role of the Assistant
Secretary of the Navy (Installations and Environment) is to formulate
policy and procedures for the effective management of Navy and Marine
Corps: real property, housing, and other facilities; environmental
protection ashore and afloat; safety and occupational health for both
military and civilian personnel; and timely completion of closures and
realignments of installations under base closure laws. If confirmed, I
will pursue these duties within the context of the overall priorities
of the Secretary of the Navy, as well as any other areas he may assign.
Question. What background and experience do you possess that you
believe qualifies you to perform these duties?
Answer. I believe I possess extensive experience in the public and
private sectors in operating and maintaining facilities in an
environmentally responsible manner. I have served in an executive
capacity in various phases of the BRAC process. I believe I have
demonstrated a deep and abiding commitment to ``the military family''
in my many previous assignments within the Department of Defense and in
the private sector. I will continue that commitment to the sailors,
marines, civilians, and their families in the Department of the Navy.
Question. Do you believe that there are actions you need to take to
enhance your ability to perform the duties of the Assistant Secretary
of the Navy (Installations and Environment)?
Answer. If confirmed, I will seek and listen to the views of those
within the Department of the Navy, as well as those of the Secretary of
Defense and the other Military Departments. I will also seek and listen
to the advice and counsel of Congress, the communities and states where
we operate, and other experts in my areas of responsibility.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what duties and functions do
you expect that the Secretary of the Navy would prescribe for you?
Answer. I expect the Secretary of the Navy to prescribe the duties
and functions listed above. The Secretary has not described any other
duties that he may assign to me.
Question. In carrying out your duties, how will you work with the
Secretary of the Navy, the Under Secretary of the Navy, and the Deputy
Under Secretary of Defense (Installations and Environment)?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Secretary of the
Navy, the Under Secretary of the Navy, the Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense (Installations and Environment), and the other Assistant
Secretaries of the Navy consistent with the appropriate laws and Title
10 of the U.S. Code and the priorities of the Secretary of the Navy. I
will work hard to foster cooperation and teamwork among the civilian
and military leadership in the Department of the Navy.
major challenges and problems
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will
confront the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Installations and
Environment)?
Answer. I believe the major challenges include: improving the
overall condition of the shore infrastructure, including solving long-
standing housing inadequacies; resolving encroachment concerns that may
limit the ability of our sailors and marines to train under realistic
conditions before going into harm's way; completing the environmental
cleanup and property disposal of bases listed under previous Base
Closure and Realignment statutes; providing more efficient facilities
consistent with future force structure needs; and securing alternative
shore facilities for pre-deployment readiness training.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, I will carefully evaluate the status of
ongoing initiatives. I will develop and pursue plans consistent with
the priorities of the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the
Navy. Where feasible, I would like to apply commercial methods and
industry practices to address these challenges.
Question. What do you consider to be the most serious problems in
the performance of the functions of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy
(Installations and Environment)?
Answer. On a national level, I believe the most serious problem
will be maintaining a proper balance between national security and non-
defense needs. Within the Department of Defense and the Department of
Navy, I expect there will be a strong competition for resources.
Question. If confirmed, what management actions and time lines
would you establish to address these problems?
Answer. I will work closely with the Secretary of the Navy and the
Under Secretary of the Navy to support the Secretary's overall goals
and time lines.
priorities
Question. What broad priorities will you establish in terms of
issues which must be addressed by the Assistant Secretary of the Navy
(Installations and Environment)?
Answer. If confirmed, I will establish priorities consistent with
those of the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Navy.
housing privatization
Question. Congress has repeatedly expressed its support for
improving military family housing. Through the Military Housing
Initiative, the Department of Defense has taken a significant step
toward improving family housing. However, it will take many more years
and a significant amount of funding to meet the Department's housing
needs. An alternative option that has frequently been mentioned to
resolve the military family housing crisis is to privatize the housing
and relieve the Services and its commanders of the burden of
maintaining and managing the family housing program. If confirmed for
the position of Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Installations and
Environment, you will have a key role in any decisions regarding
military family housing.
What are your views regarding the privatization of family housing?
Answer. I believe that privatization is an essential tool in
improving living conditions for sailors, marines, and their families.
The ability to leverage Government resources through partnership with
the private sector will help the Navy and Marine Corps to obtain better
housing faster.
Question. What is your view of the structure, pace, and general
goals of the Navy's current housing privatization program? Do you think
the program should be continued, and if so do you believe the program
should be modified in any way?
Answer. I understand that the Department of the Navy recently
awarded three housing privatization projects, and several more awards
are planned in the coming months. It is my opinion that the program
should be continued. If confirmed, I will explore all aspects of the
program to identify those areas that should be modified.
Question. The Department of Defense has established 2010 as a goal
to improve the standards of military family housing.
Do you believe this goal is realistic and achievable in regard to
the Department of the Navy?
Answer. Yes, based on what I have observed, and if confirmed, I
would like to see us do it sooner.
``1+1'' standard for bachelor enlisted quarters
Question. In recent years the Department of Defense has pursued the
so-called ``1+1'' standard for unaccompanied housing. While building to
this standard raises costs, making it more difficult to modernize the
Department's unaccompanied housing, many believe the greater privacy
the 1+1 standard offers our enlisted personnel is essential to
recruiting and retaining quality personnel and is something all
personnel deserve. Others argue that the 1+1 standard can reduce unit
cohesion and slow the integration of new personnel into the military
culture. The Marine Corps, and more recently the Navy, have sought and
received waivers to build to a ``2+0'' standard that affords less
privacy but allows them to build new unaccompanied housing faster.
What is your view of the 1+1 standard?
Answer. In my view, the 1+1 standard does provide enhanced privacy
and, therefore, improves the quality of life for single members.
Question. Do you believe the Navy and Marine Corps should build to
the same standards as the Army and the Air Force or continue their
recent waivers of the 1+1 standard?
Answer. I have not yet been fully briefed on the waivers to the 1+1
standard. If confirmed, I will work to ensure our sailors and marines
have a quality place to live. This will include consideration of all
possible options that are necessary to achieve this goal as quickly as
possible.
competitive sourcing
Question. Over the past several years, DOD has increased its
reliance on the private sector to perform activities that are
commercial in nature, including many functions relating to running and
maintaining our military installations.
What approach would you recommend to balance the need to maintain
necessary decision-making functions and technical capabilities in the
government's civilian workforce, including the knowledge necessary to
be a ``smart buyer,'' and skills such as civil engineering within the
military, with the savings that may be available from outsourcing?
Answer. I understand that the Department of Defense has in place an
approach called ``Strategic Sourcing'' that has wide acceptance. If
confirmed, I will work with the Department of the Navy staff to examine
this approach carefully, and assist in development of alternatives to
achieve any improvements necessary.
Question. Do you support the principle of public-private
competition as the preferred means to make the ``sourcing'' decision
for such functions?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the Secretary of the Navy
and the Department of the Navy staff and would welcome the opportunity
to work with the committee to evaluate the issue of public-private
competition and whether it should be a preferred means of sourcing
commercial activities.
Question. Do you believe that public-private competition results in
significant savings to the Department of Defense regardless of which
side wins the competition?
Answer. I have not reviewed any specific data in this area, so I
cannot provide an answer. If confirmed, I would welcome the opportunity
to work with the Department of the Navy staff and the committee to
evaluate such competition.
Question. OMB Circular A-76, which establishes the guidelines for
outsourcing most government functions, is slated for scrutiny by a
congressionally-mandated panel of government and private experts in
this area. The panel, chaired by the Comptroller General, is scheduled
to report to Congress with specific policy and legislative reforms and
recommendations for changing the way the government conducts out-
sourcing decisions and implements them.
What is your view of the current A-76 process?
Answer. If confirmed, I would be happy to participate in the review
by the congressionally-mandated panel to evaluate and improve the
process.
Question. Are there other effective alternatives to achieve the
benefits of public-private competition?
Answer. I believe that the work of the above-mentioned panel may be
useful in developing alternatives that may achieve the benefits of
public-private competition.
base closures
Question. The President's February 2001 budget blueprint document
states that ``with 23 percent in estimated excess infrastructure, it is
clear that new rounds of base closures will be necessary to shape the
military more efficiently''.
Do you believe that we need more base closures?
Answer. I am aware that the Secretary of Defense has expressed a
desire to conduct more base closures. I support that conclusion.
Question. Do you believe the Navy has excess infrastructure that
uses resources that could be applied to higher priorities within the
Department of the Navy?
Answer. Any discussion of where there may be excess capacity must
await the completion of the Quadrennial Defense Review. That will
identify a vision of how the Department of Defense must be reshaped to
meet the threats of today and tomorrow to our Nation. Implementing this
new defense vision will likely involve a shift in the focus and
priorities of the Military Departments, including its supporting shore
establishment.
Question. Based on your service on the Base Closure Commission, do
you have any suggestions on how to improve the base closure process?
Answer. Although the base closure process established by the
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act is fundamentally sound, if
confirmed, I will work closely within the Department of Defense and
Congress to further refine the process in light of the experience
gained from previous closure rounds. Any specific suggestions, however,
would be premature before considering the results of the Department of
Defense's ongoing reviews and the changes they are likely to recommend.
Question. Based on your extensive experience from all aspects of
the process--as a military commander, a member of the 1993 Base Closure
Commission, and as head of the Greater Kelly Development Corporation--
do you believe the process established by the Defense Base Closure and
Realignment Act of 1990 is a fair and effective way to reduce excess
military infrastructure and return the property to local authorities?
Answer. Yes.
Question. In your view, would changing the base closure process to
exempt some bases from the independent commission's review make the
process more or less open, fair, and stressful to communities with
military installations?
Answer. Any changes to the base closure process must remain open,
objective, and fair to all communities. If confirmed, I will consider
any proposed changes to improve the process.
vieques
Question. For the past 2 years, Naval forces deploying from the
East Coast of the United States have been unable to conduct live-fire
training on the Navy's training range on Vieques, Puerto Rico, which
has degraded the readiness of these forces to execute their wartime
missions.
In your view, to what extent are the difficulties the Navy is
having with respect to training on Vieques unique to this particular
situation and to what extent might these difficulties be an example of
future problems at other training ranges?
Answer. Not having been closely involved with the issues
surrounding Vieques, I do not know if this is unique to this situation.
If confirmed, this issue will be high on my priority list.
Question. The Navy has been looking for an alternative to Vieques
for 2 years without success to date. Do you believe there are any
alternatives available to replace the range of training capabilities
the Navy and Marine Corps have at the Atlantic Fleet Weapons Training
Facility ranges on and around Vieques?
Answer. I understand the Secretary of the Navy has established a
broad study to examine the possibilities.
Question. In your view, how difficult will it be to find new
training areas unencumbered by restrictions imposed by neighboring
populations, civilian air or sea traffic, or the need to protect
sensitive environmental areas or endangered species should the need
arise to replace or expand our training ranges in the future?
Answer. It will be challenging. Encroachment is an issue at many
military facilities, not just training ranges. If confirmed, I will
work to seek appropriate solutions.
Question. If confirmed, what actions would you propose to ensure
that this kind of problem does not prevent the Navy and Marine Corps
from effectively training and operating both at home and abroad?
Answer. If confirmed, I would propose that Navy and Marine Corps
continue to be good neighbors and stewards of their ranges. I will work
hard to build and nurture healthy partnerships that respect defense and
community needs.
real property maintenance
Question. The military departments have consistently struggled to
maintain their base infrastructure. The backlog of real property
maintenance has remained high whether budgets were increasing or
decreasing, and the military is far behind industry standards for
maintaining and modernizing its facilities.
Are there any new approaches to this issue that you believe could
help the Navy move toward a solution of this perennial problem?
Answer. I believe the solution lies in a combination of reducing
any excess infrastructure consistent with the recommendations of the
Quadrennial Defense Review, and a commitment to maintain the remaining
infrastructure using commercial benchmarks and practices.
environmental issues
Question. The Senior Readiness Oversight Committee is currently
reviewing a group of readiness challenges it has characterized as
``encroachment'' issues. These include environmental constraints on
military training ranges, local community efforts to obtain military
property, airspace restrictions to accommodate civilian airlines, and
the assignment of radio frequency spectrum away from the Department of
Defense.
In your opinion, how serious are these problems for the Department
of the Navy?
Answer. I understand encroachment is a very serious problem that is
having a negative impact on training and testing. I understand these
impacts include decreased days for testing and training, restrictions
on the location and timing for testing and training, and limitations on
the types of training available. The cumulative effect can diminish
readiness.
Question. If confirmed, what role do you expect to play in
addressing these challenges and what actions would you propose to take
to address them?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the Secretary of the Navy,
the other military components, the Office of the Secretary of Defense,
and other Federal agencies to assess the issue from a broad policy
perspective and resolve a number of specific encroachment issues. I
will also work closely with Congress on potential changes to existing
laws to clarify those laws with respect to the proper balance between
environmental protection and military readiness.
Question. The Department of Defense makes it a practice to request
funding only for those environmental compliance areas that are already
out of compliance and subject to an enforcement action, and those that
will be out of compliance before the next budget cycle.
Do you believe that continuing funding for this type of
environmental cleanup is critical to maintaining a positive
relationship with local regulatory authorities and the communities
around our military bases?
Answer. Yes. In many respects, the Department of the Navy is just
like any other big business and must give priority to complying with
environmental requirements. It is vital that the Navy and Marine Corps
comply with environmental protection requirements and budget
appropriately. If confirmed, I also will look for opportunities to be
proactive rather than reactive. For example, achieving compliance
through pollution prevention is the preferred method of achieving
compliance.
Question. Do you believe that the Department of Defense should be
exempt from the application of the environmental laws?
Answer. In general, no. Most of the activities of the Navy and
Marine Corps, particularly those associated with operating
installations, can and must comply with environmental laws like the
private sector. However, application of some environmental laws and
regulations to unique military training actions should be examined and
may require some regulatory accommodations to ensure national security.
Question. Do you support the basic principle of the Federal
Facilities Act and other laws that Federal facilities, including DOD
facilities, should be subject to the same standards as comparably
situated civilian facilities?
Answer. In general, yes. There may be circumstances where
environmental regulations must be tailored to accommodate a unique
military mission or special circumstances related to military training
while balancing the need to ensure good environmental stewardship.
Question. The Department of Defense faces a bill for the clean-up
of unexploded ordnance (UXO) that is at least in the tens of billions
of dollars, and could well be in the hundreds of billions of dollars.
At current funding levels, it has been estimated that it would take the
military services several thousand years to remediate UXO problems on a
DOD-wide basis.
What do you believe would be an acceptable time period for cleaning
up unexploded ordnance problems throughout the Department of Defense?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the other Services and the
Office of the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with Congress, to
solve this critical question.
Question. Do you believe that increased investment in UXO
remediation technologies would be likely to produce more effective and
efficient remediation processes and substantially reduce the
Department's long-term clean-up liability (and the time required to
complete such clean-up)?
Answer. It makes sense that better technology will provide more
reliable and cost effective solutions for UXO remediation. If
confirmed, I plan to address this issue in collaboration with my
military department counterparts and the Defense Science Board.
energy efficiency
Question. Executive Order 13123 lays out a number of specific steps
that agencies should take to promote energy conservation. These include
the use of energy savings performance contracts, utility energy
efficiency contracts, and other contracts designed to achieve energy
conservation; conducting energy efficiency audits for approximately 10
percent of an agency's facilities each year; and exploring
opportunities for energy efficiency in industrial facilities for steam
systems, boiler operation, air compressor systems, industrial
processes, and fuel switching.
Do you support the use of these energy conservation approaches?
Answer. Yes
Question. Are there other steps that you would take, if confirmed,
to promote energy conservation by the Department of the Navy?
Answer. If confirmed, I will pursue a combination of investment
strategies using appropriated and private sector funding to accomplish
energy saving projects.
Question. Do you believe that the energy conservation goals
established in the Executive Order are achievable?
Answer. Yes
integration of installations with local communities
Question. The Department of Defense is in the midst of an effort to
increase the Basic Allowance for Housing to eliminate out-of-pocket
housing costs for military families who choose to live off base. This
policy is intended to encourage more military families to live off base
and reduce the demand for government housing. In recent years,
outsourcing of base operations functions on military installations has
increased substantially. Secretary Rumsfeld has proposed examination of
additional contracting out in certain areas, including the operation of
commissaries. All of these policies tend to increase the integration of
the military into the local community and increase the non-military
population on our bases.
At the same time, force protection concerns are leading the
military services to take steps to close or restrict access to military
installations and to build force protection measures into the
construction of schools and other non-military facilities on those
installations.
What do you believe is the appropriate level of integration, or
separation, between military installations and the surrounding local
communities?
Answer. This is a question of risk based on many factors. If
confirmed, I will strive to ensure that military core capabilities are
protected as necessary, and still seek the appropriate level of
integration between military installations and the surrounding
communities.
davis-bacon act
Question. 40 U.S.C. Sec. 276a, commonly known as Davis-Bacon,
requires that for every contract in excess of $2,000 involving
construction, alteration, and/or repair of public buildings or public
works, the prevailing wage in that state shall be paid. When the
contract cost-floor was set in the 1930s, $2,000 was a substantial sum
of money, however, inflation during the intervening years has eroded
the value of the dollar to the point were there is virtually no project
that is not covered by Davis-Bacon.
If confirmed, would you support raising the contract threshold to a
more current standard before Davis-Bacon can be invoked?
Answer. Yes
Question. In your personal opinion, what would be an appropriate
contract cost before Davis-Bacon should apply?
Answer. One approach is to raise the Davis-Bacon threshold to the
``simplified acquisition'' threshold, which is currently $100,000. I
understand that another approach currently under discussion is to raise
the threshold to one million dollars. If confirmed, I will work with
the other Services and the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with
Congress, to support an appropriate new threshold.
installation management
Question. One of the obvious handicaps to the implementation of the
Family Housing Privatization initiative was the lack of specialists in
real estate and financial management throughout the Department of
Defense. A similar shortfall is said to exist in the area of business
managers and installation managers.
If the Navy is experiencing similar shortfalls, should these
positions be filled with contract or civil service personnel? Please
explain.
Answer. If confirmed, this will be a matter that requires my review
and attention.
Question. As the Navy enters a new era of defense reform and
business practices, does it have a program to ensure it has a cadre of
real estate and business managers?
Answer. I am not aware of any comprehensive program focused on
these areas. If confirmed, I intend to ensure the Department has a
workforce that is properly sized and has the necessary skills to reap
the savings and efficiencies sought through privatization.
ship disposal
Question. In its December 2000 report to Congress on the Ship
Disposal Project, the Navy expressed a commitment to eliminating any
environmental risks posed by its inactive ships by reducing the size of
the Inactive Fleet. A decision regarding a long-term ship scrapping
program was deferred, however. The communities in which these vessels
are berthed recognize that the potential for environmental and
navigational problems increases with the length of time they are
stored.
Do you believe that it is important to develop a budget and long-
term procurement strategy for ship disposal to dispose of these ships
in an efficient and responsible manner, while considering the full
range of competitive contracting procedures?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I will work on such a strategy with the
Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research, Development, and
Acquisition), who has responsibility for ship disposal
Question. If confirmed, how would you propose to approach this
problem?
Answer. If confirmed, I expect to provide advice regarding
environmental, safety and health issues to the Assistant Secretary of
the Navy (Research, Development, and Acquisition). The objective will
be to ensure that any ship disposal actions are done in full compliance
with environmental, safety, and occupational health laws.
research on marine environment
Question. Tensions between Navy fleet operations and protection of
the marine environment is an area that has been characterized as one of
several environmental encroachment issues. Some of these tensions may
be resolved through continued support for investments in science and
technology.
If confirmed, would you support the Navy's ongoing research efforts
in this area?
Answer. Yes. I understand that the Navy funds numerous research
projects and programs to better understand the issue of sound in water
and its effect on the marine environment. I support continuing this
work so that the Navy can continue to operate and train while still
being good stewards of the marine environment.
Question. How else might you propose to resolve these tensions?
Answer. I believe the Navy must use the best available science,
keep the public properly informed, and continue to keep its process
open and available for oversight by regulators.
airspace management
Question. Commercial air traffic is expected to increase 6 percent
annually, and military airspace use will also increase with the next
generation of high performance weapon systems. As a result of the
pressures associated with commercial air traffic congestion, noise, and
other environmental concerns, the acquisition and use of special use
airspace has evolved into a challenging endeavor for all of the
military departments.
If confirmed, how would you view your role in addressing these
issues?
Answer. The Nation's airspace is a limited resource that commercial
aviation, general aviation, and military aviation must continue to
share safely and efficiently. If confirmed, I will work closely with
the other military services, the Office of the Department of Defense,
and the Federal Aviation Administration to find ways to ensure the
availability of special use airspace necessary to conduct the military
training and testing that is necessary to defend the Nation while at
the same time recognizing the interest of other airspace users.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as the Assistant Secretary of the
Navy (Installations and Environment)?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings, and
other communications of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator John Warner
brac environmental cleanup
1. Senator Warner. Mr. Johnson, in its report on Issues and
Alternatives for Cleanup and Property Transfer of Base Realignment and
Closure (BRAC) Sites, dated August 1, 2000, the Institute for Defense
Analyses noted that despite Department of Defense efforts to accelerate
the program by working with effected communities and with Congress,
property transfer is taking too long and goals are not being met. Many
BRAC acres have not yet been transferred. These problems are compounded
by recent indications that there are funding shortfalls for BRAC
cleanup in the fiscal year 2002 budget, about $92 million in the Navy
account and $55 million in the Air Force account. The lack of progress
in the transfer of BRAC properties and inadequate funding support
within the military departments make it difficult to support future
rounds of BRAC.
How do you propose to address the effect of the fiscal year 2002
shortfalls in the Navy BRAC account?
Mr. Johnson. If confirmed, I will make the transfer of BRAC
properties a priority. I will work with the Secretary of the Navy, as
well as the Navy and Department of Defense Comptrollers, and the
appropriate committees to ensure that the high priority shortfalls are
included in the budget.
2. Senator Warner. What role do you expect to play in addressing
the need to renegotiate cleanup milestones and to address concerns
regarding delayed property transfers?
Mr. Johnson. If confirmed, I will do my best to ensure that Navy
meets all agreed milestones. I am committed to make the transfer of
BRAC properties to those communities that have long been strong
supporters of the defense of our Nation a priority. Before I acquiesce
to renegotiating agreed to milestones, however, I will work with the
Secretary of the Navy, as well as the Navy and Department of Defense
Comptrollers, and the appropriate committees to ensure that the high
priority shortfalls are included in the budget and do not impede
property transfer.
environmental encroachment
3. Senator Warner. Mr. Johnson, based on the testimony provided by
the Services at the Readiness and Management Support Subcommittee
hearing on March 20, 2001, it appears that the time is right for the
development and implementation of a comprehensive strategy that
addresses both the individual and the cumulative effects of
environmental encroachment issues.
How do you propose to facilitate the development and implementation
of a comprehensive strategy intended to address readiness concerns
related to these encroachment issues?
Mr. Johnson. I am committed to developing a comprehensive strategy
for balancing military readiness with environmental stewardship. In
many cases we have done so well with the latter that there is potential
for it to adversely to affect the former. Accomplishing this balance
will require Department of Defense engaging Federal and state
environmental protection agencies to assess the issue from a broad
policy perspective and resolve a number of specific encroachment
issues. I will also work closely with Congress on potential changes to
existing laws to clarify those laws with respect to the proper balance
between environmental protection and national security.
family housing improvement
4. Senator Warner. The Department of Defense has established 2010
as a goal to bring up to standard the family housing for our military
families. The vast majority of the existing family housing is more than
30 years old and has had very limited renovation due to fiscal
constraints. Although the Department has made progress toward achieving
the 2010 goal, the bulk of the improvement effort will have to be
funded and enacted under your leadership, assuming you are confirmed.
Based on what you know of the department's ongoing efforts to
improve military family housing, do you believe the 2010 goal is
achievable and are you committed to that goal?
Mr. Johnson. Based on what I have observed, the Department of the
Navy can achieve the 2010 goal. If confirmed, I would like to see us do
it sooner.
facility conditions
5. Senator Warner. The condition of our military facilities is
deplorable. After years of insufficient resources for the construction
of new facilities or the maintenance of those in existence, many of the
buildings in which our military personnel live and work have
deteriorated to an unacceptable level.
What actions will you pursue to correct this problem?
Mr. Johnson. I believe the solution lies in a combination of
reducing any excess infrastructure consistent with the recommendations
of the Quadrennial Defense Review, and a commitment to maintain the
remaining infrastructure using commercial benchmarks and practices.
encroachment
6. Senator Warner. Some of the most significant issues that will
impact the readiness of the Armed Forces as we enter the 21st century
could be categorized as outside encroachment upon military resources.
This encroachment includes environmental constraints on military
training ranges, local community efforts to obtain military property,
airspace restrictions to accommodate civilian airlines, and many
others. Unless these issues are effectively addressed, our military
forces will find it increasingly difficult to train and operate at home
and abroad.
What actions will you propose to ensure that encroachment does not
prevent the Armed Forces from effectively training and operating both
at home and abroad?
Mr. Johnson. In my experience, past responses to what we now call
encroachment were frequently issue-specific and not focused on long-
term objectives or coordinated with others facing similar challenges. I
believe two types of actions are necessary. First, we must assure that
our forces assess our training operations to ensure we are in full
compliance where possible. Where full compliance may not be possible
consistent with our national security mission, I would work with
Congress to seek clarifications to appropriate laws.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Strom Thurmond
family housing improvement
7. Senator Thurmond. The Department of Defense has established 2010
as a goal to bring up to standard the family housing for our military
families. The vast majority of the existing family housing stock is
more than 30 years old and has had very limited renovation due to
fiscal constraints. Although the Department has made progress toward
achieving the 2010 goal, the bulk of the improvement effort will have
to be funded and enacted under your leadership, once confirmed.
Based on what you know of the departments ongoing efforts to
improve the military family housing stock, do you believe the 2010 goal
is achievable and are you committed to that effort?
Mr. Johnson. Based on what I have observed, the Department of the
Navy can achieve the 2010 goal. If confirmed, I would like to see us do
it sooner.
67-year replacement standard
8. Senator Thurmond. The Department of Defense has a dismal record
in funding the repair and replacement of its infrastructure. Under the
historic funding profile, it would take more than 200 years to replace
the existing infrastructure. The prevailing industry standard is to
replace its facilities on a 57-year cycle. Secretary Rumsfeld,
concurrent with his budget submission, has established a 67-year
replacement standard for DOD facilities and has established a funding
profile to support this standard.
Although funding is key, proper management of the assets is
critical if the Department is to achieve this goal. Based on your
knowledge of how the Department currently manages its facilities, what
management improvements would you recommend.
Mr. Johnson. I believe the solution lies in a combination of
reducing any excess infrastructure consistent with the recommendations
of the Quadrennial Defense Review, and a commitment to maintain the
remaining infrastructure using commercial benchmarks and practices.
base closures
9. Senator Thurmond. One of the more significant issues that this
committee will face this year is legislation authorizing additional
base closures to more closely match facility capacity with existing
force structure. As you may know, the mere threat of a base closure
causes concern and turmoil with the communities that have a long and
historic association with our military installations.
Since each of you, if confirmed, will have a significant role in
any future base closures I would like your views on how we can minimize
the impact of the base closure process on our communities?
Mr. Johnson. I believe a successful base closure process involves a
constant balancing of military needs with those of the civil sector.
Each community is of course different, which precludes using a single
approach. Therefore, I believe we must maintain a reasonable level of
discretion at every stage. Complimenting that must be a firm commitment
to provide adequate funding to avoid having current year budget
deficiencies from becoming the driving decision force. I think this
flexibility, together with the knowledge gained during the recent
rounds, will go a long way towards minimizing impacts on specific
communities.
utility privatization
10. Senator Thurmond. The Defense Reform Initiative requires the
military departments to privatize all utility systems not later than
September 30, 2003, except those exempt for unique security reasons or
when privatization is uneconomical. Although the issue of privatization
is driven by the fact that the department avoids the near term cost of
modernizing the utility systems, there is concern regarding the long-
term implications. These concerns are cost growth and being held
hostage to future contract negotiations.
Based on your knowledge of the utility privatization effort, what
are your concerns regarding the total reliance on contractors to
provide utility services?
Mr. Johnson. I am fully committed to applying better business
practices in managing the shore infrastructure. By privatizing our
installation utility system there is the ability to focus our resources
on core warfighting missions. The private sector is fully capable to
manage our utility systems and will likely make gains in efficiency.
There is an extensive selection process and only the most qualified
municipal utilities and private sector contractors will be invited to
participate in the sale and utility service contracts. We are very
early in the utility privatization process. We plan on applying lessons
learned from our first privatization effort and make changes where
necessary.
priorities
11. Senator Thurmond. Mr. Johnson, the Navy, as have all the other
Services, has significant problems with the readiness of its
facilities. Although funding is certainly an important factor in
resolving this problem, so is setting the appropriate priorities in
regard to constructing new facilities versus the repair of existing
facilities.
If confirmed as the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for
Installations and Environment, what will be your priorities to improve
our facilities?
Mr. Johnson. If confirmed, I will establish priorities consistent
with those of the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Navy.
contracting reform
12. Senator Thurmond. In Secretary Rumsfeld's recent testimony
before the Senate Armed Services Committee, he stressed the need to
reform the outdated management and acquisition processes in the
Department of Defense. As a result of that testimony, Senator Allard
and I contacted the Secretary concerning the innovative contracting
mechanism being used by the Army for the environmental restoration of
the Rocky Mountain Arsenal. According to information I have received,
this innovative approach has produced impressive results. It will
reportedly reduce program costs by $200 million and the project
completion time by 3 years, while maintaining planned annual
expenditures of approximately $70 million with a competent, yet
reduced, Government core oversight team. I have also been informed that
the contractor has received numerous accolades due to the meaningful
small business involvement they have cultivated.
I believe this is an innovative and dynamic concept that can be
applied through the Armed Services, especially at the Corps of
Engineers that will allow each of you to quickly and efficiently adopt
best commercial practices. In other words, this contracting model may
yield dramatic and immediate savings for the Department.
Do you believe that the Department could benefit from contracting
reform?
Mr. Johnson. Yes. The Navy has been a leader in the use of
innovative contracting for the cleanup and transfer of BRAC property. I
support reforms that improve efficiency and reduce costs.
13. Senator Thurmond. Will you commit to studying the Rocky
Mountain Arsenal Program Management Contract in order to evaluate its
applicability to other projects in your Department?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, I will consult with my counterpart in the Army
and determine the suitability for use in the Navy.
real property maintenance
14. Senator Thurmond. Mr. Johnson, as a former commander I know you
are familiar with the demands on the resources allocated to your
command. One of the resources that is most frequently diverted from its
intended purposes is the O&M funding allocated for the repair and
maintenance of our facilities. As a result of this diversion and
underfunding, our facilities are in a dismal state of repair. To
preclude any further diversion there has been support for fencing the
repair and maintenance accounts.
What is your position regarding the fencing of the RPM account?
Mr. Johnson. I believe we need to maintain financial flexibility
during program execution to handle unexpected events.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Susan Collins
15. Senator Collins. Mr. Johnson, regionalization/shore
installation management concerns were brought to my attention in the
Northeast region back in the March timeframe. I would like to know how
things are going with this effort. As such, please provide an answer to
the following:
What types of change management strategies were employed at
affected installations to transition the consolidation of base
operating support functions?
Mr. Johnson. I'm not familiar with the details of the planning and
execution of regionalization/shore installation management. If
confirmed, this will be a matter that requires my review and attention.
16. Senator Collins. Mr. Johnson, were standard operating
procedures (SOPs) or concepts of operations (COOs) developed to track
the consolidation of base operating support functions at each of the
military installations?
Mr. Johnson. I'm not familiar with the details of the consolidation
of base operating support functions. If confirmed, this will be a
matter that requires my review and attention.
17. Senator Collins. Mr. Johnson, what metrics are being used to
ensure that the consolidation of base operating support functions is
reaching the proposed targets/goals?
Mr. Johnson. I'm not familiar with the details of the consolidation
of base operating support functions. If confirmed, this will be a
matter that requires my review and attention.
18. Senator Collins. Mr. Johnson, what has the projected and actual
savings/cost avoidance been with regionalization in each of the naval
regions?
Mr. Johnson. I'm not familiar with the details of the planning and
execution of regionalization/shore installation management. If
confirmed, this will be a matter that requires my review and attention.
19. Senator Collins. Mr. Johnson, what have been some of the
lessons learned with the transition? What have been the actualized
benefits of the process?
Mr. Johnson. I'm not familiar with the details of the planning and
execution of regionalization/shore installation management. If
confirmed, this will be a matter that requires my review and attention.
20. Senator Collins. Mr. Johnson, what has the impact been on the
workforce?
Mr. Johnson. I'm not familiar with the details of how
regionalization has impacted the workforce in the Northeast Region. If
confirmed, this will be a matter that requires my review and attention.
21. Senator Collins. Mr. Johnson, how has regionalization affected
the existing labor agreements already negotiated or established at each
of the military installations?
Mr. Johnson. I'm not familiar with the details of how
regionalization affected existing labor agreements in the Northeast
Region. If confirmed, this will be a matter that requires my review and
attention.
______
[The nomination reference of H.T. Johnson follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
June 28, 2001.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
H.T. Johnson, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of the
Navy, vice Robert B. Pirie, Jr., resigned.
______
[The biographical sketch of H.T. Johnson, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Hansford T. (H.T.) Johnson
H.T. Johnson has over 41 years of service to our Nation in front-
line leadership and planning experience in the military, public, and
business sectors. He grew up in Aiken, SC, attended Clemson College,
and was the outstanding graduate in thermodynamics and aeronautics in
the first class (1959) of the U.S. Air Force Academy. In 1989, he
became the first graduate of the Air Force Academy to be promoted to
General (four stars). Continuing his education, H.T. received a
Master's Degree in Aeronautics from Stanford in 1967 and an MBA from
Colorado in 1970. He furthered his military education at the U.S. Army
Command and General Staff College in 1972, the National War College in
1976, and the Advance Management Program at Dartmouth in 1980. He
qualified as a ``Professional Engineer'' in Colorado and as a
``registered principal'' with the National Association of Security
Dealers.
He was a forward air controller in Vietnam and flew 423 combat
missions. After the combat tour, he served as an Assistant Professor of
Aeronautics at the Air Force Academy. After serving in Air Force Plans
and attending the National War College, H.T. joined the Strategic Air
Command and served as a Wing Commander and in SAC Plans. During a
period of defense downsizing (1982-1985), he led the team that
successfully rebalanced the Air Force programs in the $100 billion
annual Air Force Budget. H.T. led Strategic Air Command operations in
1985 and directed the refueling and strategic reconnaissance forces
during Coronado Canyon, the bombing of Libya. He then became the Vice
Commander in Chief of the Pacific Air Force. In late 1987, he became
the Deputy Commander in Chief of the Central Command during Earnest
Will, the U.S. reflagging of Kuwaiti oil tankers and escort operations
in the Persian Gulf. He was intimately involved in all of the conflicts
with Iran during the escort operations. In 1989, H.T. served as Admiral
Bill Crowe's Director of the Joint Staff, Joint Chiefs of Staff.
As Commander in Chief of the U.S. Transportation and the Military
Airlift Commands, H.T. worked directly for Secretary of Defense Dick
Cheney; Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Colin Powell; and Air Force
Chief of Staff Gen. Larry Welch in leading all transportation
components of the Army, Navy, and Air Force (which he also commanded).
His Air Force command provided all airlift and special operations
forces for the extremely effective Just Cause invasion of Panama. He
very successfully implemented Total Quality Management in the Military
Airlift Command. All military and commercial aspects of the Operation
Desert Shield/Storm movement of troops, equipment, and supplies to and
from the Persian Gulf were led by him and his commands. This was the
most concentrated movement in American military history--moving the
equivalent of Richmond, Virginia across the world in 4 months.
After retirement from the Air Force, H.T. joined USAA Capital
Corporation, part of one of the largest and most successful financial
services organizations in America. He was responsible for providing
non-insurance services to USAA members through the USAA Federal Savings
bank (selected as the Best Bank in America by Money Magazine), the USAA
Investment Management Company, the USAA Real Estate Company, and USAA
Buying Service. These companies managed $13 billion in USAA insurance
portfolios, over $16 billion in mutual funds, $10 billion bank, and $1
billion in real estate holdings.
While at USAA, President Bush and Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney
appointed him to the 1993 Base Realignment and Closure Commission. When
the 1995 Commission closed Kelly AFB, H.T. was appointed to lead the
Greater Kelly Development Corporation (GKDC). The GKDC was charged with
transforming the closing $7.5 billion Kelly Air Force Base with a
workforce of 19,000 into a thriving industrial park employing in excess
of 21,000 workers.
He served as an Executive Vice President and Chief Operating
Officer of the Credit Union National Association (CUNA) in Madison,
Wisconsin. Until reaching 65, H.T. served as the President and CEO of
EG&G Technical Service and later of EG&G when purchased by The Carlyle
Group. EG&G provides the full range of management, scientific,
technical, operational, and support services to both government and
commercial customers. H.T. is active in the Air Force Association's
Aerospace Education Foundation, the National War College Alumni
Association Board, Falcons Landing Air Force Retired Officers'
Community Board, and the National Presbyterian Church.
H.T. and his wife of 41 years, Linda, live in McLean, Virginia.
They have a son, a daughter, and six grandchildren.
______
[The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
form that details the biographical, financial and other
information of the nominee. The form executed by H.T. Johnson
in connection with his nomination follows:]
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Room SR-228
Washington, DC 20510-6050
(202) 224-3871
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation
of your answer applies.
Part A--Biographical Information
Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.
1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
Hansford Tillman Johnson.
2. Position to which nominated:
Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Installations and Environment).
3. Date of nomination:
June 28, 2001.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
5. Date and place of birth:
January 3, 1936; Aiken, SC.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Linda Ann Whittle.
7. Names and ages of children:
Richard Tillman Johnson, 41; Elizabeth Ann Johnson McCombs, 39;
David Michael Johnson, Deceased, 1998.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
1947-1953--Aiken High School.
1953-1955--Clemson College.
1955-1959--U.S. Air Force Academy, BS--Engineering Science.
1965-1966--Stanford University, MS--Aeronautics.
1968-1970--University of Colorado, MBA.
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
Associate, Burdeshaw Associates, Ltd., Bethesda, MD, 2001 to
Present.
President & CEO, EG&G Technical Services, Gaithersburg, MD, 1998-
2001.
Executive VP and Chief Operating Officer, Credit Union National
Association, Madison, WI, 1997-1998.
Chair, President & CEO, Greater Kelly Development Corp, San
Antonio, TX, 1996-1997.
Vice Chair of Board and President & CEO of USAA CAPCO, USAA, San
Antonio, TX 1992-1996.
Commissioner, Base Realignment and Closure Commission, Washington,
DC, 1993.
Commander in Chief, United States Transportation Command and
Military Airlift Command, 1989-1992.
Director, Joint Staff (JCS), Washington, DC, 1988-1989.
Deputy Commander in Chief, United States Central Command, Tampa,
FL, 1987-1989.
Vice Commander in Chief, Pacific Air Force, Hickam Air Force Base,
HI, 1986-1987.
Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, Strategic Air Command, Omaha,
NE, 1985-1986.
Director of Programs and Chair of Air Staff Board, Headquarters,
U.S. Air Force, Washington, DC, 1983-1985.
Deputy Director of Programs and Chair of the Program Review
Committee, Headquarter U.S. Air Force, Washington, DC, 1982-1983.
Other Air Force Positions, 1959-1982.
10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative,
honorary or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State,
or local governments, other than those listed above.
None.
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
Associate, Burdeshaw Associates, Ltd., Bethesda, MD.
Director, Aerospace Education Foundation, Arlington, VA.
Vice President, National War College Alumni Association,
Washington, DC.
Chairman, Air Force Retired Officers Community (Falcon's Landing),
Sterling, VA.
Trustee, Johnson Family Trust (family/personal trust).
Trustee, Johnson Charitable Remainder Trust (family/personal
trust).
General Partner, John Whit Limited Partnership (family/personal
partnership).
President, Tillin Charitable Foundation (family/personal
foundation).
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
National March of Dimes Board, 1994-1997.
Alamo Bowl (Post Season football), 1995-1997, Chair in 1995.
U.S. Air Force Academy Association of Graduates, 1959 to Present.
Air Force Association, 1959 to Present.
Air Force Academy Sabre Society, 1995 to Present.
Order of Daedalians, 1970 to Present.
National Defense Transportation Association, 1989 to Present.
The Marine Society of the City of New York, 1990 to Present.
Airlift/Tanker Association, 1990 to Present.
Stanford Alumni Association, 1967 to Present.
Alexis De Tocqueville Institution, 1993-1997.
Free Trade Alliance of San Antonio, 1993-1997.
Santa Rosa Children's Hospital, San Antonio, TX, 1993-1996.
Cancer Therapy and Research Center, San Antonio, TX, 1993-1997.
St. Mary's University, Business School Advisory Council, San
Antonio, TX, 1993-1995.
Texas Research and Technology Foundation, San Antonio, TX, 1993-
1997.
University of Texas at San Antonio Development Board, 1994-1996.
Torch Club, San Antonio, TX, 1993-1997.
American Institute of Aeronautics and Asgronautics, 1968-1992.
Dominion Country Club, San Antonio, TX, 1992-1999.
Falcon Foundation, U.S. Air Force Academy, 1992-1998.
Club Giraud, San Antonio, TX, 1992-1996.
The Tower Club, Tyson's Corner, VA, 1999-2001.
Falcons Landing, Air Force Retired Officer Community Board, 2001 to
Present.
Aerospace Education Foundation, 1999 to Present (If confirmed, I
will resign.)
University Methodist Church, San Antonio, TX, 1992-1997.
National Presbyterian Church, 2000 to Present.
World Affairs Council of Washington, DC, 2001 to Present.
Order of the Caribou, 2000 to Present.
13. Political affiliations and activities:
(a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or
any public office for which you have been a candidate.
None.
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5
years.
None.
(c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $100 or more for the past 5 years.
POLITICAL CONTRIBUTION
(since March 1996)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Amount Recipient Comment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3/28/96.................................. $1,000 Dole for President..........
7/15/96.................................. $250 Texans for Henry Bonilla....
10/21/96................................. $250 Friends of John Shields.....
3/25/97.................................. $500 Friends of Chris Dodd....... Luncheon in San Antonio
9/17/98.................................. $1,000 Alan Mollohan............... On behalf of EG&G
2/24/99.................................. $1,000 Kennedy for Senate.......... On behalf of EG&G, Home
office in Wellesley, MA
3/13/99.................................. $500 Charlie Gonzalez............ On behalf of EG&G
3/13/99.................................. $500 Texans for Henry Bonilla....
5/9/99................................... $100 Bush for President..........
2/10/00.................................. $250 McCain 2000................. On behalf of EG&G
3/2/00................................... $250 George Allen ...............
2/22/00.................................. $1,000 Gore for President.......... On behalf of EG&G, Energy
sector group
3/30/99 $500 Thornberry for Congress..... On behalf of EG&G
4/1/00 $500 Bush for President..........
4/12/00 $5,000 EG&G PAC.................... Initial contribution to PAC
6/27/00 $200 RNC Victory 2000............
8/8/00 $100 Lazio 2000..................
9/7/00 $500 RNC Victory 2000............
9/11/00 $200 Alan Mollohan............... On behalf of EG&G
3/11/01 $500 RNC.........................
5/31/01 $100 Texans for Henry Bonilla....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals, and any other special
recognitions for outstanding service or achievements.
Outstanding Graduate in Aeronautics and Thermodynamics at U.S. Air
Force Academy.
Defense Distinguished Service Medal with two oak leaf clusters.
Distinguished Service medal.
Silver Star.
Legion of Merit with two oak leaf clusters.
Distinguished Flying Cross with two oak leaf clusters.
Defense Meritorious Service Medal.
Air Medal with 22 oak leaf clusters.
Presidential Unit Citation.
Navy-Marine Corps Presidential Unit Citation.
Joint Meritorious Unit Award.
Air Force Outstanding Unit Award with ``V'' device and three oak
leaf clusters.
Air Force Organizational Excellence Award.
Combat Readiness Medal.
National Defense Service Medal.
Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal with service star.
Vietnam Service Medal with three service stars.
Humanitarian Service Medal.
Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm.
Republic of Vietnam Armed Forces Honor Medal, First Class with
service star.
Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal.
Command Pilot.
Navigator.
Parachutist.
Qualified as a Professional Engineer.
Qualifed as a Registered NASD Securities Broker.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
Series of articles written while Commander in Chief of U.S.
Transportation and Military Airlift Commands in associated weekly
newspapers, 1989-1992.
16. Speeches: Provide the committee with two copies of any formal
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have
copies of and are on topics relevant to the position for which you have
been nominated.
No relevant speeches.
Many speeches given while in the Air Force.
Speaker at 1999 Wright Memorial Dinner.
Speaker at Air Mobility training in 2001.
Speaker on Military Role in Diplomacy at Sheppard Center Elder
Hostel in 2001.
Lecturer on cruises to Persian Gulf (1997 & 1998) and Vietnam
(2000).
17. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree,
if confirmed, to respond to requests to appear and testify before any
duly constituted committee of the Senate?
Yes.
______
[The nominee responded to the questions in Parts B-F of the
committee questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set
forth in the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to
Parts B-F are contained in the committee's executive files.]
------
Signature and Date
I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate,
and complete.
Hansford T. Johnson.
This 29th day of June, 2001.
[The nomination of H.T. Johnson was reported to the Senate
by Chairman Levin on August 2, 2001, with the recommendation
that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination was confirmed
by the Senate on August 3, 2001.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to Nelson F. Gibbs by
Chairman Levin prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
July 25, 2001.
Hon. Carl Levin,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Enclosed herewith are the answers to the advance
questions the Senate Armed Services Committee asked me to complete.
Sincerely,
Nelson F. Gibbs.
cc: Senator John Warner,
Ranking Member.
______
Questions and Responses
defense reforms
Question. More than a decade has passed since the enactment of the
Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and
the Special Operations reforms.
Do you support full implementation of these defense reforms?
What is your view of the extent to which these defense reforms have
been implemented?
What do you consider to be the most important aspects of these
defense reforms?
Answer. I fully support Goldwater-Nichols Act and agree with its
goal. The Act has improved the organization of the Department of
Defense and provided focus on the capabilities of the military to
conduct its operations. I believe the act has strengthened the advice
provided the Secretary of Defense and has increased the ability of the
military departments to integrate their capabilities.
Question. The goals of Congress in enacting these defense reforms,
as reflected in Section 3 of the Goldwater-Nichols Department of
Defense Reorganization Act, can be summarized as strengthening civilian
control; improving military advice; placing clear responsibility on the
combatant commanders for the accomplishment of their missions; ensuring
the authority of the combatant commanders is commensurate with their
responsibility; increasing attention to the formulation of strategy and
to contingency planning; providing for more efficient use of defense
resources; and enhancing the effectiveness of military operations and
improving the management and administration of the Department of
Defense.
Do you agree with these goals?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Recently, there have been articles which indicate an
interest within the Department of Defense in modifying Goldwater-
Nichols in light of the changing environment and possible revisions to
the national strategy.
Do you anticipate that legislative proposals to amend Goldwater-
Nichols may be appropriate? If so, what areas do you believe it might
be appropriate to address in these proposals?
Answer. I am not aware of specific proposals that are contemplated.
If enacted, I would fully support any changes that resulted from the
legislative process.
duties
Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Installations and
Environment)?
Answer. The duties and functions are varied and cross a large
spectrum of the Air Force mission. Central elements include providing
quality housing to Air Force members and their families, a critical
part of which is privatization. Privatization also extends to strategic
outsourcing and utilities infrastructure. Environment, safety, and
occupational health as well as airspace and range issues are also a
function I will assume if confirmed. Base closure and realignment
matters fall within the assistant secretary for installations and
environment. If confirmed, I will also exercise oversight of the Air
Force logistics system.
Question. What background and experience do you possess that you
believe qualifies you to perform these duties?
Answer. I believe my many years at the senior level with Deloitte &
Touche and my experience as the Corporate Controller for Northrop
Grumman Corporation will translate well into performing the duties of
Assistant Secretary, if confirmed. My professional and educational
background in civil engineering, financial services, and accounting
coupled with my corporate experience at Northrop Grumman will allow me
to quickly move into the role of Assistant Secretary, if confirmed.
Question. Do you believe that there are actions you need to take to
enhance your ability to perform the duties of the Assistant Secretary
of the Air Force (Installations and Environment)?
Answer. No. I am confident in my ability to do the job now.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what duties and functions do
you expect that the Secretary of the Air Force would prescribe for you?
Answer. I would expect Secretary Roche to prescribe the duties and
functions commensurate with the position and consistent with those
specified in law.
Question. In carrying out your duties, how will you work with the
Secretary of the Air Force, the Under Secretary of the Air Force, and
the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations and Environment)?
Answer. As Secretary Roche stated in his response to questions, as
part of his leadership team, I will, if confirmed, assist the Under
Secretary of the Air Force, the General Counsel, the other Assistant
Secretaries of the Air Force, along with the Air Force Chief of Staff
in forming a close relationship with the Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense (Installations & Environment). I will make teamwork and
information sharing a top personal priority.
major challenges and problems
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will
confront the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Installations and
Environment)?
Answer. Enhancing our ability to carry out the Air Force mission in
the most cost-effective method will always be a priority. Ensuring
access to our training ranges and airspace is critical to preparing the
warfighters for the ultimate tasking. Improving our family housing and
the utility infrastructure and overseeing an immense logistics system
will occupy a great deal of my time as well, if confirmed.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, I will establish broad parameters in all
matters within my jurisdiction in order to allow competent people to
carry out their tasks with efficiency and within the guidelines of the
Air Force mission. These parameters will include improvements in
financial analysis; leveraging the funds we do have available and
working closely with others both within and out of government who
influence Air Force installations, the environment, and our access to
airspace and ranges.
Question. What do you consider to be the most serious problems in
the performance of the functions of the Assistant Secretary of the Air
Force (Installations and Environment)?
Answer. The heart of any organization is its people and I want to
ensure that I have the right mix of civilian and military personnel
with the right skill sets to perform the tasks within the Assistant
Secretary's office. Many of the actions within my office would require
the expenditure of large sums of money and are mandated by both
Congress and Department of Defense. These actions must be executed with
precision. I will do so if confirmed.
Question. If confirmed, what management actions and time lines
would you establish to address these problems?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work hard to establish a personal and
professional relationship with both members of Congress and their staff
and the DOD officials directly responsible for matters within the
jurisdiction of my office. I will work closely with the Secretary and
Under Secretary of the Air Force to enhance the skill levels of all our
civilian and military personnel. Timeliness will be critical to all
actions within my purview.
priorities
Question. If confirmed, what broad priorities will you establish in
terms of issues which must be addressed by the Assistant Secretary of
the Air Force (Installations and Environment)?
Answer. Broad parameters will include innovative thinking; cost
effectiveness, relationship building; treating people right; and of
course doing everything possible to assist the Air Force warfighting
mission and our people and families who carry out that mission.
housing privatization
Question. Congress has repeatedly expressed its support for
improving military family housing. In recent years the Department of
Defense and Congress have taken significant steps to improve family
housing. However, it will take many more years and a significant amount
of funding to meet the Department's housing needs. An alternative
option that was created to speed the improvement of military family
housing and relieve base commanders of the burden of managing their
family housing is the housing privatization program. If confirmed for
the position of Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Installations and
Environment) you will have a key role in any decisions regarding
military family housing.
What are your views regarding the privatization of family housing?
What is your view of the structure and general goals of the Air
Force's current housing privatization program? Do you think the program
should be continued, and if so do you believe the program should be
modified in any way?
Why do you believe the pace of Air Force housing privatization has
been so slow?
The Army has contracted for a major housing privatization effort at
Fort Hood, Texas using a request for qualifications (RFQ) process
instead of the more traditional request for proposals (RFP) process.
What are your views on the relative merits of these contracting
approaches?
The Department of Defense has established 2010 as a goal to improve
all of its military family housing.
Do you believe the Department of the Air Force can achieve this
goal?
Answer. The Air Force housing initiatives are critical to the men,
women, and families of the Air Force. If confirmed, I will review this
matter in depth to ensure our military members and their families are
provided quality housing so that they may better go about conducting
the Air Force mission.
competitive sourcing
Question. Over the past several years, DOD has increased its
reliance on the private sector to perform activities that are
commercial in nature, including many functions relating to running and
maintaining our military installations.
What approach would you recommend to balance the need to maintain
necessary decision-making functions and technical capabilities in the
government's civilian workforce, including the knowledge necessary to
be a ``smart buyer,'' and skills such as civil engineering within the
military, with the savings that may be available from outsourcing?
Answer. If confirmed, I will continue to work with my staff and
welcome the opportunity to work with the committee to evaluate the
effectiveness of outsourcing.
Question. Do you support the principle of public-private
competition as the preferred means to make the ``sourcing'' decision
for such functions?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work the issue of sourcing decisions
with the Air Force and, if requested, with this committee.
Question. Do you believe that public-private competition results in
significant savings to the Department of Defense regardless of which
side wins the competition?
Answer. I will evaluate the issue of public-private competition and
whether it does generate greater savings. I will be most happy, if
confirmed, to share my thoughts with this committee at a later time.
Question. OMB Circular A-76, which establishes the guidelines for
outsourcing most government functions, is slated for scrutiny by a
congressionally-mandated panel of government and private experts in
this area. The panel, chaired by the Comptroller General, is scheduled
to report to Congress with specific policy and legislative reforms and
recommendations for changing the way the government conducts
outsourcing decisions and implements them.
What is your view of the current A-76 process?
Answer. I believe that the on-going Commercial Activities Panel,
directed by Section 832 of the 2001 NDAA, is a good venue in which to
address issues associated with the A-76 process and if requested, I
will provide any necessary input to the panel.
Question. Are there other effective alternatives to achieve the
benefits of public-private competition?
Answer. If confirmed, I will evaluate all effective alternatives to
public-private competition and if requested, communicate my views to
this committee.
base closures
Question. The President's February 2001 budget blueprint document
states that ``with 23 percent in estimated excess infrastructure, it is
clear that new rounds of base closures will be necessary to shape the
military more efficiently''.
Do you believe that we need more base closures?
Answer. If confirmed, I will support the Secretary of Defense's
position on issues associated with the evaluation of the efficient use
of facilities.
Question. Do you believe the Air Force has excess infrastructure
that uses resources that could be applied to higher priorities within
the Department of the Air Force?
Answer. Recent testimony of the Secretary of Defense, as well as
the service secretaries and the service chiefs referred to excess
capacity. If confirmed, I will support the Secretary in his decisions
on this matter.
Question. Do you believe the process established by the Defense
Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 is a fair and effective way to
reduce excess military infrastructure and return the property to local
authorities?
Answer. I am a firm believer in the legislative process and will
support any decision that process yields.
Question. In your view, would changing the base closure process to
exempt some bases from the independent commission's review make the
process more or less open, fair, and stressful to communities with
military installations?
Answer. If confirmed, I will carefully consider any proposed
changes to improve the process. In general, I believe that any proposed
changes must ensure that the process remains open, objective and fair
to all communities.
real property maintenance
Question. The military departments have consistently struggled to
maintain their base infrastructure. The backlog of real property
maintenance has remained high whether budgets were increasing or
decreasing, and the military is far behind industry standards for
maintaining and modernizing its facilities.
Are there any new approaches to this issue that you believe could
help the Air Force move toward a solution of this perennial problem?
Answer. If confirmed, I will take a fresh look at approaches to
this issue and if requested, share my views with this committee.
environmental issues
Question. The Senior Readiness Oversight Committee is currently
reviewing a group of readiness challenges it has characterized as
``encroachment'' issues. These include population growth near military
installations, environmental constraints on military training ranges,
airspace restrictions to accommodate civilian airlines, and the
conflicts with civilian users over the use of radio frequency spectrum.
In your opinion, how serious are these problems for the Department
of the Air Force?
If confirmed, what role do you expect to play in addressing these
challenges and what actions would you propose to take to address them?
Answer. If confirmed, I will take a key Air Force role in
addressing encroachment associated with military installations, ranges,
and airspace. These are readiness issues and I clearly understand their
importance.
Question. The Department of Defense makes it a practice to request
funding only for those environmental compliance areas that are already
out of compliance and subject to an enforcement action, and those that
will be out of compliance before the next budget cycle.
Do you believe that continuing funding for this type of
environmental cleanup is critical to maintaining a positive
relationship with local regulatory authorities and the communities
around our military bases?
Answer. I believe that maintaining a positive relationship with the
regulatory authorities and local communities is important to our entire
environmental cleanup program.
Question. Do you believe that the Department of Defense should be
exempt from the application of the environmental laws?
Answer. No.
Question. Do you support the basic principle of the Federal
Facilities Act and other laws that Federal facilities, including DOD
facilities, should be subject to the same standards as comparably
situated civilian facilities?
Answer. Yes.
Question. The Department of Defense faces a bill for the clean-up
of unexploded ordnance (UXO) that is at least in the tens of billions
of dollars, and could well be in the hundreds of billions of dollars.
At current funding levels, it has been estimated that it would take the
military services several thousand years to remediate UXO problems on a
DOD-wide basis.
What do you believe would be an acceptable time period for cleaning
up unexploded ordnance problems throughout the Department of Defense?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the Air Force and with my
service counterparts and DOD to establish a methodology for solving
this most complex problem.
Question. Do you believe that increased investment in UXO
remediation technologies would be likely to produce more effective and
efficient remediation processes and substantially reduce the
Department's long-term clean-up liability (and the time required to
complete such clean-up)?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review this long-term liability issue
both with the Air Force and with my service counterparts and DOD.
energy efficiency
Question. Executive Order 13123 lays out a number of specific steps
that agencies should take to promote energy conservation. These include
the use of energy savings performance contracts, utility energy
efficiency contracts, and other contracts designed to achieve energy
conservation; conducting energy efficiency audits for approximately 10
percent of an agency's facilities each year; and exploring
opportunities for energy efficiency in industrial facilities for steam
systems, boiler operation, air compressor systems, industrial
processes, and fuel switching.
Do you support the use of these energy conservation approaches?
Answer. I support energy conservation, and if confirmed, I will
review the entire Air Force effort in this area.
Question. Are there other steps that you would take, if confirmed,
to promote energy conservation by the Department of the Air Force?
Answer. I will address the issue in detail if confirmed.
Question. Do you believe that the energy conservation goals
established in the Executive Order are achievable?
Answer. If confirmed, I will attempt to meet all goals established
by Presidential Executive Order.
integration of installations with local communities
Question. The Department of Defense is in the midst of an effort to
increase the basic allowance for housing to eliminate out-of-pocket
housing costs for military families who choose to live off base. This
policy is intended to encourage more military families to live off base
and reduce the demand for government housing. In recent years,
outsourcing of base operations functions on military installations has
increased substantially. Secretary Rumsfeld has proposed examination of
additional contracting out in certain areas, including the operation of
commissaries. All of these policies tend to increase the integration of
the military into the local community and increase the non-military
population on our bases.
At the same time, force protection concerns are leading the
military services to take steps to close or restrict access to military
installations and to build force protection measures into the
construction of schools and other non-military facilities on those
installations.
What do you believe is the appropriate level of integration, or
separation, between military installations and the surrounding local
communities?
Answer. If confirmed, I will address this very complex issue in
detail.
davis-bacon act
Question. 40 U.S.C. Sec. 276a, commonly known as Davis-Bacon,
requires that for every contract in excess of $2,000 involving
construction, alteration, and/or repair of public buildings or public
works, the prevailing wage in that state shall be paid. When the
contract cost-floor was set in the 1930s, $2,000 was a substantial sum
of money, however, inflation during the intervening years has eroded
the value of the dollar to the point were there is virtually no project
that is not covered by Davis Bacon.
If confirmed, would you support raising the contract threshold to a
more current standard before Davis-Bacon can be invoked?
In your personal opinion, what would be an appropriate contract
cost before Davis-Bacon should apply?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review the issues associated with the
Davis-Bacon Act and consult with senior Air Force leadership for their
views.
installation management
Question. One of the obvious handicaps to the implementation of the
Family Housing Privatization initiative is the lack of specialists in
real estate and financial management throughout the Department of
Defense. A similar shortfall is said to exist in the area of business
managers and installation managers.
If the Air Force is experiencing similar shortfalls, should these
positions be filled with contract or civil service personnel? Please
explain.
As the Air Force enters a new era of defense reform and business
practices, does it have a program to ensure it has a cadre of real
estate and business managers?
Answer. If confirmed, I will address the issue of real estate and
financial management specialists and illicit the views of senior
leaders in the Air Force.
airspace management
Question. Commercial air traffic is expected to increase 6 percent
annually, and military airspace use will also increase with the next
generation of high performance weapon systems. As a result of the
pressures associated with commercial air traffic congestion, noise, and
other environmental concerns, the acquisition and use of special use
airspace has evolved into a challenging endeavor for all of the
military departments.
If confirmed, how would you view your role in addressing these
issues?
Answer. I view my role as working closely with senior Air Force
civilian and military leaders to address this critical readiness issue.
unexploded ordnance cleanup and technological development
Question. Unexploded ordnance (UXO) and other by-products of test
and training activities can cause environmental contamination and
safety concerns that may trigger restrictions on military testing and
training. The technology presently available to address these issues is
labor intensive and not cost effective, but technological advancements
have shown promise. The Air Force's budget request for fiscal year 2002
does not contain any funding to support such critical environmental
technology investments.
If you are confirmed, how would you propose to address this issue?
Answer. If confirmed, I will address this issue within the Air
Force, with my service counterparts and DOD representatives.
environmental encroachment
Question. Some of the Service Chiefs have asserted that they spend
more money each year complying with environmental regulations than they
spend on training. In visits to military installations, committee
members have observed first hand the barriers to training caused by
compliance with environmental regulations.
If confirmed, what steps would you take to reduce the cost to the
Department of environmental compliance?
If confirmed, how would you propose to facilitate the development
and implementation of a comprehensive strategy to address readiness
concerns related to these encroachment issues?
Answer. Environmental costs, readiness, and encroachment are issues
I will address, if confirmed.
overseas installations
Question. The Air Force maintains a network of bases to support our
forward deployed forces. In testimony before the Senate Armed Services
Committee, both the Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, and the
Commander, United States Forces, Korea, stated that the installations
in their commands are in serious need of repair. The implication of
these statements is that overseas installations are not faring well in
the funding allocation process.
In your view, what share of resource allocation should go to our
overseas bases?
Answer. If confirmed, I will study resource allocations for all
installations in the Air Force and determine if special circumstances
are warranted.
67-year facility replacement goal
Question. One of Secretary Rumsfeld's more significant goals is to
fund facility replacement on a 67-year standard, rather than the almost
200-year cycle on which the Department is currently operating. Although
this standard is still short of the industry standard of 57 years, it
will significantly increase the readiness of our military
installations.
In your view, is it realistic to hold the Air Force to such a
standard when there are fluctuating budget demands and priorities?
Other than increased funding for military construction and repair
and maintenance, what other tools would you suggest the Department
employ to achieve the 67-year replacement goal?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review all issues associated with
infrastructure replacement from both an installation and cost
standpoint. Installation upgrades are clearly a part of both readiness
and quality of life.
modernization/new mission costs
Question. All components, including both active and Reserve Forces,
face the challenge of providing facilities required for a new weapon
system or the assignment of a new mission. This is especially
challenging to the Reserve components, which have been assigned new
missions or weapons systems and then expected to fund the new
facilities from their limited military construction funds.
Do you believe the funding for new equipment support facilities
should be programmed as part of any given program's acquisition cost?
What are your views on the assignment of new missions to the
Reserve components without specifically programming the funds in the
military construction program to support those missions?
Answer. New weapon systems and new missions and their impact on
infrastructure for the active, Reserve and Guard forces will be an
agenda item should I be confirmed.
brac environmental cleanup
Question. There are funding shortfalls for Base Realignment and
Closure (BRAC) cleanup in the fiscal year 2002 budget, including about
$92 million in the Navy account and $55 million in the Air Force
account. Such funding shortfalls adversely effect cleanup milestones,
undercut the timeliness and value of property transfers, further harm
communities already impacted by base closure, and threaten the overall
credibility of the BRAC process.
If confirmed, how would you propose to address the effect of the
fiscal year 2002 shortfalls in the Air Force BRAC account?
What role do you expect to play in addressing the need to
renegotiate cleanup milestones and to address concerns regarding
delayed property transfers?
Answer. BRAC environmental cleanup shortfalls would be an issue
within my authority and if confirmed, I will attempt to resolve this
issue to the satisfaction of the Air Force and the local communities.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as the Assistant Secretary of the
Air Force (Installations and Environment)?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings, and
other communications of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator John Warner
environmental cleanup
1. Senator Warner. Mr. Gibbs, in response to advance questions
regarding funding shortfalls for Air Force BRAC cleanup you indicated
that, subject to confirmation, you would attempt to resolve this issue
to the satisfaction of the Air Force and the local communities.
If confirmed, what role would you expect to play in renegotiating
cleanup schedules and addressing concerns related to delayed property
transfers?
Mr. Gibbs. The Air Force has a strong record of supporting the
cleanup requirements at BRAC installations that are needed to support
communities. I would work with the Department of Defense and Congress
to fully fund the cleanup requirements needed to facilitate property
transfer.
family housing improvement
2. Senator Warner. The Department of Defense has established 2010
as a goal to bring up to standard the family housing for our military
families. The vast majority of the existing family housing is more than
30 years old and has had very limited renovation due to fiscal
constraints. Although the Department has made progress toward achieving
the 2010 goal, the bulk of the improvement effort will have to be
funded and enacted under your leadership, assuming you are confirmed.
Based on what you know of the department's ongoing efforts to
improve military family housing, do you believe the 2010 goal is
achievable, and are you committed to that goal?
Mr. Gibbs. I consider the housing needs of our Air Force men and
women and their families area top priority and I am fully committed to
achieving the 2010 goal.
facility conditions
3. Senator Warner. The condition of our military facilities is
deplorable. After years of insufficient resources for the construction
of new facilities or the maintenance of those in existence, many of
those buildings, in which our military personnel live and work, have
deteriorated to an unacceptable level.
What actions will you pursue to correct this problem?
Mr. Gibbs. I agree the rundown state of our bases is caused by
years of reduced facility funding that has lead to a steady
deterioration in Air Force infrastructure. Previous underfunding of
military construction and operation and maintenance required the Air
Force to develop ``work-arounds,'' which impacted combat capability,
operational efficiency, and quality of workplace environment. Although
we continue to operate and support the world's premier aerospace force,
we cannot correct overnight the negative impact reduced funding has had
on the infrastructure. I agree with another round of base closures and
realignments to balance Air Force manpower and force structure with
infrastructure. Done right, the Efficient Facilities Initiative (EFI)
provides a vehicle for properly sizing our infrastructure to our force
structure and allows us to reallocate critical funds to force
modernization, readiness and quality of life issues. We will continue
the use of public and private resources to accelerate the rate at which
we revitalize our inadequate housing inventory to meet DOD and Air
Force goals to fix all inadequate housing by 2010.
encroachment
4. Senator Warner. Some of the most significant issues that will
impact the readiness of the Armed Forces as we enter the 21st century
could be categorized as outside encroachment upon military resources.
This encroachment includes environmental constraints on military
training ranges, local community efforts to obtain military property,
airspace. restrictions to accommodate civilian airlines, and many
others. Unless these issues are effectively addressed, our military
forces will find it increasingly difficult to train and operate at home
and abroad.
What actions will you propose to ensure that encroachment does not
prevent the Armed Forces from effectively training and operating both
at home and abroad?
Mr. Gibbs. Encroachment at our installations, ranges and airspace
is a serious and growing challenge to the Air Force. Encroachment
issues are complex and involve multiple Federal, State, tribal, and
local agencies, as well as Congress and the public. We continue to work
with state regulators and local communities to ensure we have the
flexibility to base aircraft at installations that have access to
ranges and airspace. We must monitor activities outside our fencelines
and engage with local communities including at our overseas locations.
The Air Force has found that where we have good relationships with
regulators, we have been able to develop cooperative strategies that
allow the AF to accomplish its mission while at the same time providing
the necessary stewardship of our natural and host county natural
resources.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Strom Thurmond
military family housing stock
5. Senator Thurmond. The Department of Defense has established 2010
as a goal to bring up to standard the family housing for our military
families. The vast majority of the existing family housing stock is
more than 30 years old and has had very limited renovation due to
fiscal constraints. Although the Department has made progress toward
achieving the 2010 goal, the bulk of the improvement effort will have
to be funded and enacted under your leadership, once confirmed.
Based on what you know of the department's on going efforts to
improve the military family housing stock, do you believe the 2010 goal
is achievable and are you committed to that effort?
Mr. Gibbs. I give great weight to the housing needs of the Air
Force men and women and therefore am fully committed to achieving the
2010 goal.
facilities management
6. Senator Thurmond. The Department of Defense has a dismal record
in funding the repair and replacement of its infrastructure. Under the
historic funding profile, it would take more than 200 years to replace
the existing infrastructure. The prevailing industry standard is to
replace its facilities on a 57-year cycle. Secretary Rumsfeld,
concurrent with his budget submission, has established a 67-year
replacement standard for DOD facilities and has established a funding
profile to support this standard. Although funding is key, proper
management of the assets is critical if the Department is to achieve
this goal. Based on your knowledge of how the Department currently
manages its facilities, what management improvements would you
recommend?
Mr. Gibbs. The Air Force's challenge remains unchanged--balancing
shortfalls among our priorities of people, readiness, modernization,
and infrastructure. Increases in defense spending provided last year
were helpful in meeting most pressing needs--however, those increases
do not meet all of the needs. As the Air Force has sought to accomplish
its various goals, it made a conscious decision to fund people,
readiness and modernization at the expense of the infrastructure
programs.
I see few management actions not already implemented that would
significantly improve management of facility assets. However, there is
one management action the Air Force is currently working on that has
tremendous asset management potential. The Air Force's Next Generation
Installations (NGI) approach could be the primary asset management tool
to assist the Air Force in meeting the Secretary's 67-year replacement
standard for facilities. NGI is a system that provides information
regarding Air Force installations, missions, and quality of life. NGI
can: expedite and facilitate fact-based decisions by making data
visible and accessible; identify needed data that is not available; and
most importantly, enable actions.
base closures
7. Senator Thurmond. One of the more significant issues that this
committee will face this year is legislation authorizing additional
base closures to more closely match facility capacity with existing
force structure. As you may know, the mere threat of a base closure
causes concern and turmoil within the communities that have a long and
historic association with our military installations.
Since each of you, if confirmed, will have a significant role in
any future base closures I would like your views on how we can minimize
the impact of the base closure process on our communities?
Mr. Gibbs. Once recommended closures are approved, we will work
with the communities as we have in the past to minimize the impacts.
The proposed Efficient Facilities Initiative (EFI) incorporates the
lessons we learned from the past four rounds of closures and includes
such things as no cost economic development conveyances and transfer-
leaseback authority. I believe the team the Air Force has in place is
extremely competent and familiar with all the concerns that will be
voiced by communities. I will ensure our Base Conversion Agency
responds equally aggressively to any new base closure and realignment
round.
utility privatization effort
8. Senator Thurmond. The Defense Reform Initiative requires the
military departments to privatize all utility systems not later than
September 30, 2003, except those exempt for unique security reasons or
when privatization is uneconomical. Although the issue of privatization
is driven by the fact that the department avoids the near term cost of
modernizing the utility systems, there is concern regarding the long-
term implications. These concerns are cost growth and being held
hostage to future contract negotiations.
Based on your knowledge of the utility privatization effort, what
are your concerns regarding the total reliance on contractors to
provide utility services?
Mr. Gibbs. The Air Force is taking a measured approach to utility
privatization. They have come to realize that in many cases utility
privatization does not make good business sense and has limited private
sector interest. Due to readiness constraints and economics, not all
utility systems will be eligible for this program and of those
eligible, all will necessarily be privatized.
I do have a few specific concerns regarding the total reliance on
contractors to provide utility services. First, total reliance on
contractors could adversely affect the Air Force's ability to beddown
expeditionary forces. The Air Force's internal ability to beddown
forces in bare-base environments, especially in the area of utility
services i.e. water, sewerage, electrical and HVAC could be lost.
Contracting out utility service results in the loss of ``blue-suiters''
capable to accomplish expedient utility service in a contingency
environment.
Another concern is the utility industry voiced problems with
saturation caused from too many solicitations open simultaneously. In
Dec. 1998, DepSecDef directed the Services to privatize all eligible
utility systems by Sept. 30, 2003. As of June 30, 2001, 23 of the 1,590
DOD-owned utility systems had been privatized and solicitations had
been issued for another 702 systems. This leaves 701 systems to be
solicited before Sept. 30 (excluding 164 sitemaps declared exempt or
found to be uneconomical to privatize). The utility industry and I are
also concerned about the quality of some solicitations: some are too
vague, others too prescriptive. I will address these qualitative
issues.
environmental concerns
9. Senator Thurmond. Mr. Gibbs, there has been a concerted effort
to restrict overflight by high performance aircraft of vast regions in
the West because of environmental concerns. I believe that if we permit
this limitation to go into effect, it will have a significant
detrimental impact on the training of our flight crews.
In your view what steps should the Air Force take to ensure
continued access to these open-training spaces?
Mr. Gibbs. Maintaining continued access to ranges and airspace is
absolutely critical; the ability to train aircrews is the reason we
have the air combat edge. It is well acknowledged that America's
military air superiority in the past was not only based on our
technological superiority but also on our ability to produce superbly
trained aircrews. In the past few years, as our technological advantage
has diminished, our ability to train has served us well. In the coming
years, our ability to modify ranges and airspace will be critical to
maintaining Air Force readiness. The goal is to meet evolving military
needs while addressing and resolving, to the maximum extent possible,
public concerns and federal, tribal, state, and other agency issues.
The Air Force has adopted a spirit and practice of flexibility and
willingness to adapt without compromising operations. Sustainable
access to ranges benefit many stakeholders and I realize the importance
of establishing and maintaining permanent relationships with all of
them. They understand that the ranges contain significant cultural and
natural areas, are used for grazing and crop production, and allow
hunting or other forms of outdoor recreation. So they are generally
very supportive of the Air Force and our mission.
moth-balled installations
10. Senator Thurmond. Although we all understand the need to close
military installations, it is important that we keep in mind that once
we eliminate the base structure it will difficult, if not impossible,
to replace. We should all be particularly concerned about the Army
because its forces need vast land areas for maneuvers and training.
Mr. Gibbs, in view of this concern, could you give us your personal
views on moth-balling valuable installations rather than disposing of
them as is the current practice?
Mr. Gibbs. Because the DOD evaluation process for identifying bases
to close will place primary emphasis on the military value both now and
in the future, installations selected for closure should not need to be
mothballed.
There are a number of considerations that suggest mothballing would
not be a practical option for the Air Force. If the DOD proposed
legislation is enacted, the Efficient Facilities Initiatives (EFI)
provides specific authorities to help us deal with unneeded facilities
on installations that do not have flying or missile missions. In these
cases, we would not need or want to mothball these facilities.
With respect to our flying and missile mission bases, mothballing
would not be a practical solution for several reasons. Unused real
estate rapidly becomes unusable. We can preserve buildings and
utilities. But runways, parking aprons, taxiways, and missile silos are
subject to rapid deterioration that would be prohibitively costly to
maintain in useable condition.
Mothballing the airspace associated with the particular base would
be an even more significant problem. If needed, we would transfer the
training and range airspace to other installations, but the airspace
immediately around the installation would be much harder to withhold
from other uses. Normally, airspace associated with a base is not
mothballed. When an Air Force unit no longer has a use for airspace,
that airspace is offered to another Air Force unit or the other DOD
services for their use. If the DOD no longer needs the airspace, it's
returned to the National Airspace System.
In addition, if we mothball installations, we would also have to
have procedures and funding to preserve and return them to operational
status at some unknown time. Finally, mothballing property would also
prevent its use by other parties imposing an unrecoverable economic
burden on the communities.
contracting reform
11. Senator Thurmond. In Secretary Rumsfeld's recent testimony
before the Senate Armed Services Committee, he stressed the need to
reform the outdated management and acquisition processes in the
Department of Defense. As a result of that testimony, Senator Allard
and I contacted the Secretary concerning the innovative contracting
mechanism being used by the Army for the environmental restoration of
the Rocky Mountain Arsenal. According to information I have received,
this innovative approach has produced impressive results. It will
reportedly reduce program costs by $200 million and the project
completion time by 3 years, while maintaining planned annual
expenditures of approximately $70 million with a competent, yet
reduced, Government core oversight team. I have also been informed that
the contractor has received numerous accolades due to the, meaningful
small business involvement they have cultivated.
I believe this is an innovative and dynamic concept that can be
applied through the Armed Services, especially at the Corps of
Engineers that will allow each of you to quickly and efficiently adopt
best commercial practices. In other words, this contracting model may
yield dramatic and immediate savings for the Department.
Do you believe that the Department could benefit from contracting
reform?
Mr. Gibbs. Yes, we believe the Department of Defense and the Air
Force would greatly benefit by contracting reform.
rocky mountain arsenal program
12. Senator Thurmond. Will you commit to studying the Rocky
Mountain Arsenal Program Management Contract in order to evaluate its
applicability to other projects in your Department?
Mr. Gibbs. The Air Force is currently evaluating the benefits of
several innovative contracting initiatives for environmental cleanup.
If I'm confirmed, we will include the Rocky Mountain Arsenal program
management contract concept and consider the lessons in contracting
learned at Rocky Mountain Arsenal for possible application to our
cleanup projects, particularly large, complex, multi-year projects.
______
[The nomination reference of Nelson F. Gibbs follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
July 12, 2001.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Nelson F. Gibbs, of California, to be an Assistant Secretary of the
Air Force, vice Keith R. Hall.
______
[The biographical sketch of Nelson F. Gibbs, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Nelson F. Gibbs
Nelson F. Gibbs is currently the Executive Director of the Cost
Accounting Standards Board within the Office of Management and Budget,
Executive Office of the President.
Mr. Gibbs spent almost 30 years with the accounting firm of Deloite
and Touche. He began with them in 1962 and worked as a general
management and financial systems consultant for clients in government,
manufacturing, aerospace and defense and financial service industries.
In the 1970s, he was an audit partner in the Audit Division and in 1982
became director of Audit Operations in Los Angeles and a member of the
Accounting and Auditing Executive Committee. In 1986, he was promoted
to Lead Client Service Partner and became a Senior Partner in Tokyo in
1988.
Mr. Gibbs left Deloite and Touche in 1991 to become the Corporate
Controller for the Northrop Grumman Corporation, a position he held for
the next 8 years until he left at the end of 1999 to assume his current
position.
A native of Rochester, NY, Nelson Gibbs is a 1959 graduate of
Clarkson University in Potsdam, NY, where he was awarded a Bachelor of
Civil Engineering. He was commissioned a Second Lieutenant in the U.S.
Army upon graduation, serving until he resigned his commission in 1961.
In 1962, he was awarded a Master of Science, Industrial Management,
from Purdue University in Lafayette, Indiana.
Mr. Gibbs is also a Certified Public Accountant in California, and
resides in Washington, DC.
______
[The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
form that details the biographical, financial and other
information of the nominee. The form executed by Nelson F.
Gibbs in connection with his nomination follows:]
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Room SR-228
Washington, DC 20510-6050
(202) 224-3871
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation
of your answer applies.
Part A--Biographical Information
Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.
1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
Nelson Frederick Gibbs.
2. Position to which nominated:
Assistant Secretary of the Air Force.
3. Date of nomination:
July 12, 2001.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
5. Date and place of birth:
January 8, 1938; Rochester, NY.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Priscilla (Scheib) Gibbs.
7. Names and ages of children:
Nelson E. Gibbs, 35; Jennifer G. Bauer, 32; Claire E. Gibbs, 31.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
Benjamin Franklin High School, Rochester, NY, 1950-1955, Diploma,
1955.
Clarkson University, Potsdam, NY, 1955-1959, Bachelor of Civil
Engineering, 1959.
Purdue University, W. Lafayette, IN, 1961-1962, Master of Science
in Industrial Management, 1962.
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
Executive Director, Cost Accounting Standards Board, U.S.
Government, Washington, DC, Sept. 1999-present.
Vice President and Controller, Northrop Grumman Corporation, Los
Angeles, CA, June 1991-Sept. 1999.
Partner, Deloitte and Touche, Los Angeles, CA and Tokyo, Japan,
August 1962-May 1991.
10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative,
honorary or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State,
or local governments, other than those listed above.
Co-Chairman,Cost Accounting Standards Board Review Panel, 1998-
1999.
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
None.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
Institute of Management Accountants, California Society of
Certified Public Accountants, Jonathan Club, Lakeside Golf Club.
13. Political affiliations and activities:
(a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or
any public office for which you have been a candidate.
None.
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5
years.
None.
(c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $100 or more for the past 5 years.
None.
14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals, and any other special
recognitions for outstanding service or achievements.
None.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
None.
16. Speeches: Provide the committee with two copies of any formal
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have
copies of and are on topics relevant to the position for which you have
been nominated.
None.
17. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree,
if confirmed, to respond to requests to appear and testify before any
duly constituted committee of the Senate?
I agree, if confirmed, to appear and testify upon request before
any duly constituted committee of the Senate.
______
[The nominee responded to the questions in Parts B-F of the
committee questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set
forth in the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to
Parts B-F are contained in the committee's executive files.]
------
Signature and Date
I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate,
and complete.
Nelson F. Gibbs.
This 13th day of July, 2001.
[The nomination of Nelson F. Gibbs was reported to the
Senate by Chairman Levin on August 2, 2001, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on August 3, 2001.]
NOMINATION OF GEN. JOHN P. JUMPER, USAF, FOR REAPPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE
OF GENERAL AND TO BE CHIEF OF STAFF UNITED STATES AIR FORCE
----------
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 1, 2001
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m. in room
SD-106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Carl Levin
(chairman) presiding.
Committee members present: Senators Levin, Cleland, Ben
Nelson, Carnahan, Warner, and Inhofe.
Committee staff member present: David S. Lyles, staff
director.
Majority staff member present: Madelyn R. Creedon, counsel.
Minority staff members present: Romie L. Brownlee,
Republican staff director; Charles W. Alsup, professional staff
member; Judith A. Ansley, deputy staff director for the
minority; Brian R. Green, professional staff member; Carolyn M.
Hanna, professional staff member; Ambrose R. Hock, professional
staff member; Patricia L. Lewis, professional staff member;
Thomas L. MacKenzie, professional staff member; Cord A.
Sterling, professional staff member; Scott W. Stucky, minority
counsel; and Richard F. Walsh, minority counsel.
Staff assistants present: Thomas C. Moore, Michele A.
Traficante, and Nicholas W. West.
Committee members' assistants present: Andrew
Vanlandingham, assistant to Senator Cleland; Eric Pierce,
assistant to Senator Ben Nelson; Neal Orringer, assistant to
Senator Carnahan; Brady King, assistant to Senator Dayton;
Wayne Glass, assistant to Senator Bingaman; J. Mark Powers,
assistant to Senator Inhofe; George M. Bernier III, assistant
to Senator Santorum; Robert Alan McCurry, assistant to Senator
Roberts; Douglas Flanders and Charles Cogar, assistants to
Senator Allard; Arch Galloway II, assistant to Senator
Sessions; and Jeff Prichard, assistant to Senator Lott.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN, CHAIRMAN
Chairman Levin. The committee will come to order. We meet
today to consider the nomination of Gen. John P. Jumper to be
Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force. General Jumper,
on behalf of the entire committee I welcome you, I congratulate
you on the nomination, and I greet you and your family as you
prepare to undertake this new service to this Nation.
It's customary at these hearings that we also address the
families, because they are such a critical part of your success
and of your future efforts. The Jumpers are no strangers to
sacrifice. The Air Force runs in the family. General Jumper is
the son of an Air Force general. He and his wife Ellen are the
proud parents of three children, two of whom are Air Force
officers. Mrs. Jumper, welcome to the committee and I thank you
for the sacrifices which you have always made in support of
your husband and your larger Air Force family.
General Jumper, I think you're the father of three
daughters?
General Jumper. Yes sir.
Chairman Levin. I am also the father of three daughters, so
one of the questions I will not ask you, at least in open
session, is where the decision making authority rests in your
family.
General Jumper. I appreciate that Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. The 17th Air Force Chief of Staff will
inherit the strongest Air Force in the history of air power.
The men and women of today's Air Force look to their chief to
guide and to motivate them as they meet the many missions which
America asks of them: from conducting sorties over the Balkans
and the dangerous skies over Iraq, to deterring aggression on
the Korean Peninsula, to providing the critical air lift in
humanitarian operations from Africa to Southeast Asia. The next
chief of staff will also inherit an Air Force facing the unique
challenges that come with preparing for the new challenges of a
new century.
How can the Air Force continue its transformation into an
expeditionary aerospace force that balances the heavy demands
on the force with the stability and the predictability that our
airmen and their families need to stay in the Air Force? How
can the Air Force continue its transformation into an aerospace
force to include a cadre of skilled space professionals capable
of preserving America's freedom of action and superiority in
both air and space?
During these twin transformations, and given the high pace
of operations, how can the Air Force ensure an attractive
quality of life that recruits and retains the high quality
personnel and families who are the backbone of the force? How
can the Air Force achieve needed savings to help fund these
transformations when, as General Ryan recently told this
committee, the Air Force is over-based for the force structure
that we have today?
General John Jumper is well-qualified to lead the Air Force
as it confronts these and other challenges. A military
assistant to two secretaries of defense, Secretary Dick Cheney
and Secretary Les Aspin, and a special assistant to then-Air
Force Chief of Staff Ron Fogleman, General Jumper is well-known
to this committee. A Vietnam vet and a decorated pilot, General
Jumper understands the dangers that our forces face every day.
A commander of two major Air Force commands, General Jumper is
a calm and skillful leader in times of crisis, such as during
Saddam Hussein's 1994 mobilization near Kuwait and the 1999 air
war over Kosovo. In his most recent assignment as commander of
Air Combat Command, General Jumper has displayed the vision and
the leadership qualities demanded of a member of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff.
General Jumper has responded to the committee's pre-hearing
policy questions and our standard questionnaire, and these
responses will be made a part of the record. The committee has
a long tradition of relying on the frank and candid advice of
senior military officers when they testify before this
committee, even when those views may differ from the policies
of the administration in office at the time. When General
Jumper was asked whether he would give his personal views
before any duly constituted committee of Congress, he responded
that he would, in fact, do so.
I want to thank you for that and the other commitments that
you've made, General, and to note that this committee counts on
the best possible military advice from you and from our other
senior military officers in the Department of Defense.
Senator Warner.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN WARNER
Senator Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That was a very
fine introduction. I shall not try to duplicate it. I ask
unanimous consent that my statement be placed in the record.
Chairman Levin. It will be.
Senator Warner. I'd like to touch on one or two points,
though. I'm very proud that this wonderful family are really
constituents in many ways, and that the nominee today is a VMI
graduate. Of course, Gen. George C. Marshall came from VMI,
after General Peay, another four star. VMI has a curriculum and
standards that very closely match those of our three
distinguished service academies. Year-after-year it turns out a
number of very fine officers. Many go on active duty.
In visiting with the nominee yesterday, he told me 10
percent of his graduating class lost their lives in Vietnam as
young officers. So, VMI takes its place in history. All across
the Nation today VMI graduates are wishing they were in that
seat with you. We're very proud of you, General.
General Jumper. Sir, thank you sir.
Senator Warner. Mrs. Jumper, who's been by your side all
these many years, you would not, as you said yesterday, have
been able to achieve your successes without strong family
support.
General Jumper. Yes sir.
Senator Warner. I think we should reflect today on Gen.
Mike Ryan who will step down the first week in September. Mike
Ryan's father was Chief of Staff of the Air Force when I was
privileged to serve in the building as Secretary of the Navy.
What a fine family tradition he had, and superb leadership.
I remember so well, Mr. Chairman, the times when we as a
committee met to receive the testimony of the service chiefs
regarding budget battles. General Ryan would speak very
forthrightly. General, as you well know, in your capacity
you'll be called before this committee to give your personal,
professional opinion on issues. At times, the chiefs have had
opinions at variance with the Chairman of the Joint Staff and
indeed the Secretary of Defense. It has happened in the past
and I expect it may happen on your watch, and we'll receive
that testimony.
As I said, Mr. Chairman, he has a most impressive career.
My statement details that. Yesterday in the course of our
discussions we talked about the current status of fighter
aircraft and your grave concern about the need for the F-22 to
restore America's capability to maintain air superiority over a
battlefield. Also the extent to which other elements of our
military, most particularly the ground forces and such
associated naval forces that may be involved, are severely
limited in their ability to fulfill their mission unless we
have air superiority.
I notice in the background the former chief of the Air
National Guard just gave me a thumbs up on that comment. The
Air Guard plays a vital role and I hope you continue to foster
the role of the Air Guard. There's very little distinction in
capabilities between an Air Guard and regular aviator today.
So you're taking on with your family a great challenge. We
look forward to it. As a Virginian, I express my tremendous
pride in your being selected by our President and recognized as
the man most capable to lead our Air Force for the next 4
years.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Warner follows:]
Prepared Statement by Senator John Warner
Thank you, Senator Levin.
Welcome, General Jumper, and congratulations on your nomination. I
start with a bit of history. Most people probably do not know that
General Jumper--if confirmed--will be the first VMI graduate to serve
as Chief of Staff of the Air Force, and the first VMI graduate since
Gen. George C. Marshall to serve as chief of a military service. Today
is a proud day for VMI--and particularly for its Class of 1966.
General Jumper, you are extraordinarily well-qualified for this
important billet and your nomination comes at a critical juncture in
the history of the United States Air Force. I do not make that
statement lightly. In a changing world marked by newly emerging
threats, extraordinary competition for resources, including the
services of highly motivated and skilled men and women, and the
requirement for transformation of our Armed Forces, the future course
of the Air Force may well be determined during your tenure.
Your qualifications to assume the duties of Chief of Staff of the
Air Force are impressive: command pilot with over 4,000 flying hours;
combat experience in the cockpit in Vietnam; and Commander, Allied Air
Forces Central Europe, during the Kosovo air campaign. You have
commanded a fighter squadron, two fighter wings, and the 9th Air Force.
You know the inner workings of the Pentagon from your service as Deputy
Chief of Staff for Air and Space Operations, as Special Assistant to
the Chief of Staff for roles and missions, and as Senior Military
Assistant to two Secretaries of Defense (Cheney and Aspin). As
Commander, Air Combat Command, at Langley Air Force Base, Virginia, you
have successfully headed the premier organization in the world for
training, equipping and maintaining combat-ready forces for rapid
deployment.
General Jumper, you and I have seen the Air Force transition from
large standing forces to smaller, highly lethal and rapidly deployable
units. We have seen the advent of Goldwater-Nichols and its application
in Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm and in the Balkans. We
have seen the Air Force mission change from what General Ryan has
called ``set-piece deterrence of a reliable enemy'' into a mission that
must be highly flexible, and able to respond rapidly to unpredictable
threats.
The United States Air Force is the pre-eminent aerospace force in
the world today. Dominance of the air is key to successful operations
on the land and at sea. Potential adversaries are making ever-
increasing investments in advanced aircraft and integrated air defense
systems, including surface-to-air missile systems, to challenge our
dominance in this part of the three-dimensional battlespace. We must
always stay one step ahead.
We look forward to your comments on how the Air Force can maintain
the technical edge currently provided by our aerospace forces in the
years ahead.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to supporting this nomination. I
believe General Jumper will be an outstanding Chief of Staff of the Air
Force.
Chairman Levin. Thank you very much Senator Warner. Any
other opening statements?
General Jumper, do you have an opening statement?
STATEMENT OF GEN. JOHN P. JUMPER, USAF, NOMINEE, CHIEF OF
STAFF, UNITED STATES AIR FORCE
General Jumper. Sir if you permit me, I do. I'd like to
thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. I'm honored
to be here today as nominee for the post of chief of staff of
the United States Air Force. I'm humbled by the trust and
confidence demonstrated by President Bush in forwarding my
nomination, and I'm thankful for the support of the Secretary
of the Air Force, Jim Roche, and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld.
Allow me also, Mr. Chairman, to express my gratitude to you
and to the committee for arranging these hearings so promptly
in the stiff legislative agenda you all are putting up with
over these last few days. If confirmed, Mr. Chairman, I will
embrace the privilege of continued service to our Nation with
all the energy at my command. Sir, I intend to follow the
objectives put forth by Secretary Rumsfeld and Secretary Roche.
Expressed in my own way, those include: transformation,
readiness, retention and recapitalization.
In transformation, we will continue the work started by
General Mike Ryan to transition fully to an Air Expeditionary
Force (AEF) structure. This puts predictability into the lives
of our people. It includes the ability to fully incorporate the
Guard and the Reserve into our operations. Today, Mr. Chairman,
as you know fully 25 percent of our deployed forces are from
the Guard and the Reserve. This is a level of support that is
higher than during the middle of Desert Storm, and they sustain
that now on a daily basis. It's a source of great pride to the
United States Air Force in its total force concept.
In transformation, as you said Mr. Chairman, we have to
prepare for new threats posed by theater ballistic missiles and
the threats those pose to anti-access; terrorist threats, both
at home and abroad that we have to look forward to. Our job in
the United States Air Force, as I see it Mr. Chairman, is to
make sure that we leverage our technological edge to ensure
that we have the best asymmetrical advantage in warfare.
What we bring to the table and what we bring to the joint
fight with our other service colleagues is stealth, standoff,
precision, information technology and space. Perhaps nowhere
greater is that leverage available to us than in space. In that
regard, Mr. Chairman, the Air Force has fully embraced the
findings of the Space Commission. General Ryan and Secretary
Roche are implementing provisions of those recommendations as
we speak. If confirmed sir, I will continue to do the same
thing.
In terms of readiness, this is the heart and soul of our
capability to perform today's mission, and it emphasizes the
imperative to keep one foot in today's world as we look forward
to transformational technologies. Sir, we need to recapture our
ability to fly all of our flying hour programs. We need to
recapture the capability to fix our airplanes. For the first
time in 5 years, Air Combat Command will fully fly its flying
hour program. When you put the pilots in the air and the
maintainers feel the pride of fixing those airplanes, you
improve your retention. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members
of the committee, for your support over the last 3 years. We
have infused more than a billion dollars into the spare parts
problem, and we are beginning to reap the benefits of that now.
I thank the committee for that.
In the area of retention, we are a retention force in the
United States Air Force. We depend on retaining the highly-
skilled people that we train. It hurts when you lose a sergeant
with 8 years of experience, because it takes 8 years to replace
that sergeant. The emphasis that the committee has placed on
housing, pay, and bonuses has helped very much in that regard,
Mr. Chairman. We thank the committee for their efforts and
their support.
As far as the Air Force, sir, if I am confirmed we will
continue to also emphasize the intrinsic values of service to
Nation. Often when guys like me say ``quality of life,'' what's
heard out there is higher standard of living. But quality of
life is more than just a higher standard of living, it's a
higher standard for your whole life. Our youngsters out there
look only for the opportunity to be a part of something that's
bigger than they are.
Mr. Chairman, I know that you, Senator Warner, and others
visited over in Europe during the Kosovo crisis. You walked the
flight-lines and the battlefields of that war-torn area. You
saw our great, young Americans--Active, Reserve, Guard--
performing. They were no less committed than any generation of
Americans has ever been committed. They look for leadership,
and when you give them that leadership they perform with all
the patriotism and commitment of any generation.
Finally, sir, in terms of recapitalization, we need your
help and I hope to confer with you in the future, if I'm
confirmed, to recapitalize a force that now has an average
aircraft age of 22 years. If we are able to procure everything
that's on the books now, in full quantity, in 15 years the
average age of our aircraft will be 30 years of age. We need to
recapitalize our force, not only in terms of force structure,
but in terms of technology. I fear that our technological edge
is waning.
I know that Senator Inhofe and Senator Warner have heard me
say this before, but in our testing of some foreign aircraft--
and I can't go into details at this level--but our best pilots
flying their airplanes beat our best pilots flying our
airplanes every time. I'd be honored, Mr. Chairman, to give you
the details of the tests that went into that.
But it does go forth to emphasize the need for the F-22.
The F-22 not only beat the things in the air, but the F-22 with
the super-cruise capability will also be able to penetrate the
highest defenses that we know are coming down the road. It will
enable the B-2 bomber to come into the daytime for the first
time. In that regard, we also need to recapitalize our bomber
force and continue to modernize so that our long-range strike
assets can communicate en route to targets and have the ability
to carry larger loads into the target area.
Mr. Chairman, if I'm confirmed I can think of no greater
honor than to lead the greatest Air Force in the world. Our
people are our greatest asset. They ask only that their
sacrifices be appreciated, that they have the resources to do
their job, and that when they win they're able to do so by a
score of 100 to nothing for their Nation. I thank this
committee for providing the resources to bring us these great
young people, great Americans one and all. I vow that if I am
confirmed I will continue to do everything in my power to earn
the right to lead them.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to offer my detailed written
statement for the record, and sir, I'm prepared to answer any
questions from you.
Chairman Levin. It will be made part of the record, thank
you.
[The prepared statement of General Jumper follows:]
Prepared Statement by Gen. John P. Jumper, USAF
Thank you Mr. Chairman. I am honored to be here today as nominee
for the post of Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force. I am
humbled by the trust and confidence demonstrated by President Bush in
forwarding my nomination and am thankful for the support of Secretary
of the Air Force Jim Roche and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. Allow me
also, Mr. Chairman, to express my gratitude to you and to the committee
for arranging this hearing so promptly. If confirmed, Mr. Chairman, I
will embrace the privilege of continued service to our Nation with all
the energy at my command.
Mr. Chairman, if confirmed I intend to follow the objectives put
forth by Secretary Rumsfeld and Secretary Roche that include
transformation, readiness, retention, and recapitalization.
The word ``transformation'' has become commonplace today. However,
we believe that during the course of our relatively brief history the
United States Air Force has been on a consistent course of
transformation. True to form, during most of the decade of the 1990s
the Air Force was in an especially intense period of transformation.
Indeed, we completely reshaped ourselves from a Cold War configuration
that had us focused on a Warsaw Pact invasion of Europe into an agile
force able to respond quickly in the contingency world we live in
today. General Mike Ryan has led the creation of our Aerospace
Expeditionary Forces (AEF). The AEF is a rotational force construct
that allows Air and Space forces to respond rapidly throughout the
spectrum of conflict and has produced a deployment rhythm that provides
our Airmen predictable rotation schedules around which to include time
for family, off-duty education and leave. The AEF is the tool we need
to manage an Air Force that has decreased in size by 35 percent over
the past 10 years while contingency taskings have increased by 300
percent. If confirmed, I will continue to maximize the many benefits of
our AEFs in order to provide our warfighting commanders in chief potent
capabilities to produce the effects they need.
Transformation also includes how we deal with an uncertain future.
We have learned throughout the conflicts of the 1990s how America
values the benefits of asymmetrical advantage. Our Nation's Air Force
provides many of the tools that lever our technological superiority and
produce asymmetrical advantage. Stealth, standoff, precision,
information dominance, and space are examples of these leveraging
technologies. In Air Combat Command we have developed a concept called
Global Strike Task Force that combines the attributes of stealth; the
horizontal integration of manned, unmanned and space platforms; the art
and science of prediction; and real-time command and control. The
asymmetrical advantage of these capabilities will combine with those of
the other services to overcome emerging anti-access challenges. In
addition, many of these technologies will enable capabilities against
other new types of threats such as terrorist activity. If confirmed, I
will continue to pursue operational concepts and capabilities that
leverage our asymmetrical advantage.
Perhaps the greatest opportunity to leverage asymmetrical advantage
is space. The Commission to Assess National Security Space Management
and Organization, chaired by Secretary Rumsfeld, focused the Air Force
on its unique competencies in space and the need for the Air Force's
leadership role. General Ryan and Secretary Roche have been fully
engaged in implementing the commission's recommendations. If confirmed,
I will continue to advance the work of developing a space culture. The
Air Force will also work with the other services and agencies to insure
proper levels of support for their space requirements and the robust
integration of space into joint warfighting.
Readiness in the Air Force will continue to require our focused
attention. At the beginning of the decade of the 1990s, as we entered
Operation Desert Storm, 95 percent of our Air Force combat units were
in the top two categories of readiness. Since 1996 we have seen that
number drop to 68 percent. Likewise, the Mission Capable (MC) rate for
our fighter aircraft at the beginning of Desert Storm was 88 percent;
by the year 2000, the MC rate for fighter aircraft was 75 percent.
These trends were clearly the result of budget pressures that, when
combined with the difficulties of aging aircraft, resulted in
inadequate spare parts and sustainment engineering for our combat
forces. In addition, an important factor in readiness is the
maintenance of our bases' infrastructure, an area that has been
neglected over the past decade. With the help of Congress and support
from this committee, we have arrested the decline in some of these
areas and are beginning to see some positive trends. If confirmed, I
will work with Secretary Roche to keep our aircraft combat ready, and
to give our Airmen on the flight line the resources and facilities they
need to do their job. Retention also improves when our Airmen are able
to take pride in their workplaces and their high mission capable rates
that accompany safe and reliable aircraft.
There can be no doubt that the quality of our Air Force is directly
attributable to the quality of the men and women who volunteer to
serve. That quality has to be sustained in the people we recruit and,
more importantly, in the people we retain. With the help of incentives
supported by Congress, in fiscal year 2000 the Air Force achieved its
recruiting goal of more than 34,000 new Airmen. In fiscal year 2001 we
are at 101 percent of our goal to date, all without lowering our
recruiting standards. Retention issues are also improving but are more
difficult. Pilot retention is especially difficult. Improvements in
readiness enhance the retention of pilot and flight line maintenance
skills. Just as buying spare parts keeps the airplanes flying, a fully
funded flying hour program keeps the pilots in the air--right where
they want to be. I deeply appreciate the commitment made by Congress to
fully fund our flying hour program. This year, for the first time in 5
years, Air Combat Command will have the resources to fly its full
program. We in the Air Force also appreciate the incentives provided by
the Congress that have helped offset the lure into civilian life
inspired by a vibrant economy. Dual-career families and extended time
away from home remain issues. If confirmed, I will join with the
Secretary of the Air Force to promote the values of service to country
while working to keep an appropriate balance of compensation for those
who serve.
This committee is well aware of the need we have to recapitalize
our force both in air and space. In space, for example, I believe the
acquisition of space-based radar will be critical to the integrated
constellation of air and space-borne sensors. This will allow us to
combine the persistence of airborne systems with the high ground of
space. In the air, the F-22 will be crucial to our ability to ``kick
down the door'' with the Global Strike Task Force. Many have
characterized the F-22 as strictly an air-to-air fighter, but the main
strength of the F-22 will be its unique ability to combine stealth and
supercruise to penetrate and precisely bomb future surface-to-air
missile systems. The leverage of the F-22 will allow us to bring
stealth into the daytime. The F-22, combined with the B-2 and F-117,
will provide 24-hour stealth as the F-22 both protects the force and
suppresses the most difficult threats. This does not detract from the
F-22s air superiority capability. We fully understand the capabilities
of the next generation of potential threat aircraft, specifically the
SU-27 and SU-30 series of fighters-airplanes that have been produced,
are available, and are being actively marketed. They outperform our
current generation F-15 and F-16. The F-22 will provide us another
generational leap over these aircraft and anything we see on the
horizon. At the low end of the fighter modernization mix is the Joint
Strike Fighter (JSF) which for the first time will provide persistent
stealth over the battlefield for the agile and rapidly emerging targets
that require close proximity for timely response.
The modernization of our Air Mobility fleet is critical as we set
goals of improving the C-5 Mission Capability rate and properly sizing
our Air Mobility force. We also face critical aging issues with our
Boeing 707 airframe fleet that includes KC-135 tankers and surveillance
platforms that now average 40 years of age. If confirmed, I would ask
Secretary Roche to support a plan for transition to a new, more
reliable airframe.
Long range strike modernization, that is, modernization of the B-1,
B-2 and B-52, has also suffered from inadequate funding. Our plan
continues to emphasize data-link communication for enroute retargeting
and threat information; full integration of precision weapons; and
reliability upgrades to control operating costs. The stealthy B-2 will
continue to be our leading long-range penetration capability; the B-1
will be our heavy hauler in a medium threat environment; and the B-52
will provide needed stand-off capability. If confirmed, I will continue
to pursue the investments needed to sharpen the ``teeth'' of our long-
range strike assets.
Unmanned aircraft will continue to evolve. The PREDATOR UAV will be
modernized with laser designation capability as we continue to field
the current production version. Global Hawk will also continue its
development. The UCAV will emerge as a conventional weapons capable
UAV. If confirmed, I will continue to support-as I have in the past-
operational concepts that include comprehensive use of unmanned
vehicles as they continue to prove their capabilities.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, Secretary Rumsfeld and Secretary Roche have
both testified to this committee about the need for acquisition reform
and the increasing amounts of time required to develop, test and field
systems. I have told Secretary Roche, from my position as Air Combat
Command commander, that I believe at least one part of acquisition
reform is requirements reform--requirements that are crafted by the
operators to pass to the acquisition community. I believe we can close
the wide gap that currently exists between the requirements and
acquisition process and work together for greater efficiency. If
confirmed, I will undertake that task.
Mr. Chairman, allow me to restate my gratitude to you and the
committee. I can think of no greater honor than to lead the greatest
Air Force in the world. Many on this committee traveled through Europe
during Operation Allied Force and saw first hand our superb men and
women at work. You saw a generation of young Americans, who many think
incapable of commitment, dedication or patriotism. You saw, as I see
every day, a generation no less committed, dedicated or patriotic than
any generation that ever served their Nation. They only ask that their
sacrifices be appreciated, that they have the resources to do their
job, and that when they win they can do it by a score of 100-0 for
their Nation. I thank the committee for providing the resources to
bring us these great young Americans and I vow that I will continue to
do everything in my power to earn the right to lead them.
Thank you.
Chairman Levin. We call on Senator Warner first.
Senator Warner. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm just going
to ask that my questions be put in the record. But I do want to
lead off with a subject we talked about yesterday, and that's
the unmanned programs that are becoming increasingly vital to
our national security. You share that objective of this
committee and its legislation.
Also yesterday, you told me in a very dramatic way about
the concern you have about control of the airspace over a
battlefield today. I think you just touched on it.
General Jumper. Yes sir.
Senator Warner. Namely that, unless we move ahead--
hopefully successfully on a technological basis with the F-22
program and the Joint Strike Fighter--we'll be yielding that
ground to control the airspace above a battlefield. Isn't that
your professional judgment?
General Jumper. That's correct.
Senator Warner. I thank the Chair and members of the
committee. Good luck to you. You'll have my support.
General Jumper. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Levin. Thank you Senator Warner. General, my
impression of the fiscal year 2002 budget is that the
Department of Defense has put a lot of money in personnel,
readiness, and quality of life programs, which we have also
emphasized, as you point out. But where there is a shortfall is
in the area of modernization. That seems to have been put off
until next year in that budget request. Would you say that's an
accurate assessment?
General Jumper. Sir, I would and I have not been close to
the budget process in my position at Air Combat Command. But
yes sir, I would agree with that assessment.
Chairman Levin. Can you give us an assessment as to
whether, if the Air Force budget request for next year stays
about where it is this year in real terms, what impact that
would have on your modernization plans?
General Jumper. Well sir, we will continue to have
disconnects, especially in our bomber force, as we try to
upgrade our bomber force. We will continue to have disconnects
in our ability to repair our bases and the working facilities
for our people. As a matter of fact, it's that piece of the
budget that goes to the very bottom and we use that to pay a
lot of the other bills. It will definitely stall our ability to
recapitalize ourselves, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. The February budget blueprint document of
the president states that: ``With 23 percent in estimated
excess infrastructure, it is clear that new rounds of base
closures will be necessary to shape the military more
efficiently''. Do you believe that the Air Force has excess
infrastructure that uses up resources that could be better
applied elsewhere?
General Jumper. I do, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. You made reference to recapitalization of
our bomber fleet. According to the 1999 report, it says the
following: ``Based on current operating procedures, attrition
models and service lives, the total bomber inventory is
predicted to fall below the required 170 aircraft fleet by
2037.'' The report also highlights the range of modernization
efforts that will be needed in the near-, mid-, and long-terms
to keep bombers flying through 2040. On the Air Force priority
list for unfunded items, there is a priority for upgrades to
our bombers. The cost of that would be $800 million. That would
keep our B-52s going through the year 2040, as I remember the
report.
General Jumper. That's correct Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Which would mean that their life would be
extended to 80 or 90 years. These are the B-52Hs. That is what
the Air Force hopes for, is that correct?
General Jumper. That's correct Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Now you made reference to the average age
of our bombers. That age is going to be even greater the way
we're going, but it seems at least in terms of the first blush
at looking at the Air Force needs, you want the B-52Hs at least
to be in service for another 40 years, which means that the age
of our fleet will continue to grow. But that's what the Air
Force wants, if we provide you the upgrades.
Now can you explain to us how we're going to tell those
pilots and their families that hey--we won't be doing it,
somebody sitting here in 29 years will be doing it--``You're
going to be flying a B-52H, which is now 60 years old, but hey,
back there in the year 2001, they wanted it that way.'' Why do
you want it that way?
General Jumper. Yes, Mr. Chairman, it is counter-intuitive.
We benefit, Mr. Chairman, from the way they built airplanes
back in the 1960s before the advent of computer-aided design.
Not knowing all we know about structures today, they over-built
them by two or three times. So the structure of the B-52, at
the rate we fly it today, is very sound out to those years. I
might add, Mr. Chairman, that as you well know there is very
little on the B-52 that is as old as the airframe itself, as we
continue to upgrade and modernize the avionics. Also, we don't
put that airframe, the B-52 airframe, into the high-threat
areas. The B-52 in its balance of capabilities across our
bomber force, we use to stand-off, and primarily the use of
cruise missiles. In that way, it does not go as much in harms
way as the other more penetrating bombers do. So it's taking
advantage of this over-engineering of the 1960s, sir, that
allows us to do this. We want to take full advantage of the
capability of that airframe. It's a very good long-range asset.
Chairman Levin. Is it also then, in summary, a very
different plane that would be flying 20 years from now or 30
years from now, than the one that is flying now?
General Jumper. Absolutely right sir, as we continue to
upgrade them.
Chairman Levin. I'm just trying to help out those Senators
that will be sitting here 20 years from now.
General Jumper. I understand.
Chairman Levin. They'll be able to look back at a record
and say, ``Hey, that chief of staff said that's what we ought
to be doing.''
General Jumper. Yes sir, I understand.
Chairman Levin. I'm just trying to lend a hand to those
future Senators of America.
General Jumper. It is counter-intuitive.
Chairman Levin. On to the missile defense budget request,
General. There's a proposal for a $3 billion increase for
missile defense, which would be a 57 percent increase over the
current fiscal year. At the same time, we're decreasing the
investments in certain other critical areas, such as
procurement, science and technology. In your view, are we
risking putting a disproportionate level of resources into
those missile defense programs?
General Jumper. Mr. Chairman, I would say that first of
all, the Secretary of Defense's detail plan on missile defense
has not been rolled out. I certainly wouldn't want to pre-empt
his conclusions in that regard. What I would say, sir, is that
I agree that it's going to mean some very tough trade-offs. My
belief is that we need to make sure that the technologies that
emerge with regard to national missile defense have to prove
themselves worthy as we invest in those into the future,
because the trade-off will be very difficult indeed.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, my time has expired. At this
time I would ask unanimous consent that the statement of
Senator Thurmond be placed in the record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Thurmond follows:]
Prepared Statement by Senator Strom Thurmond
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I join you in welcoming General Jumper as the
committee considers his nomination to be the next Chief of Staff of the
United States Air Force. In his more than 35 years of distinguished
service to our nation, he has served as a fighter pilot during the
Vietnam War, as a staff officer both on the Air Staff and Joint Staff,
as the Commander of the United States Air Forces in Europe, as
Commander, Air Forces Central Europe, and most recently as the
Commander of the Air Combat Command. I believe it would be difficult to
find a more qualified officer to take charge of our Air Force and lead
it through the transformation that all our services must undergo in
order to meet the ever-changing threats of the post-Cold War era.
General Jumper, I recall your tour as Commander of the 9th Air
Force at Shaw Air Force Base. I know all your friends in South
Carolina, especially the Sumter area, join me in congratulating you on
your nomination. We wish you success and hope you will not forget your
tour in our great State.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Senator Inhofe.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JAMES M. INHOFE
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll just start
off by saying I can't think of anyone in America who is better
qualified for the job that you are pursuing than you are,
General Jumper. We're very proud that you're willing to do
this, and that your family is willing to do this.
One of the things you pointed out in your oral statement
was the significance of fixing an aircraft. That leads me into
the depot situation. Of course, we went through some depot
rounds. We went from five air logistics centers down to three,
three that were operating at 100 percent if you're taking an 8
hour operation. I agree with that because we have to protect a
surge capability in times of war. On the other hand, our three
depots are really in a kind of bad repair. A lot of it is World
War II technology and there's a need to upgrade these
facilities. What is your thought about the future of our depots
and about our need for the depots--whether we use 50/50 or any
other criteria--to have that capability, not just on existing,
but on new platforms, of doing it internally in a core basis?
General Jumper. Senator, the founding notion behind the
depots is that we have a capability within our service to surge
and to repair when needed and in times of crisis. I see no
reason to erode that philosophy in any way and I'm committed to
that philosophy. If I'm confirmed, sir, there's a lot I do not
yet know about the depot issues. With your indulgence and
permission I'd like to make the same commitment that Secretary
Roche made, to make early on in my tenure, if I am confirmed,
visits to the depots.
Senator Inhofe. Good, that would be very helpful. Secretary
Roche did go with me out to Tinker Air Force Base and we were
able to extract from him his feelings, which are essentially
what you just articulated. In the area of encroachment, this is
a problem. We have four major areas. One I'm very familiar with
is environmental encroachments, because I served on the
Environment and Public Works Committee. We see what's happening
not just in the Air Force but services all around. Second,
urban sprawl. Third, the spectrum problem that's up. Fourth,
what's happening with our ability for live ranges.
I'd suggest the problems that we're going through right now
in Vieques are not just the Navy's and the Marines' problems,
they're your problems. Because if we allow a bunch of law-
breaking renegades to kick us off of ranges that we own, we're
going to have a very serious problem around the world on all of
our ranges, and domestic ranges, too. When you are confirmed,
how are you going to handle some of these encroachment
problems?
General Jumper. Senator, that's a tough one. The
environmental issues are tough enough. The only way that we've
been successful working with this is that we dedicate people to
the job of coordinating with the interested parties.
The tribal issues in the West, the environmental issues, we
remain in daily face-to-face contact with the concerns of those
and we try to address those one at a time. The encroachment
issue is a creeping issue. We can't afford to wake up one
morning and discover that encroachment prevents us from
launching our live ammunition training out of Nellis Air Force
Base, for instance.
The only way that we've been successful working this is to
stay engaged. When we bring on the new systems that require
greater stand-off, like the F-22, new weapons in the B-2, this
is going to be a more and more difficult problem and will
require greater and greater attention.
Senator Inhofe. One aggravating problem is that the better
the job we do, the more the problem. Certainly some of our
ranges down in Senator Cleland's area--just to defend the red-
cockaded woodpecker on some of our ground training ranges,
we're doing such a good job that their expected habitat is
actually growing, which takes up more of our training space. So
it is a problem that's getting worse.
You've addressed the F-22 and the necessity to get in some
new platforms. One of the characteristics you have that I
appreciate so much, and I say this in all honesty, is your
willingness not to be politically correct. A couple of years
ago it took a lot of courage for you to admit that our
platforms, contrary to public belief, are not the best out
there; that our air-to-air F-15 is inferior, in many ways, to
the SU-27. Our air-to-ground F-16 is inferior in many ways, in
maneuverability, range, range detection and radar detections,
than the SU-30.
Yet, we've seen just in last week's paper ``China Signs $2
Billion Deal for Russian Fighter Jets''. So this equipment
that's out there, that's better than ours, is on the open
market. China may have somewhere around 240 SU-27s and SU-30s,
not delivered, but ordered--some delivered. We don't know the
exact number, but it's growing every day. So this is a
proliferation.
There's no reason I can see that Iran, Iraq, and other
countries wouldn't have access to this superior equipment. I'd
like to have you at least make an expression to this fact so
that all of America will hear that this modernization program
is absolutely essential. Up until recent years we've always had
the best.
We had a friend of mine here during the last hearing from
the Vietnam era who had done 288 missions. He said, ``Whether
it was the F-4, F-100, F-105 or the A-6 or an A-4, we knew
during that time that we had the best equipment.'' So what are
your thoughts about our relative advantages at this date?
General Jumper. Thank you for that question Senator. We
talk often about skipping a generation of technology. As you
saw first hand in Operation Allied Force, the pilots from the
Air Force, the Navy and the Marine Corps that we put over
downtown Belgrade during the height of that war had over 700
surface-to-air missiles shot at them. I can guarantee you that
it didn't occur to one of them at the time that this
technologically inferior country down here was so inferior that
we didn't have to worry about those 700 surface-to-air
missiles. We did.
As we progress into this next generation this F-22 puts us
as far ahead of anything that we know is coming down the road,
as the F-15 did over the MiG-21 25 years ago. We have had,
Senator, two new bombers before we've had the last new fighter.
We've fielded two new bombers before we've had the last new
fighter. That's why we put the emphasis now on the F-22, not to
the denigration of the other platforms, but just because of the
necessity to upgrade.
The F-22 will enable us to kill the most difficult SAMs. It
will allow us to bring stealth into the daytime for the first
time. This is the generation of technology we need to lever
this technological advantage.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you very much. My time is expired but
I have more for the second round. Thank you sir. Thank you Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Senator Nelson.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR E. BENJAMIN NELSON
Senator Ben Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General,
congratulations on your nomination. The Air Force is of vital
importance not only to our country but, on a very parochial
basis, to the state of Nebraska because of Offutt, the Fighting
55th located in Nebraska.
One of the concerns that everyone expresses with regard to
the military is recruitment and retention. I think you've heard
me raise the point before, and I shall do it again today, about
the importance of total force and a Total Force Initiative
that's in place in a number of installations around the country
today, but particularly in the 55th. The relationship between
the Air National Guard and Nebraska--that I had the privilege
of heading as Governor of Nebraska for 8 years and have some
familiarity with it in that capacity--the relationship between
the Air Guard, the Air Reserve and the regular military and
what we can do to make sure that all components of the Air
Force are integrated in a meaningful, cost-effective and
helpful manner to help with the retention of those sergeants
that had been trained for 8 years that are now lost, and the
pilots that had countless thousands of dollars invested in
their skill levels. I'm interested in your attitude toward this
and what plans you may have not only to retain what we're doing
with Total Force Initiative today, but how you may be planning
to expand it as the chief of staff?
General Jumper. Senator, thank you for that. We are well
aware of how well that works in the 55th. That's a model,
actually, for where we need to go.
Sir, in the Reserve Forces today we have more than a third
of our strike capability in between the Guard and Reserve. It's
not only the support forces but it's the combat forces that are
very much integrated with the active duty. I know Secretary
Roche is anxious to find new ways to take advantage of the
great skill that goes from our active duty Air Force and into
our Guard and Reserve units, skill that can be used to train
our youngsters.
We're right now about 60 to 70 percent manned in the proper
skill levels in our maintenance force in the active duty. A lot
of these skilled maintainers go out and go into the National
Guard and Reserve. There are ways to take advantage of that
skill and integrate it into our active units and Secretary
Roche is pledged to find those ways. We have had some tests in
some of our fighter units, and we will continue to test with
maintenance capability as well on the right mix and how we do
this. So, I am very proud, sir, of the United States Air Force
and its Total Force effort and the way we continue to find new
ways to take advantage of the great experience we have in our
National Guard and our Reserve.
Senator Ben Nelson. It's encouraging to note that when you
are dealing with active and Reserve and Guard units, that the
pride of the Air Force can be in the solidarity of the program
rather than in competition among the units. So, continuing to
upgrade the training and the skill levels of those outside the
active forces is obviously very important so that we don't end
up with any inferior mix of the forces.
General Jumper. Yes Senator, I'd be honored if I could come
over and have you share those ideas with me, because we're
looking for ways to do just that.
Senator Ben Nelson. I appreciate it, thank you very much.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Nelson.
Senator Cleland.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR MAX CLELAND
Senator Cleland. Thank you very much. General, we
appreciate your service to our country. I appreciate your
willingness to tackle this tough job. I might say to my fellow
members on the committee if you want to really see the extent
to which General Jumper was involved in the Balkan War and was
the eyes and ears of the NATO commander, General Wesley Clark,
just read a book called Waging Modern War. I agree with Senator
Inhofe, I think we are blessed. No one is better prepared than
you are, coming right from the battlefield to lead the Air
Force and our American military into a new era of how we wage
modern war.
One of the great lessons of that war that General Clark
brought to our attention was that we took the use of precision
munitions to a new level, as he testified about a year ago. My
concern is that this budget does not address the shortfall.
Could you tell us what is the current shortfall, generally, in
what is called war reserve munitions, especially precision
guided munitions?
General Jumper. Yes Senator, in the current budget we have
attempted to fix some of our training munitions shortfalls, but
we continue to be behind in procuring our most beneficial
precision munitions; complicated by the expenditure rate of
over 5,000 of these weapons in Operation Allied Force and also
we continue every day to expend a certain number of weapons in
Iraq in Northern and Southern Watch, in retaliation to
offensive action on the part of the Iraqis. The combination of
these episodic contingency operations, like Operation Allied
Force, and sort of the daily expenditure rate, has kept us from
being able to replenish the spares that we need.
Senator, if I'm confirmed this is going to be a major point
of emphasis for me as we replenish. I will tell you, there's
another problem we have that we're going to have to address,
and that is with the advent of these new precision munitions.
We're not sure yet how we're going to train with these joint
standoff weapons that are very expensive, whether we're going
to have to do it with a synthetic training device in a
simulator of some type, and how we're going to actually be able
to practice with live munitions in the air. It's a problem
we're going to have to address. If I'm confirmed, Senator, I'm
going to take both those issues on very aggressively.
Senator Cleland. Well, you certainly have my support in
this regard. I would hope that you'd just continue to share
with us all that you feel strongly about that we might help you
in waging modern war, if we have to do that, and being
successful. The whole precision munitions issue, I think, is a
critical one.
Let me just move on. There are a couple of parochial issues
in Georgia other than the red-cockaded woodpecker. I wish it
was that simple. The decision on the B-1 for Warner Robins was
like a B-1 bombing raid, left $70 million worth of
infrastructure standing and devastated some 800 to 1,000
people. So our people there are still trying to recover from
that raid. May I say that I appreciate your willingness,
voluntarily, to come down with me to Warner Robins and see that
facility for yourself.
The issues of depot maintenance that Senator Inhofe raised
have been issues that we have been jointly struggling with for
a long, long time simply because we believe together that any
military service needs a basic, fundamental, core capability
without which we cannot wage modern war. We cannot sustain
ourselves on the battlefield once we get in a conflict or
crisis. It's kind of a no-brainer to us and we've had a number
of years here trying to deal with that question. Of course,
Warner Robins is deeply involved as one of the great three ALCs
that support our Air Force.
May I say that, in terms of Warner Robins, it maybe is a
microcosm in terms of one base of how you go to war in a modern
way. The old JSTARS program, coming out of Warner Robins, the
whole emphasis on increased surveillance and reconnaissance on
the battlefield that General Clark wanted to see, that you've
testified for, is there. The whole issue of the F-22--there's
not been a bigger supporter of the F-22 since day one since I
got here 5 years ago. I believe in air dominance. I believe in
first-see, first-fire, first-kill.
There's been no bigger booster of the C-130J program, the
ability to move to a theater with great lift capability. We
know we're going to have to move. The Army is actually sizing
its transition divisions and forces to the C-130 itself. Again,
the way we wage modern war.
I stand fully behind you in your effort to upgrade and
innovate so that we maximize our leverage, as you point out,
our technology in every way to minimize our risk and our
carriers. I want everyone to know that this whole discussion on
the B-1 is not some retrograde movement. We would like to just
take care of the people that have invested their lives in this
effort. We hope that when you come to Warner Robins you can
have some insight as to what new missions these wonderful
people might enjoy.
May I just get you on the record on a couple of points?
Retention. It seems to me that when you spend $6 million to
train a pilot, or that great NCO who has had 8 years in the
service and is really beginning to pay back in leadership
skills and everything else for the training you invested in
him, it's a crying shame for those 8- to 9- to 10-year veterans
to bail out of the military, many with tears in their eyes.
Saying what? Not that they don't like their job, but their
family needs begin to take precedence.
One of those family needs is education. We have some
legislation that we'll be putting forward to make the GI Bill
more family-friendly, to allow that service man or woman a
choice of having that spouse and their kids pick up at least
half of their unused benefits. Is that something that is in
agreement with your thinking of some of the arrows in your
quiver that you need to help with the retention challenge?
General Jumper. Senator, as you and I have discussed
before, we have a saying that we recruit the member but we
retain the family. I am familiar with the Montgomery GI Bill
and its provisions, and in my personal opinion that is exactly
the sort of thing that helps us retain that family and keep
that skilled member in our United States Air Force, yes sir.
Senator Cleland. Thank you very much for your service to
our country. Thank you very much Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Cleland.
Senator Carnahan.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JEAN CARNAHAN
Senator Carnahan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to
welcome you here today General Jumper. Certainly your
experience and your innovation in reshaping the Air Force makes
you an exceptional candidate, and I commend you for that.
General Jumper. Thank you.
Senator Carnahan. The B-2 has an impeccable track record,
as was evidenced by the Kosovo operation. In prior testimony
General Ryan indicated that the B-2 is ``a centerpiece of our
capability to project power now and it will be in the future.''
I certainly believe that statement to be true and I hope that
the B-2 will further be used strategically to close the Air
Force's access gap to Central, East and Southern Asia. Would
you agree with this?
General Jumper. I would, Senator, indeed. The B-2 in the
performance and operation of Allied Force was better than any
of us thought. I took great pains personally at the very
beginning of that conflict to make sure that the B-2, the B-52
and the B-1 were part of that conflict.
With regard to the B-2, Senator, we have $3.7 billion over
the Future Year Defense Plan invested in the B-2 for its
survivability, its lethality and its supportability, $300
million in 2002. It does not do all that we would like to do
with the B-2. But what it does do is it begins a program where
we'll be able to take the aircraft from the current load of 16
precision guided or near-precision guided munitions up to 80
near-precision guided munitions. We think that this increase in
lethality is going to help us with the fixed target problem
that we have and enable us to, in combination with the F-22,
handle any threat we see out there in the future. I appreciate
your support for this marvelous airplane, Senator.
Senator Carnahan. Secretary Roche, when he was testifying
here before this committee, indicated that in our future force
F-22s may be required to escort the B-2 in battle. I understand
that you have been developing a concept for such deployments in
your Global Strike Taskforce plan. Would you describe the
circumstances under which they would require such a force?
General Jumper. Thank you for that question, Senator. We've
developed a concept at Air Combat Command called Global Strike
Taskforce which is a concept that will try to integrate us with
the other services. As a matter of fact, I'm working closely
with the Navy, the Army and the Marine Corps so that we can
develop jointly this concept.
Essentially what it does is it combines the attributes of
stealth, as I've described before the F-22 and the B-2, to
bring the B-2 into the daytime. The second element of it is
that it describes an architecture for the horizontal
integration of manned platforms, unmanned platforms and space
platforms. When I say manned, I don't just mean airplanes, I
also mean eyes on the ground with our special operations
forces. When I say unmanned, I don't just mean UAVs, I mean
unattended ground sensors and the technology that brings. Of
course, combined with the high ground of space.
When you combine the persistence of the airborne platforms
with the high ground of space, you have no place to hide. We
would integrate these at the machine level, at the digital
level, so we don't have human beings that have to interpret the
digits in order for us to get precise target location and
precise identification. That's the second element.
The third element is that we re-engineered the way we do
our intelligence, so we refined and advanced the art of
prediction. Right now our intelligence is based on a collection
mentality. What we are trying to do is advance the art of
prediction so that we are using our ISR assets during combat
more to confirm that which we predicted than for pure
discovery.
Finally, Senator, the concept provides for us to take the
product of this information and provide what I call decision
quality data to the commander on the ground, so that commander
can take full advantage of these digital interfaces to get
rapid decision quality data to decide whether you're going to
strike the targets or make the next move or not, sensitive to
the rules of engagement and the other sensitivities that go
along with modern warfare. We're trying to advance this notion
as the second phase of our transformation in the United States
Air Force, and our contribution to joint transformation with
the other services.
Senator Carnahan. If the B-2 will be escorted by F-22s, it
seems to me that the B-2 will require the enhancement of its
communication ability to make it more interoperable with other
aircraft. I understand that some of the upgrades that were cut
in the 2002 budget would have honed these capabilities for the
B-2.
General Jumper. Senator, you're exactly right.
Senator Carnahan. Would you explain the importance of
upgrading the B-2s communications?
General Jumper. It is on our top unfunded priority list to
try and get those back. We fully intend to re-address this as
we prepare the 2004 Program Objective Memorandum (POM). But in
the trade-offs that had to be made we opted for the lethality
first, and that's the incorporation of the new generation of
500 pound precision-guided munitions that will allow us to
carry 80 on the airplane. These are tough tradeoffs, Senator,
and we were forced to make them. I would hope to be able to
come over and consult with you on ways to deal with this
problem.
Senator Carnahan. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you Senator Carnahan. Senator Inhofe.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Three or four
times you've had to use that term ``tough tradeoffs.'' I don't
want those tradeoffs to be that tough. I don't think that we're
adequately funded to take care of all of our needs. These
things we're trading off are really critical. I'm glad Senator
Carnahan brought up this thing on the upgrades, the Link-16. If
we're going to fully utilize the opportunity that we have we're
going to have to get it upgraded and get it in proper order.
Back when I was important, before the Democrats took
control of the United States Senate, I was the chairman of the
Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness and Management
Support for about 5 years. I was able to visit virtually every
installation of all the services around the world, or at least
I tried to. I remember so well when I was looking at some of
these problems that have to do with pilot retention and other
things too; when out in the desert we had dropped from six Red
Flag exercises down to four. Now, I'd like to hear your
professional opinion, because I have heard this from the
pilots. A lot of the things I've heard from the pilots you
don't hear in these hearings up here. But in terms of their
being able to keep their skills honed, do you think we should
get back up to six Red Flag exercises?
General Jumper. Senator, I do. The biggest advantage we
have, and you and I have discussed this before, is our edge in
training. Every air force in the world out there that could
contend against us in some way is trying to figure out a way to
deal with and beat the United States Air Force. This training
edge that we have is one that we absolutely have to keep. It's
absolutely precious to us. By the way, we are still the best
trained air force in the world, make no mistake about it.
Senator Inhofe. This is when you use our pilots flying
their aircraft, their pilots flying our aircraft, we beat them
every time, in spite of problems we're having with
modernization?
General Jumper. The good news is when we go up against
these aircraft it's their pilots flying their airplanes and
that's what gives us the advantage. I agree with you
completely, Senator, we should get back up to six Red Flag
exercises.
Senator Inhofe. OK, Senator Carnahan brought up the Global
Strike Taskforce. Is there anything more that you want to say
about that?
General Jumper. No sir. I think I've explained it and our
efforts to try to--the main thing I want to emphasize is our
efforts to try and coordinate this. It's an operational concept
with the other services. This is not just the United States Air
Force.
Senator Inhofe. OK. Getting back now to retention, I think
Senator Cleland is right. It costs so much less to retain than
to retrain. There are so many villains out there. It's not all
one thing. They like to say the economy's good and the airlines
are attracting these people. But it has been my experience that
most of the pilots that we have in the Air Force and the Navy
are there because they want to be the best, they want to defend
their country. There's a deep sense of patriotism and pride in
what they do. I remember one time a pilot when I guess it was
at Corpus Christi Naval Air Station, he stood up and he said,
``Well, this country has lost its sense of mission,'' thinking
about some of these deployments that they didn't feel really
related to their skills and their abilities. The programs that
we have, the SRB, the Selective Re-enlistment Bonuses, and the
pilot bonuses, are they working? Are they helping? How much are
they helping?
General Jumper. Sir, on the pilot side it's too early to
tell. But yes, they are indeed helping. On the enlisted side we
for the first time this year will meet our goal in the first
term retention.
Senator Inhofe. That's 55.6 percent?
General Jumper. Fifty-five percent. The 75 percent and the
95 percent we attempt to get in the second term in the career.
We're still going to be two or three or four percentage points
short. But it's improving so I'm encouraged in this regard. I
will tell you, Senator, there's another category of people out
there that make it very encouraging. In fiscal year 2001 we
expect to get 1,000 airmen back into the service who got out
over the last few years. I tell the story of a young sergeant I
met in Kuwait who told me the story of going out to work for a
video graphics firm. It's exactly the job he wanted. He went
out to California. He was making twice as much money as he had
when he left. When he arrived he determined that the people he
was working with were only staying as long as it took to be
offered a higher salary, and then going to the next job. They
didn't want to make friends. They didn't want the comraderie
that he was used to in the Air Force. He said, ``I couldn't get
back in the Air Force quick enough.'' We see more and more of
that, Senator, as time goes on. I'm encouraged by these things,
but we are not over the hill yet.
Senator Inhofe. That would be interesting to see how that
factors in statistically, because I'd like to believe that too.
I think if they see that we're going to get back into a more
intensified training and the things that originally attracted
them to the services, perhaps that will have that same effect
that you're mentioning.
General Jumper. If you can indulge me for just another
second Senator, when you go to Lackland Air Force Base at our
basic training, you'll see the same scene at every graduation.
You'll see some mother or father standing there being shaken by
one of these young airmen saying, ``Yes mom, it is me.'' They
don't recognize their child after the basic training experience
because they come out, as these young Americans I described
before, no less patriotic, committed, dedicated, than any
generation of Americans that ever served.
Senator Inhofe. I know that's true. Well in this day and
age the necessity of dealing, of training and fighting wars in
an integrated way with the other services, as well as the
allied environment, what types of efforts are underway to
ensure that the Air Force is able to successfully integrate
with the other services and nations, and what role would the
Joint Strike Fighter play in this?
General Jumper. The Joint Strike Fighter brings stealth,
persistent stealth, over the battlefield for the first time.
This is necessary, as opposed to the targets that I described
before, the Global Strike Taskforce, those are largely fixed
targets that you use to what I call kick down the door to
create the conditions for access. The Joint Strike Fighter is
the persistence force. That's the one that stays over the
battlefield to do things like close air support when the troops
come ashore, time critical targeting, and to handle those
critical targets that emerge very quickly that you can't deal
with with a bomber that's 3,000 miles away. So we think that
the Joint Strike Fighter is also critical to our future
capability. We look forward to that.
Now as far as the allies and the other services go, the
alliance part is the toughest because as we go through this
horizontal integration of space assets, and as I described
before, much of that is classified and not available, not
accessible to our allies. We've got to work around this and
part of our effort with Global Strike Taskforce is to create
this Air Operations Center structure that puts the
classification at the proper level for us to share with our
allies. This is going to be a big part, because when we go to
war we go to war as a coalition or we go to war as an alliance.
This happened throughout the decade of the 1990s and we've got
to be ready for it. We're working on that very hard, Senator.
Senator Inhofe. That reminds me of another thing. During
Kosovo, and during the target selection process, on many
occasions I was up at Ramstein when they were going through
this thing, and these target decisions by committees is
something that really bothered me. I'm hoping if we get
ourselves in a mess like that again that we can go in with the
understanding, with our allies, if you want us in we've got to
make these decisions--some way to streamline that process. My
time has expired and I just will say to you I look forward to
and it will be my honor to be serving with you in your new
capacity.
General Jumper. Thank you, Senator.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Inhofe. The 1999 White
Paper on the long-range bombers, which has been referred to,
emphasized the role that bombers are going to play in the
Aerospace Expeditionary Force as follows: ``Long-range bombers
with their global range, massive firepower, and stealth
integrate with air superiority, support, and other strike
aircraft to form a synergistic force that is at the core of a
lean, lethal, tailored, and rapidly responsive AEF, as was
recently demonstrated in Operation Desert Fox.'' Now the report
assumes, I believe, that bombers are going to operate mainly
from the United States. Are operations from the United States
consistent with assumptions which are made about the operating
life of the bombers?
General Jumper. Mr. Chairman, if you'll allow me, our
concept calls actually for forward deployed bomber assets in
these contingencies, at our bases in England and Diego Garcia
and other places that are specified as bomber bed-down bases.
We want to include the B-2 in this forward deployment
capability and we are now, as you're aware sir, developing a
shelter that will allow us to do the stealth maintenance on the
B-2 in forward locations. When we do put these bombers forward
we get greater sortie rates out of them and they're much more
useful to us. When we have to, for surprise--strategic
surprise--we can operate these airplanes from the continental
United States. You saw us do this in Operation Allied Force
where the B-2s flew as long as 17 hours one way, 34 hours round
trip in some cases, 3 days on an airplane essentially to go
back and forth.
Chairman Levin. Without the capability of retargeting.
General Jumper. Yes sir. Well, we developed actually during
the course of the battle. I was frustrated with our inability
to retarget, so I went to Whiteman Air Force Base myself and
sat down with the young captains and we figured out how to do
it. We created a very meager, flexible targeting capability
which is exactly the type we're trying to expand, as was
explained earlier, and become more sophisticated.
Chairman Levin. That's helpful. Is the assumption about the
life of the bombers then that there will be these forward
deployments?
General Jumper. Yes sir, indeed.
Chairman Levin. Could you give us your views on the
appropriate role for space assets and the use of space in the
future?
General Jumper. Yes sir. As I said before, I think our
greatest leverage lies in space and we are familiar with
Secretary Rumsfeld's work with the Space Commission and we
embrace the findings of that commission. I know Secretary Roche
and General Ryan are putting those provisions into effect. My
perspective as the commander of Air Combat Command has been
from the perspective of the impact on the battlefield. I look
at systems like SBIRS and other ISR platforms that are in
space, and see the benefit of being able to take the high
ground of space to always fill in the blanks for our other ISR
assets.
I also see the threat emerging, the threat that allows you
to take your Visa card and dial up an address on the Internet
and get a picture, almost instantly, of anywhere you want on
the Earth. This is going to impact our ability to provide
strategic surprise. We're going to have to learn to deal with
this problem in our space control mission in the future.
Because we won't be able to hide our intent to deploy into
airfields, or the fleet hovering out there over the horizon, or
Norm Schwartzkopf's left hook in Operation Desert Storm. We're
going to have to be able to deal with this in the future. Mr.
Chairman, I have not been deeply involved in this in my
position at Air Combat Command, but if I am confirmed this will
be a subject of primary concern for me in the future.
Chairman Levin. Senator Warner has led an initiative in the
committee to increase the contribution of unmanned systems to
our operating forces with the goal of contributing one third of
our operational deep strike aircraft capability by the year
2010. I think there's wide-spread support for that approach in
this committee. In order to achieve that objective the Defense
Department will have to do an awful lot more in the next 4
years to position the Air Force and the other services to
achieve that goal. Can you tell us your reaction to that goal
and if you support it? Even if you don't, assuming the goal is
adopted by the civilian authorities, how you would achieve that
goal? What steps would you take?
General Jumper. Mr. Chairman, I'm the guy who's supposed to
fear UAVs the most. I'm the white-scarf fighter pilot that
everybody says hates UAVs. As you may be aware, Mr. Chairman,
I've worked personally very hard to accelerate the Global Hawk.
I'm the guy who had us install Hellfire missiles on the
Predator UAV, and we've tested over a dozen shots of the
Hellfire missile off the Predator.
I do not fear UAVs, especially the UCAV which promises to
give us great leverage in the suppression of enemy air defenses
with its stealth capabilities. I would like personally to
pursue the marriage of the UCAV with directed energy weapons to
see if this promising technology would combine well with UCAV
to pay off, which I think it will. I don't know, Mr. Chairman,
if the goal of one-third is correct or not. We have to work
very hard on the concept of operations to make sure that we
don't disturb other necessary elements of our readiness.
For instance, if the concept for UCAV is to put them into
boxes and load them aboard C-5s or C-17s, we've got to make
sure that the balance of airlift is proper. We have to make
sure that when we get there, if you have to reassemble them and
then test fly them, that we don't then jeopardize our ability
to rapidly react by having that requirement at the other end.
If we decide to fly them across the ocean we have to work on
things like automatic air refueling and ways to get through
airspace, etcetera. These are things that we have to work on.
None of these are insurmountable, but we have to make sure
we've got the concept of operations correct, along with our
commitment. But, Mr. Chairman, I hope I have demonstrated
personally my commitment to UAVs. I'm committed, if I'm
confirmed, you can count on the fact that commitment will
continue.
Chairman Levin. That's a very thoughtful answer and you are
extraordinarily well-prepared for the job to which you will be
hopefully promptly confirmed. We again thank you for your
service to this Nation, for your future service. We thank your
family. We will hope to get your nomination acted upon soon.
General Jumper. Yes sir.
Chairman Levin. We'll see if we can't get this confirmed
just as quickly as humanly possible around here. We will stand
adjourned with that optimistic note.
General Jumper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Whereupon, at 4:40 p.m., the committee adjourned.]
[Prepared questions submitted to Gen. John P. Jumper by
Chairman Levin prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
------
Questions and Responses
defense reforms
Question. More than a decade has passed since the enactment of the
Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and
the Special Operations reforms.
Do you support full implementation of these defense reforms?
Answer. Yes.
Question. What is your view of the extent to which these defense
reforms have been implemented?
Answer. My experience has shown that these reforms have been
institutionalized and made part of the daily operations, oversight, and
management of the Department of Defense in general and the U.S. Air
Force in particular. I am aware that the sweeping changes produced by
Goldwater-Nichols require continued diligence to ensure full compliance
with the intent of the legislation.
Question. What do you consider to be the most important aspects of
these defense reforms?
Answer. Goldwater-Nichols has been remarkably successful in getting
the Services to work together as a Joint Team. For a decade and a half
now, we've been a much more effective instrument of national security
policy due, in part to the clearly defined position and authority of
the Chairman, Vice Chairman, and combatant commanders.
Question. The goals of Congress in enacting these defense reforms,
as reflected in section 3 of the Goldwater-Nichols Department of
Defense Reorganization Act, can be summarized as strengthening civilian
control; improving military advice; placing clear responsibility on the
combatant commanders for the accomplishment of their missions; ensuring
the authority of the combatant commanders is commensurate with their
responsibility; increasing attention to the formulation of strategy and
to contingency planning; providing for more efficient use of defense
resources; and enhancing the effectiveness of military operations and
improving the management and administration of the Department of
Defense.
Do you agree with these goals?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Recently, there have been articles which indicate an
interest within the Department of Defense in modifying Goldwater-
Nichols in light of the changing environment and possible revisions to
the national strategy.
Do you anticipate that legislative proposals to amend Goldwater-
Nichols may be appropriate? If so, what areas do you believe it might
be appropriate to address in these proposals?
Answer. Almost 15 years of experience under Goldwater-Nichols has
meant significant changes in the way the Defense Department operates. I
am certain that legislative changes could provide further improvements.
However, I would prefer reserving judgment on this until after I have
studied any specific proposals and acquired some experience as a member
of the JCS. At that time, I would be pleased to share my thoughts with
the committee as appropriate.
duties
Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
the Air Force Chief of Staff?
Answer. The Chief of Staff of the Air Force organizes, trains, and
equips America's Air Force to best provide the Secretary of Defense and
the combatant Commanders in Chief the forces they need to accomplish
our national security objectives.
Question. What background and experience do you possess that you
believe qualifies you to perform these duties?
Answer. It has been my distinct honor to serve on Active Duty in
the United States Air Force for more than 35 years. During this time, I
have been privileged to serve at every level of command, culminating
with my current duties at Air Combat Command, overseeing all combat
airpower based in the continental United States. My experience in the
Pentagon as Deputy Chief of Staff for Air and Space Operations, and my
earlier tours as Senior Military Assistant to the Secretary of Defense
and as a Deputy Director for Pol-Mil Affairs on the Joint Staff
provided me with a firm foundation in military operations at the
tactical, strategic, and operational levels. My tour of duty as
Commander, U.S. Air Forces in Europe, during the Kosovo conflict was
particularly crucial in crystallizing my views on the effective
employment of airpower in a Joint and Allied effort. My background
provides extremely good preparation for the critical duties of Air
Force Chief of Staff.
Question. Do you believe that there are actions you need to take to
enhance your ability to perform the duties of the Air Force Chief of
Staff?
Answer. A complete understanding of current Air Force and Defense
Department issues is essential to my ability to discharge these
important duties. Since my nomination, I have taken action to enhance
my knowledge of such issues, and I pledge to diligently continue to
study the broad national security issues that will require my attention
if I am confirmed.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what duties and functions do
you expect that the Secretary of the Air Force would prescribe for you?
Answer. I believe Secretary Roche will expect me to continue the
efforts and initiatives of Gen Ryan in enhancing the readiness and
resources of the Air Force, and to focus on the re-capitalization
needed for our aging aircraft fleet. I also believe Secretary Roche
will expect me to engage in the Quadrennial Defense Review discussions
that will shape our strategy and force structure for the next decade. I
pledge to work these issues alongside my colleagues in the other
services.
Question. In carrying out your duties, how will you work with the
following:
The Secretary of Defense.
Answer. I will work closely with the other members of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff to provide the best possible military advice for the
Secretary of Defense. As Chief of Staff, I will diligently work to
ensure the readiness of air forces to accomplish the aerospace side of
the Secretary's Defense Planning Guidance.
Question. The Secretary of the Air Force.
Answer. Americans are rightfully proud to have the world's
preeminent aerospace force. I will work very closely with the Secretary
of the Air Force to ensure we meet our Air Force Vision: Global
Vigilance, Reach, and Power.
Question. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Answer. I will assist the Chairman in formulating military advice
as a member of the JCS. I will diligently advise the CJCS on the
capabilities of the Air Force and its preparation to support military
operations by combatant commands. I will advise the President, NSC, and
Secretary of Defense on matters within my expertise as required.
Question. The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Answer. I will assist the Vice Chairman to execute duties
prescribed in statute and otherwise as directed by the Chairman or
Secretary of Defense. I will advise the Vice Chairman of the
capabilities and future requirements of the Air Force. I will also
assist the Vice Chairman when he or she performs the duties of the
Chairman because of a vacancy in the Office of the Chairman or in the
absence or disability of the CJCS.
Question. The Chiefs of the other services.
Answer. I will cooperate and work closely with the Chiefs of our
other services to help them carry out their responsibilities as members
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I will seek to encourage synchronization
of service capabilities to better produce the effects desired by our
CINCs.
Question. The Air Force Vice Chief of Staff.
Answer. Like most commanders, I view my Vice as the person who has
the insight and confidence to tell me when I'm wrong. I'll rely on my
Vice for candid, resourceful counsel on the multitude of complex issues
we face. I'll also expect my Vice to complement my efforts in
communicating key Air Force issues.
Question. The Commander in Chief, U.S. Space Command.
Answer. I intend to support the efforts of CINCUSSPACECOM, to
ensure America's interests are both protected and advanced in space.
Space offers tremendous potential for our country and I will work very
closely with my colleagues in U.S. Space Command as we implement the
recommendations of the Space Commission.
Question. The Commander in Chief, U.S. Transportation Command.
Answer. I view TRANSCOM as absolutely indispensable to our Air
Force, from the way it moves a young airman's family between duty
stations, to its ability to project our forces into harm's way with the
sustainment necessary to protect our people and win the fight. I'll
work with the CINC to improve our ability to do these things.
Question. The Commander in Chief, U.S. Strategic Command.
Answer. I will keep the Commander in Chief U.S. Strategic Command
advised of the readiness of the air forces to support Strategic Command
operations.
Question. The Commander in Chief, U.S. Special Operations Command.
Answer. Clearly an area of critical importance, I'll ensure that
the Air Force is providing the CINC with the right equipment and fully
trained people to execute these demanding missions. As with the other
officials named above, a forthright dialogue is the way to get that
done.
major challenges and problems
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will
confront the Air Force Chief of Staff?
Answer. As we continue to refine our National Security Strategy and
National Military Strategy our Expeditionary Aerospace Forces (EAFs)
must continue to evolve to include the robusting of our low density
high demand assets. Our greatest challenge remains the requirement to
advance new capabilities while maintaining the robust readiness
required to meet day-to-day warfighter requirements. It is imperative
we develop our Global Strike Task Force (GSTF), a kick-down-the-door
force that will assure access and aerospace dominance for all our joint
forces, yet our current aging airframes must be sustained at a level
enabling rapid response to any present threat. We will continue to
address the challenge of retaining our skilled personnel, as well as
meeting the needs of our deteriorating base infrastructure.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. Day-to-day readiness of our aging aircraft fleet depends on
continued robust funding of spare parts, aggressive efforts to enhance
retention of skilled personnel, and engaged unit leadership on our
flight lines. I plan on focusing much of my efforts on these three
essentials. Moreover, I plan to actively pursue implementation of the
Global Strike Task Force concept alongside my fellow service chiefs so
as to provide the Department a compelling joint capability that
incorporates the key lessons of the 1990s and addresses the emerging
threat.
Question. What do you consider to be the most serious problems in
the performance of the functions of the Air Force Chief of Staff?
Answer. Because the Chief of Staff is primarily responsible for
providing properly trained and equipped forces to the Combatant
Commanders, the most serious problem facing us today is adequate
resources to accomplish that task. No matter how you slice it, the Air
Force needs more funding to provide the essential tools to our
warfighting commanders. Without recapitalization of our aircraft fleet,
we face a downward spiral in capability that will affect the options
available to the National Command Authority. Furthermore, without
recapitalization we can never achieve the savings, both in dollars and
American lives that could be realized through the completion of the AEF
concept and the implementation of capabilities like the Global Strike
Task Force.
Question. If confirmed, what management actions and time lines
would you establish to address these problems?
Answer. I recognize that fiscal realities will constrain the funds
available to us and I'm prepared to aggressively manage the funding
entrusted to the Air Force to ensure we get the absolute maximum in
combat power for every dollar of the taxpayer's money we spend. The Air
Staff cannot do this alone, however. I will tell subordinate
commanders, at all levels, that I consider sound fiscal management an
integrity issue. We can accept nothing less from those who spend the
funds. The immediate timeline for solutions has already been dictated
by the budgeting process--we already know what we can buy and when.
Obviously, I would hope to affect that process in the long term by
continuing to keep this administration and Congress informed of our
needs.
priorities
Question. If confirmed, what broad priorities will you establish in
terms of issues, which must be addressed by the Air Force Chief of
Staff?
Answer. I intend to follow the objectives put forth by Secretary
Rumsfeld and Secretary Roche that include transformation, readiness,
retention, and recapitalization.
Transformation, because the Air Force is inherently
transformational--constantly adapting ourselves to new threats and
leveraging new technology in order to posture ourselves to face the
challenges of an uncertain future.
Readiness, because it is the heart and soul of our ability to
perform our mission on a day-to-day basis, and is the hallmark of our
combat capability.
Retention, because we can only be successful through the energy and
dedication of skilled and motivated personnel.
Recapitalization, because we must recover from a decade-long
spending hiatus to provide the tools our Airmen need to fly, fight and
win.
strategic airlift requirements
Question. What is the biggest challenge for the Air Force in
meeting strategic airlift requirements and what would you do, if
confirmed as Chief of Staff of the Air Force, to meet that challenge?
Answer. The largest challenge remains the reliability of the C-5
Fleet and the modernization of this fleet. If confirmed, I will place a
strong emphasis on the AFs 2-phase program to modernize the C-5. Phase
I is an Avionics Modernization Program that replaces unreliable and
unsupportable avionics components. Phase II is a reliability and re-
engining program providing for commercial replacement of the aircraft's
powerplants and the replacement of ``bad actor'' hydraulic, landing
gear, and fuel system components among others. The resulting goal of
this program is a 75 percent mission-capable rate for the C-5 fleet.
Question. The Air Force has completed, but has not made available
to the committee, the Outsize/Oversize Analysis of Alternatives for
strategic lift aircraft. That analysis is required for Congress to
evaluate possible alternatives for providing strategic airlift.
If confirmed, when do you intend to forward that analysis to
Congress?
Answer. The Outsize/Oversize Analysis of Alternatives is currently
in final coordination with AMC/CC. We intend to forward the study to
Congress following the OSD Strategic Review and QDR.
mobility requirements study
Question. What priority would you place on carrying out the
strategic airlift recommendations of the Mobility Requirements Study
(MRS-05)?
Answer. MRS-05 provided the most in-depth analysis of airlift
requirements to date; CJCS, Service Chiefs, and CINCs agreed to the
airlift requirement of 54.5 MTM/D. However, MRS-05 did not resolve the
fleet mix. The Outsize/Oversize Analysis of Alternatives (O/O AoA), the
OSD Strategic Review, and the QDR will address the most effective and
fiscally responsible fleet mix. The AF is awaiting firm follow-on
requirements as well as requirements derived from MRS-05, O/O AoA, and
the QDR before negotiating follow-on contracts.
strategic forces
Question. Do you believe that the United States should retain a
strategic Triad of offensive nuclear forces for deterrent purposes?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you believe the current Air Force bomber roadmap is
sufficient to sustain a bomber force to perform its strategic nuclear
missions?
Answer. Yes, the Next Generation Bomber Study demonstrates how
modernization of the bomber fleet will provide new bomber equivalent
capability at significantly less cost. However, as a part of the DOD's
National Military Strategy Review all force structure and modernization
priorities are being re-evaluated. The Air Force needs a minimum of 157
bombers (B-52, B-1, B-2) at their full capability to employ a variety
of weapons across the full spectrum of conflict.
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (isr)
Question. On a recurring basis, regional Commanders in Chief
(CINCs), express significant concern about the responsiveness and
availability of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR)
assets to support their respective theaters, both in peacetime and
during conflict. A review of recent budgets indicates relatively modest
investment in the airborne ISR assets CINCs are most concerned about,
compared to the large investment in national level ISR assets.
In your view, is the investment strategy in theater level and
national level ISR assets appropriately balanced?
Answer. Yes. There are important modernization and acquisition
priorities for both theater- and national-level ISR assets. If
confirmed, I will work to ensure that the needs of the regional CINCs
are appropriately reflected in the Air Force budget.
Question. In view of the risks associated with manned
reconnaissance, as pointed out by the recent EP-3 incident, what is
your vision for ISR in the future, both manned and unmanned?
Answer. We will continue to move forward with manned, unmanned and
space reconnaissance assets, but will look to better integrate the
information collected by horizontal integration of all of these assets.
This combination of manned, unmanned and space platforms will talk
together at the digital level to resolve ambiguities of target location
and target identification. Together, they will provide the right
information to predict the enemy's intentions and successfully execute
air operations to defend national interests.
information dominance
Question. As you are well aware, Joint Vision 2020 identifies
information dominance as a key enabler of mission success. This is
especially true for precision strike operations, wherein full
situational awareness and assured communications are critical.
Information operations and information assurance assume key roles in
current and future warfare.
What is your view of the role of information operations in current
and future military operations?
Answer. Information Operations personnel are part of our new
warrior class, an integral arm of the Air Force, and information
operations in synchronization with traditional kinetic means, will
remain a critical element of our strategy to fight and win future
conflicts.
Question. Are you satisfied with the unity of effort within the Air
Force and within the Department of Defense towards integrating
information operations into overall military operations?
Answer. The Department of Defense has done an excellent job of
focusing on the discipline of Information Operations. As technology
develops and there are more available, reliable means of
communications, there will be new opportunities and challenges faced by
DOD. The Air Force will continue to work with all DOD agencies to seek
out better ways for exploiting those opportunities and protecting our
systems from adversary countries' efforts to do the same. In
particular, we must bring IO to the operational and tactical levels of
war.
joint response forces
Question. A recurring theme in the on-going strategic review and
Quadrennial Defense Review has been the need for standing joint task
forces or joint response forces that habitually train together and can
quickly respond to support contingencies around the world.
Do you believe that there is a need for such joint response forces?
Answer. The concept of joint response forces is still in proposal
stage and I have only limited exposure to the details of the proposal.
I'm certainly willing to study any concrete proposal along these lines
or to offer my views on how best to proceed. I believe that the current
Title 10 system, refined under Goldwater-Nichols, has proven its worth
and yielded real success. The Services operate effectively to provide
trained, equipped, and ready forces for the specific needs of the
combatant commanders. There may be a place for a standing Joint Task
Force (or Joint Response Force) Headquarters, consisting of command and
planning elements organized under a warfighting CINC and exercised
jointly by USCINCJFCOM. However, that requires further study and
coordination with the services.
Question. What implications does this concept have for the way the
Air Force is currently organized, including strike assets, global
response assets, and ISR assets?
Answer. The AEF provides the current Air Force construct for
organizing and presenting forces to combatant commanders. Air
Expeditionary Force (AEF) packages represent capabilities designed to
produce the effects every CINC calls for while helping us better manage
the tempo of our personnel and equipment. If a new joint response force
concept were created, the Air Force would perform our role within the
existing EAF construct.
Question. What improvements are needed in current Air Force and
joint command and control systems to support such a concept?
Answer. We are very focused on development of a horizontally-
integrated Command and Control, Intelligence, Surveillance, and
Reconnaissance (C\2\ISR) system that will link together space, manned,
and unmanned platforms using machine-level conversations to produce
decision quality information for commanders and target quality
information for cockpits. This system, by its very nature, will include
and integrate all service C\2\ISR capabilities. Such a system would
also enhance the effectiveness of a Joint Response Force if it were to
come to pass.
officer management issues
Question. We consider promotions to general and flag officer ranks
as identifying military officers for very senior positions that should
be filled only by officers with the very highest moral and ethical
values.
Do you believe the officer corps has confidence in the integrity of
the officer promotion system in the Air Force?
Answer. Yes.
Question. What role do you expect the Air Force Chief of Staff to
play in the officer promotion system?
Answer. Title 10 calls for the SECAF to oversee the officer
promotion process and govern all promotion board actions. I will advise
the secretary as he seeks to ensure only the highest caliber
individuals are nominated and promoted.
Question. What role do you expect the Air Force Chief of Staff to
play in the general officer management and nomination process?
Answer. I will engage in continuous collaboration with the
secretary on the management and nomination of general officers with the
goal to ensure only those officers who possess the highest standards
will be nominated. U.S.C. Title 10 guides the SecAF and CSAF in the
management of general officers, which I intend to use as a starting
point for guaranteeing that USAF senior leaders remain the best
possible officers in the USAF.
Question. If confirmed, what steps will you take to ensure that
only the most highly qualified officers are nominated for promotion to
general and flag officer rank?
Answer. The Air Force has already taken several important steps to
ensure our system is fair and effective. Throughout the last decade,
revisions in our promotion system have withstood scrutiny from both
outside and inside the Air Force. I will make certain my predecessors'
efforts to improve the promotion system remain viable and I will
provide the best possible advice to the SecAF as part of my U.S.C.
Title 10 responsibilities. I will work this particular issue
energetically, and will help guarantee my staff and that of the
secretary maintains an open dialogue with this committee on these
critical general officer matters.
protected communications
Question. Section 1034, Title 10, United States Code, prohibits
taking retaliatory personnel action against a member of the armed
forces as reprisal for making a protected communication. By definition,
protected communications include communications to certain individuals
and organizations outside of the chain of command. We continue to see a
lack of understanding in the senior military leadership of the policy
that it is appropriate and necessary to protect service members who
report misconduct to appropriate authorities outside of the chain of
command.
Do you support prohibiting retaliatory personnel actions for making
protected communications?
Answer. I strongly support the statutory prohibition on taking
retaliatory personnel actions against those who make protected
communications. I believe any such retaliation strikes at the heart of
honest discourse that must occur between airmen and their leaders,
inside and outside the chain of command. In Air Combat Command, my
Inspector General has made investigation of all IG complaints,
including reprisal, a priority.
Question. If confirmed, what actions will you take to ensure that
senior Air Force leaders understand the need to protect service members
who report misconduct to appropriate authorities within or outside the
chain of command?
Answer. If I am confirmed, I will do three things to ensure Air
Force members remain confident they will be protected when they make
these types of communications: (1) I'll ensure every airman and
civilian member of the Air Force understands their right to make these
statements and to be afforded the protections of the statute, where
necessary; (2) I'll devote the needed resources to permit the Inspector
General to properly investigate allegations of reprisal whenever they
occur; and (3) I'll stress to commanders the importance of acting
appropriately to punish those found to have engaged in reprisal.
operating tempo
Question. The services have been very concerned in recent years
about the impact of the pace of operations, or ``ops-tempo,'' on the
quality of life of our people in uniform and specifically on their
willingness to reenlist.
What steps do you plan to take to address the Air Force opstempo
concerns?
Answer. We are stretched too thin and are wearing people and
equipment out. Sustained operations tempo is a major factor in
recruiting and retention efforts. It has taken its toll on the force--
which is still deploying over 3 times more often despite the drawdown--
a total force now 67 percent (AD now 60 percent) of its former size.
High ops-tempo also compounds challenges of an aging fleet, by putting
additional stresses on airframes that already require extensive
maintenance to maintain mission capable status. High ops-tempo,
downsizing, and other factors have placed us in a position of doing
more with less. The Air Reserve component is integral to reducing
Active Duty ops-tempo, however, high operations rates also challenges
ARC recruiting and retention. The Expeditionary Aerospace Force (EAF)
brings much needed predictability and stability, incorporates total
force, and provides for a reconstitution period, providing tools to
better manage the force. The EAF construct determines how the Air Force
is organized, trained and equipped, and provides the tools to better
manage the force. Additionally, we are working with ANG and AFR to
better manage the tempo of our operations.
recruiting and retention
Question. The Air Force achieved its recruiting goal for Active
Duty personnel for fiscal year 2000 and projects that it will meet its
Fiscal Year 2001 Active Duty recruiting objectives. The Air Force
Reserve missed its fiscal year 2000 recruiting goal, and it does not
appear that the Air National Guard will achieve its fiscal year 2001
goal.
What steps will you take, if confirmed, to assist the Air Force in
meeting its recruiting and retention goals?
Answer. Your continuing support of our recruiting initiatives has
helped us meet our recruiting goals without lowering our standards.
That support included bonuses, adjusted pay initiatives, retirement
reforms, and improvements in medical benefits, which helped us achieve
our fiscal year 2000 recruiting goals, and has kept us on track again
this year. We still need your help to attract the highest quality
individuals into the military service. If confirmed, I will
aggressively work with the appropriate agencies to ensure the AF
continues to meet the recruitment goal, both in terms of quality and
quantity.
In an effort to meet our recruiting goals, the Air Force held a
comprehensive review of recruiting and accessions processes. One of the
most important initiatives from this review was to increase our
recruiter force. We increased the number of recruiter authorizations
from 1,209 to 1,450 in fiscal year 2000, and we project 1,650 recruiter
authorizations by the end of 2001. The Active Duty drawdown has also
created an additional recruiting challenge for our Guard and Reserve
components. As a result, the Air Force Reserve is increasing its
recruiting force in fiscal year 2001 by 50 recruiters (to 564), and the
Air National Guard is adding 65 recruiters (to 413) over the next 3
years.
Furthermore, we launched a multi-faceted marketing campaign,
including NASCAR, television and movie theater advertising. We are
synchronizing our efforts through a newly established marketing and
advertising office. Our ads depict the teamwork, dedication, and
technological sophistication that characterize the Air Force. The Air
Force Reserve and Air National Guard also launched a national campaign
that includes television, radio, and outdoor advertisements. We also
continue to emphasize to all our Air Force people that ``We Are All
Recruiters.'' With an emphasis on publicity and our own people telling
the Air Force story, we broaden the Nation's awareness of the Air
Force.
The Air Force is also expanding accession incentives. Enhanced
enlistment bonuses are focused on 85 critical skills, which have
resulted in and increase in 6-year enlistment from 11 percent in fiscal
year 1998 to 55 percent in fiscal year 2000. In January of this year
the AF Recruiting Service and the AF Directorate of Personnel began
evaluating ``signing bonuses'' of up to $5,000 for Mechanical,
Electrical and other designated skills to help meet recruiting goals
during the hard-to-recruit months of February through May. We are
considering several initiatives to attract more Reserve Officer
Training Corps (ROTC) candidates, including offering cadets contracts
after their freshman year rather than waiting until the end of their
sophomore year, as well as recommending legislation to permit an
officer accession bonus. We actively pursue the talent in our enlisted
force through enlisted commissioning opportunities--we have nearly
quadrupled the number of prior service commissioning accessions from
169 in fiscal year 1998 to 647 so far in fiscal year 2001. This program
offers a great incentive for people who want to continue their Air
Force career.
Question. Current projections indicate that the Air Force will not
meet its 2nd- and 3rd-term retention goals and will miss its required
end strength by 4,100.
Why do you believe the Air Force is having trouble retaining 2nd-
and 3rd-term airmen?
Answer. The Air Force is recovering from several years of low
retention rates from first-term airmen through career airmen. With your
support we have extended reenlistment bonuses, increased housing
allowances, and expanded the Montgomery GI Bill benefits, helping us to
successfully turn the corner on first-term enlisted airmen retention.
Part of the trouble with retaining second-term and career airmen is
they have been overtasked year after year; collectively changing their
mind to stay in the AF is more difficult than convincing a 1st-term
airmen to give us a second chance. These airmen are the backbone of our
enlisted force and they endure the increased load to train our new
accessions plus carry out the day-to-day work required of experienced
technicians. The AF increased total accessions to offset poor retention
in an effort to meet end-strength goals. AF apprentice (3-level)
manning is currently at 115 percent and journeyman (5-level) manning is
at 80 percent. In the short-term, this significantly impacts our
experience levels. Our journeyman, who make up the majority of 2nd-term
reenlistments and a portion of the career reenlistment categories, are
working hard to carry the load as we work to balance the experience
within the force. If, however, we sustain our 1st-term reenlistment
goal, these people will become tomorrow's experienced technicians and
mentors, easing some of the experience inequities.
Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to address this
problem?
Answer. If confirmed, I will continue to fight against the key
factors that cause low retention. These factors include wages, high
operations tempo, quality of life issues, and leadership. The primary
tool to mitigate low retention is the Selective Reenlistment Bonus,
which offers a bonus to 76 percent of our enlisted skills. We continue
to look for initiatives to improve retention. The AF held a Retention
Summit composed of MAJCOM senior officer/enlisted representatives, AFPC
and ANG reps--19 initiatives were approved, including Career Assistance
Advisors, Patient Advocates, Retention Toolkit, enhanced Spousal
Employment program and subsidized in-home childcare in support of
extended hours. Four Red Team/Integrated Process Teams are now studying
NCO Retraining, Enlisted Bonuses, Pay Structure and Montgomery GI Bill/
Tuition Assistance.
Question. The Air Force has requested an end strength of 358,800
personnel, an increase of 1,800 over the fiscal year 2001 authorized
end strength of 357,000.
Do you think the Air Force can achieve this increased end strength
if it misses its fiscal year 2001 authorized end strength by more than
4000 airmen?
Answer. The requested end-strength is justified and we will
increase accessions and improve our retention to meet our goals. People
are our most vital resource, our most crucial readiness component. Our
long-term goal is to stop the decline in end-strength and start growth
to size the force to support increased operations tempo. The Air Force
has undergone a 38 percent decrease in end strength since fiscal year
1998. We base military end-strength needs on combat capability after
rightsizing infrastructure, taking advantage of technology,
reengineering functions, and competing non-military essential support
functions. However, the number of peacekeeping missions, relief efforts
and other military operations have steadily increased--driving the need
to increase aircrews, maintainers and combat support. Also, updated
manpower requirements models, driven by lessons learned from real-world
operations, and stresses on the fleet due to aging aircraft and longer
sortie durations, have resulted in increased manpower requirements.
Question. The Air Force is having difficulty retaining officers
with skills that are in high demand in the private sector. This
includes pilots, scientists, engineers, and communications computer
systems officers.
If confirmed, what steps would you take to improve officer
retention, particularly in these high demand areas?
Answer. For pilots, increased production and longer Active Duty
service commitments improve overall accessions and the average time a
pilot remains on Active Duty. With your help, the Air Force
significantly improved the Aviation Continuation Pay (ACP) program. For
both our pilots and non-rated officers, our AEFs are helping to manage
operations tempo, and recent Quality of Life improvements have removed
some of the ``irritants'' that drive quality people to other jobs in
the civilian economy. The cumulative effect of bonuses, the improved
rhythm of our AEFs and improvements in quality of life help our total
retention efforts.
quality of life issues
Question. The Air Force has made significant strides toward
improving the quality of life of its personnel. Despite these
improvements there are still significant problems. By some estimates
the Air Force must still revitalize over 58,000 housing units and an
equally large number of barracks spaces.
In this period of constrained resources, if confirmed, how would
you weigh the allocation of resources to modernization of the Air Force
and improving quality of life?
Answer. People are our most vital resource. We must continue to
maintain a balance between caring for our Airmen and paying for the
tools needed for mission accomplishment. Your help over the years on
pay, retirement and health care has been much appreciated. Quality of
life issues are terribly important to attract and retain great people,
but so is quality of service. Quality of service addresses the need to
ensure we give our airmen the proper tools to do the tough jobs we ask
them to do in places like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and Turkey, in the
no-fly zone enforcement where combat occurs on a daily basis. The same
is true in the Balkans and Korea. Quality of service is not just about
equipment with which they operate, but the ranges and hangers and
buildings and shops in which we ask them to do their work. Therefore, I
will work to ensure an effective balance between quality of life and
modernization spending is maintained.
Question. Should the Air Force allocate more resources toward
improving quality of life for our forces deployed overseas? If so, why?
Answer. Focus on quality of life is required for all of our forces,
wherever they are stationed. As a result of my recent experience as
COMUSAFE, I am aware of some the unique quality of life initiatives
(COLA, DOD schools, etc.) that require particular attention. If
confirmed I will ensure these special emphasis areas continue to be
properly addressed.
Question. In your view, can and should our allies provide more
support toward improving the quality of life of our military personnel
and their families deployed in Europe and the Far East?
Answer. Our allies in the Far East and Europe already provide
significant support to our forces overseas, and our regional commanders
are actively engaged with our allied counterparts to ensure that level
of support is sustained. Consideration of increased support should be
addressed at policy level. If confirmed, I will work to keep
appropriate policymakers informed of Air Force requirements for
continued overseas support.
homosexual conduct policy
Question. Do you support the current Department of Defense
Homosexual Conduct Policy?
Answer. Yes, I support the current policy.
Question. If confirmed, do you plan to make any changes to the
basic policy or its implementation? If so, what changes will you
propose?
Answer. No, I don't plan to make any changes if I am confirmed. The
Air Force/JA monitors all cases other than those at Basic Military
Training School (BMTS). BMTS separations are mostly voluntary. The AF
system for monitoring these cases has been praised by DOD and there
have been only a handful of violations of the policy within the Air
Force over the past 5 years, and those have been characterized by a
lack of familiarity with the policy rather than through malice or
prejudice.
anthrax vaccine immunization program
Question. DOD considers the biological agent anthrax to be the
greatest biological weapon threat to our military force because it is
highly lethal, easy to produce in large quantities, and remains viable
over long periods of time. The anthrax vaccination program has been
curtailed because of limited quantities of FDA approved vaccine.
If confirmed, will you support and enforce the Anthrax Vaccine
Immunization Program if DOD reinstates it?
Answer. Yes.
Question. How do you believe the Air Force should respond to
service members who refuse to take the vaccine when ordered to do so?
Answer. We should carefully educate our people on the very real
danger posed by anthrax, and we should inform them of the safety and
effectiveness of the vaccine. This is a force protection issue. We will
continue to make experts available to answer any questions our service
members have. In the past, almost everyone who has been fully informed
of the threat and the protection afforded by the vaccine has chosen to
be inoculated. For those few members who ultimately refuse an order to
be vaccinated, appropriate disciplinary action should be considered.
Any disciplinary response will be accomplished at the lowest
appropriate level.
montgomery gi bill
Question. Almost all new service members enroll in and contribute
to the Montgomery GI Bill. Only about half use their benefits, and many
do not use all of their entitlement. Many airmen say they would like to
stay in the Service, but feel they have to leave so that they can
provide for the education of their spouses and children. Some of these
service members might stay in the service if they could transfer all or
a part of their unused entitlement to GI Bill benefits to family
members in return for a service commitment. Service Secretaries could
use this retention tool selectively, just as they use reenlistment
bonuses.
Do you support this approach?
Answer. Yes, I have always been a firm believer in the theory that
we recruit the individual but retain the family. I see the transfer of
educational benefits to family members as another way of helping us
achieve our retention goals.
Question. If confirmed, will you give serious consideration to how
the Air Force can use the transfer of unused GI Bill benefits to family
members as a retention tool?
Answer. Yes, if confirmed I will work to package the transfer of
these benefits in the manner that best meets the needs our airmen and
our service's retention goals.
gender integrated training
Question. Basic training, which may be the single most important
phase of an individual's life in the military, is structured and
defined differently by each Service.
Do you believe the current DOD policy of allowing each of the
services to establish its own policy for gender integration in Basic
Training is effective?
Answer. Yes. Each of the Services has its own needs when it comes
to basic training. I know that a great deal of time and effort has been
devoted to find the right answers for the Air Force and I expect that
work to continue. The essential element for me is that we must train
our newest members to handle the physical and psychological tests that
await our Air Force--our training program must address that squarely
and I'm dedicated to achieving that objective.
Question. If confirmed, will you propose changes to Air Force
policies? If so, what changes will you propose?
Answer. I am sure that I will gain additional perspective on this
issue if I am confirmed as Chief of Staff but, at present, there are no
immediate changes I would make in our basic training policies.
priorities in tactical aviation
Question. Over the past several years, the Senate Armed Services
Committee has devoted substantial attention to the condition of
tactical aviation. The committee concluded that there are persistent
and serious problems, including aging of the aircraft fleet, shortages
of certain types of tactical aircraft, and inefficient production
rates. There have been continuing concerns about the affordability of
the overall tactical aviation modernization effort, focusing on the
three major programs, F-22, the F/A-18E/F, and the Joint Strike
Fighter.
Do you believe that all three tactical aviation modernization plans
are affordable?
If not, what criteria should Congress use in deciding which
programs should go forward?
Answer. Current fighters in the Air Force inventory are rapidly
approaching obsolescence due to new fighter and air defense threats. At
the F-22 Initial Operational Capability (IOC) date (Dec 05), the
average age of the F-15C will be 26 years. Supportability is becoming
very expensive in terms of maintenance and manpower costs. Many of our
parts suppliers are moving on to commercial work. The F-22, a truly
transformational design with its unique maneuverable stealth and
supercruise, will provide rapid air dominance.
A-10 and F-16 survivability against advanced threats are also
becoming an issue, and the F-16 is rapidly approaching the end of its
service life. Additionally, we have planned to cross flow new
technologies from the F-22 to the JSF, so it is critical to keep F-22
development on schedule to ensure JSF can affordably replace F-16 and
A-10 prior to the end of their service lives. This mix is the most cost
effective fiscal and operational solution to Air Force fighter
modernization.
The Air Force has historically (fiscal years 1975-2005) averaged 16
percent of service Total Obligation Authority (TOA) on RDT&E and
Procurement of aircraft. Procuring both the F-22 and the JSF, both of
which are critical to our modernization, will expend less than this
historical average. In its peak expenditure year, the F-22 encompasses
just 5.6 percent of Air Force TOA or 1.7 percent of the DOD TOA, both
of which are comparable to past modernization investment levels. If we
committed the same percentage of national resources for the F-22 that
we did for the F-15, we would be buying an inventory of 1000 F-22s.
f-22 program
Question. Over the past several years, the F-22 program has been
operating under a legislated production cost cap. This cap was based on
the Air Force's assessment of what would be required to complete the
buy of 339 aircraft. At the time, it was understood that there were
other offices, including the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the
Cost Analysis Improvement Group (CAIG) that had higher estimates of F-
22 production costs. Over the past couple of years, the committee has
believed that F-22 production would fit within the cost cap, largely
due to Air Force assurances that the various cost estimates were
beginning to converge.
This year, the Air Force estimate of production costs for the F-22
is up by roughly $2 billion. In such a circumstance, we should have
expected that this increase would have indicated some further
convergence of the cost estimates. Press reports, however, indicate
that the independent cost estimates have begun to diverge from the Air
Force estimate.
Why, in your opinion, are these cost estimates diverging?
Answer. F-22 funding projections are well within historic norms of
spending for aircraft development and procurement as a percentage of AF
TOA, and the AF is proactively managing costs to remain within
Congressional caps.
Question. What steps should the Air Force take to ensure that it
will be able to produce enough aircraft to meet the requirements for
the program within the cost cap?
Answer. Currently, the F-22 program is structured around a buy of
339 aircraft. We are studying in this strategic review capabilities
needed for the future, and what number of F-22s will meet those needs.
The F-22 is a huge leap in capability--an airplane that can super-
cruise at well above 1.5 Mach; has very good legs; has stealth
capabilities that are revolutionary. So the need for this airplane is
very clear. The numbers will be the question as we go through this
review. It is in testing right now and doing very well. In fact, its
signature, its capability to super-cruise, its avionics capability and
its aerodynamic capabilities are as we predicted them and, in some
cases, better. We are behind on testing, but we're not going to rush
that at the expense of safety or missing something as we develop this
airplane. Testing is something you don't want to rush. It's not
something that you restrict to a timeline--you do this in a very
structured way. Overall, the program is in very, very good shape.
modernization
Question. At a recent committee hearing, Air Force officials
testified that the F-22 will not be able to meet its congressionally-
mandated cost caps for either development or production.
What are your views on cost caps in general, and, specifically, on
the F-22 cost caps?
Answer. F-22 funding projections are well within historic norms of
spending for aircraft development and procurement as percentage of AF
TOA and the AF is proactively managing costs to remain within
Congressional caps, but caps are currently constraining our testing.
The F-22 flight-testing has been extremely successful--over 1260 hours,
and the aircraft is demonstrating some revolutionary capabilities. Some
delays have been encountered, due in part to late airframe deliveries,
requiring additional time before initiating operational testing. To
meet the additional costs associated with these delays, the Air Force
recommends removal of the EMD cost cap. The actual development is 95
percent complete--EMD caps are currently constraining continued flight-
testing.
Question. The Source Selection decision for the Joint Strike
Fighter is scheduled in the near future.
Do you think the programmed quantities of the Air Force variant of
this aircraft will be affordable?
Answer. The JSF program is focused on affordability. JSF will
provide a lower cost, multi-role fighter--the bulk of the force and a
compliment to the F-22. The quantity of aircraft purchased will help
keep costs lower. In addition, our contracting strategy provides
incentives to the contractor to meet affordability goals. Three of
eight key performance parameters for this program directly target
reductions to Total Ownership Costs. Cost as an independent variable
(CAIV) has been used during development to balance cost and operational
capability in established weapon system requirements; the CAIV process
will continue to bean integral part of the JSF program, ensuring a
next-generation fighter--in the numbers we require--at a price we can
afford.
Question. What are your views on the future roles that will be
played by Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicles in the Air Force?
Answer. The UCAV will join the B-2, F-22 and JSF in our vision of
an all stealth force. The UCAV holds great promise for the future. Many
challenges remain in terms of how we operationalize its capability as
we move into the future. UCAVs will allow us greater degrees of
stealthiness to be able to operate against projected anti-access
threat. If confirmed, I intend to see to the development of a low life-
cycle cost, mission effective system design and demonstrate the
critical technologies, processes, and system attributes for a UCAV
weapon system as well as potential SEAD/Strike capabilities.
Question. In recent operations, it appeared a larger percentage of
weapons used were precision-guided.
Answer. PGMs were highly effective in the Air War Over Serbia,
resulting in decreased risk and limited collateral damage . The USAF
employed over 5,289 precision munitions against nearly 64 percent of
all desired impact points. The collateral damage rate was less than 0.1
percent.
Question. Are inventories of precision-guided weapons sufficient?
Answer. No. They are still well below desired inventory level and
failure to increase stockpiles risks wartime shortfalls. Northern/
Southern Watch and Allied Force significantly reduced inventory levels
such that we must use War Reserve Munitions for training. Major
acquisition programs will begin to increase precision inventories with
the addition of JDAM, JSOW-B, and JASSM, however, serious shortfalls in
standoff and legacy munitions persist through FYDP.
Question. What are the major developmental thrusts that are
necessary to improve the accuracy and lethality of our weapons
inventories?
Answer. I believe the JDAM, WCMD, JASSM, SDB, and ABL programs are
the major developmental thrusts and these programs are on track.
f-22 event-based decision making
Question. The Air Force is required to manage the F-22 program on
the basis of achieving certain milestones, rather than ``graduating''
when certain time on the calendar has elapsed. There have been delays
in the testing program that will delay the start of operational testing
by up to one year from the previously planned date. Nevertheless, there
is still some risk that developmental testing may not be able to
support operational testing even on this delayed schedule.
Can you assure the committee that the Air Force will not proceed to
operational testing before the program has completed sufficient
developmental testing?
Answer. Yes! If confirmed, I will be committed to ensuring the F-22
does not proceed to operational testing until sufficient developmental
testing has been completed. It is critical that developmental testing
be fully conducted in order to have the best possible capabilities
ready for the operational testing. I will ensure the Air Force
completes all necessary testing prior to certifying the F-22 is ready
to enter DIOT&E.
unmanned air vehicles
Question. In the Fiscal Year 2001 Floyd D. Spence National Defense
Authorization Act, Congress set a goal that within 10 years one-third
of U.S. military operational deep strike aircraft would be unmanned. In
addition, Congress invested an additional $50 million above the
President's budget request in the Air Force Unmanned Combat Air
Vehicle.
Do you support the 10-year goal of one-third of U.S. military
operational deep strike aircraft being unmanned?
Answer. Yes. I fully support the AF/DARPA project that is underway
and that was chartered to achieve that very goal. The focus today is on
developing UCAVs for the SEAD/Strike mission; other potential UCAV
roles we're exploring include directed energy, electronic attack, and
ISR.
Question. Do you feel the current level of investment, the fiscal
year 2002 President's budget request of $60 million, is sufficient to
realize this goal?
Answer. No. Although combined DARPA and AF funding of UCAV through
fiscal year 2003 exceeds $200 million, no funding exists in the
President's budget beyond fiscal year 2003. Fielding 30 deep-strike
UCAVs will require an additional $1.3 billion between fiscal year 2002-
2007.
reserve components
Question. Although the Department of Defense claims a commitment to
the ``Total Force,'' some question this commitment. Those who question
the Department's support of the Reserve components claim that the
Reserve components do not receive an appropriate share of the defense
budget and that they are not assigned appropriate missions. The most
recent example of concern is raised by the Air Force proposal to retire
the B-1 wings in the Air National Guard.
What is your response to these concerns?
Answer. I am a firm believer in the total force concept. We cannot
complete our mission successfully without our Reserve component. The
Air Force is a recognized leader in the integration of its Guard and
Reserve Forces. The ARC is a full partner in the AFs corporate
programming and budget process. Additionally, Guard and Reserve units
participate in combat and combat support operations on a daily basis.
The decision to consolidate B-1s is a monetary one. The money saved
from consolidating the B-1 units onto two bases will be used to bring
the remaining B-1 fleet up to current modernization levels. With over
$2 billion in unfunded requirements, we can pour that money back into
modernizing the remaining B-1 fleet.
Question. What is the appropriate criteria for deciding on the
appropriate missions and level of contribution from the Reserve
components?
Answer. On a larger scale, to be relevant in the present and future
AF, which is key to funding and survival, the ARC must at all times
mirror their AD counterparts. If the missions ever separate into an ARC
vs AD mission, then funding, organization, training, equipping, etc.
becomes threatened.
From an AEF perspective: The appropriate criteria should be the
same for the ARC as for any other Active Duty (AD) MAJCOM in the AF. If
the ARC has a designed operational capability (DOC) statement tasking
it to deploy F-16s to various theaters, the F-16 mission should be the
same for the ARC as it is for the AD. If there is an air-to-ground,
air-to-air, SEAD/DEAD mission, that criteria for that mission should be
the same across the board.
The level has to be based on a measure of volunteerism and what the
Reserve components do is look at their historical participation and
project how long per person and how long can the ARC sustain that
mission over time. Subjectively, with volunteerism, the ARC on ECS can
handle about 10 percent of the total steady state mission for AEFs.
It is erroneous to dictate that it takes six ARC personnel for one
AD person equivalent. By weapon system and position, on average for
AEFs the ARC really is on a 1 for 3 or 1 for 4 level. It takes 3 to 4
people/volunteers to fill one Active Duty position for one 3-month AEF
rotation. If there is a PRC, we're back to one for one. To clarify,
there are not 3 to 4 reservists on station for one AD person. There is
only one person there. So to do the job on a daily basis, it takes only
one person, but over the entire span of the deployment, 3 or 4 people.
Question. Are the Reserve components used to the maximum extent
practicable? If so, do they still have excess structure that can be
eliminated?
Answer. The ARC annually participates in all major contingencies,
exercises, and competitions. Additionally, it is the linchpin of our
humanitarian and North American Air Defense efforts.
Question. Do you foresee any significant shift in the roles and
missions currently performed by the Air National Guard and Air Force
Reserve?
Answer. The ANG and AFR currently play an integral part in reducing
Active Duty tempo and we will continue to look for additional ways to
use them in support of AF requirements.
base closure
Question. The President's February budget blueprint document states
that ``with 23 percent in estimated excess infrastructure, it is clear
that new rounds of base closures will be necessary to shape the
military more efficiently.''
Do you believe that we need more base closures?
Answer. Yes, BRAC is an integral part of readiness and
modernization as infrastructure is reshaped to match changing mission
needs and other requirements.
Question. Do you believe the Air Force has excess infrastructure
that uses resources that could be applied to higher priorities within
the Department of the Air Force?
Answer. Yes, the Air Force is over-based for the force structure we
have today. We think that we can avoid significant costs in the out-
years with a base closure process.
Question. Do you believe the process established by the Defense
Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 is a fair and effective way to
reduce excess military infrastructure and return the property to local
authorities? What changes, if any, would you propose to this process?
Answer. The facts clearly support our burden of excess
infrastructure. The BRAC is the only method by which we have fairly
reduced our burden in the past; thus, I believe BRAC is effective.
Changes to the BRAC process may be in order. Such changes would be
products of legislation on which I am not yet in a position to comment.
Question. In your view, would changing the base closure process to
exempt some bases from the independent commission's review make the
process more or less open, fair, and stressful to communities with
military installations?
Answer. Again, any changes to the BRAC process would be products of
legislation on which I am not yet in a position to comment.
Question. Over the past several years, members of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff have testified that there is excess defense infrastructure and
requested Congress to authorize another round of base closure.
Do you believe that we have excess defense facilities and, if so,
where does this excess capacity exist?
Answer. I will only speak for the United States Air Force, because
I don't have insight into the other services' needs. I would say we as
an Air Force are over 10 percent overbased.
brac environmental cleanup
Question. In its report on Issues and Alternatives for Cleanup and
Property Transfer of Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Sites, dated
August 1, 2000, the Institute for Defense Analyses noted that despite
Department of Defense efforts to accelerate the program by working with
effected communities and with Congress, property transfer is taking too
long and goals are not being met. Many BRAC acres have not yet been
transferred. These problems are compounded by recent indications that
there are funding shortfalls for BRAC cleanup in the fiscal year 2002
budget of about $92 million in the Navy account and $55 million in the
Air Force account. Such funding shortfalls adversely effect cleanup
milestones, undercut the timeliness and value of property transfers,
further harm communities already hurt by base closure, and threaten the
overall credibility of the BRAC process.
Do you believe that adequate funding for BRAC cleanup should be an
Air Force priority?
Answer. I believe it is important to keep BRAC cleanup on schedule
for the benefit of the communities. The Air Force is committed to
responsible environmental stewardship.
Question. What is your response to the shortfalls in the fiscal
year 2002 budget?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work to alleviate shortfalls in the
fiscal year 2002 budget in order to keep clean up on time and meet the
program goals.
investment in installations
Question. The military departments have consistently struggled to
maintain their base infrastructure. The backlog of real property
maintenance has remained high, whether budgets were increasing or
decreasing. The military is far behind industry standards for
maintaining and modernizing its facilities. Even the substantial
increase in the Operation and Maintenance accounts in the fiscal year
2002 budget request does not provide sufficient funding to maintain the
Air Force's facilities in their current status.
Are there any new approaches to this issue that you believe could
help the Air Force move toward a solution of this perennial problem?
Answer. If confirmed, I will support BRAC to eliminate excess
infrastructure. BRAC is an integral part of readiness and modernization
as infrastructure is reshaped to match changing mission and other
requirements. Other DOD initiatives should augment (not replace) BRAC.
Question. Traditionally, funding the upkeep of installations has
been a low priority in the services' budgets. It is anticipated that
after the completion of the current Quadrennial Defense Review, future
budgets will devote a greater share of resources to modernization and
transformation efforts.
Do you expect that funding for real property maintenance will
decline even further once the QDR is completed?
Answer. It is too early to tell. But, if real property maintenance
(RPM) continues to decline, we will feel the impact on readiness and
retention. Our people deserve more than a 191-year plant replacement
value rate for their facilities.
outsourcing of commercial activities
Question. Over the past several years the Department of Defense has
increased its reliance on the private sector to perform certain
activities including equipment maintenance and facility operations.
Do you believe that the military services should retain a core
capability to perform certain key support activities such as equipment
maintenance?
Answer. Yes. In the Air Force, we have improved efficiency and
saved money by privatizing areas such as utilities, housing, and
demolition, and A-76 conversions have added to savings, but the Air
Force must retain core capabilities for any support activities which
have the potential to adversely affect our combat capability (such as
for maintenance on equipment which is essential for deployment).
encroachment issues
Question. The Senior Readiness Oversight Committee is currently
reviewing a group of readiness challenges it has characterized as
``encroachment'' issues. These include population growth near military
installations, environmental constraints on military training ranges,
airspace restrictions to accommodate civilian airlines, and the
conflicts with civilian users over the use of radio frequency spectrum.
In your opinion, how serious are these problems for the Department
of the Air Force?
Answer. Encroachment is a very serious problem for the Air Force.
Maintaining continued access to our ranges, airspace and frequency
spectrum is absolutely critical; in fact, if our ability to train our
aircrews continues to diminish, America will soon lose its only edge in
air combat proficiency. We can no longer rely on current Air Force
technology to provide an advantage against our next adversary-that next
adversary already has access to more advanced equipment than ours. It
is only our superior training that enables our pilots to have the upper
hand in air combat. That training depends on the right amount and the
right type of ranges and airspace. These areas are national assets that
allow the Air Force to test new equipment, develop new tactics, and
train our forces to be combat-ready. AF ranges also accommodate
important civilian industry aeronautical testing, and provide for
public use and natural and cultural resource protection.
Question. If confirmed, what role do you expect to play in
addressing these challenges and what actions would you propose to take
to address them?
Answer. If confirmed, my role will be to direct the Air Force to
meet military needs while addressing public concerns along with
Federal, tribal, state, and other agency issues. We have adopted a
spirit and practice of flexibility and willingness to adapt without
compromising our operations. In fact, in 1994 the AF organized and
stood-up an airspace and range staff in the Pentagon to work the issues
facing our combat forces, and in 1995, Air Combat Command created an
interdisciplinary staff that works range and airspace issues on a daily
basis. Additionally, we realize the importance of establishing and
maintaining permanent relationships with stakeholders. These
stakeholders are supportive of the AF and our mission. Sustainable
access to ranges benefits many people. Our ranges contain significant
cultural and natural areas, are used for grazing and crop production,
and allow hunting or other forms of outdoor recreation.
Question. Of particular concern to the Air Force, commercial air
traffic is expected to increase 6 percent annually, and military
airspace use will also increase with the next generation of high
performance weapon systems. As a result of the pressures associated
with commercial air traffic congestion, noise, and other concerns, the
acquisition and use of special use airspace has evolved into a
challenging endeavor for all of the military departments.
If confirmed, what actions would you propose to address this
challenge?
Answer. With the advent of the F-22 and JSF, we will go to the
limits of our current range and airspace capability to accommodate both
Operational, Test and Evaluation (OT&E) and training requirements. Not
only will more sophisticated instrumentation be needed but more complex
surface-to-air threat emitters will be required. These two
sophisticated systems will allow us to maximize our daily training by
providing proper feedback of our missions and give us realistic threats
to simulate actual combat. As our weapons, weapons systems and tactics
evolve, we cannot endure further encroachments that will decrease the
size or quality of the airspace and ranges we use or our training will
suffer, thereby affecting our combat readiness.
Efforts are also underway now to link space and information
operations (IO) test and training capabilities to the range and
airspace structure. Such physical and virtual connectivity will allow
air, space, and IO capabilities to test and train in an integrated
fashion. This will not create an increased requirement for physical
range space, but we will have limited funding and manpower to perform
the integration of these capabilities as well as exercising them on the
range.
We not only need land and airspace, but we rely heavily on critical
parts of the electronic spectrum to carry out our missions. We must
also ensure we can continue developing new electronic countermeasures
and counter-countermeasures systems and capabilities as well as
exercise existing systems as closely as possible to how we would employ
them in conflict. In the future, we expect to encounter increasing
challenges not only with our current level of operations, but also with
beddowns of new weapon systems or realignments.
Maintaining our edge in air combat is directly linked to robust
training capabilities, capabilities inherent in continued access to AF
ranges and airspace. The AF recognizes the need to balance its test,
training, and readiness requirements with responsible stewardship. We
continue to look to our installations, ranges and airspace to provide
the AF the operational flexibility, efficiency, and realism necessary
to continuously enhance readiness while allowing commanders to
minimize, to the extent possible, the impacts of their mission on the
community, the environment, and the National Airspace System. The
challenges we face require effective communication with all affected
parties. The partnerships we have with our sister services, civilian
government agencies, and other stakeholders are essential. Moreover,
legislative and fiscal initiatives are also needed. Together, we can
meet these challenges head-on and sustain America's readiness into the
21st century.
readiness levels
Question. What is your assessment of the current readiness of the
Air Force to execute its assigned missions?
Answer. Our dominance of the full spectrum of operations tends to
overshadow what has happened to our readiness. Responding across this
full spectrum of operations necessitates we have a certain number of
units ready to deploy in the first 30 days of conflict. This is the
basis of our readiness requirement of 92 percent. Since 1996, our
worldwide combat force readiness rates have decreased 23 percentage
points to a rate of 68 percent in April 2001. Furthermore, our overall
Air Force readiness is lower than any time since June 1987. We are
capable of winning today; however, we are concerned about these trends
in readiness indicators.
The Air Force's major areas of concern are aging aircraft,
retaining an experienced workforce, and working with constrained
resources and parts (aging infrastructure, cannibalization of ``hangar
queens'').
Aging Aircraft: A major factor in the decline is the increasing age
of our aircraft. On average, our aircraft are about 22 years old, and
getting older. An aging fleet costs more, both in effort and dollars,
to operate and maintain. For example, our flying hours have remained
relatively constant over the past 5 years, but their cost has increased
by over 45 percent after inflation. Older aircraft are simply more
difficult to maintain as mechanical failures become less predictable,
repairs become more complicated, and parts become harder to come by and
more expensive. But, even with these contributing factors, we had the
best year in our history for aviation safety, a clear measure of our
people's professionalism.
Experienced Workforce: People are our most vital resource; the most
crucial readiness component. Loss of experienced personnel contributed
to 24 percent decline in readiness since 1996.
Constrained Resources: We are also experiencing infrastructure
shortfalls in our facilities (i.e., bases), vehicles and support
equipment, and communications infrastructure. Sufficient inventories of
weapon system spare parts are crucial to mission readiness. Lack of
spares puts a severe strain on the entire combat support system,
creating increased workload for our logistics personnel and reducing
the number of mission-capable aircraft available to our operational
forces. When our logistics system suffers parts shortages, maintenance
personnel must either cannibalize parts from other equipment or
aircraft to serve immediate needs, or accept degraded readiness while
they wait out long-delivery times for back-ordered parts.
Spare Parts: With recent financial assistance from the
administration, Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), and Congress,
we are turning our spare parts problems around. However, as our
fighter, ISR, combat search and rescue, mobility, and tanker aircraft
continue to age, they need more frequent and substantial repairs,
driving up readiness costs. This, in turn, reduces the number of
aircraft available for missions and creates higher demands on the
remaining fleet. Reversing this trend will take additional funding and
a concerted recapitalization effort. In addition, the maintenance tasks
and materiel growth inherent in supporting our aging aircraft fleet
have increased our depot workload. Limited depot infrastructure
investment over the past decade, coupled with constrained funding, adds
to our already significant challenges in meeting readiness
requirements.
Question. What are your recommendations for addressing your major
areas of concern?
Answer. Aging Aircraft: The increasing cost of readiness (including
operations and maintenance) is consuming the funds required to
modernize our systems and our infrastructure. We have developed a
responsible, time-phased plan to modernize our force without
sacrificing readiness or capability goals.
Experienced Workforce: We have reshaped ourselves into an
Expeditionary Aerospace Force (EAF) to balance impacts of a less
experienced workforce and improve retainability by providing
predictability and stability through our AEFs. We have also increased
the use of Air Reserve Component (ARC). If confirmed as CSAF, I will
continue to work on improving retention. People are our most important
asset. Other improvement programs include compensation packages and
quality of life programs that will make the AF competitive and
desireable. I will also continue to work on improving access to quality
health care, workplace environments, and providing safe, affordable
housing.
Continue to reduce the military pay gap relative to private sector;
Reduction of out-of-pocket expenses; Enhanced legislative flexibility
on Special Pays and Bonuses to target critical skills; Pursue force
shaping initiatives to optimize civilian workforce; Improve TRICARE for
Active Duty members, retirees, and family members.
Spare Parts: Recent improvements in spare parts funding are turning
this situation around. Through internal funding realignment, the
administration, OSD and congressional plus-ups, we were able to spend
an additional $2 billion for spare parts over the past 2 years. This
helped replenish inventories drained during Operation Allied Force.
During the summer 2000 program review, the DOD fully supported our
efforts to fill shortfalls in the spare-parts pipeline which were
impacting operational requirements. Additional administration and OSD
support for fiscal year 2002 includes full funding of the flying hour
program and our airlift readiness spares packages, and increased
funding to reduce the spares repair backlog.
Overall: We need to fix readiness shortfalls in key logistics
resources including people, skills, spares, munitions, bare base
assets, and vehicles. We need to improve our capability to rapidly
develop deployment and sustainment plans for fast-breaking
contingencies. Finally, we are making enhancements to our ACS command
and control capability to make it more responsive, better integrated,
and sufficiently robust to support EAF needs. These agile combat
support initiatives are crucial to sustaining current and future combat
operations.
readiness assessments
Question. General Shinseki recently described our current readiness
standards as ``a Cold War legacy'' that ``reflect neither the
complexity of today's strategic and operational environments nor other
important factors.''
What do you believe are the critical elements of a readiness
assessment system?
Answer. The critical elements of a readiness assessment system look
at personnel factors as well as weapon systems issues. A valid
assessment system would then look at the possible operational
environments and determine how and to what degree the Air Force can
achieve the desired effects.
Question. Does our current system contain these elements?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you believe the Department can create a new readiness
measurement system that will be able to better assess readiness for
joint operations and predict future readiness?
Answer. I think we can be more consistent across the Services
regarding how we assess readiness. Per CSAF direction, as CAF Lead, I
am responsible for certifying to USCINCJFCOM that each of our 10
Aerospace Expeditionary Forces (AEFs) we present to him meets the
requirements for its 3-month deployment vulnerability window. To ensure
accurate reporting, we have developed an AEF Certification process,
designed to increase chain of command involvement by moving readiness
processes from the functional level to the command level. This process,
in conjunction with our current Status of Operational Readiness and
Training (SORTS) report, will provide us a clearer picture of current
and future readiness.
readiness reports vs. statements from the field
Question. One of the principal readiness concerns of the committee
is the apparent disconnect between the official readiness reports the
committee receives from the Pentagon and the concerns we hear from the
operating forces. In the past, official reports and statements often
indicated that the readiness of our military forces was high.
Statements made by individuals in the operating forces, however, cast a
far different picture. Recently, we have seen the official reports
indicate that the readiness of the forces has been in decline. This
more accurately reflects what we see in the field.
In your view, does the foregoing reflect a problem with the way we
measure and report readiness?
Answer. No. However, we are instituting a process that will help
address this issue. Per CSAF direction, as CAF Lead, I am responsible
for certifying to USCINCJFCOM that each of our 10 Aerospace
Expeditionary Forces (AEFs) meets the requirements for its 3-month
deployment vulnerability window. To ensure accurate reporting, we have
developed an AEF Certification process, designed to increase chain of
command involvement by moving readiness processes from the functional
level to the command level. This process, in conjunction with our
current Status of Operational Readiness and Training (SORTS) report,
will provide us a clearer picture of readiness. The objective of
certification is to hold commanders at each level accountable for
organizing, training and equipping Unit Tasking Codes (UTCs), in order
to provide required mission capability and to inform the CINCs on the
status of deploying forces. Bottom line, commanders must send every
individual and UTC into theater full-up and ready to fight.
Question. If confirmed, what actions would you take to ensure that
you are kept abreast of the readiness concerns of the Air Force
operating forces that may not always be represented in the official
reports?
Answer. Key readiness concerns that impact operations and training
are accounted for in our Status of Readiness and Training (SORTS)
Reports. Additionally, we have developed an AEF Certification process
designed to increase chain of command involvement by moving readiness
processes from the functional level to the command level. The objective
of certification is to hold commanders at each level accountable for
organizing, training and equipping UTCs, in order to provide required
mission capability and to inform the CINCs on the status of deploying
forces. That includes the responsibility of raising concerns to the
appropriate level to obtain remedy or relief, when applicable. Bottom
line, commanders must send every individual and UTC into theater full-
up and ready to fight.
Question. If confirmed, what actions would you take to ensure that
these concerns are captured in the reports that the Air Force provides
to the DOD as a whole as well as Congress?
Answer. I firmly believe that effective leadership demands the
ability to provide an honest assessment of capability, which includes
the highlighting of shortages. I expect my commanders to be aware of
and raise readiness concerns to the appropriate level to obtain remedy
or relief as applicable. If nominated, I will continue to drive this
point home with AF leaders at all echelons.
readiness
Question. Over the last few years we have heard increasing reports
that the readiness of the U.S. Armed Forces has begun to deteriorate as
a result of the over-commitment of an under-resourced Department of
Defense.
What do you view as the major readiness challenges that will have
to be addressed by the Air Force over the next 4 years, and, if
confirmed, how will you approach these issues?
Answer. The Air Force has and will continue to focus on aggressive
transformation to the extent our budget allows. This Fiscal Year 2002
budget shores up some of our most critical people and readiness
concerns and allows us to remain the world's most respected aerospace
force.
Total Air Force readiness has declined 23 percentage points since
1996. We attribute this decay to the problems associated with
supporting the oldest aircraft fleet in Air Force history; the
inability to retain an experienced workforce; and constrained resources
and spare parts. With recent financial assistance from the
administration, Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), and Congress,
we are turning our spare parts problems around. However, as our
fighter, ISR, combat search and rescue, mobility, and tanker aircraft
continue to age, they need more frequent and substantial repairs,
driving up readiness costs. This, in turn, reduces the number of
aircraft available for missions and creates higher demands on the
remaining fleet. Reversing this trend will take additional funding and
a concerted recapitalization effort. In addition, the maintenance tasks
and materiel growth inherent in supporting our aging aircraft fleet
have increased our depot workload. Limited depot infrastructure
investment over the past decade, coupled with constrained funding, adds
to our already significant challenges in meeting readiness
requirements. We are also experiencing infrastructure shortfalls in our
base facilities, vehicles and support equipment, and communications
infrastructure. Overall, we are committed to improving readiness, and
it must be synchronized with our people, infrastructure, and
modernization programs.
cinc identified readiness deficiencies
Question. The latest Quarterly Readiness Report to Congress
identified 87 CINC-identified readiness related deficiencies. Thirty
one of these are listed as Category I deficiencies, which entail
significant warfighting risk to execution of the National Military
Strategy. Most of the specific deficiencies have been reported for the
past several years and have not as yet been effectively addressed.
If confirmed, what actions would you take to ensure that the Air
Force dedicates sufficient resources to address these CINC-identified
readiness deficiencies?
Answer. Thanks to the tremendous talent of our people, we have
enjoyed great victories in combat. These victories tend to overshadow
what has happened to our readiness. Responding across this full
spectrum of operations necessitates we have a certain number of units
ready to deploy in the first 30 days of conflict. This is the basis of
our readiness requirement of 92 percent. Since 1996, our worldwide
combat force readiness rates have decreased 23 percentage points to a
rate of 68 percent in April 2001. Furthermore, our overall Air Force
readiness is lower than any time since June 1987. We are capable of
winning today; however, we are concerned about these trends in
readiness indicators. A major factor in the decline is the increasing
age of our aircraft. For example, our flying hours have remained
relatively constant over the past 5 years, but the cost of those flying
hours has increased by over 45 percent after inflation. Older aircraft
are simply more difficult to maintain as mechanical failures become
less predictable, repairs become more complicated, and parts become
harder to come by and more expensive.
The increasing cost of readiness (including operations and
maintenance) is consuming the funds required to modernize our systems
and our infrastructure. We have developed a responsible, time-phased
plan to modernize our force without sacrificing readiness or capability
goals.
near-term readiness vs. modernization
Question. One of the long-standing concerns of the committee is
that the services, in an attempt to maintain near-term readiness and
pay for numerous contingency operations, have under-funded long-term
readiness, i.e., modernization accounts. This has resulted in equipment
becoming old and increasingly expensive to maintain. This increased
expense has created an additional hurdle in the way of our ability to
maintain current readiness and modernize for the future.
If confirmed, what recommendations would you make to the Secretary
of the Air Force in order to resolve this downward readiness cycle?
Answer. Contingency operations are a reality for today's Air Force.
We must recognize that reality in our force structure, modernization,
budgeting, and planning processes. The ongoing QDR does contain
criteria which accurately reflect our operating environment: we must be
able to win a major theater war, while maintaining the capability to
halt aggression in other parts of the world and continue numerous
small-scale operations elsewhere. In future reviews, we must also take
into account backlogs such as we have in real property maintenance.
These are areas which we must work to resolve, and every year of delay
simply puts us that much deeper into the hole.
quadrennial defense review
Question. Congress required the Department of Defense to conduct
the Quadrennial Defense Review to include a comprehensive examination
of the defense strategy, force structure, force modernization plans,
infrastructure, budget plan, and other elements of the defense program
and policies with a view toward preparing the Armed Forces of the
United States for the security environment of the 21st century.
Please outline your views on how to best organize and equip the Air
Force to support the National Military Strategy. What do you believe
should result from the QDR process?
Answer. The QDR process will give us a clear idea of the force
structure required across the Services to fulfill the National Military
Strategy. In past QDRs, we used the two-major-regional-contingencies
and two-major-theater-wars scenarios to calculate the depth of force
structure required, and we assumed that any other activities would be
lesser-included cases of those two scenarios. However, this QDR uses a
different scenario, recognizing that we need to continue to be able to
win one major theater war, while maintaining the capability to repel
attack in other areas of the world, and continuing to do a series of
smaller, lesser-scale contingencies at the same time. We are in the
process right now of putting forces against those requirements to
measure our required force structure. The result of this process will
give us a clear idea of how best to organize and equip the Air Force.
flying hour costs
Question. For the past several years, the Air Force has requested
increases above their budget requests to deal with unanticipated growth
in the cost of their flying hour program. The Air Force budget for
fiscal year 2002 contains significant increases in funding for flying
hours.
Do you believe this year's budget request fully funds your program
so that you will not need to seek additional funding to execute your
flying hour program?
Answer. Your support of the fiscal year 2001 supplemental request
will further help us maintain our readiness levels. However, we still
need your continued support to improve our readiness. Your United
States Air Force is currently operating and maintaining the oldest
aircraft fleet in our history. On average, our aircraft are about 22
years old, and getting older. An aging fleet costs more, both in effort
and dollars, to operate and maintain. Last year, while we flew only 97
percent of our programmed hours, they cost us 103 percent of our
budget. Over the past 5 years, our costs per flying hour have risen
almost 50 percent.
Question. What steps is the Air Force taking to control this cost
growth?
Answer. The only way we can control these costs is to recapitalize
the aging fleet.
need for overseas installations
Question. The Air Force currently maintains a network of bases to
support our forward deployed forces.
Do you believe that an increased emphasis on long-range power
projection would decrease the need for permanent basing for forward
deployed Air Force personnel?
Answer. No. We have already drawn down our overseas basing to a
critical level. As we saw with Operation ALLIED FORCE (OAF), our forces
are capable of traveling thousands of miles to conduct precision
strikes. However, to conduct an effective air campaign such as OAF, you
must have persistent air power and the capability to perform time-
critical strike which dictate that either permanent or temporary
forward basing will continue to be a requirement for effective
operations.
reducing commitments
Question. In recent years there has been concern over the level of
deployments and the time service members spend away from home. The Air
Force has created the Expeditionary Aerospace Force (EAF) concept to
make deployments more predictable. Congress has enacted a per diem
payment for members deployed above a specified number of days. Another
approach to controlling or reducing time away from home is to reduce
the number of overseas commitments.
What are your views on the contributions that each of these three
approaches has made or could make to managing the OPTEMPO of Air Force
personnel?
Answer. The Expeditionary Air Force concept has done an excellent
job of providing predictability and stability to our Airmen. While
there are still some areas to be worked out, we continue to improve our
capability to deploy customizable Aerospace power packages to theater
CINCs. The congressional initiative to compensate personnel for
extended deployments may also help our young Airmen deal with the
challenges of our worldwide commitments. We need to continue to do
everything possible to take care of our personnel meeting the
deployment needs associated with our national strategy. That strategy
will dictate the amount of overseas commitments, and the Air Force
stands ready to support those commitments, whatever they may be. In
addition, we are prepared to assist in assessing our current overseas
commitments.
overseas contingency deployments
Question. Congress has long been concerned about the impact on
readiness of the numerous deployments of our military personnel over
the last 8 years.
What are your views regarding the impact of contingency operations
on military readiness?
Answer. We must continue to address years of constant high tempo,
aging equipment, and reduced defense spending to meet the high demands
we place on our people and systems. Several years of sustained high
operations tempo, aging equipment, and reduced funding have led to a
slow, steady decline in readiness. It will take several years of
significant investment to recover. We must restore readiness through
substantial and sustained recapitalization of people, equipment,
infrastructure and ``info''-structure. However, contingency operations
are a reality in today's Air Force, and we must recognize that reality
in force structure, modernization, budgeting, and planning processes.
associate wings
Question. The Air Mobility Command has had great success with its
Associate Wings. These Wings allow the Air Force to maximize the use of
airlift aircraft without incurring the high cost of increased Active
Duty end strength.
Based on the success that the Air Mobility Command has had with the
Associate Wing concept, why has this concept not been expanded to the
Air Combat Command? What are your views on expanding the Associate Wing
concept to include the Air Combat Command?
Answer. There are obvious synergies and benefits to Reserve
associate programs throughout the Air Force. As you probably know, we
have completed a very successful test of a fighter Reserve Associate
Program at Shaw AFB. AMC has indeed been very successful in such
programs, and ACC and AFRC are in the midst of developing the
requirements for expansion to other weapon systems. Reserve associate
programs have tremendous potential to leverage the experience resident
in the Air Reserve Component.
space commission
Question. What are your views on the need for legislation to
implement the recommendations of the Space Commission?
Answer. We support the decisions and recommendations of the Space
Commission. The Air Force is the right service for department-wide
responsibility for planning, programming and acquisition of space
systems. We are currently realigning to effectively organize, train,
and equip for prompt and sustained offensive and defensive space ops.
This move reduces fragmentation within both DOD and intelligence
committee and improves space advocacy by implementing a single chain of
authority. We must employ space to speed transformation of the military
and effectively prepare for future conflicts.
Question. If confirmed, how will you ensure that interests and
requirements of all services are preserved under an Air Force Executive
Agency for Space?
Answer. A new and comprehensive national security space management
and organizational approach is needed to promote and protect our
interests in space. It was the commissions assessment that DOD and the
intelligence community are not currently focused to meet 21st century
national security space needs. The relationship between the Secretary
of Defense and Director, Central Intelligence will continue to be
critical for future development. It was the commissions conclusion that
current methods of budgeting for national security space programs lack
visibility and accountability. The Air Force will work to correct that
to meet the needs of all DOD space users.
Question. Do you see a need to maintain a strong cadre of space
professionals in all the services?
Answer. The demands for integration of space capabilities and
information for modern warfighting will continue to grow in the future.
It will be essential that all the services understand how to integrate
space into combat operations. If confirmed, I will ensure that the U.S.
Air Force works closely with other services to coordinate efforts to
effectively use space assets.
Question. If confirmed, how will you ensure that the Air Force
helps to develop and sustain such a DOD-wide cadre?
Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure that the Air Force makes
available the coordinated training to ensure that an appropriate level
of expertise is in all services to ensure effective application of
space assets.
space future
Question. What is your vision for the future of the space component
of the Air Force?
Answer. We are working toward increased funding for space
surveillance to hone a developing space-based capability. The Air Force
is working to fund and lead technology efforts, developing capabilities
for offensive and defensive systems. The Air Force continues to ensure
we are creating an effective organizational structure for space
control. This led to the creation of new Space Control and Space
Aggressor squadrons. We have also created a Counterspace Oversight
Council to deal with future threats to our space-based assets.
Question. In your view, how should the Air Force approach its
mission of ensuring continued access to space?
Answer. The AF recognizes its unique capabilities and
responsibilities with respect to space operations and is committed to
meet the space leadership challenge. To ensure continued access to
space, the Air Force id working in close, active partnership with our
sister services, agencies, and industry to implant the recommendations
from the Broad Area Review on spacelift. We will also work to improve
the organization, management, and employment of space to meet the
growing Joint Warfighter needs. Finally, the Air Force will continue to
work closely with the Intelligence, civil, and commercial space
communities to enhance and exploit the full range of our Nation's space
capabilities.
Question. Do you agree with the recommendation of the Space
Commission that the ``U.S. must participate actively in shaping the
space legal and regulatory environment?''
Answer. Yes, there must be an effective means to monitor and
control space assets, and we in the U.S. Air Force will be an active
participant in shaping the environment based on our capabilities and
expertise.
Question. Do you agree with the recommendation of the Space
Commission that ``To protect the country's interests, the U.S. must
promote the peaceful use of space. . .?'' In your view, how should the
Air Force participate in implementing this portion of the
recommendation?
Answer. Yes, the peaceful use of space is essential to our
Nation's, and the international community's, interests. We need safe
and reliable space-based communications and research capabilities to
further U.S. interests. Additionally, space assets are increasingly
critical to our national security. The Air Force will ensure continued
access to these technologies through a new and comprehensive national
security space management and organizational approach designed to
promote and protect our interests in space.
Question. Do you agree with the Commission observation that U.S.
dependence on and vulnerability of its space assets makes the U.S. ``an
attractive candidate for a `Space Pearl Harbor'?''
Answer. I agree that much like other U.S. military resources, space
assets make a lucrative target for those that wish to discredit or
damage the United States. However, we are aware of the threats posed to
space-based assets and are vigilant to finding ways to counter possible
threats. It is unlikely we would be taken completely unaware by an
attack on our space capabilities.
Question. Do you agree with the Commission recommendation that the
U.S. ``develop and deploy the means to deter and defend against hostile
acts directed at U.S. space assets and against the uses of space
hostile to U.S. interests?'' How would you recommend that the Air Force
support this recommendation?
Answer. I agree with the space commission findings, the U.S. Air
Force will work to ensure that space remains a safe environment to
support U.S. interests. The Air Force is realigning to effectively
organize, train, and equip for prompt and sustained offensive and
defensive space ops, protecting the space realm as we do the
environment over the world's battlefields.
Question. Do you agree with the Commission assessment that
deterrence would be strengthened through development of the capability
to project power in, from, and through space?
Answer. Yes, the inherent nature of space-based assets gives the
Air Force better access to all regions across the face of the earth. By
continued development of space systems we gain not only access to
collect information from denied or difficult to reach regions, we will
also be better able to communicate and command operations in those
areas. Through the continued, controlled development of space, we
increase our ability to observe regions of instability, or monitor
peacekeeping/enforcement operations, increasing U.S. overseas influence
without increasing deployed presence.
icbms
Question. Do you support retirement of the Peacekeeper ICBM?
Answer. Yes. The Program Budget Directive supports the transition
of Peacekeeper warheads to the Minuteman III force. The Air Force has
been planning for the retirement of Peacekeeper and the SecDef has
announced his intention to retire PK beginning in fiscal year 2002, and
I support that move.
Question. The deactivation will take a minimum of 3 years to remove
the 50 boosters and reentry systems and an unknown number of additional
years to successfully complete clean-up activity.
Do you support retirement of the W62 warhead from the Minuteman III
ICBM?
Answer. Yes. The Air Force has programmed the retirement of the
MK12/W62 warhead from the active ICBM warhead fleet. The Safety
Enhanced Reentry Vehicle (SERV) program will provide the design and
equipment to place the MK21/W87 warhead, (being removed from the
Peacekeeper) on the MMIII as a replacement for the W62.
Question. Will you support full funding in the future to retire the
Peacekeeper beginning in fiscal year 2003?
Answer. I support the President's Budget and the placement of the
PK retirement within that process.
Question. If the W62 warhead is retired, is there an existing or
refurbished nuclear weapon in the stockpile which will fill the DOD's
requirement met by the W62 or is it no longer required?
Answer. The MK21/W87 and MK12A/W78 Warheads are planned to replace
the present MK12/W62 on the MMIII system.
Question. If the W62 warhead is retired, would it be dismantled or
would it be placed in the nuclear weapons stockpile Reserve?
Answer. The current plan is to place the MK12/W62 warhead into
storage until final disposition is determined.
Question. Do you support de-alerting any ICBMs?
Answer. The Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) is currently being
conducted by the Department of Defense and I understand alert status is
being examined in this review. I anticipate being fully engaged with
the NPR as it unfolds more completely in the coming months. There are
some enduring fundamentals that are at the foundation of deterrence
that the NPR will have to take into account. ICBMs are an essential
element of the United States' nuclear forces and I believe will remain
so in whatever future framework evolves. As such, I believe that those
systems should be operated as designed--on alert. To do otherwise by
increasing the time it takes to employ these forces increases safety,
security, stability, and possibly even proliferation risks. As a matter
of military practice, lowering military readiness lessens credibility.
science and technology investment
Question. Secretary Rumsfeld, in his June 28, 2001 testimony,
publicly stated that he has set a goal of 3 percent of the total
defense budget for the Defense Science and Technology program.
If confirmed, would you support a similar goal for the Air Force
Science and Technology portfolio as a percentage of the entire Air
Force budget?
Answer. I am in lock step with Secretary Rumsfeld. Our Science and
Technology portfolio is our investment in the future and cannot be
forsaken. Already, potential adversaries possess capabilities beyond
those of our own. We cannot afford to fall farther behind. To do so
would violate the sacred trust of our Airmen because we owe it to them
to arm them with the most advanced technology possible.
science and technology planning process
Question. In Section 252 of the Fiscal Year 2001 Floyd D. Spence
National Defense Authorization Act, Congress required the Secretary of
the Air Force to conduct a review of the long-term challenges and
short-term objectives of the Air Force science and technology programs.
This review is scheduled for completion in October, 2001.
If confirmed, how would you ensure that the uniformed officers are
engaged in the science and technology process for determining long-term
challenges and short-term objectives critical for future defense
superiority?
Question. I firmly believe we must focus our science and
technology, and acquisition efforts, on valid warfighter requirements.
If confirmed, I will ardently work to foster constant science/
technology and warfighter interface. The goal of this is a streamlined
acquisition and development process geared exclusively at addressing
warfighter requirements.
Question. In your view, does the current Air Force science and
technology portfolio adequately support the warfighter of today and the
future?
Answer. AF science and technology supports the AF vision of an
Expeditionary Aerospace Force in the 21st century and is funded at a
level to achieve Critical Future Capabilities. Our fiscal year 2002
budget reflects a real growth increase of 5.2 percent for science and
technology compared to fiscal year 2001.
Question. If confirmed, how do you intend to facilitate
communication between the science and technology community and the
warfighter?
Answer. If confirmed, I will establish a recurring system of
conferences whereby the warfighter and the science and technology
community regularly meet to discuss requirements and possible
solutions.
education savings plan
Question. Another legislative proposal under consideration by the
committee to address the cost of education for dependent spouses and
children envisions the award of United States Savings Bonds to military
members in connection with reenlistment. If implemented, it potentially
could provide a flexible, tax-leveraged means for service members to
fund the cost of college tuition for their dependent family members.
If confirmed, will you give serious consideration to how the Air
Force could use the award of U.S. Savings Bonds as a means to enable
Airmen to save money for the education of themselves and their
dependents?
Answer. Yes. I firmly believe we recruit the individual but retain
the family. Helping to reduce the cost of education for both service
members and family members is another way of helping us achieve our
retention goals.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as the Air Force Chief of Staff?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings and
other communications of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Question Submitted by Senator Edward M. Kennedy
command and control
1. Senator Kennedy. General Jumper, as a result of your experiences
in Kosovo, I know you are concerned about improving command and control
for the warfighter. As you are aware, Air Combat Command (ACC) is
working with the Electronic Systems Center (ESC) at Hanscom Air Force
Base on making these essential improvements. Could you elaborate on
your goals for command and control, and how ACC and ESC are working
together to meet these challenges?
General Jumper. Senator, my goal for command and control (C\2\) is
to have a C\2\ system that effectively commands airpower. Several
capabilities and concepts will contribute to that end. A primary
objective is to provide decision-quality information to the right
warfighter at the right time. Collection and dissemination of that
information is the first step to accomplishing this objective and calls
for several ISR platforms to be integrated into a Multi-sensor Command
and Control Constellation (MC\2\C). Today, this means legacy air and
space platforms collect order-of-battle data sufficient to refine
target lists. In the future, this phase will take advantage of
platforms that integrate and dialog at the machine level. To the extent
technology allows, a Multi-Sensor Command and Control Aircraft (MC\2\A)
will perform most of the surveillance, reconnaissance, and C\2\
functions that currently require several specialized platforms. When
the MC\2\A is teamed with UAVs, such as Global Hawk, and mechanized to
interact directly with space platforms, the power of machine-level
integration will close the seams that currently delay our ability to
precisely locate and identify critical targets.
The power of integrated ISR will expand as we develop our
predictive analysis tools. Horizontally integrated ISR, combined with
these predictive tools, will take the concept of intelligence
preparation of the battlefield into an emerging concept called
Predictive Battle-space Awareness (PBA). This concept will allow a
shift of ISR platform utilization from collection, used for pure
discovery, to targeting those events that our predictive power leads us
to anticipate. We are aiming for a forensic-level understanding of the
battle space in all dimensions.
Pivotal to commanding the rapid and dynamic air operations likely
to be experienced in the future, we have developed a Combined Air
Operation Center Experimental (CAOC-X) to integrate the analyzed
information in a timely fashion in order to command airpower at the
operational level of war. Within the CAOC-X, the fusion of decision-
quality information derived from PBA and collected from a MC\2\C will
ensure a Joint Force Air Component Commander (JFACC) has the
capabilities to employ airpower in the most effective manner.
ACC and ESC have teamed together to develop and implement many of
these capabilities. The CAOC-X offers an outstanding example of how ESC
and ACC are working together. We bring together our operational
warfighters, developers from ESC, and the test community to develop
C\2\ applications and systems in a spiral fashion so that solutions
delivered to the warfighter reflect current technology. For example, we
took the concept for a common coalition C\2\ system developed by
CENTCOM's Air Component, CENTAF, and made that a reality within months
of being handed the concept. I see synergy in the relationship between
ACC and ESC, and that synergy ensures we'll keep our advantage in C\2\
and remain the force that can move the quickest, smartest and with
greatest lethality when called upon to accomplish our Nation's
objectives.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Jack Reed
bandwidth
2. Senator Reed. General Jumper, as we enter the 21st century,
there is competition between the military's use of bandwidth for
communications and radars and commercial needs. This competition has
resulted in military limitations, waivers for usage, and contingency
planning for loss of rights over bandwidth. Depending upon the course
selected, the military could be facing a huge bill to re-engineer
systems to different frequencies. What is your viewpoint on this issue
of bandwidth and how would you approach this issue as Chief of the Air
Force?
General Jumper. The critical decision on the 1755-1850 MHz band
should be made only after a thorough analysis of the risks. The
analysis needs to be comprehensive and include not only DOD satellites,
but also non-space systems and capabilities essential to military
operations. Unimpeded access to the electromagnetic spectrum is
absolutely critical to the success of our Air Force. It is the backbone
for our Nation's current information superiority. The potential loss of
1755-1850 MHz would cause a loss of ability to command and operate over
120 military satellites essential for national security. The Air Force
uses this spectrum to gather intelligence, conduct combat training on
our ranges, deliver precision-guided weapons, and assess battle damage.
It is integral to our ability to command air and space power. As Chief
of Staff, I will actively work with our sister services and all
applicable agencies and departments to ensure continued access to the
frequency spectrum for the Air Force.
space commission
3. Senator Reed. General Jumper, could you discuss your view of the
Secretary's decision to implement the recommendations of the Space
Commission? How do you think this initiative will impact the Air
Force's roles and missions? Do you see any issues/problems that might
occur with the relationship between the Air Force and the other
services over the roles assigned to the Air Force from this commission?
General Jumper. The Space Commission recommended, among other
things, that the Air Force be assigned as the executive agent for
Department of Defense Space Planning, Programming, and Acquisition. In
the Secretary of Defense's 8 May response to Congress, he agreed with
the Commission's recommendations. The Air Force is in the process of
implementing the SecDef's direction. Our efforts will lead to more
operationally effective and efficient space capabilities for the Air
Force, the other Services, and the Joint warfighter. This new focus and
priority will lead to enhanced capabilities in the mission areas of
force enhancement, space control, space support, and force application.
While the Air Force has provided the preponderance of space
capabilities and expertise for decades, we welcome the formal role and
responsibilities of the executive agent for space. The Services
specific roles and responsibilities still need to be worked out in
detail, but we are confident that by working through multi-Service
organizations, we can act together to provide better and new space
capabilities to the Joint Team, the National Command Authorities, and
the Nation. Additionally, we will assess the specifics of realigning
Air Force Space Command headquarters as well as the other initiatives
outlined in the Space Commission's report. The Air Force is anxious to
lead these important Department of Defense space initiatives.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Mark Dayton
148th fighter wing
4. Senator Dayton. The Air National Guard Bureau informed me that,
by fiscal year 2003, Minnesota's 148th Fighter Wing in Duluth will
receive 17 Block 30 F-16C aircraft currently located at Cannon AFB, New
Mexico. I was assured that these aircraft would undergo all the CUPID
modifications scheduled for the F-16C fleet prior to the aircraft being
transferred to the 148th. Moreover, I understand that the aircraft will
also receive the FALCON-UP structural modifications before arriving in
Duluth. Could you please respond to the above information and confirm
that it accurately represents the Air Force's commitment to the 148th
Fighter Wing?
General Jumper. Your information accurately represents the Air
Force's commitment to the 148th Fighter Wing. The 148th Fighter Wing
will receive F-16 Block 30 aircraft. The last of these aircraft are
currently receiving FALCON-UP structural modifications. The CUPID,
Combat Upgrade Plan Implementation Details, modification program will
be complete in fiscal year 2002.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Jeff Bingaman
air national guard and reserve
5. Senator Bingaman. General Jumper, could you please provide the
committee with your overall assessment of the value and performance of
the Air National Guard and the Air Reserve in meeting Air Force
operational goals and requirements?
General Jumper. The Air Force cannot complete its mission
successfully without our air Reserve component. The Air National Guard
and Air Force Reserve are full partners in the AF's corporate
programming and budget process. Additionally, Guard and Reserve units
participate in combat and combat support operations on a daily basis.
Fully 24 percent of our deployed expeditionary forces are from the
Guard and Reserve. This is a level of support that is higher than
during the middle of Desert Storm, and they sustain that now on a daily
basis. Additionally, the Guard and Reserve participate in all major
contingencies, exercises, and competitions while serving as the
linchpin for our humanitarian efforts and virtually all our North
American Air Defense efforts.
6. Senator Bingaman. General Jumper, there are 20 Fighter Wing
equivalents in the Air Force and approximately 7 in the Guard and
Reserve. What is the mix within the Guard and Reserve?
General Jumper. Senator Bingaman, the mix within the Reserve
component is approximately 6 Fighter Wing Equivalents in the Guard and
1 in the Reserve.
7. Senator Bingaman. General Jumper, Secretary Roche recently
testified to the committee that fighters would stay in the National
Guard. What are your plans in this regard? What are your plans
regarding integration of the Guard, Reserve, and active forces in other
Air Force mission areas?
General Jumper. Our intent is to maintain a healthy balance between
Active, Guard, and Reserve fighter forces. Our force structure today
supports the steady-state contingency deployment requirements of the
Air Force in its responsibilities to National Defense, using the
current Air Expeditionary Force (AEF) construct to support steady-state
contingency operations. Any substantive change in our total fighter
force structure, or any other mission areas, will require us to address
this balance to ensure we maintain supportable force structure that
sustains our AEF.
8. Senator Bingaman. General Jumper, given the importance of Guard
and Reserve units and the reality of a constrained budget, could you
please provide the committee with an outline of the current or most
recent Air Force plans to modernize, train, and equip Guard and Reserve
units during the Future Years Defense Plan period? Please provide
specific information with regard to quantity and types of aircraft and
their modifications, training hour goals and funding, and other major
equipment and facility upgrades or expansions that are planned.
General Jumper. Air Combat Command, as the lead command for combat
aircraft in the Combat Air Forces (CAF), manages the modernization of
all fighter and bomber aircraft, including the ANG and AFRC. Current
plans for modernization of all fighters and bombers, including those
assigned to the ANG and AFRC are listed. The Future Years Defense Plan
includes datalink and smart weapons integration on the entire AoA-10
fleet at a cost of $320 million. Engine sustainment and radar upgrades
on all F-15A/B aircraft are programmed at $600 million. All F-16
aircraft are scheduled for structural updates, datalink capability,
Joint Helmut Mounted Cueing System (JHMCS) capability, threat warning
and engine safety upgrades, and targeting pods at a cost of $1.6
billion. The B-52 aircraft will receive new inertial navigation system
upgrades at $300 million.
The ANG and AFRC are fully funded and capable of executing their
flying hour programs that permit them to achieve all their training
objectives. Additionally, there are programmed actions that will ensure
all ANG F-15A/B units receive upgraded F-15C/D model aircraft as the F-
22 is delivered. Also, all F-16A combat units are scheduled to convert
to the F-16C not later than fiscal year 2003. ANG and AFRC MILCON
projects compete in conjunction with Active Duty projects for a Total
Force ranking ensuring that the highest priority projects receive
funding whether ANG, AFRC or Active Duty.
9. Senator Bingaman. General Jumper, as Chief of Staff of the Air
Force, are you committed to continue your direct involvement,
communications, and use of the Air National Guard and Reserve within
the context of the Total Air Force?
General Jumper. Yes. We cannot complete our mission successfully
without them.
10. Senator Bingaman. General Jumper, could you please provide the
committee with your assessment of implementation of the Expeditionary
Air Force (EAF) and its impact on Air Force personnel and their
families?
General Jumper. The implementation of the EAF has had a profound
impact on airmen and their families. As an inclusive concept that seeks
to bring all Air Force deployable capabilities into the rotational
schedule to handle our steady-state contingency commitments, active
duty personnel tempo has decreased by approximately 20 percent from our
previous deployment concept. Also, the EAF 10-month train-to-task
preparation time has made our airmen teams better prepared, focused and
more confident in their ability to get the job done while forward
deployed.
As more active duty and Reserve component airmen experience combat
missions at our overseas locations, their enthusiasm for remaining in
the AF also grows. Consequently, these experiences have allowed us to
turn the corner on retention and re-enlistment rates. Of course many
factors have improved our airmen's lives and future careers, but
providing a predictable and stable schedule has become a significant
factor in our retention efforts.
Scheduling predictability has also allowed families to plan and
commit for the future as never before. Families can now commit to a
vacation or family event with more certainty. Personal education plans
for members and spouses now become possible. Airmen can now plan and
prepare for their next promotion testing cycle. In short, placing the
entire Air Force on a rhythmic, predictable EAF schedule is slowly but
positively changing what it means to live, work, and succeed in the Air
Force.
11. Senator Bingaman. General Jumper, how do the Air National Guard
and Air Force Reserve fit into the EAF strategy? Do they help relieve
Air Force optempo and perstempo? Are the Guard and Reserve important
elements of the EAF? Could the Air Force meet worldwide commitments
without them?
General Jumper. The Guard and Reserves are critical participants in
our global engagement strategy. They provide and operate approximately
24 percent of our deployed aircraft and 10 percent of our deployed
combat support. Because of that unprecedented involvement, the ARC has
saved nearly 7000 active-duty 3-month deployments each 15-month cycle.
ARC involvement also means that world events have more meaning to more
people in a positive way if their employee/neighbor is in the Guard or
Reserve. This long term, large-scale assistance to the active duty
force and our country is critical. We cannot meet our global
commitments while maintaining a quality, Active-Duty Force without
their voluntary participation.
combat
12. Senator Bingaman. General Jumper, what is your definition of
``combat'' as applied to Air Force assets?
General Jumper. NCA authorities call on the military, in
conjunction with other instruments of national power, to achieve
specific policy objectives. For the Air Force, combat is just one
portion of the spectrum of military operations. When we approach any
military operation, combat/conflict may be right around the corner. To
simply define an asset as a combat coded asset denigrates the full
range of options that asset can perform. Rather, we approach each
military operation with an understanding of how that asset contributes
to achieving the desired military effect (be that attacking industrial
centers, enemy fielded forces, or airlifting supplies to remote
villages in need of aid). It is counter-productive to define the term
combat and delineate between combat and noncombat assets when Air Force
assets perform missions that span the entire spectrum of military
operations.
13. Senator Bingaman. General Jumper, what is your view of Guard
and Reserve capabilities, including ``combat''? Where has the Air Force
called on Guard and Reserve fighter units to serve during the past 15
years and how have they performed? Do you intend to revise or otherwise
assign different combat roles to active, Reserve, and Guard units in
the future?
General Jumper. Senator Bingaman, unlike the Vietnam era, when they
flew older model aircraft, today's Guard and Reserve Forces fly nearly
the same aircraft as active duty units. They use the same flying
regulations and have essentially the same training requirements in
their Ready Aircrew Program (RAP) criteria. While the total number of
sorties required by RAP tasking for ARC units is slightly lower than
that required of active duty units, this is more than offset by their
higher experience levels. I consider them equally capable. Over the
past 15 years, Guard and Reserve units have participated in a number of
combat operations. Reserve component units were activated for Desert
Storm and Allied Force. They have provided units on a volunteer basis
for Operation Just Cause in Panama, Operation Provide Comfort,
Operations Northern and Southern Watch, and Operation Deny Flight. In
all cases, their performance has been indistinguishable from that of
their active duty counterparts. Indeed, I believe the Air Force Reserve
component forces are an integral part of the AEF. All in all, ARC
members have reduced active duty combat support requirements by 10
percent. In addition, the ARC AEF aviation contribution has reached an
unprecedented 24 percent of current steady state requirements during
``peacetime.'' The Air National Guard and the Air Force Reserve fighter
forces are an essential element of aerospace combat power. I don't see
how we can operate without them. Not only do they provide the requisite
force structure for meeting U.S. responsibilities around the world,
they also capture and retain valuable rated experience that would
otherwise be lost as pilots leave the active force for other
occupations. I expect Guard and Reserve combat units to continue as an
integral part of the Total Force for the foreseeable future.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator John Warner
space programs
14. Senator Warner. Some Air Force critics have contended that the
Air Force is too focused on aircraft programs and is not providing
enough support to space programs. Yet, the Rumsfeld Space Commission
recommended that responsibility for management of space programs and
activities should be concentrated to an even greater extent than
previously in the Air Force, and that the Under Secretary of the Air
Force should serve as the acquisition executive for DOD space programs.
This has led to concerns in the Army and Navy that their service unique
space interests might not be well protected. How will the Air Force
coordinate with the Army and Navy to ensure that Army and Navy equities
in space programs and activities are protected?
General Jumper. The Department of Defense is implementing a number
of recommendations from the Space Commission that will significantly
enhance the integration and coordination of all the Department's space
activities. The Air Force sees itself as a leader in this process, and,
as the executive agent for space in the Department of Defense, will
have specific responsibilities in the planning, programming, and
acquisition of space capabilities. The Air Force will have overall
responsibility for most Department of Defense space development and
operations, but expects all Services and Agencies to continue to be
responsible for integrating space capabilities into their forces and
fielding any Service-unique space capabilities. The Air Force will lead
these activities with the full cooperation and involvement of all the
Services, Agencies, and the Joint community. By using organizations
such as the Joint Staff, U.S. Space Command, the National Security
Space Architect, and others, we will ensure that the equities of every
member of the defense space community are protected.
15. Senator Warner. The Rumsfeld Space Commission recommended that
the Department of Defense and the intelligence community create and
sustain a cadre of space professionals capable of developing complex
space system technologies, developing doctrines and concepts for space
operations, and operating space systems. Do you believe that this is an
important goal?
General Jumper. Yes. The demands for integration of space
capabilities and information for modern warfighting will continue to
grow in the future. It will be essential that all the services
understand how to integrate space into combat operations. We must
remain at the forefront of new technologies and fully integrate them
into doctrine, operational concepts, and procedures.
16. Senator Warner. General Jumper, would you recommend that the
Air Force support the development of a cadre of space professionals,
and if so, how?
General Jumper. Our future leaders will need to be better prepared
to field, integrate and employ highly complex space systems. We will
look into the Space Commission's suggestions to create a Space Corps
and determining--the best path for the Air Force. One option may be to
send our warfighters through specially designed training, education and
career paths so they can better employ space capabilities and integrate
space operations with air, land, and sea operations.
readiness
17. Senator Warner. Over the last few years we have seen increasing
evidence that the readiness of the U.S. Armed Forces has begun to
deteriorate as a result of the over-commitment of an under-resourced
Department of Defense. The Air Force submitted a $95.7 billion request
as part of the Department of Defense's Fiscal Year 2002 amended budget
submission. At the request of this committee, the Air Force submitted
an unfunded priority list for an additional $9 billion. Does the fiscal
year 2002 budget contain sufficient resources to meet your requirements
for readiness and modernization? Will these increases be enough to
avoid the need for a fiscal year 2002 supplemental?
General Jumper. Sir, let me address the readiness issue first--the
short answer is no. Based upon a particular number of units being ready
for universal deployment within a timeframe of 30 days, our goal is a
readiness rate of 92 percent. Since 1996 we have experienced a decline
of 23 percent to a 68 percent level of readiness as of April 2001. This
is lower than at any time since 1987. The resources the Air Force has
directed toward readiness over the past few years have gone a long way
toward slowing the decline in our readiness rate, but we still have a
great deal to do to get that rate back to a historically acceptable
level.
The cost of infrastructure exacerbates this problem. Over the past
few years the infrastructure replacement rate for the Air Force has run
between 200 and 250 years. This is in contrast to the accepted business
model of 50 to 60 years. We will obviously be unable to increase our
readiness to a comfortable level and generate the required
infrastructure enhancements within a single budget cycle.
Addressing the modernization issue, the story is much the same. The
average age of Air Force aircraft has increased to 22 years and will
continue to rise over the next 20 years to approach an average age of
30 years. Flying hour costs, due both to increased cost of fuel and the
fact that older aircraft simply require more intense and frequent
maintenance, has gone up almost 45 percent in the last 5 years. Last
year we spent 103 percent of our flying hour budget on only 97 percent
of our flying hour requirement. Again, the answer is no.
18. Senator Warner. General Jumper, how will the fiscal year 2002
budget request address your service's most pressing near term readiness
needs?
General Jumper. The plus-up made significant contributions in the
areas of flying hours, OPTEMPO, Training and Ranges, Low Density/High
Demand (LD/HD) assets, and Contract Logistics Support (CLS). We still
find ourselves underfunded in the areas of mission support, base
operating support (BOS), communications, and real property maintenance
(RPM). Additionally, we still have a need to fix readiness shortfalls
in personnel, skills, munitions, bare-base assets and vehicles. Our
immediate requirement is to ensure that we have enough people to do the
job and that those people have the proper training and the assets they
need to do the job. We have addressed our most pressing needs but still
have a long way to go to put USAF readiness back on a solid footing.
science and technology
19. Senator Warner. As you may be aware, the Air Force Science and
Technology program has suffered tremendous atrophy over the past
several years. Congress is particularly concerned that the Air Force
has reduced it S&T program from the largest of the three military
service programs to the smallest since fiscal year 1989, the Air Force
S&T investment is down by 46 percent. How do you plan to turn around
the Air Force's science and technology program?
General Jumper. The USAF has recently expressed interest in
increasing its Science and Technology (S&T) investment by providing
additional fiscal year 2002 funding in the 2002 President's Budget
Request. Program Budget Decision (PBD) 803 resulted in a net increase
of nearly $83 million to the AF S&T line. This brings S&T funding to
approximately 1.7 percent of the AF Blue Total Obligation Authority
(TOA). Our goal is to grow S&T funding to between 2.0 percent and 2.4
percent of AF Blue TOA.
Historically, AF S&T technologies have formed the foundation for
the Air Force's military successes in the last fifty years. The
contributions of these technology transitions span several decades. For
example, in the 1970s to 1990s, AF S&T investment transitioned
approximately $900M of technology to the F-22. This investment enabled
advancements such as Stealth, Composite Structure, Supercruise Engines,
Thrust Vectoring, Integrated Flight Controls, and Weapons Launchers, to
name a few. AF S&T has made significant contributions to Defense-wide
applications in areas such as Global Positioning System (GPS), Low
Observables, Precision Navigation, Smart Munitions, Airborne Command
and Control, Global Communications, and Battlefield Management. Present
transitions from S&T will enhance C-17 survivability, the Unmanned
Combat Aerial Vehicle, and advanced, more efficient fuels and engines
for JSF.
New technologies on the horizon today, in areas such as directed
energy, biotechnologies, information, and space, will give us the same
opportunities to revolutionize today's aerospace force that stealth
technologies did 20 to 30 years ago. To achieve the Air Force vision
for Global Reach, Global Power, and Global Vigilance we will require a
healthy investment in AF S&T. Therefore, I agree that increased
investment is important to the Air Force.
airborne reconnaissance assets
20. Senator Warner. The Air Force, like all the other services, has
experienced a high operational tempo over the past decade. We have
become familiar with a new term--high demand, low density. One of the
best examples of this phenomenon are our airborne reconnaissance
assets. They are in such demand for peacetime vigilance and for
military operations, but we have a very finite number, and like all
military aircraft, are showing signs of age. What are your plans for
modernizing our ISR fleet?
General Jumper. Modernization of ISR is needed to keep pace with
the changing strategic environment and emerging threats. ISR is an
enabler that cuts across the full spectrum of operations from peacetime
to full-scale combat at every level of war. My vision is to field a
constellation of manned, unmanned, and space systems that are
interoperable with other joint and National ISR assets. The
constellation approach is not focused on a single platform, but is a
system of systems that is horizontally integrated with machine-to-
machine interfaces that automatically turn sensor data into decision
quality information. In addition to the ability to collect, we need a
robust command and control capability for tasking this constellation
and processing and exploiting the data, and the communications to
rapidly disseminate it. The constellation will be fully integrated into
the Combined Aerospace Operations Center where the information will be
presented for the warfighting commanders to act upon. Key to the future
of information operations is the development of the art and science of
Predictive Battlespace Awareness, where we move away from pure
discovery based on Intelligence Preparation of the Battle Space (IPB)
and develop the ability to predict the enemy actions.
Some ISR capabilities will migrate to space as the pace of
technology and funding allows. Although, our current manned airborne
platforms are characterized as low density/high demand (LD/HD), we will
continue to require manned airborne systems in the foreseeable future
to maintain flexibility and persistence over the battlespace. We are
leading our initiation into UAV operations by starting with ISR and are
in concept development for other combat missions. We began by building
a concept of operations for a network-centric architecture where a
specific sensor or platform is not the overriding concern but fusing
and correlating data where it is seamlessly pushed or pulled between
nodes depending on the information needs of specific users. We are
looking at recapitalizing our aging C\2\ISR aircraft as we are facing
increasing costs to sustain and modernize them. My vision is to put as
many of the present and future ISR capabilities as technology will
allow on a common, commercially derived platform that will serve as the
basis for both a new tanker and a new consolidated ISR platform. The
constellation with leading edge sensors, networked operations,
innovative processes and state of the art tasking, processing
exploitation and dissemination will transform our ISR capability and be
the critical force multiplier and enabler for making Global Strike Task
Force a reality.
21. Senator Warner. General Jumper, have issues associated with the
retention of pilots and analytical personnel] associated with these
assets been solved?
General Jumper. Within the Air Force, retaining the right mix of
people associated with these high-demand, low-density weapon systems
has become increasingly difficult. Many of these issues have been
addressed but not yet resolved. Our expeditionary mission and complex
weapon systems require an experienced force, and we depend on our
ability to attract, train and retain high quality, motivated people to
maintain our readiness for rapid global deploynent. While patriotism is
the number one reason our people, both officer and enlisted, stay in
the Air Force, the constant ``push'' and ``pull'' factors that
influence career decisions put our human resources at risk. We expect
the ``pull'' on our skilled enlisted members to leave the Air Force to
persist. Businesses place a premium on the skills and training our
people. In fact, exit surveys indicate the availability of civilian
jobs is the number one reason our people leave the Air Force. In
addition to the ``pull'' from the civilian sector, factors such as
manning shortfalls, increased working hours and OPTEMPO continue to
``push'' our people out of the Air Force. We fight back with retention
initiatives that address the factors that influence the career
decision. Current initiatives include initial enlistment and selective
reenlistment bonuses specifically designed to attract and retain our
enlisted personnel; enhanced compensation in the form of targeted pay
raises; and increased flight and aviator continuation pay. We are
making progress with these programs but there is still work to be done.
22. Senator Warner. The Air Force has continued to experience
problems with retaining pilots and career NCOs. There is no question
that industry highly values the skills and experience of our career NCO
force. Similarly, the airlines seem to have a never ending ``jobs
available'' notice out for military pilots. While pilot retention may
be ``leveling out,'' i.e., the decline has been arrested, what are the
facts regarding pilot retention?
General Jumper. Senator Warner, current Air Force pilot production
roughly equals our losses, but over the next several years we expect to
make modest gains in the overall pilot shortage. Fiscal year 2001
projections for the Air Force indicate a shortage of 1190 pilots. By
fiscal year 2010 we expect that number to shrink to 730, but almost all
of these will be in the fighter and bomber weapon systems. The Air
Force pilot shortage is a long-term problem that we will remain focused
on for at least the next decade. To date, 27.5 percent of this year's
initially eligible pilots have accepted a long-term pilot bonus that
will keep them in the service for a minimum of another 5 years.
23. Senator Warner. General Jumper, what officer/pilot communities
within the Air Force have been hardest hit, and what do you plan to do
to address this problem?
General Jumper. In the Air Force pilot community, fighter and
tactical airlift weapon systems requirements are currently filled at 88
percent and 89 percent respectively. While we maintain 100 percent
manning within the operational. units, the shortage of available
personnel is felt most acutely at the staff level, as many billets
remain unfilled. To correct this, the Air Force will maintain its
current pilot production of 1,100 per year and continue other retention
initiatives, such as the bonus, in order to fill our currently empty
billets.
Within the non-rated community, mission support officers are
currently manned at 92 percent of requirements, but extreme demographic
imbalances exist within this number. Many experienced officers are
exiting the Air Force, requiring us to use an excess number of junior
officers to fill the empty billets. Currently, Captains, Majors, and
Lieutenant Colonels are manned at levels below 80 percent of
requirements and Lieutenants are manned in excess of 200 percent of
requirements. The correction for this demographics problem is a
combination of retention, quality of life, and personnel management
initiatives. Over time, through these efforts, the Air Force will
overcome these imbalances.
24. Senator Warner. General Jumper, what initiatives are you
considering to improve retention of our experienced NCOs?
General Jumper. The factors that cause low retention include wages,
high OPTEMPO, reduced quality of life, and leadership. The primary tool
to mitigate low retention amongst our experienced NCOs is the Selective
Reenlistment Bonus, which offers a bonus to 76 percent of our enlisted
skills. We continue to look for initiatives to improve retention.
Recently, during a Retention Summit, the Air Force approved several
initiatives, which include the creation of a Career Assistance Advisor
position, Patient Advocates, a Retention Toolkit for advisors and
commanders, enhanced Spousal Employment Program, subsidized in-house
child care in support of extended hours, studies on NCO re-training,
improved enlisted bonuses, pay structure enhancements, and Montgomery
GI Bill/Tuition assistance.
manned reconnaissance aircraft
25. Senator Warner. General Jumper, what is your view concerning
the future of manned reconnaissance aircraft?
General Jumper. Our ISR assets are on duty every day whether we're
at peace or in combat. We've found they are actually more stressed
during peacetime than during actual contingency operations. Manned
reconnaissance is a key element of our total ISR capability and will
continue to be for the foreseeable future. Many functions, such as real
time Communications Intelligence done with linguists, require manned
aircraft solutions. We are looking hard and analyzing which
capabilities can be migrated to UAVs and space, but there are some
significant threats that have caused us to spend large S&T funding on
highly classified capabilities for these airborne platforms. There are
also definite technological reasons that don't allow us to migrate some
of these capabilities to space and drive us to continue fielding these
new capabilities on large manned aircraft.
That brings us to the issue of the aging manned ISR fleets. We're
at an average age of 35 years with these assets and the increasing
costs of sustaining and modernizing them is a major concern. We are on
the threshold of a new generation of sensors and I think it prudent
that we study a new aircraft to field these new systems that will allow
us to achieve our vision of a horizontally integrated architecture. To
the extend that technology will allow, we are looking at consolidating
the missions of five different ISR aircraft onto a new wide-body
aircraft that can also provide a platform for a new Tanker. This
consolidation will serve to ease the LD/HD burden with an open
architecture system of configurable avionics. Depending on the mission
of the day for that aircraft, the crew can be tailored accordingly. The
increased capability envisioned for this new aircraft as a C\2\ and ISR
asset will provide the ability to operate in the dynamic battle and
allow us to pursue the hardest target sets (i.e. SAMs and SCUDs) that
we characterize as time critical targets. The critical C\2\ and ISR
functions performed on today's manned systems are still required and
will be even more robust on future manned aircraft.
26. Senator Warner. Much has been discussed in recent years about
asymmetric threats and the changing nature of warfare. Specifically,
many are concerned about potential adversaries who would atternpt to
deny us the use of forward airfields and seaports that have been such a
critical part of recent military operations. What is your vision of how
the Air Force can respond to the limited availability of forward
airfields?
General Jumper. The Global Strike Task Force (GSTF) will rapidly
establish air dominance and subsequently creates the conditions to
guarantee that joint aerospace, land, and sea forces will enjoy freedom
from attack and freedom to attack. GSTF is the next step in our
Expeditionary Aerospace Force (EAF) evolution; its focus is to rapidly
roll back the emerging access threats that might prohibit friendly
freedom of action and improve our ability to employ the effects of
sustained persistent air operations, as guaranteed by our Aerospace
Expeditionary Force (AEF) construct. While it is forged from the
experience we gained in the past decade, it also looks forward to
future challenges affecting our ability to employ joint forces. GSTF
offers our nation a new capability allowing assured access to achieve
the combat effects our nation needs.
The F-22 is key to expanding the B-2s stealth advantages beyond
moonless-night-only operations; indeed, 24-hour-a-day operations will
be possible. F-22s will pave the way for the B-2 and other bomber
``heavy lifting'' from extended ranges by providing initial local air
superiority through the traditional ``sweep'' role and through air-to-
ground targeting of the enemy's air defense network. The unparalleled
combination of stealth with supercruise will reduce threat rings,
allowing it to establish air dominance and deliver its near-precision
weapons deep inside enemy territory.
Implied within GSTF is the ability to command and control rapid and
dynamic operations as well as support a vigorous air refueling
requirement. Advances in our Combined Air Operations Centers, and our
ability to push decision quality information to the warfighter, are key
components as is the leveraging of reachback and information technology
advances.
Thus, with F-22s and B-2s, the GSTF will be crucial to the joint
team's capability to overcome enemy attempts to deny access. Joined
with other standoff and special-operations capability, GSTF will
provide a capacity to systematically destroy hundreds of targets,
negate enemy anti-access systems, and clear the way for follow-on
forces in the first days of the conflict. In subsequent days, bombers
will orbit in combat air patrols, awaiting tasking for fixed and time-
critical targets located and identified by our Multi-mission Command
and Control Constellation (AWACS, Rivet Joint, JSTARS, Global Hawk,
Satellites, etc. working together to collect order-of-battle data
sufficient to refine target lists).
Once anti-access targets are negated, sustained AEF airpower,
including the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) in the air-to-ground and
suppression-of-enemy-air-defenses roles, and non-stealthy fighters with
precision-attack capability, along with joint and allied forces, will
roll into the fight as the threat diminishes, beddown locations open,
and survivability increases. These persistent operations will provide
continuous presence over the battlefield; the presence required to
sustain full-spectrum joint and combined operations, such as the
targeting of time-critical mobile targets. The combination of the
``kick-down-the-door-force'' and the persistent force will compress
airpower operations to overwhelm enemy decision-making resulting in the
expeditious completion of military operations.
In sum, GSTF is a rapid-reaction, leading edge, power-projection
concept that delivers massive around-the-clock firepower. GSTF empowers
us to overcome barriers while providing the means to rapidly negate
adversary threats. It will mass effects early with more precision, and
fewer platforms, than our current capabilities and methods of
employment; it will give adversaries pause to quit and will virtually
guarantee air dominance for our CINCs.
strike capabilities
27. Senator Warner. General Jumper, are you satisfied that the
investment in short-range tactical aircraft and long-range strike
capabilities is properly balanced?
General Jumper. Determining the correct number of aircraft will be
dependent on the findings of the QDR. Until that time, we will continue
to analyze the geo-political environment and determine the capabilities
necessary, to attain the effects desired across the entire spectrum of
military operations. However, I believe that we need to address some
serious funding issues that may affect the future. We need to fund the
F-22 program at the appropriate level to ensure air dominance in all
future conflicts. Simply cutting force structure to solve cost overruns
reduces operational flexibility. We also need to keep the Joint Strike
Fighter program on track to ensure a timely replacement for both the F-
16 and A-10 to avoid shortfalls in the fighter force structure.
Long-range bomber aircraft also face capability shortfalls if
funding falls below what is necessary to keep our fleets viable. Enemy
defensive systems continue to improve; therefore airborne systems need
to keep pace to be survivable. Improvement in low observable materials,
on and off-board defensive systems, and maintaining the right mix of
standoff and direct attack munitions for both fighter and bomber
aircraft is critical to maintaining combat superiority in future
conflicts.
joint operations
28. Senator Warner. Over the past two decades, our ability to plan
and, ultimately, execute joint military operations has improved
significantly. However, post operational reviews regularly point out
continuing problems with interoperability of service weapons systems,
and command and control systems. Are you satisfied that the Air Force
is making all prudent efforts to ensure its weapons. and information
systems are fully interoperable and integrated to best serve the joint
force commander?
General Jumper. As the Air Force develops and procures new weapon
systems our Operational Requirements Documents (ORD) stipulate a Key
Performance Parameter (KPP) addressing interoperability. Additionally,
new weapons being brought into service are ``Joint'' systems, for
example Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM), Joint Standoff Weapon
(JSOW), and the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM). Our
newest systems under development are going to great lengths to insure
other services' requirements are being considered for interoperability.
In the case of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), within the
Interoperability KPP, there are 142 Interface Exchange Requirements
(IERs) identified with 61 of those IERs categorized as critical.
Interoperability enables the Joint Force Commander (JFC) to call for an
effect without regard to which service may provide it.
Our Nation's Air Forces now share a common set of weapons. Two such
weapons, HARM and AMRAAM have already proven the importance of
interoperability with their success in both the Gulf War and in Kosovo.
In these conflicts, U.S. as well as allied Air Forces employed both
missiles to protect our force against enemy surface to air missile
systems and air threats. The JFC asked for a combat effect (protection
of our forces) that was ultimately supplied by several branches of our
Nation's Air Forces. Further, the Air Force works with CJCS J-6 to
ensure that our new information systems satisfy interoperability
requirements. As a recent example, our new Theater Battle Management
Corps System (TBMCS) can pass planning and reporting information
directly to our sister services' Global Command and Control Systems
(GCCS). We are committed to ensuring seamless connectivity with service
and allied platforms as we modernize with tactical datalinks such as
Link-16--the DOD and NATO standard. We are building a tactical datalink
roadmap that incorporates DOD guidance to ensure interoperability as we
field this powerful combat multiplier.
Additionally, the Air Force is working to define requirements for
``gateways'' that provide connectivity between Link-16 and otherwise
non-interoperable datalinks such as the Situational Awareness Datalink
(SADL), even as we migrate all of our warfighting platforms to Link-16.
Finally, we are also implementing processes that provide ``cradle
to grave'' tactical datalink interoperability management of our weapons
systems--Through Life Interoperability Process (TULIP). I believe that
interoperability is paramount to the success of any system we develop
or consider in order to fully leverage our Nation's combat assets.
goldwater-nichols
29. Senator Warner. The Goldwater-Nichols legislation is now almost
15 years old. I think most will agree it has had a profound, positive
effect on the armed forces. Two weeks ago, we asked all the service
chiefs to comment on needed improvements or changes to ensure the
continuing viability of this legislation. In your view, what changes or
improvements are needed to update and enhance the original Goldwater-
Nichols legislation?
General Jumper. I am aware that there are a number of proposals to
continue the advancements we've made under the Goldwater-Nichols
legislation. Some have suggested we need to make changes with the
training of personnel assigned to the Joint Staff, and perhaps also
adjust its size and responsibilities. Others have commented on what
they see as a need to restructure the joint acquisition programs and
planning processes. I have not yet formed an opinion on the
appropriateness of these concepts and I am confident I will hear still
more proposals as I take on my new responsibilities. I look forward to
working with Congress to build on the solid foundation that Goldwater-
Nichols has provided to the Department of Defense and our Air Force.
force protection
30. Senator Warner. On April 25 of this year, Deputy Secretary of
Defense Wolfowitz submitted to Congress a report--mandated by last
year's Defense Authorization bill--which addresses the preparedness of
military installation first responders to react to incidents involving
weapons of mass destruction. The report stated that the ``Air Force
program deficiencies include a lack of policy and guidance, an
integrated training and exercise program, and first responder
equipment.'' Force protection is of critical importance to this
committee. What corrective actions will you take to address the Air
Force's force protection deficiencies as outlined in this report?
General Jumper. The report delivered to Congress by Deputy
Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz put a spotlight on our ability to
respond to incidents involving weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Since
then, we have made great strides to improve our preparedness and
support Secretary Rumsfeld's efforts to ensure the military can provide
our nation with enhanced, flexible and integrated response capability.
General Mike Ryan established the Air Force First Responder and WMD
Program. The goal of the program is to provide all Air Force commanders
the resources to enhance their existing installation Disaster
Preparedness Programs and Emergency Response Capability (ERC) by being
prepared to detect, assess, contain, and recover from terrorist WMD
attacks/incident. The Air Force First Responder and WMD Program is the
tool we need to leverage existing emergency response command and
control concepts and equipment while establishing a 24-hours/7 days
response capability. As a part of this program, the Air Force developed
a Baseline Equipment Data Assessment Listing (BEDAL) to protect Air
Force first responders. This equipment listing provides an initial
capability, and will roll into and support the Lead Federal Agency
designated to oversee the larger-scale incident recovery and
investigation. Additionally, a ``first responder training strategy''
was created that takes advantage of all military schools and staff
colleges, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) training, as well
as, state and local courses. Finally, the Air Force will continue to
pursue joint training opportunities with other services and Federal
agencies in the form of exercises and training workshops. I will
continue to focus the Air Force's attention to stay in a state of
preparedness to respond quickly and effectively.
b-1 fleet reduction
31. Senator Warner. You are well aware that the fiscal year 2002
budget request includes a reduction in force structure and
consolidation of operating locations for the B-1 bomber fleet. One of
your predecessors at the Air Combat Command, General Loh, said that
this decision was made in a ``strategy vacuum''. How do you respond to
this criticism of the B-1 decision?
General Jumper. I have the utmost respect for General Loh, he is a
good friend and a great mentor. The B-1 decision was made from a
strategic viewpoint constrained by the realities of the fiscal budget.
Our crews increasingly face more advanced air defense systems and given
the B-1s current defensive limitations, theater CINCs are reluctant to
use this asset in response to regional crisis. The B-1 currently has
over $2.0 billion in unfunded requirements across the FYDP for all 93
aircraft. These unfunded requirements are essential to ensure B-1
survivability and capability against current and future adversaries.
The required upgrades will give the B-1 a long-range future that brings
speed, penetration, precision, and targeting flexibility to our
strategic force. The savings achieved by consolidating our B-1s and
reducing the number combat coded aircraft result in a fully modernized
and sustainable B-1 fleet. Consolidation allows us to provide: improved
survivability to place more targets at risk; increased weapons
flexibility by fully integrating precision stand-off missiles and
bombs; global connectivity to better engage time-critical targets; and
cost saving maintenance improvements. This strategy allows us to
maximize the strategic and operational effectiveness of America's long-
range strike fleet for the 21st century.
the f-22
32. Senator Warner. In the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1998, cost caps were established for both the development
and the production of the F-22 fighter. Until this year, the Air Force
supported the continuation of the development cost cap. Now the Air
Force has recommended that the development cost cap be removed, since
the Air Force is clearly unable to complete F-22 development with the
cap. Why has the Air Force encountered problems with this cost cap in
the past year? If the cap is removed, how will the Air Force fix the
problems with this program?
General Jumper. Senator, the cap has been an effective cost control
tool for the F-22 program. The F-22 engineering and manufacturing
development (EMD) program has resulted in a weapon system that is
currently meeting or exceeding all key design goals, and the production
configuration is essentially complete. The EMD contract is over 95
percent complete with all hardware design finalized; all Key
Performance Parameters (KPP) and technical Acquisition Program Baseline
(APB) criteria are being met. The current projections for production
are that the current congressional cap will be breached to purchase 339
aircraft, but the government/contractor team is engaged in cost control
efforts that rely on the implementation of effective cost reduction
initiatives. These initiatives have become known as the F-22 Production
Cost Reduction Plans (PCRPs), a critical tool enabling the Air Force to
deliver F-22 aircraft within the production cost cap. More importantly,
PCRPs will continue to drive down aircraft costs over the life of the
production program.
The F-22 program has a well-structured plan that continuously
pursues cost savings initiatives. An exceptional management framework
is established to provide real time monitoring and oversight of cost
savings initiatives. Finally, performance to date is within the
performance guidelines established for target price performance during
the transitioning from development into production. The F-22 team
continues to make progress in cutting the cost to produce F-22s. The
key management focus for the F-22 team is to constantly pursue cost
savings initiatives adequate to ultimately deliver the program with in
the appropriated production budgets. The production cap forms the basis
for the team management approach in establishing the affordability
objectives and cost savings targets for PCRP cost reductions. The F-22
team built an efficient management structure to jointly oversee the
development and implementation of PCRP projects. The management effort
includes an on-line interactive database that allows real time
reporting of PCRP status spanning idea generation, approval,
implementation and tracking.
33. Senator Warner. It has been reported that both the Air Force
cost estimators and the Defense Department cost estimators have
determined that the F-22 production program cannot be executed within
the congressionally established cost caps. The Defense Department
estimate is almost 25 percent, (or $9 billion), over the current $37.6
billion cap. Do you believe the Air Force will have to limit the
numbers of F-22 aircraft for affordability reasons?
General Jumper. At this point it doesn't look like the Air Force
will have to limit the buy of F-22s. The Air Force remains committed to
producing 339 aircraft. We have a critical need for the F-22 and will
continue to work closely with the contractors to produce the desired
quantity with the funds we can commit to the program.
34. Senator Warner. Within this decade the Air Force intends to go
into production of the F-22 fighter and the Joint Strike Fighter. In
addition, there is a documented requirement for additional strategic
airlift, and the Air Force has requested funds for analysis of a
follow-on tanker. With more money being required to support the current
aging fleet of Air Force aircraft each year, how will the Air Force be
able to afford the new aircraft it needs?
General Jumper. The Air Force has been very successful at
maintaining critical combat capability by ensuring our key capabilities
are sustained at levels that provide our warfighters the instant
response they need to negate any adversary. We balance that by planning
and programming requirements for future systems, in the context of
future threats and concepts of operations.
Sustaining our current fleet of aircraft has always been a top
priority. Efforts such as the recent establishment of the Aging
Aircraft System Program Office, to develop technologies that slow down
the aging process, will be money well invested. Using common systems
across our platforms and innovative modernization planning and
execution will reduce upgrade costs for our older platforms. Through
all the efforts combined, we have been successful in reducing cost
growth while maintaining combat effectiveness.
Our modernization efforts will be aimed at upgrading our legacy
platforms and acquiring systems that directly relate to attain specific
effects. Revolutionary technology will ensure we are more than capable
to handle any aggressor.
We can balance our future modernization needs and at the same time
maintain the current assets we have by careful planning, phasing of new
systems, and the meticulous projection of future sustainment needs. We
cannot effectively plan for the future, until we make sure we have
today covered.
strategic lift
35. Senator Warner. It appears that one of the Department of
Defense's transformational ``thrusts'' is the ability to deploy
anywhere, delivering decisive force rapidly. Strategic lift enables
that vision. The Mobility Requirements Study for 2005, delivered to
Congress this past year, concluded that while sealift appears to be
sufficient, there is a significant shortfall in meeting the strategic
airlift requirement. What are some of the actions that are necessary
for the Air Force to address this shortfall?
General Jumper. Senator Warner, the Mobility Requirements Study
2005 (MRS-05) identifies the strategic airlift requirement to be 54.5
million ton miles per day (MTM/Day). This figure was a 10 percent
increase from the 49.7 MTM/Day requirement identified by the 1995
Mobility Requirement Study Bottom-Up-Review (BURU). The combination of
procuring more C-17s and increasing the reliability of our C-5 fleet is
our answer to meeting this increased requirement. With that in mind,
the challenge to this plan is the proper mix of C-17s and modernized C-
5s. Purchasing more C-17s and modernizing part or all of the C-5 fleet
is costly, so we want to proceed with due diligence. Assuming the
ongoing QDR supports the MRS-05 requirement of 54.5 MTM/Day, we will
utilize data from the AMC Outsize and Oversize Analysis of Alternatives
to determine the proper mix of C-17s and modernized C-5s to meet the
shortfall.
joint strike fighter
36. Senator Warner. The Air Force intends to procure almost 1,700
of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft. With that many aircraft, it
is important that the unit cost be held to a reasonable number. The
Navy and Marine Corps have established ranges for the unit cost of
their JSF variants, yet it is our understanding that the Air Force has
yet to establish a number for the high end of its price range. When
will the Air Force decide on the upper limit of the unit price range
for the Air Force variant of the Joint Strike Fighter?
General Jumper. The Joint Requirements Oversight Council approved
the Conventional Take-Off and Landing (CTOL) variant Unit Recurring
Flyaway Cost (URF) objective at $28 million (fiscal year 1994$) and
left the threshold as ``to be determined (TBD)'' pending the Milestone
II decision in fall 2001. The CTOL threshold amount will not be
established until Milestone II (for entry into EMD), receipt and
evaluation of contractor proposals, an independent cost estimate by the
Department of Defense, and review and approval by the Defense
Acquisition Executive. The EMD baseline will also be updated and the
procurement baseline established at Milestone II.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Strom Thurmond
interoperability
37. Senator Thurmond. As you are aware a lesson learned from the
Balkan Campaign was that our allies failed to keep pace with the
technology that the United States deployed in its aircraft and weapons
systems. Although the consequences were minimal, it could have been
disastrous had we faced a more sophisticated enemy. The Air Force is
now undertaking significant modernization efforts and I fear we may
again be ignoring the problem of interoperability. In your judgment, is
the Department focusing on the issue of interoperability as it
modernizes?
General Jumper. The Air Force has long recognized the importance of
interoperability with our sister services and allies. General Ryan
recently stood up the Tactical Datalink (TDL) System Program Office and
identified TDLs (with Link 16 as the objective) as an AF major system
acquisition program. We are building a TDL roadmap that defines future
modernization programs and ensures interoperability between all
American and allied platforms. We also participate in the AF
Operational Interoperability Requirements Group. This group is the
primary forum for operator inputs into the tactical C\2\
interoperability management structure and the means for verification
and validation of TDL information exchange and operational
requirements. Additionally, we are implementing a process that will
improve systems interoperability during their development and testing
phases in accordance with Defense Department Policy contained in the
Joint Tactical Data Link Management Plan.
encroachment
38. Senator Thurmond. A challenge you will be facing during your
tenure as Chief of Staff will be the issue of encroachment, both on the
ground by development and in the air by increased air traffic. Contrary
to what some Department of Defense officials may believe, these are
issues that are found to some degree throughout the United States and
cannot be resolved through base closure. How do we deal with this ever-
increasing challenge to our facilities?
General Jumper. Our installations and training areas are national
assets, essential to our combat capability. The AF manages
approximately 9 million acres of bases and ranges. When many of these
installations and training areas were established, they were in rural,
sparsely populated areas. Now our installations and training areas are
experiencing double-digit increases in population growth. Proactively
working with the community to predict and resolve competing demands is
the first step toward ensuring that the rapid pace of urban growth does
not endanger our existing capital investment in base infrastructure and
our ability to test and train.
Not only is physical encroachment on our bases an issue, but
frequency encroachment also threatens our ability to train effectively.
These issues demand that we maintain open communication and close
cooperation with all affected parties. The partnerships we have with
our sister services, civilian leaders, government agencies, and the
community provide an important forum to mutually resolve this
challenge.
aging aircraft
39. Senator Thurmond. One of the most critical issues facing the
Air Force is how to maintain its aging fleet of aircraft. This problem
is having a direct impact on readiness, flying hour cost, and the time
our airmen spend on the flight line maintaining these aircraft. Based
on the current efforts to modernize our aircraft fleet, how long will
this issue of aging aircraft be with us and what interim steps can we
take to resolve this problem?
General Jumper. The issue of aging aircraft will be with us into
the next decade, and despite modernization plans we will continue to
depend on aging aircraft to meet future force requirements. The average
age of Air Force aircraft is now 22 years, and it will continue to
increase to nearly 30 years by fiscal year 2020.
To ensure we maintain a viable force during this time of airframe
average age increases, the Air Force has programmed several major
upgrades to its aircraft fleet. The F-16C is programmed to receive
Falcon STAR, the A-10 is programmed to receive Hog UP, and the F-15 is
continuing to receive structural upgrades during programmed depot
maintenance visits. The C-5 is programmed for avionics upgrades and
engine replacement, and the C-130 will receive avionics improvements.
The long-term solution is the recapitalization of the aircraft
fleet. This rests firmly on the purchase of the F-22 to replace the
aging F-15, the Joint Strike Fighter to replace the A-10 and F-16, a
next-generation tanker, KC-X, to replace the KC-135, and a common wide-
body aircraft to replace AWACS, Rivet Joint, and other C\2\ISR
platforms.
space
40. Senator Thurmond. General Jumper, the current leadership in the
Department of Defense is advocating a greater role in space for our
military services. Although the Air Force is at the forefront of this
challenge, and already has a significant role, what is your vision of
the Air Force's future role in space?
General Jumper. Our vision for the Air Force's future role in space
is one that recognizes the unique contributions and advantages space
provides to our national security. The organizational changes
recommended by the Space Commission and directed by the Secretary of
Defense will lead to streamlined acquisition, more comprehensive
planning and programing, and better capabilities for the warfighter. I
believe space will be a crucial ``center of gravity'' in all future
conflicts and we must fully integrate space capabilities into current
and future warfighting missions.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Bob Smith
b-2
41. Senator Smith. General Jumper, it is my understanding that the
B-2 radar may have significant limitations on its operation due to
frequency conflicts with commercial uses after the year 2007. Is this
the case? If so, given the long lead times necessary to plan and
execute radar modification or development programs, what are the Air
Force's plans to address this limitation?
General Jumper. The B-2 is designated as a secondary user in the
band and has not been granted a long-term operational frequency
assignment. The spectrum community has since authorized new primary
users to operate in the band. Currently, we are operating on temporary
waivers, as the potential for interference is not considered
significant. Unfortunately, by 2007, a more significant interference
potential exists as commercial satellite and downlink users are
expected to begin using the frequency in mass numbers. This could
subject the Air Force to significant liabilities, in addition to an
order to cease and desist the interference. All solutions and systems
are being considered, under a current study, to provide the most
affordable and technically correct solution to the problem. Multi-
Platform-Radar Technology Improvement Program (MP-RTIP) and its
applications are some of the options being considered under the study.
The bottomline is that every effort is being pursued to provide a
program that meets the projected need date and is affordable by the
U.S. Air force.
42. Senator Smith. General Jumper, I understand that the Federal
Communications Commission has already ruled that the current B-2
operating frequency will not be available after 2007. Doesn't this
ruling preclude the waiver option?
General Jumper. In 1995, an application for a permanent operational
waiver was disapproved. For now, B-2s are operating under a series of
temporary test permits until the FCC issues a cease and desist order,
at which time we must stop using the radar. Recently, the National
Telecommunications Information Administration (NTIA) sent a letter to
the Director of Spectrum Management requesting a DOD transition plan
for moving out of the existing band by the stated date. Every effort is
being pursued to provide a program that meets the projected need date
and is affordable by the U.S. Air Force.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Rick Santorum
budget shortfalls
43. Senator Santorum. In briefings and materials provided to
Congress on the Fiscal Year 2002 Budget Amendment, the Air Force noted
there are very clear indicators that future problems will be compounded
if not addressed in a timely fashion.
For example, only 69 percent of the Air Force's combat units are
rated at either C\1\ or C\2\ readiness levels. The stated Air Force
requirement is 92 percent. In addition, readiness levels continue to
decline as modernization fails to keep pace with the aging fleet, which
requires additional sustainment resources. Also of concern is the $2
billion shortfall in both general purpose and preferred munitions for
the Air Force. The backlog of Air Force maintenance and repair
continues to grow reaching $5.6 billion in fiscal year 2002. However,
the fiscal year 2002 request seeks only 86 percent of plant replacement
value. Taken together, these figures indicate that without corrective
action, the Air Force may be forced to incur higher than acceptable
levels of risk to execute its mission. What specific actions would you
recommend to the Secretary of the Air Force and/or the Secretary of
Defense to address these issues in the absence of an increase in the
Air Force's topline? That is, assuming that there is not a substantial
increase in defense funds for fiscal year 2002, what are some of the
hard decisions that you would recommend be executed so that the Air
Force could better address its most pressing problems?
General Jumper. Senator Santorum, you have hit at the very heart of
the balancing problem for not just the Air Force, but for all the
services, given our current fiscal realities. Without an increase in
the Air Force's topline and given the depreciation of our capital
infrastructure, the hard decisions that will have to be made will
require significant study and effort. Defining specific actions and
recommendations to the secretaries at this time would be premature in
the absence of a finalized QDR. I assure you that as I dig into my new
position, I will work the Air Force's major concerns of retaining an
experienced workforce, maintaining a state of readiness to meet
national objectives and recapitalizing and modernizing an aging fleet.
f-22 cost cap
44. Senator Santorum. Last year, the Airland Subcommittee received
testimony on the progress of F-22 testing, which raised concerns about
the rate at which flight test hours and test points were being
achieved. Although the program achieved the ``exit criteria'' for entry
into low rate initial production, the Secretary of Defense has delayed
that decision pending the completion of a strategic review of all
programs by the new administration. In the meantime, Congress has
provided authority for the Department to use available funds for an
expanded long lead production of aircraft for the program through the
end of fiscal year 2001.
The fiscal year 2002 budget request is for producing 13 F-22
aircraft, instead of the 16 F-22 that were projected for fiscal year
2002 in last year's budget request. Media reports indicate that the Air
Force intends to delay production of some aircraft in the near-term in
order to allocate funds to incorporate cost reduction measures for
later lots of aircraft. Could you please comment on the efficacy of the
cost cap for the engineering and manufacturing development phase of the
program, along with the cost projections for the production phase of
the program? Also, please comment on possible cost reduction measures,
and the evaluation criteria that the Air Force is using to screen cost
reduction candidates.
General Jumper. The cap has been an effective cost control tool for
the F-22 program. The F-22 EMD program has resulted in a weapon system
that is currently meeting or exceeding all key design goals, and the
production configuration is essentially complete. The EMD contract is
over 95 percent complete with all hardware design finalized; all Key
Performance Parameters (KPP) and technical Acquisition Program Baseline
(APB) criteria are being met. The current projections for production
are that the current congressional cap will be breached to purchase 339
aircraft, but the government/contractor team is engaged in cost control
efforts that rely on the implementation of effective cost reduction
initiatives. These initiatives have become known as the F-22 Production
Cost Reduction Plans (PCRPs), a critical tool enabling the Air Force to
deliver F-22 aircraft within the production cost cap. More importantly,
PCRPs will continue to drive down aircraft costs over the life of the
production program.
The F-22 program has a well-structured plan that continuously
pursues cost savings initiatives. An exceptional management framework
is established to provide real time monitoring and oversight of cost
savings initiatives. Finally, performance to date is within the
guidelines established for target price performance during the
transition from development into production. The F-22 team continues to
make progress in cutting the cost to produce F-22s. The key management
focus for the F-22 team is to constantly pursue cost savings
initiatives adequate to ultimately deliver the program within the
appropriated production budgets. The production cap forms the basis for
the team management approach in establishing the affordability
objectives and cost savings targets for PCRP cost reductions. The F-22
team built an efficient management structure to jointly oversee the
development and implementation of PCRP projects. The management effort
includes an on-line interactive database that allows real-time
reporting of PCRP status spanning idea generation, approval,
implementation and tracking.
Three cost saving measures currently being implemented are listed
for the record. The Radar Transmit/Receive (T/R) module design was
updated, parts were reduced, and the cycle time reduced for the
acceptance test program. New high speed milling machines have been
purchased at Marietta to machine parts more quickly, cutting time to
locally machine parts by 40 percent. Pratt and Whitney/Chemtronics
Integrated Product Team addressed the exhaust nozzle transition duct
structural bulkhead, the thermal protection liners and eliminated the
conformal structural spars saving $120K per engine. Criteria used to
evaluate PCRPs include upfront investment required, total return on
investment, cycle-time savings, and manpower/man-hours savings.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Susan Collins
f-22 production
45. Senator Collins. General Jumper, I want to discuss
modernization of our tactical air forces from several perspectives.
First, I know the Air Force is enthusiastic about the F-22 and know
you understand the need to modernize our tactical air forces,
especially since you are currently the Commander of the Air Combat
Command. I am somewhat concerned however, that the anticipated
production rates of the F-22 may not provide adequate assets to fully
meet all the training and operating needs of the Air Expeditionary
Forces. It is critical that we procure the right number of assets to
meet the requirements and to ensure that our Air Force can adequately
counter those threats with sophisticated fighter aircraft, and that we
provide the assets, which will have the best chance of returning our
airmen home safely. Does building 339 F-22s give us enough flexibility
to fully modernize our Air Expeditionary Forces to sufficient levels to
meet the threats of the 21st century? If not, what is the optimum
number of F-22s to meet these demands?
General Jumper. In the event that 339 aircraft can be purchased
with available funds, we will equip 9 operational squadrons with 24 F-
22s each Those nine squadrons would be assigned to support the 10
Aerospace Expeditionary Forces (AEFs). This force structure will allow
the Air Force to meet current predicted threats, however, it is not
optimum. Ten operational, one for each AEF, would be a desirable force
structure, but prior to the outcome of the QDR it is premature to quote
an optimum number of F-22s.
joint strike fighter
46. Senator Collins. The time has come to focus more attention on
the Joint Strike Fighter and its role in the Air Force. In my opinion,
the key to the JSF is ``jointness''--i.e., the Air Force, Navy, and
Marine Corps all operating essentially the same aircraft--and the
taxpayers reaping the benefit of having common systems among the
variants. But the program is international, too. From your previous
assignments in Europe, how committed are the Europeans to this effort?
Will they be able to afford the JSF given the current state of the
European economy? Also, can you talk to how important it is for our
NATO allies to be able to be interoperable with the U.S. in time of
conflict?
General Jumper. Our European allies are very interested in the JSF
Program and their level of commitment is growing as we near the
Milestone II decision and the beginning of the next phase which is the
engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) phase. The UK is
already an EMD partner, having signed a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) effective January 2001. They are contributing $2B to this joint
and international cooperative effort and have been active in the source
selection process to determine the winning contractor for the next
phase of the program. A combined JSF Program Office/OSD/Services
negotiating team has successfully concluded negotiations with Italy,
Netherlands, Denmark and Norway. These countries are entering their
respective national staffing processes, which will lead to MOU
signatures before or shortly after the Milestone II decision in Fall
2001. The total international requirement for the JSF exceeds 780
aircraft, a strong signal of the international level of commitment and
state of their economies.
Regarding interoperability, it is extremely important that our NATO
allies be as interoperable with us as possible. Past contingency
operations have highlighted the interoperability problems we have with
our allies. Several initiatives are ongoing to reduce these problems.
In any future conflict we can expect to conduct joint operations with
our coalition partners. In order to be an effective fighting force we
must expand interoperability beyond communications and data flow to
include tactical capabilities. Flying a common platform, such as the
JSF, will be an important step to overcoming interoperability problems
with our allies.
engine thrust
47. Senator Collins. Under the Air Force's concept of Air
Expeditionary Forces, or AEFs, the Air Guard has become increasingly
utilized--and important. I frequently hear the term ``seamless'' used.
Under this concept, is important to ensure that Guard units on active
deployment also have the safest, most up-to-date equipment that their
active colleagues enjoy. I say this because for several years now,
several colleagues have worked to upgrade the Air Guard F-16 engines to
a Block 42 configuration. I am told that increased engine thrust is one
of the most important and immediate requirements for those deployed
units. Would you agree that in a ``seamless'' Air Force this issue
needs to be addressed and--if you do--how do you plan on accomplishing
such a goal?
General Jumper. The F-16C/G Block 42 is currently equipped with the
25,000 lb thrust-class F100-PW-220 engine. The Block 42 fleet consists
of 161 total aircraft, of which 50 are combat-coded. All 50 combat-
coded aircraft are assigned to the Air National Guard: 132 FW Des
Moines, IA; 180 FW Toledo, OH; 138 FW Tulsa, OK. The remaining 111
Block 42s are assigned to training and test units. The Block 42, like
the Block 40, was specifically designed for the Low Altitude Navigation
and Targeting Infrared for Night (LANTN) mission. While the Block 42
possesses the same rugged airframe and avionics as the Block 40, its
performance is somewhat less than the F110-GE-100-powered Block 40
(28,000 lb thrust-class).
We continue to work toward the goal of keeping a seamless Air Force
by ensuring the ANG and AFRES aircraft are modernized in a timely and
consistent fashion with the active duty Air Force. I will agree the re-
engine issue is important to the three ANG units flying the F-16 Block
42, however the re-engine issue is lower on the list of Fleet F-16
modernization projects. There are numerous programs that could benefit
from the additional money being funded through congressional plus-ups,
which better serve the Air Force and ANG. We could enhance combat
capability and correct deficiencies in the entire F-16 Fleet through
procurement of additional systems. Some examples of these systems are:
Advanced Targeting Pod, radar upgrades for both the Block 40/42 and 50/
52 [APG-68(v)9], new (Common Central Interface Unit (CCIU) for the
Block 25/30/32, Color Multifunctional Displays (CMFD) for the Block 25/
30/32, and Pyrophoric Flares to increase survivability of all F-16s. In
essence, while the Block 42 engine upgrade is a worthwhile project, it
is just one modernization project among many being considered for the
F-16. It is important to note that as part of our Total Force, the
three Block 42 F-16 units have successfully deployed to both Northern
and Southern Watch while seamlessly integrating into combat operations
with active operations. I will continue to make certain that the ANG
and AFR remains integrated in our Total Force.
c-17 procurement
48. Senator Collins. I believe most defense observers regard the C-
17 as a success. Yet, in fiscal year 2003 we will reach the end of the
120 aircraft buy we originally thought prudent. In the 21st century
with American forces no longer able to enjoy a ``forward presence''
around the world, the strategic airlift capability the C-17 provides is
critical. Would you support extending the multi-year procurement for
the C-17 to some number beyond 120? If so, what number of aircraft do
you now regard as prudent for our forces?
General Jumper. The Mobility Requirements Study 2005 (MRS-05)
identifies the strategic airlift requirement to be 54.5 million ton
miles per day (MTM/Day). This figure was a 10 percent increase from the
49.7 MTM/Day requirement identified by the 1995 Mobility Requirement
Study Bottom-Up-Review (BURU). The combination of procuring more C-17s
and increasing the reliability of our C-5 fleet is our answer to
meeting this increased requirement. With that in mind, the challenge to
this plan is the proper mix of C-17s and modernized C-5s. Purchasing
more C-17s and modernizing part or all of the C-5 fleet is costly, so
we want to proceed with due diligence. Assuming the ongoing QDR
supports the MRS-05 requirement of 54.5 MTM/Day, we will utilize data
from the AMC Outsize and Oversize Analysis of Alternatives to determine
the proper mix of C-17s and modernized C-5s to meet the shortfall.
______
[The nomination reference of Gen. John P. Jumper follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
July 17, 2001.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
The following named officer for appointment in the United States
Air Force to the grade indicated while assigned to a position of
importance and responsibility under Title 10, United States Code,
Section 601 and to be appointed as Chief of Staff, United States Air
Force under the provisions of Title 10, United States Code, section
8033:
To be General
Gen. John P. Jumper, 7457.
______
[The resume of Gen. John P. Jumper, USAF, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Department of the Air Force,
Headquarters United States Air Force,
Washington, DC, July 20, 2001.
Hon. Carl Levin, Chairman,
Committee on Armed Services,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The President, under the provisions of section
601, Title 10 of the United States Code, has submitted to the Senate
the nomination of the following general officer for appointment to the
grade of general with assignment as indicated:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name, grade and SSAN Age Assignment (from/to)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
John P. Jumper, General, 7457......... 56 From Commander, Air
Combat Command.
To Chief of Staff,
United States Air
Force.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Jumper is replacing Gen. Michael E. Ryan, United States Air
Force, upon his departure. Confirmation action during July 2001 will
help insure a smooth transition for General Jumper. This action will
not result in the Air Force exceeding the number of generals authorized
by law.
For the information of the committee, I am enclosing a military
history on General Jumper.
Sincerely,
Donald L. Peterson,
Lieutenant General, USAF,
Deputy Chief of Staff,
Personnel.
Attachment Military History.
______
Resume of John P. Jumper, General, RegAF, 7457
Date and place of birth: 4 Feb 45, Paris TX.
Years of active service: Over 35 years as of 12 Jun 01.
Schools attended and degrees: Virginia Mil Inst, BS, 1966; Golden Gate
Univ CA, MS, 1979; Air Command and Staff College, 1978; National War
College, 1982.
Joint specialty officer: Yes.
Aeronautical rating: Command Pilot.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major permanent duty assignments From To
------------------------------------------------------------------------
USAFR, Not on Active Duty..................... Jun 66 Jul 66
Stu Ofcr, Undergrad Plt Tng, 3550 Stu Sq, ATC, Jul 66 Nov 67
Moody AFB GA.................................
Plt, Troop Carrier, C-7A, 459 TASq, PACAF, Phu Nov 67 Mar 68
Cat AB RVN...................................
Plt, C-7A, 459 TASq, PACAF, Phu Cat AB RVN.... Mar 68 Nov 68
Stu, USAF Replmnt Tng Crs, F-4, 431 TFSq, TAC, Dec 68 Aug 69
George AFB CA................................
Acft Comdr, 555 TFSq, PACAF, Udorn RTAFB TH... Aug 69 Dec 69
Forward Air Cntrlr, 555 TFSq, PACAF, Jdorn Dec 69 Feb 71
RTAFB TH.....................................
Acft Comdr, F-4C, 91 TFSq, USAFE, RAF Feb 71 May 72
Bentwaters UK................................
Flt Examiner, 81 TFWg, USAFE, RAF Bentwaters May 72 Jan 73
UK...........................................
Ch, Stan/Eval Div, 81 TFWg, USAFE, RAF Jan 73 Jun 74
Bentwaters UK................................
Stu, Ftr Wpcs Instr Crs, F-4, 414 FWSq, TAC, Jun 74 Jan 75
Nellis AFB NV................................
Ftr Wpus Instr, F-4, 414 FWSq, TAC, Nellis AFB Jan 75 Jan 77
W............................................
Flt Comdr, 414 FWSq, TAC, Nellis AFB NV....... Jan 77 Aug 77
Stu, Air Comd & Staff College, AU, Maxwell AFB Aug 77 Jun 78
AL...........................................
Air Ops Ofcr, Tac Ftr Gen, AF/XOOTT, Hq USAF, Jun 78 Aug 81
Pentagon DC..................................
Stu, National War College, NDU, Ft McNair, Aug 81 Jul 82
Pentagon DC..................................
Specl Asst to the Comdr, 430 TFSq, TAC, Nellis Jul 82 Nov 82
AFB NV.......................................
Chief of Safety, 474 TFWg, TAC, Nellis AFB NV. Nov 82 Feb 83
Comdr, F-16, 430 TFSq, TAC, Nellis AFB NV..... Mar 83 Jul 83
Exec to the ComUr, TAC, Hq TAC, Langley AFB VA Jul 83 Aug 86
Vice Comdr, 33 TFWg, TAC, Eglin AFB FL........ Aug 86 Feb 87
Comdr, 33 TFWg, TAC, Eglin AFB FL............. Feb 87 Feb 88
Comdr, 57 FWWg, TAC, Nellis AFB NV............ Feb 88 May 90
Dep Dir, Pol Mil Aff, J-5, Joint Staff, Jun 90 May 92
Pentagon DC..................................
Sr Mil Asst to SecDef, OSD, Pentagon DC....... May 92 Aug 94
Comdr, 9 AF, ACC; Comdr, USCENTCOM Air Forces, Aug 94 Jun 96
Shaw AFB SC..................................
Dep Chef or Staff, Plans & Ops, HQ USAF/XO, Jun 96 Dec 96
Pentagon DC..................................
Dep Chief of Staff, Air & Space Ops, HQ USAF/ Jan 97 Nov 97
XO, Pentagon DC..............................
Commander, Air Forces Central Europe, NATO; Nov 97 Feb 00
Commander, United States Air Forces in
Europe; and Air Force Component Commander,
USEUCOM, Ramstein AB, Germany................
Commander, Air Combat Command, Langley AFB, VA Feb 00 Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACC/CC, 205 Dodd Blvd, Suite 100, Langley AFB, VA 23665-2788.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Promotions Effective date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second 1ieutenant...................................... 16 Jun 66
First Lieutenant....................................... 12 Dec 67
Captain................................................ 12 Jun 69
Major.................................................. 1 Jan 78
Lieutenant Colonel..................................... 1 Oct 80
Colonel................................................ 1 Oct 85
Brigadier General...................................... 1 Aug 89
Major General.......................................... 1 Feb 92
Lieutenant General..................................... 1 Sep 94
General................................................ 17 Nov 97
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Decorations:
Defense Distinguished Service Medal with one Bronze Oak Leaf
Cluster.
Air Force Distinguished Service Medal.
Legion of Merit with one Bronze Oak Leaf Cluster.
Distinguished Flying Cross with two Bronze Oak Leaf Clusters.
Meritorious Service Medal with two Bronze Oak Leaf Clusters.
Air Medal with three Silver Oak Leaf Clusters and two Bronze Oak
Leaf Clusters.
Summary of joint assignments:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assignments Dates Grade
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commander, Air Forces Central Nov 97-Present......... Gen
Europe, NATO; Commander,
USAFE; and AF Component
Commander, USEUCOM, Ramstein
AB, Germany.
Sr Mil Asst to SecDef, OSD, Apr 92-Aug 94.......... Maj Gen
Pentagon DC.
Dep Dir, Political Military Jun 90-Apr 92 Joint Maj Gen
Affairs, J-5,. Staff, Pentagon DC. Brig Gen
Air Operations Officer, Jun 78-Aug 81.......... Lt Col
Tactical Fighter General,
Deputy Chief of Staff, Plans
and Operations, HQ USAF,
Pentagon DC \1\.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Joint Equivalent.
______
[The Committee on Armed Services requires certain senior
military officers nominated by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate, and certain
senior military officers as determined by the committee, to
complete a form that details the biographical, financial and
other information of the nominee. The form executed by Gen.
John P. Jumper, in connection with his nomination follows:]
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Room SR-228
Washington, DC 20510-6050
(202) 224-3871
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation
of your answer applies.
Part A--Biographical Information
Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.
1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
John Phillip Jumper.
2. Position to which nominated:
Chief of Staff, United States Air Force.
3. Date of nomination:
July 17, 2001.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
5. Date and place of birth:
February 4, 1945; Paris, Texas.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Ellen McGhee Jumper (formerly Ellen Elizabeth McGhee).
7. Names and ages of children:
Catherine J. Schafer--age 28.
Janet E. Jumper--age 25.
Mellisa D. Jumper--age 15.
8. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative, honorary
or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State, or local
governments, other than those listed in the service record extract
provided to the committee by the executive branch.
None.
9. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
None.
10. Memberships: List all memberships and offices held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
Ninth Air Force Association--Member.
Counsel on Foreign Relations--Member.
Caribous Association--Member.
Daedalions--Member.
Air Force Association--Member.
11. Honors and awards: List all memberships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, and any other special recognitions for outstanding
service or achievements other than those listed on the service record
extract provided to the committee by the executive branch.
Wings Club of New York City--Honorary Member.
Air Force Sergeants Association--Honorary Member.
Logistics Officer Association--Honorary Member.
Respect For Law Alliance--Military Honoree.
Aviation Week--Laurette.
12. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree,
if confirmed, to respond to requests to appear and testify before any
duly constituted committee of the Senate?
Yes.
13. Personal views: Do you agree, when asked before any duly
constituted committee of Congress, to give your personal views, even if
those views differ from the administration in power?
Yes.
______
[The nominee responded to the questions in Parts B-E of the
committee questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set
forth in the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to
Parts B-E are contained in the committee's executive files.]
------
Signature and Date
I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate,
and complete.
Gen. John P. Jumper.
This 27th day of July, 2001.
[The nomination of Gen. John P. Jumper was reported to the
Senate by Senator Warner on August 2, 2001, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on August 3, 2001.]
NOMINATION OF GEN. RICHARD B. MYERS, USAF, TO CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT
CHIEFS OF STAFF
----------
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2001
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:39 p.m. in room
SH-216, Hart Senate Office Building, Senator Carl Levin
(chairman) presiding.
Committee members present: Senators Levin, Lieberman,
Cleland, Landrieu, Reed, Akaka, Bill Nelson, E. Benjamin
Nelson, Carnahan, Dayton, Warner, McCain, Smith, Inhofe,
Roberts, Allard, Hutchinson, Sessions, Collins, and Bunning.
Committee staff member present: David S. Lyles, staff
director.
Majority staff members present: Madelyn R. Creedon,
counsel; Richard D. DeBobes, counsel; Evelyn N. Farkas,
professional staff member; Richard W. Fieldhouse, professional
staff member; Maren Leed, professional staff member; Gerald J.
Leeling, counsel; Peter K. Levine, general counsel; Michael J.
McCord, professional staff member; Arun A. Seraphin,
professional staff member; and Terence P. Szuplat, professional
staff member.
Minority staff members present: Romie L. Brownlee,
Republican staff director; Judith A. Ansley, deputy staff
director for the minority; Charles W. Alsup, professional staff
member; L. David Cherington, minority counsel; Edward H. Edens
IV, professional staff member; Brian R. Green, professional
staff member; Gary M. Hall, professional staff member; Carolyn
M. Hanna, professional staff member; Mary Alice A. Hayward,
professional staff member; Ambrose R. Hock, professional staff
member; George W. Lauffer, professional staff member; Patricia
L. Lewis, professional staff member; Thomas L. MacKenzie,
professional staff member; Ann M. Mittermeyer, minority
counsel; Suzanne K.L. Ross, research assistant; Cord A.
Sterling, professional staff member; Scott W. Stucky, minority
counsel; and Richard F. Walsh, minority counsel.
Staff assistants present: Gabriella Eisen, Daniel K.
Goldsmith, Jennifer L. Naccari, and Nicholas W. West.
Committee members' assistants present: Andrew
Vanlandingham, assistant to Senator Cleland; Elizabeth King,
assistant to Senator Reed; Davelyn Noelani Kalipi, assistant to
Senator Akaka; Eric Pierce, assistant to Senator Ben Nelson;
Neal Orringer, assistant to Senator Carnahan; Brady King,
assistant to Senator Dayton; Christopher J. Paul and Dan
Twining, assistants to Senator McCain; Margaret Hemenway,
assistant to Senator Smith; John A. Bonsell, assistant to
Senator Inhofe; George M. Bernier III, assistant to Senator
Santorum; Robert Alan McCurry, assistant to Senator Roberts;
Douglas Flanders, assistant to Senator Allard; James P.
Dohoney, Jr., assistant to Senator Hutchinson; Kristine Fauser,
assistant to Senator Collins; and Derek Maurer, assistant to
Senator Bunning.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN, CHAIRMAN
Chairman Levin. Today, in New York City and across the
Potomac in Virginia, our fellow citizens continue to sift
through the rubble 2 days after the most deadly and cowardly
attack ever against the United States. The terrorists behind
this sought to destroy more than structures. They sought to
destroy the American spirit. But those who unleashed this
horror now understand they have failed.
Through our rage at these attacks on our people and on our
free institutions shines a focused determination to recover our
loved ones and friends who are still lost, and to assist their
loved ones in coping with the devastating void into which they
have been plunged. Our fury at those who attack innocents is
matched by our determination to protect our citizens from more
terror, and by our resolve to track down, to root out, and
relentlessly pursue the terrorists and those who would shelter
or harbor them.
Two nights ago, Senator Warner and I joined Secretary
Rumsfeld, General Shelton, and General Myers at the Pentagon,
and witnessed first-hand that determination. Brave men and
women were attending to the victims and fighting the fires all
just a few feet away from loved ones and friends who were still
missing or presumed killed. Many of them have been working
nonstop ever since the attack. America salutes them as the
genuine heroes and heroines that they are, and our prayers are
with the victims and their families and friends who grieve for
them.
For every person who has perpetrated a barbaric act,
thousands of Americans have engaged in acts of extraordinary
courage. Those acts are still unfolding, and will unfold in the
days, weeks, and months ahead.
Debate is an inherent part of our democracy, and while our
democratic institutions are stronger than any terrorist attack,
in one regard we operate differently in times of national
emergency. We set aside our differences, and we ask decent
people everywhere to join forces with us to seek out and defeat
the common enemy of the civilized world.
As Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Hugh
Shelton assured the Nation 2 nights ago that America's Armed
Forces are ready. General Shelton has served in the demanding
position of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for the past
4 years with great distinction. The Nation and every man and
woman who wears our country's uniform owes him a tremendous
debt of gratitude. Now General Richard Myers is ready to assume
the duties that General Shelton so magnificently shouldered.
The President has nominated General Myers to be the next
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. General Shelton's term
expires on September 30. This committee must act on General
Myers' nomination, and we will do so.
The tragic events of the last 2 days vividly remind us
again of the importance of this position. The Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff is the highest-ranking military officer
in the United States Armed Forces, and is the principal
military advisor to the President, the National Security
Council, and the Secretary of Defense.
General Myers is uniquely well-qualified to serve as the
next Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. He is a decorated Vietnam
veteran who knows the dangers faced by our men and women in
uniform. He has led U.S. forces in Japan and in the Pacific
with a steady hand. He has served as Assistant to the Chairman
and as Commander in Chief, U.S. Space Command, since February
of the year 2000. He has served as Vice Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs, the Nation's second highest-ranking military officer,
at times acting as Chairman in General Shelton's absence.
General Myers is, I believe, the first Vice Chairman to be
nominated as Chairman. At times when we are reminded almost
daily of the dangers to our military personnel, and the
sacrifices of their families, we particularly want to welcome
General Myers' wife, Mary Jo. Mrs. Myers, we welcome you. We
thank you for your service to the Nation. You, too, will be
called upon for sacrifice in addition to the extraordinary
sacrifice which you and your family has already undertaken.
This is no ordinary time. This will be no ordinary
nomination hearing. As Vice Chairman, General Myers has been
personally involved in the rescue efforts at the Pentagon, and
in guiding the United States Armed Forces during these
difficult days. He is in a unique position to update the
committee and the country on the situation, and we have asked
him to do so.
General Myers, we welcome your testimony on the status of
your efforts at the Pentagon, the extent of the damage and the
loss of life, the role that the U.S. military forces are
playing in support of rescue and relief efforts in New York
City, and what steps this Nation might take to strengthen our
ongoing efforts to combat the scourge of terrorism.
I just want to make two very brief announcements before I
call on Senator Warner and then on our two colleagues who will
be introducing General Myers. First, at the conclusion of our
open session, Senator Warner and I have determined we will go
into a Members-only classified session in the Intelligence
Committee hearing room, SH-219. General Myers will be there
with other members from the uniformed staff, but also Secretary
Wolfowitz will be joining us at that time.
Second, we are making arrangements for bus transportation,
and I want to thank Senator Warner for his leadership in this,
for members of the committee who would like to go to the
Pentagon at approximately 6:30 this evening. There are a number
of members who have made their own arrangements to go over in
the last couple of days, and Senator Warner and I thought it
would be helpful to arrange for transportation for those who
might wish to go to the Pentagon. We will be back to you as
soon as possible with details about the precise time and place.
It will be after our executive session, and at a place to be
determined.
Senator Warner.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN WARNER
Senator Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do hope as many
members as possible will take this opportunity to visit the
Pentagon this evening. Just moments ago I left the site. I have
been on it twice now. General Myers, I want to thank you for
taking the time to go there today to recognize the hardworking
people from primarily Virginia, Maryland, and the District of
Columbia--firefighters, rescue workers, Red Cross aids, and
engineers. I say to my colleagues, it is a remarkable scene. I
think no matter how many times you view this on television, it
doesn't prepare you for the horrific site and precise manner in
which that plane was directed at the building.
Mr. Chairman, I just received a call from the White House.
I am to meet with the President at 3:10, so I am going to put
my statement into the record.
I thank Mrs. Myers, as the chairman said, for your career
opportunities not only for yourself, but for your distinguished
husband. It is a team effort, so often, in the military. It is
a team effort.
So if you will excuse me, I am going to depart. I hope to
return in time for the executive session.
[The prepared statement of Senator Warner follows:]
Prepared Statement by Senator John Warner
Thank you, Senator Levin.
I join you in welcoming General Myers and his family.
As I know you appreciate, it was imperative that we go forward with
this hearing and demonstrate our resolve to both our allies and our
enemies. The Joint Chiefs of Staff and, particularly, their Chairman,
are a vital link in our national security organization. Proceeding with
the orderly transfer of this key office is a unequivocal indicator that
our national security institutions are intact and fully operational.
General Myers, as Senator Roberts noted in his introduction, is
eminently well qualified for this position. He is a command pilot with
over 600 combat flying hours and operational experience as the 5th Air
Force Commander. He has commanded the United States Space Command,
NORAD, and United States Air Forces, Pacific. He understands today's
defense challenges and those of the future. In this time of
transformation--made all the more challenging and urgent as a result of
the escalation of the asymmetric threat this Nation faces--General
Myers' experience as the Vice Chairman will be of enormous relevance.
General, you have my support, and, if confirmed, you will be thrust
into one of the most challenging positions of responsibility I have
ever observed. I applaud your willingness to serve, and I look forward
to working with you.
Senator Levin.
Chairman Levin. Thank you very much, Senator Warner.
General Myers has responded to the committee's prehearing
policy questions and our standard questionnaire. Without
objection, these responses will be made a part of the record.
The committee has already received the paperwork on General
Myers and we will be reviewing it. There are several standard
questions that we ask nominees who come before the committee
and I will ask General Myers these questions first.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this position, to appear
before this committee and other appropriate committees of
Congress and to give your personal views, even if those views
differ from the administration in power?
General Myers. Mr. Chairman, yes, I do.
Chairman Levin. Have you adhered to applicable laws and
regulations governing conflict of interest?
General Myers. Yes, I have.
Chairman Levin. Have you assumed any duties or undertaken
any actions which would appear to presume the outcome of the
confirmation process?
General Myers. No, I have not.
Chairman Levin. Will you ensure that the Joint Staff
complies with deadlines established for requested
communications, including prepared testimony and questions for
the record in hearings?
General Myers. Yes, sir, I will.
Chairman Levin. Will you cooperate in providing witnesses
and briefers in response to congressional requests?
General Myers. Yes, sir.
Chairman Levin. Will those witnesses be protected from
reprisal for their testimony?
General Myers. Absolutely.
Chairman Levin. At this point, we have two colleagues who
both claim General Myers as their own, and we understand fully
why. It is nice to be fought over in this way, General. We will
first call upon, with the agreement of both of our colleagues,
Senator Carnahan for the first introduction, and then Senator
Roberts for the second introduction.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JEAN CARNAHAN
Senator Carnahan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. America is
enduring one of the gravest moments in its history, but as Holy
Scripture reminds us, and it always gives us hope, we are
reminded from the Book of Esther that there are those who are
called to the forefront in just such times. Sitting next to me
is the military leader for our time. He has been tried and
proven time and time again.
Our country is indeed fortunate in this hour of need to
have Gen. Richard B. Myers as the nominee for the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He will inherit a post of paramount
responsibility. He is charged with taking on new battles and
with deploying new weaponry against the current and insidious
threats to our Nation. I believe General Myers is the right man
to lead our military forces in this endeavor, and I
enthusiastically endorse his nomination for the chairmanship of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
It is a great honor to join Senator Roberts in introducing
General Myers to this committee. Kansas and Missouri have long
disputed claims to territory, as well as collegiate sports
titles. Well, today we add to the historic rivalry between our
States. We have a disputed claim over just which State should
claim the nominee for the highest military post in the land,
but I believe we can agree on one thing: General Myers would
make an excellent Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. His
extensive leadership in space-based defense, U.S.-Asia policy
and defense acquisition make him an ideal candidate to oversee
the military's transformation in the 21st century.
He is a decorated command pilot with more than 4,000 hours
in the cockpit, including 600 as a fighter pilot in Vietnam.
General Myers has been awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross
twice and 19 air medals. He has served with distinction as
Commander in Chief of United States Space Command and Commander
of the Pacific Air Forces, and for the last 2 years he has
served on the Joint Chiefs of Staff as the Vice Chairman,
leading the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) and
Defense Acquisition Board (DAB). But above all, General Myers
has emerged as a powerful voice for America's service men and
women.
As the highest-ranking officer in the United States
military, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff must
promote the quality of life for our soldiers, sailors, airmen,
and marines. I have no doubt that General Myers will be a
strong advocate for men and women in uniform, both Active and
Reserve components. As a distinguished warrior himself, he can
relate to the rigors and sacrifices endured by our servicemen
and women today.
Mr. Chairman, I urge this committee to recognize the
extraordinary credentials of this nominee with a favorable
reporting to the United States Senate.
Chairman Levin. Senator Carnahan, we thank you for that
strong endorsement.
Senator Roberts.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR PAT ROBERTS
Senator Roberts. Mr. Chairman and Senator Warner, my dear
friends and colleagues, it is both an honor and a privilege for
me to introduce to the Senate Committee on Armed Services
General Richard B. Myers as the nominee to be the next Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. But first, like our distinguished
chairman, let me offer my prayers, my thoughts to the families
of the Americans that lost their lives in the attack on the
United States, an attack not only on them and our country, but
also on American democracy and freedom. This will not stand.
I wish to associate myself with the outstanding remarks
from my colleague and friend from Missouri. Senator Carnahan, I
would like to revise and extend just a portion, however.
General Myers was born at St. Luke's Hospital. That is a fine
hospital just across the Kansas border. However, just as soon
as he was ambulatory he was rescued and taken back to Kansas--
--[Laughter.]
--to a community called Miriam, where he has lived ever
since. General Myers is not only a Kansan, but as President
John Wefald of Kansas State University will point out, just as
importantly, he is a graduate of Kansas State University, the
home of the ever-optimistic and fighting Wildcats----
[Laughter.]
Now rated number 10 in the football polls.
His wife, Mary Jo, is a K State graduate and a resident of
Manhattan, Kansas, which we call the Little Apple. She is an
English major, and I have been informed that Mary Jo has spent
the last couple of days staffing the phones at the Army Family
Service Center. Well done, Mary Jo, and thank you so very much.
Please understand, as important as being a fighting
Wildcat, that it is an honor for me to present a man I feel is
exceptionally qualified to prepare and lead our military as we
deal with emerging threats, so tragically portrayed on 11
September. We must understand the nature of the warrior class
that makes up these State-sponsored or rogue groups that are
capable of perpetrating the attack the United States suffered
on Tuesday.
Make no mistake about it, although the possibility of the
classic force-on-force military conflict must be part of our
military's capability, we must also be prepared to realign our
military strength to address the asymmetry in warfare
demonstrated so graphically Tuesday. I am confident that
General Myers understands these issues, and is certainly ready
for them.
I believe that the General has shown he has a grasp of the
requirement for military transformation. I am confident that
the events of the past few days will reflect the direction and
the amount of transformation our military must undergo under
his leadership.
Part of the equation for transformation is the supporting
role the United States military must play in handling the
consequences of an act of terrorism. Again, the events of this
week point out the value of the role played by our military,
our Active-Duty Forces, our guard and our Reserve, but the
military must have this as a mission, and be prepared and
trained to respond.
Now, I am not going to read the impressive military
background of the General, but only add that he is clearly
well-qualified to lead our military in this new age that burst
in vivid reality on our doorstep on the 11th, and I urge my
colleagues to support General Myers for this most important
post.
It again is a privilege and honor to recommend him to you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Roberts, and to use the
football analogy a little further, in the competition here to
introduce you it is a tie between Missouri and Kansas. They
both won, and they are both winners indeed.
General Myers, do you have an opening statement for us?
STATEMENT OF GEN. RICHARD B. MYERS, USAF, NOMINEE TO BE
CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF
General Myers. Mr. Chairman, I do have a short opening
statement.
Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the committee, thank
you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I
especially want to thank Senator Carnahan of Missouri, my
birthplace, for your very kind words, and I sincerely
appreciate your remarks. Senator Roberts, both because you are
a fellow man of the plains and a K-Stater, but more
importantly, today because of your recent chairmanship of the
Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities. You have
been part of a great team at the leading edge of our efforts to
address the challenge of asymmetric warfare, and for that we
are all in your debt.
Two days ago, our Nation suffered a sudden, horrific attack
by terrorists. They attacked two symbols of our national power,
one economic and one military, but not the heart of that power.
The heart of America's strength is found not in its symbols,
but in its people, 270 million determined citizens, and
similarly, the heart of American military power is not a symbol
called the Pentagon. The heart of that power resides in every
soldier, sailor, airman, marine, Coast Guardsman sworn to
defend our Constitution and the American way of life.
These despicable acts have awakened a national resolve in
the American people and its Armed Forces that rivals any seen
since Pearl Harbor. Today, due in large measure to the
outstanding support of the Members sitting before me, America's
military is trained, ready, and extremely capable of responding
to the President's clarion call.
If confirmed, I pledge to keep our Armed Forces at that
razor's edge first and foremost by sustaining our quality force
and taking care of the heart of our military, our people. They
are our decisive edge. We have made great strides in recent
years under the outstanding leadership of Gen. Hugh Shelton,
but we have to continue the momentum to improve their quality
of life. Hugh Shelton was key in getting us this far, and of
course with your assistance we can take it to the next level.
I will also work tirelessly with our service chiefs and
commander in chief's (CINCs) to ensure that our troops continue
to receive the training, equipment, and support they need to
carry out the wide range of missions that we have assigned to
them.
Finally, my third priority will be preparing our military
for the security challenges of the future, modernizing and
transforming the force with new, joint capabilities, even as we
face the threats of today.
Members of the committee, if confirmed, I look forward to
your wise counsel and a bipartisan spirit as we look forward to
addressing today's issues and tomorrow's challenges. I join you
in honoring those of our citizens, military and civilian, who
were injured or died in these recent attacks. Our hearts go out
to all who have lost loved ones in this terrible tragedy, and
we will never forget them.
So thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to your
questions in a minute, but first with your permission I would
like to talk on two issues: the status of the Pentagon, and the
civil support measures we have taken by the Armed Forces in
providing support in New York and Washington, DC.
First of all, I think as some of you know that have been to
the Pentagon, the fire is out. There are some areas that are
water-damaged, and we are starting to clean those up and move
back into those areas. It will leave about a whole wedge of the
Pentagon--maybe not quite a wedge, but almost a wedge of the
Pentagon--that will need to be rebuilt, so they are in the
process right now of recovering the remains, of determining the
stability of the structure where the airplane hit, and already
planning to rebuild that structure.
I was with Senator Cleland when this happened, and went
back to the Pentagon, and they were evacuating, of course, the
Pentagon at the time, and I went into the National Military
Command Center, because that is essentially my battle station
when things are happening. It proved to be as resilient as our
people did and have been throughout this crisis, and that is
where we stayed. The air got a little acrid at times. The air
filtration system shut down for moments, but we got it back up
and were able to stay there throughout the whole effort.
In terms of military support in New York and Washington,
DC, for the Pentagon, that support, some of you have seen it,
but it is from the soldiers and sailors, airmen, marines, and
Coast Guardsmen from this area and the local authorities, and
there were many first responders. I cannot catalogue all the
names on all the sides of ambulances and fire trucks that
responded, but they were from all over the District, from
Virginia, and from Maryland, and they all pitched in and did
exactly what they had to do.
In New York, the Department of Defense active duty and
Reserve component, the Guard and Reserve have supported every
request from FEMA, and to my knowledge there may be some
outstanding requests, but we are fulfilling those requests. We
fulfilled all the ones that I know of. We are in the process of
maybe a few that we have not quite responded to yet because of
just the time it takes to move the assets. They mainly fall in
the logistics area, in the medical area, and in transportation,
and we are doing that.
There has also been, as you are probably aware, quite a bit
of activity by the North American Aerospace Defense Command in
the skies over this great country, and of course the Coast
Guard has taken special measures regarding our ports and
waterways and our coastline.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to take your
questions.
Chairman Levin. Thank you very much, General. We will now
proceed on the basis of the early bird rule with the first
round of 6 minutes each. I understand that approximately 20,000
people work at the Pentagon, perhaps a few more, that there
were 132 killed at the Pentagon, 64 on the plane that hit the
Pentagon. Can you tell us about what percent of the Pentagon's
work space is out of commission? Do you have any estimate of
that?
General Myers. I do not know the exact square footage, sir.
Chairman Levin. What approximate percentage of space would
it be, 20 percent?
General Myers. I would say it is roughly 20 percent or
less, and as I said, there are some areas that are water-
damaged. The desks and the chairs are fine, and they will be
moving back into those, but it is going to be, like I said,
about a wedge, so roughly 20 percent of the square footage.
Chairman Levin. General, in your personal view, are there
capabilities or equipment that the Armed Forces need today to
respond to the terrorist attacks that they do not currently
have, or are they able to respond today, should that decision
be made, to those attacks?
General Myers. Sir, I think we are able to respond today.
Of course, there are always ways to enhance our capabilities,
and I think you will see in a supplemental that is either here
or heading this way what some of those capabilities will be. I
am happy to go into that if you want. Some of them will be in
the intelligence area, of course. Some will be in command and
control, and there will be some in the force protection arena.
There will be others, of course, but let me just reiterate, we
have what we need today to do what we need to do.
Chairman Levin. Was the Defense Department contacted by the
FAA or the FBI or any other agency after the first two hijacked
aircraft crashed into the World Trade Center prior to the time
that the Pentagon was hit?
General Myers. Sir, I do not know the answer to that
question. I can get that for you for the record.
[The information referred to follows:]
The following times answer Chairman Levin's question regarding when
the Defense Department was notified by the FAA during the September 11,
2001, Hijacking Attacks (all times in EDT):
0838: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) notified the North
American Defense Command (NORAD) of a hijacking.
0843: FAA notified NORAD of second hijacking.
0846: American Airlines Flight 11 crashed in the North Tower of the
World Trade Center (WTC).
[Deleted.]
0903: United Airlines Flight 175 crashed into the South Tower of
the WTC.
[Deleted.]
[Deleted.]
1010: United Airlines Flight 93 crashed in Somerset, PA.
Chairman Levin. Was the Defense Department asked to take
action against any specific aircraft?
General Myers. Sir, we were.
Chairman Levin. Did you take action against--for instance,
there have been statements that the aircraft that crashed in
Pennsylvania was shot down. Those stories continue to exist.
General Myers. Mr. Chairman, the Armed Forces did not shoot
down any aircraft. When it became clear what the threat was, we
did scramble fighter aircraft, AWACs, radar aircraft, and
tanker aircraft to begin to establish orbits in case other
aircraft showed up in the FAA system that were hijacked, but we
never actually had to use force.
Chairman Levin. Was that order you just described given
before or after the Pentagon was struck? Do you know?
General Myers. That order, to the best of my knowledge, was
after the Pentagon was struck.
Chairman Levin. General Myers, you have agreed to give us
your personal views even when they might disagree with the
administration in power, but the Secretary was quoted in a July
article as saying that his choice for Chairman would have to
possess candor and forthrightness, of course, he said, but he
wanted this willingness to disagree to show up only in very
direct, private counsel. Now, have you been told that your
willingness to disagree should show up only in private counsel,
or are you committed to give us your personal views when asked,
even if those views might differ from that of the Secretary?
General Myers. Sir, I have never been told to limit my
views to private discussions, and as I said earlier, Mr.
Chairman, absolutely.
Chairman Levin. Thank you.
General, you indicated in response to one of the
committee's prehearing policy questions as to what your
priorities would be if confirmed, that one of your priorities
would be to better define the military's role in homeland
security. I am wondering if you could tell us what your
concerns are in this area, and what role you believe the
military should play.
General Myers. Mr. Chairman, that issue was debated in our
Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) and it is still being debated.
I think this current tragedy puts that issue at center-stage.
As the Commander in Chief of North American Aerospace
Defense Command (NORAD), as well as United States Commander in
Chief Space Command (USCINCSPACE), we have plans to deploy our
fighters to defend the U.S. from external threats. I never
thought we would see what we saw the last few days, where we
had fighters over our cities defending against a threat that
originated inside the United States of America, so I think this
whole issue of homeland defense, or homeland security, needs a
lot more thought.
There is a role, obviously, for the Department of Defense.
What that role is, I am not confident I know that answer today,
but I just know that the debate needs to take place now.
We have had other issues that we have worked in seminar
games, if you will, or exercises, where we have looked at other
incidences of weapons of mass destruction, and what we found in
some of those is that local authorities are often quickly
overcome by the situation, and there is going to be a reliance,
I believe, on some of the capabilities we have inside the
Department, so we need to sort through those issues.
To tell you exactly what our role ought to be, I do not
know for sure. I just think we need to think through that so
the next time we have a terrible tragedy, we are ready to act
in a unified way, in a focused way. That is not to say we have
not done that in this crisis. I think we have come together
very, very well, but it certainly raises those questions, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you very much.
Senator Inhofe.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, in
spite of what my distinguished friends and Senators from
Missouri and Kansas said, it has always been recognized that a
military man's life begins at his first training, which was
Vance Air Force Base, so I look forward to voting to confirm my
fellow Oklahoman. [Laughter.]
There has been one question I am going to ask just for the
record, because I do not think there is an answer today, but it
is one I would like you to give some thought to, and that is
the idea of depots.
I think we recognize that we need a core capability. With
the depots we have gone through a BRAC round where we
eliminated two of the five and transferred the workloads, which
is the appropriate thing to do. However, we are using
antiquated World War II plants, buildings, maintenance
operations, and for the record, at a later date, if you would
submit something, your ideas as to where they should fit in,
and how we can modernize them, I would appreciate it.
General Myers. Will do, Senator.
[The information follows:]
Our organic depot maintenance organizations provide robust and
invaluable industrial repair capabilities. They have repeatedly proven
their ability to rapidly increase output and to change priorities to
meet warfighter requirements when national emergencies emerge, such as
we find ourselves in now.
Thanks to the Base Realignment and Closure process, we have been
able to consolidate much of our core depot maintenance capability. This
has helped reduce our overhead costs. As you stated, however, many of
our depot facilities are quite old. Just as our base housing and other
base infrastructure suffered degradation from lack of capital
investment over the past decade due to increasingly high operations
tempo requirements, our depot maintenance facilities have felt the
pinch as well.
I do believe we are turning the corner on depot plant and equipment
recapitalization. The Department of Defense applied $205.9 million of
its Working Capital Fund and $37.6 million of its Military Construction
money to its depot programs in fiscal year 1998. It added $231.6
million and $40.6 million respectively in 1999 and $255.8 million and
$61.9 million in 2000. This trend is encouraging but, bear in mind, it
will take time for this capital investment to manifest itself in
modernized building and equipment.
I can also tell you, that we are modernizing our depot maintenance
business processes as well. The Services have implemented some truly
innovative programs, such as public-private partnerships and use of
emerging automation technologies, to enhance the efficiency and
effectiveness of our depot maintenance programs.
Senator Inhofe. Having chaired the Readiness and Management
Support Subcommittee for a number of years, I have been
concerned with a lot of readiness problems. One is
encroachment, everything from the environmental constraints to
training ranges, the urban sprawl, and, of course, at Nellis
you experienced that, and it is still a problem out there,
aerospace restrictions, loss of frequency spectrum, these are
all very, very serious problems.
Recently, we have been concerned with the Vieques range,
which of course is Navy and Marine. However, if we, for the
first time in our Nation's history, would allow some law-
breaking trespassers to close down a live range, it would have
a domino effect throughout not just America, but throughout the
world, and so I would like to have you address the encroachment
problems as you see them, and what possible solutions are out
there.
General Myers. Senator Inhofe, an excellent question,
because it is at the heart of our readiness. Our training
facilities and our training ranges are absolutely essential to
staying ready to discharge the missions that this country wants
us to perform, and encroachment is a problem. It has been a
problem for a long, long time.
What I would like to say is that the Department has in the
last year really focused on this issue and is trying to work it
with, again, a unity of effort, led by the Office of the
Secretary of Defense (OSD) staff, and with the support of the
individual Services, and the Joint Staff. I think that is going
to help mitigate the effects we are having right now. I think
this will be something we will have to deal with for an awfully
long time to come.
As we develop new weapons systems, as they require more
space, or different support facilities, as we try to pursue
that, we are going to have to try to find that right balance
between our readiness and the environment and the people that
we have an impact on. Technology can play a part in that, and I
think we are taking steps to ensure that it does.
I would just like to leave you with the thought that the
Department of Defense (DOD) is very focused on this particular
issue right now, and I think we will be successful.
Senator Inhofe. I know that is right, and one of the
dilemmas--let us just take one of the Southeastern ground bases
like Camp LeJeune or Fort Bragg, where their training areas are
interrupted by the habitat of the red-cockaded woodpecker and
the better job they do, the more that expected habitat is
expanded, so they are being punished for the job they are
doing. This is something that I think you need to look at,
because it is happening throughout the southeast part of the
United States
General Myers. We will, Senator.
Senator Inhofe. The general readiness question is the
deficiencies that were discussed by the CINCs when they were in
this very room. I do not remember the exact cost, but the spare
parts, lack of ammunition, shortage of flying hours, all of
these, these are just general readiness issues.
It is one of these situations where it is all bleeding, it
is all hemorrhaging, and I know you are probably putting
yourself in a situation where you are going to have to try to
make some priorities, but do you have any thoughts about what
you can do on these general problems of readiness out there?
General Myers. Yes, sir, Senator Inhofe. Having just marked
up the President's 2002 budget, a majority of the increase in
that budget was for just those things, for flying hours, for
driving time for the Army, for steaming time for the Navy, for
the spare parts to keep the whole military machine healthy, and
to try to do so in a way that it will not require us coming
back to Congress for a supplemental, so I think the efforts
over the last several years, some of which are again just
starting to pay dividends because of lead time, and certainly
with the 2001 supplemental and the 2002 budget, I think we have
taken steps to ameliorate some of those shortfalls.
Senator Inhofe. I was going to mention one other thing. I
know my time is running out, but one last question having to do
with modernization. I was pleased when General Jumper made a
statement sometime ago, about a year ago, I guess now it was.
It gave us an opportunity to have some credibility when we
talked about the fact that we have slipped a lot in our
modernization programs.
Most Americans may disagree with the causes of wars, or
with some of the problems we have, but they all have been
laboring under, I think, this misconception that we have the
very best of everything out there. We do not have the very best
any more. When we look at our best air-to-air vehicle, the F-15
air-to-ground vehicle, the F-16 in many ways, the SU series
that is on the open market, manufactured by the Russians is
better than that we have, so I am sure that is one of your top
priorities.
Do you have any comments to make about your ideas on
modernization, maybe specifically on the F-22?
General Myers. Senator Inhofe, modernization is a huge
issue when it comes to tactical air. The dilemma we are in, and
I think this is true for the Air Force for sure, for the Navy
to a little lesser degree, for the Marine Corps for sure, and
it is just degrees here, is that these procurements go in
cycles over time, and for most of this decade we have not
bought a lot of tactical air. So our tactical air assets have
just continued to age, and I would agree with your comments, we
are not always flying the best fighters in the world any more.
In terms of the F-22, I think it is absolutely essential.
The Secretary of Defense has authorized entry into low-rate
production, and that decision should be made here very, very
quickly. I can go into more detail if you like.
Senator Inhofe. That is fine, General. My time has expired,
but I also want you to look at other Services, for example, our
artillery capability, our rapid-fire ranges. The Palladin we
are using now is not as good as almost any country that could
be a potential adversary.
General Myers. Senator, I absolutely agree, and though I
sit here in front of you in the blue uniform of the United
States Air Force, my whole focus is going to be on what the
contribution is of systems to the joint warfighting equation,
so that naturally takes me into every Service's modernization
programs, and for that matter, other concepts they may have and
doctrinal changes. That is all important.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Inhofe.
Senator Akaka.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We have
heard many good statements on General Myers. I would like to
express my welcome and support for the nomination of Gen.
Richard B. Myers to serve as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff. I also want to welcome Mrs. Myers to this hearing as
well.
I had the pleasure of first meeting General Myers when he
served as Commander of the Pacific Air Forces from 1997 to 1998
at Hickam AFB in Hawaii. While he was there, he made a big
difference in the Pacific.
I also wanted to thank General Myers for taking the time to
visit with me last week to discuss a number of issues. Some of
the questions I would have asked here, we discussed during your
visit, and so I will ask you other questions. I just want to
say, Mr. Chairman, I have the full confidence in General Myers'
ability to serve in this critical position, and I look forward
to working with you, General Myers.
General Myers. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Akaka. Of course, I am very interested in what
would be happening to Hawaii, and what changes may come. My
question is about Asian theater threats. How will U.S. forces
be altered to focus on potential Asian theater threats, as
identified by Secretary Rumsfeld, and how might this affect
force posturing in Hawaii?
General Myers. Senator Akaka, that is the subject of two
things. One is the QDR, which is ongoing, and the Defense
Planning Guidance (DPG), which asks the Services to look at
several posture options around the world, to include the
Pacific region. Some of those do-outs will not come back until
next spring, when the Services will come back with some of
their ideas on perhaps a more efficient posture for their
forces, and some of it will come out of the review, of course,
as well, so it is a little bit premature because we have not
finished those reviews.
Again, it is going to be trying to balance our obligations
around the globe, and the missions we are given. Clearly, the
emphasis on Asia Pacific is the one the Secretary has set for
us, and the one that we embrace, and we are looking at exactly
those questions. I just think it is a little early to give you
specifics on that, sir.
Senator Akaka. General, and this will be my final question,
I want to be brief. What, in your opinion, are the first
measures that need to be taken for military transformation?
General Myers. Well, we could talk a long time about
transformation. Let me just talk about one aspect of it that I
think gets to your question, and it goes back to ensuring that
inside the Department of Defense we have unity of effort for
transforming and, for that matter, modernizing our forces. Part
of that includes guidance from the Office of the Secretary of
Defense and the staff. Part of that includes work that the
Services will do.
Part of that includes development of joint operational
concepts and architectures that must lead development of
materiel, items that might enhance our joint transformation,
and of course there is a major part that resides at Joint
Forces Command down in Norfolk, because they have the role of
experimentation which you would think would lead our
transformation efforts, and it is trying to focus those efforts
between all those pieces, the acquisition community, the
requirements community, and the programming and budgeting
process. We have to bring all that together to encourage and to
help our transformation.
The Secretary of Defense has very rightly, I think, focused
in on our programming and budgeting system as being a product
of the cold war, and is looking to make changes in it to make
it more responsive to our transformation needs, so if I were to
talk about it, I would talk about the process first, and
products later.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much for your responses.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Akaka.
Senator Smith.
Senator Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, is it
your intention to go one round?
Chairman Levin. It depends on how long the round takes.
There also may be a delay on the executive session. Senator
Warner and I need to go down to meet with the leadership at
4:30, and that could affect that. We may have to have an
interim period of some kind, which would hopefully last no more
than 15 or 20 minutes, so there is a little bit of uncertainty
now about when that will begin, I have just been informed.
However, I would say we hope to do it in one round, but
perhaps if there are some questions which we just simply need
to ask, we would have a very short second round, would be my
hope.
Senator Smith. Thank you.
General Myers, congratulations on the honor of being
selected as Chairman. It is amazing, really, to think that what
normally is just a perfunctory service, if you will, of
nominees coming before the committee, whether it is the
Chairman or other positions on the Joint Chiefs, has
traditionally involved a few questions and answers and then
moving forward with the nomination. Now it takes on huge
implications, and I just want you to know, speaking for myself,
and I know I speak for others, we have great confidence in you
and the job you are going to have to face. I just want to let
you know we are with you, and look forward to doing the
Nation's business.
General Myers. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Smith. It is hard to stay out of what happened, and
I do have a couple of questions I want to ask in classified
session, but I want to ask you one that received some publicity
and to see if you can answer here. If you cannot, then fine,
say so, and we will do it in executive, classified session.
There were some reports that there were some international
flights headed here during this episode.
It is not unreasonable to think that international flights
might be coming here, but I mean, that may have been turned
around, and abruptly after things developed. Is there any truth
to the accusation that there may have been some international
flights involved with this activity? Do we have any information
on that?
General Myers. I do not have complete information, because
of the time it happened. I can give you--there was one flight
inbound to the U.S. that had turned on its transponder and
indicated a code that it was being hijacked before it got to
Alaska. We had fighter aircraft on it. It eventually landed in
a remote base in Canada, and they were safe, and I do not know
the results of that, whether it was a mistaken switch-setting,
or what it was. I cannot tell you that. We can find that answer
for you, Senator.
[The information follows:]
The Department of Defense has no indication that any international
flights were involved in the September 11, 2001, hijacking indicents.
Senator Smith. The plane was not hijacked, or we do not
know?
General Myers. I had better say, I do not know. We had
other things to do at that time. Once it was safely on the
ground, and the passengers were safe, we went on to the next
order of business. That was in the middle of all of this.
We had reports of other aircraft, one other aircraft that I
am aware of, and the reports were somewhat mixed, and I do not
think were true, because it was turned around by the operating
company and went back to Europe on its own, and was fine, so
the only one I know of that even comes close is the one I
mentioned, and I do not know if that was a hijack attempt or
some other kind of duress that the airplane was under.
Senator Smith. Do you know the country of origin?
General Myers. Not for sure.
Senator Smith. Mr. Chairman, I have some----
General Myers. I can tell you in closed session what I do
know.
Senator Smith. I have some other questions, Mr. Chairman,
but I am going to submit those for the record, because they do
not relate to the current environment, and I will yield back
the remainder of my time.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Smith, very much.
Senator Carnahan.
Senator Carnahan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General Myers, I understand that you have had extensive
experience in planning for combatting cyber attacks. I was
wondering if you would describe your work in this emerging
field, and elaborate on your plans to build off of these
experiences.
General Myers. I first ran into this responsibility when I
was at U.S. Space Command. About a month after I arrived, after
I was confirmed by the committee and I arrived for duty, the
President and the Secretary of Defense decided the
responsibility for defense of the DOD networks would fall to
U.S. Space Command, and then a year later that U.S. Space
Command would have the responsibility for attack. By the way, I
did not get a vote in this. This was a responsibility that was
issued. We had to learn very quickly how to go about these
responsibilities.
Since then, we have come a very, very long way, and General
Eberhart, who now serves at U.S. Space Command, has really
taken this to the next level. Here in Washington, DC, we now
have a joint task force for computer network operations. It
does its job through coordination with all the services, of
course, and other agencies. There is great cooperation with our
civilian telecom folks, and there is also great cooperation
with the FBI and other civil authorities who have a role in all
of this.
The thing I would like to leave you with is, it is not
unlike the earlier question about homeland defense or homeland
security. Certainly, when you are under attack in a cyber way,
fairly quickly you have to determine is this an attack on the
United States by another Nation, or another group that wants to
do you harm, is it a prankster? Is it a civil matter, or is
this a national defense or national security matter? We have
mechanisms for deciding that, but I think that is another area
along with the whole homeland defense issue that needs a lot
more thought.
I would just end by saying that the mechanism set up for
cyber security for the Department of Defense has been very
effective, and the recent viruses that have spread throughout
the country have had essentially no impact on our operation.
Senator Carnahan. The Emerging Threats and Capabilities
Subcommittee has been involved in examining the National
Guard's role in managing the after-effects of a nuclear or
chemical or biological attack.
For example, we are continuing to help develop the weapons
of mass destruction civil support teams, and these teams, some
of them are being trained in army facilities around the
country, including Fort Leonard Wood in Missouri, and they are
being trained to work with some of the emergency first
responders to decontaminate areas and to help with medical aid.
I was wondering if you would describe what you feel the
importance of these are, and detail your commitment to honing
our abilities to respond to such attacks.
General Myers. Senator Carnahan, I think they are extremely
important. This is an area where I think the National Guard can
play a key role. I think they are ideally suited for this type
of mission, because it is one they have been trained for and
God forbid we will ever have to use it, but if we do, they will
be ready. They will be trained.
I think those missions are perhaps more natural for the
National Guard than some of the current missions, so that is
one of the things we have to look at as we look at the overall
issue of homeland defense, the role of the Reserve component
primarily in the National Guard, and how they would play in
this. I think it is extremely important. I think the National
Guard's role is only going to increase.
Senator Carnahan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you very much, Senator Carnahan.
Let me apologize to my colleagues. I had the wrong list in
front of me in terms of the order of calling on Senators. As a
result, there were people called out of order on both sides
already. Now, I have the alleged correct order. Let me now read
it, because there has been some confusion on this.
The next Senator on the Democratic side would be the
Senator who I should have called on first, Senator Cleland. I
apologize to you. Then I would go to Senator Roberts, back to
Senator Reed, back to Senator Allard.
Senator Akaka, who I was not supposed to call on until way
later, got called early, so I would then go back to Senator
Nelson, then to Senator Collins, and then to Senator Lieberman,
who is no longer here, but Senator Carnahan, apparently you got
called early. I do not know how that can happen when you
introduced our nominee, but nonetheless, if I have not totally
confused you by now, that is the new order of calling on
Senators. I apologize.
Senator Bunning. What about the rest of us?
Chairman Levin. Let me finish the list. After Senator
Lieberman on this side will be Senator Bunning, then Senator
Ben Nelson, Senator McCain, Senator Landrieu, Senator
Hutchinson, Senator Dayton, and Senator Sessions.
Senator Sessions. That will be about midnight. [Laughter.]
Chairman Levin. We are going to try to do that. Multiply it
six times, about 15, and you have it. We just did Senator
Carnahan. Now we go to Senator Roberts.
Senator Roberts. I thank the chairman. In August, General,
General Shelton sent an action memo requesting permission for--
I am quoting--transfer of antiterrorism force protection, the
acronym--everything has to be an acronym--AT/FP functions to
the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and
Low Intensity Conflict. He stated in that action memo that AT/
FP is not a statutory function of the JCS and is more
appropriately the shared responsibility of OSD, the CINCs, and
the Services.
I was prepared to address this issue before the 11
September 2001 tragedy, but I must tell you that I am not--not
supportive of the JCS not being involved in antiterrorism or
force protection.
I do agree that OSD and the CINCs and the services must be
involved as well, it is their responsibility, but so must the
JCS. This is too big of an issue not to have the leadership I
think your office can bring. Would you give your views on
General Shelton's request, and can you shed some light on this
decision?
General Myers. Senator Roberts, to my knowledge that was a
recommendation to the Secretary of Defense. I do not believe we
have a decision on it yet. General Shelton's thought behind
this was basically unity of effort. The Services and unified
commanders are the ones that are responsible for force
protection. The role that this office and the Joint Staff
played, and the role of the Office of the Secretary of Defense,
are staff functions to disseminate policy, work the resources,
and so forth.
The idea was, if you are looking for redundancy, maybe this
is a place you could look. From a staff function, not from any
other shirking of responsibility, who should have that
responsibility. That was the Chairman's thought at the time. It
was to eliminate some redundancies, is what he was thinking.
Senator Roberts. We are going to have to talk about that
later. I will not go into it right now, but I have another
question, which may be somewhat redundant, in regards to a
question that was asked previously. Last November, the GAO
reported the Services were not integrating their chemical and
biological defense into unit exercises, and that the training,
if done, was not always realistic in terms of how units would
operate in war.
Similarly, the DOD reported last year the Army's combat
training centers continued to see units at all levels unable to
perform all chemical and biological defense tasks to standard.
The DOD report, like the recent GAO report, noted that less
than satisfactory performance of the units is directly
attributable to the lack of chemical and biological training at
the unit's home installations. What is your assessment of that?
Let me say, however, that if you would ask me and Senator
Mary Landrieu, the distinguished Chairman of the Emerging
Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee, what we would have
expected on 11 September if, in fact, we knew there was going
to be an attack, we would have probably said a biological
weaponry of some kind, perhaps chemical, perhaps a cyber
attack.
I do not think any of us would have come up with the top 10
saying that terrorists would hijack four airplanes, kill the
crew and endanger and kill the passengers, and then attack
American icon infrastructures. Having said that, there is a
very realistic possibility in regards to chemical and
biological defense, and I am worried about it. What comments do
you have?
General Myers. Senator Roberts, I am worried about it as
well, and I agree with your threat assessment. I think we know
that is a real threat to our forces deployed around the world,
and perhaps from terrorism in the United States, so we have to
be ready.
Now, this is interesting, because when I got to the Pacific
in the early nineties we decided this was not a big threat. We
started to tear down some of our infrastructure that supported
it. I know it is true in the United States Air Force, because I
had an Air Force hat on at that time.
Then we were told no as we looked at the threat, this is
the wrong direction, so we tried to get that ship turned a
different direction. I think we are in that process, and we
have to be just as ready for that kind of threat as we are for
the more conventional threats. So, I agree with your comments,
and it is one of the things that, if I am confirmed, I will
take a hard look at.
Senator Roberts. Are the deployed units falling short of
standards for chemical-bio defense capability set by joint
doctrine?
General Myers. Sir, I will have to get back to you on that.
That is not one of the things that have come up in the
readiness reporting that I review monthly.
[The information referred to follows:]
Before units or individuals are deployed, there are a
number of assessments and preparatory actions that take place.
One area addressed, both in intelligence assessments and
gaining combatant command guidance, is the requirement for
chemical-biological (chem-bio) protection. I am confident that
units, including our specialized nuclear, biological, and
chemical (NBC) defense units, deploying to high-threat areas
requiring chem-bio equipment and training, meet current
standards in both regards. However, while the deployed and
first-to-fight units are robust, there are readiness shortfalls
in the later-deploying and nondeployed forces.
In addition, it is important to note that even before
September 11, we saw the need to look at chem-bio requirements,
standards, and readiness above the unit level. Specifically,
there are many levels between the unit and theater-of-
operations level, and the Department of Defense is actively
working to improve or develop doctrine, concepts of operations,
and equipment/training requirements for the strategic,
operational, and tactical levels of war. Efforts are focused on
theater-wide NBC warning and reporting development of detect-
to-warn vice detect-to-treat biological detection capabilities,
and validated guidance to address decontamination standards for
ports, airfields, and strategic lift assets. These efforts will
likely drive new requirements down to the unit level. The fruit
of this labor will be a more robust, theater-wide approach to
countering weapons of mass destruction (WMD), new equipment and
joint training requirements, quantifiable standards for forces
operating in NBC conditions, meaningful readiness assessments,
and most importantly, a more effective fighting force capable
of operating in the most stressful environments.
To summarize, our units deploying today are properly
equipped and trained for chem-bio operations using current
standards. In the future, chem-bio operations will benefit from
a more holistic, theater-wide approach, and additional or
refined standards and requirements will be the future benchmark
of chem-bio readiness.
Senator Roberts. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Roberts.
Senator Cleland.
Senator Cleland. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank
Senator Roberts and Senator Landrieu for over the last couple
of years making this Senator more and more painfully aware of
the unconventional threats to our country which manifested
themselves on Tuesday.
General, as I look back at that morning that you and I were
meeting, it is a good thing we are meeting here, and not us
meeting in the Pentagon. About the time you and I were having
our visit, discussing the need to boost our conventional
forces, to look at the question of terrorism and attacks on the
United States, just about that very moment the Pentagon was
being hit. So, it is good to see you.
General Myers. It is good to see you, Senator.
Senator Cleland. I am glad to be here with you.
In thinking of this moment in American history, I think no
new Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has ever taken over
in such a perilous time. Maybe with the exception of some
officers who took over in December 1941, when we did not have a
Joint Chiefs of Staff, you take over in a perilous, historic
moment, but one filled with opportunity.
Our wonderful chaplain, Dr. Ogilvie, says sometimes life
can be awfully simple, or simply awful. Tuesday, it was simply
awful, as we all know. It seems to me, though, that some of the
things came out of that are awfully simple: (1) we need to
boost our intelligence capability; (2) we need to make sure
that more of our assets are put forward toward counterterrorism
activity; and (3) that the United States of America and the
military has to be an integral part of this, and that cyber
terrorism is a part of this in the future.
These are findings that have been brought before the
Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities and before
this committee in the last couple of years that we needed to be
more prepared in these areas, and so with Tuesday's events for
me it is awfully simple, that this is where we have to beef up.
It is amazing that we spend well over $300 billion a year
on defense, and yet Tuesday we seemed very much defenseless, so
I just wondered what lessons over the last 72 hours you have
quickly learned that are awfully simple to you, that you can
share with this committee.
General Myers. Well, I think you have hit on some of them.
As I mentioned earlier, one of the first things we need to do,
and this will take some thought because it is not without
differing views on the issue, to determine what is the
Department of Defense's role in this type of activity inside
the United States? Overseas, it is a little easier to envision.
Inside this great country, it is a little more difficult. So,
what is our role, what is our mission and so forth? That is the
homeland defense issue, and we need to get about that business
of coming to grips with that, and how all the agencies of this
Government collaborate and cooperate to bring focus to the
problem.
I would also, on the intelligence side, say that obviously
that is a lesson learned. Senator Cleland, there is a major
review of our intelligence apparatus going on right now. I
think it goes without saying that our intelligence operations
are structured as they were during the Cold War, and they are
looking at that. My guess is they will have substantial changes
in the way we are perhaps organized, and for sure equipped, to
deal with the 21st century. You will see some of that in the
supplemental that is coming this way.
Another issue that came to my mind that maybe others have
not thought of is the absolute essential nature of our
communications. They worked fine in this crisis, but you could
envision other scenarios, other asymmetric attacks on the
United States, where maybe our communications would not work so
well. We spend a lot of money for secure, survivable
communications, and we have a program to do that over time.
It has some funding problems right now, but if it drove
something home to me, it is the need to fund that properly, and
to make sure--and I am not saying this incident would trigger
something like that, but you could have incidents you could
think where you might not have the comms you need to have with
the country's leadership to make the kind of decisions you need
to make, so I would add that one to your list.
Senator Cleland. One of the other things that seems awfully
simple to me is that Senator Roberts and I took the floor to a
relatively empty Senate last year. Five to six different times
talked about the role of America in the wake of the Cold War
being over, and in many ways we were overextended, our forces
were spread thin. I personally, like you and others in this
body here, have been to see where we have spent $300 million in
defending Kosovo. We are all throughout the continent of
Europe.
Last August, I was up on the DMZ where we have 37,000
troops in Korea, for this hyperextension of American power all
around the globe. It does seem ironic to me that we cannot
defend New York and Washington.
So some things were simply awful on Tuesday, but I think
out of that come some things that to me are awfully simple, in
that these are the priorities we ought to focus on.
Thank you very much for your service, and God bless you.
General Myers. Thank you, Senator.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Cleland.
Senator Allard.
Senator Allard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
join my colleagues in congratulating you, General Myers, on a
very successful career, part of which was in the State of
Colorado as USCINCSPACE. I felt like we had a great working
relationship there, and I want to ask you some questions on
missile defense and then maybe a question or two on the Space
Commission Report, if I have time.
On missile defense, in your advanced questions to the
committee you thought that it would be reasonable to employ a
ballistic missile defense if it met four criteria relating to
deployment and threat, cost-effectiveness, and operational
capability. You also stated in your answers you believe that
deploying a ballistic missile defense to defend the United
States from a limited attack is in the national security
interest, and so I have four questions related to that.
Have you concluded that the ballistic missile threat
warrants such a deployment?
General Myers. Sir, my conclusion is that it has, and if I
could expand just a minute, we have had for quite some time now
the threat of the shorter-range missiles against our troops,
and we saw that starkly in Desert Storm, when the so-called
SCUD missile went into Dharan and killed over 20 of our U.S.
personnel.
Since that time, the proliferation of missile technology,
of course, has spread to many other countries, so from the
short-range missiles to the long-range missiles I think we can
now say that absolutely there is, at least there is a
capability out there, and this could be a threat to the United
States.
Senator Allard. Have you concluded that affordable cost-
effective ballistic missile defenses can be developed and
deployed?
General Myers. I think that part remains to be determined.
I think we are well on the way to that, but I think for the
shorter-range missiles the answer is absolutely yes. In fact,
this is the debut month for the first unit equipped for the new
Patriot 3 system, which is--that is the response, and it has
taken us 10 years, but we have a response now for the shorter-
range missiles that are much more effective than the missile
defenses we had during Desert Storm. As I said, the first unit
will be equipped this month, and then follow-on units, of
course. So, I think for the short range missiles the answer is
yes.
For the threats against the United States, I think the
honest answer to that is, we have to wait and see. My gut tells
me that yes, we will be able to develop this in a way that is
affordable and effective. I think that is what General Kadish
has testified before this committee, but we need to watch that.
Senator Allard. Have you concluded that such systems will
be operationally effective?
General Myers. I have not concluded that yet. Again, on the
short-range systems I think we can say Patriot 3 has been
through extensive testing. I think we can say it is effective.
We are going to have to look at the rest of them as they come
on board.
The so-called Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD),
the potential Navy systems, airborne laser, many of those are
in developmental stages. I think it is too early to say that at
this moment they are effective, but I think the vector for all
of them is actually positive. We are just going to have to
evaluate them as we do all systems, as they come online through
appropriate testing.
Senator Allard. Have you concluded such systems will
increase U.S. security?
General Myers. If they meet those criteria we talked about
earlier, Senator Allard, I would say they do, and I would go
back to Patriot 3 again. I think it does increase our security,
and we will just have to see, as the systems come on board.
If they develop as the requirements call for them to
develop, then I think we will be able to say yes to that, but
for some of those systems it is probably too early.
Senator Allard. I would like to turn to the Space
Commission report. The Commission recommended the United
States, and I quote, ``develop, deploy, and maintain the means
to deter attack and to defend vulnerable space capabilities,
including defense in space,'' and then they go on, quote,
``power projection in and from and through space.''
What new investments should the Department of Defense make
to develop, deploy, and maintain the capabilities described in
the Space Commission report?
General Myers. Some of those we can probably talk about in
open session, and some of those we are probably going to have
to talk about in a closed session, or separately. Two that
immediately comes to mind that I think we can talk about are
space control, which is guaranteed access to space for our use,
and denying it when appropriate, to adversaries, and space
surveillance, our ability to know what is going on in space.
We have a system today that is made up of many different
elements, some of which are quite old, and it needs to be
refurbished. The goals have been set in the Defense Planning
Guidance to do exactly that, so that is one that I think we can
talk about.
We can talk about the absolute fundamental nature of space
control to everything else we want to do in space. It all
starts with knowing what is going on up there, so space
surveillance is the one that I would highlight.
Senator Allard. I would like to go to space-based radar.
This has been a controversial program between the House and the
Senate, and it came out in the Conference last year and
previous years. We have had quite a bit of discussion on it.
What is your feeling about space-based radar as far as, can you
relate to this committee whether the Air Force and OSD have
decided to deploy space-based radar?
General Myers. The whole issue about space-based radar, if
we take it up to the next level, is what we are talking about
here is persistence. We are talking about the difference
between reconnaissance, which looked at things in elements of
time, to something that surveils, that looks at something all
the time.
We are pretty much in the reconnaissance mode today. My
personal view is, in intelligence we need to go to the
surveillance mode for this kind of capability. So, when the
technology is ready and affordable, my vote would be that we
need to pursue this initiative.
This is something that is also captured, I think, in our
Defense Planning Guidance. There is emphasis there. This will
not be--my time at USSPACECOM taught me, since I delved into
this at length--something that we will be quickly able to put
on orbit. There is a lot of technological work yet to do.
Having said that, my own view is that this is achievable
over time, and when we have an affordable system, one we can
put up, we ought to pursue that.
Senator Allard. Thank you. My time has expired.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Allard.
Senator Reed.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
welcome, General Myers. Let me thank you and Mrs. Myers for a
lifetime of selfless service to the Air Force and to the United
States. Knowing you are a graduate of the Army War College, I
know you are prepared for the duties you will soon assume.
Let me also take up the issue of National Missile Defense
(NMD). Given the answers to your previous questions, and with
respect to NMD against long-range intercontinental missiles,
would you recommend deployment of such a system this fiscal
year that is coming up?
General Myers. A deployment of the system in this fiscal
year? My understanding is that we are not ready for deployment
in fiscal year 2003.
Senator Reed. Would you recommend acquiring additional
missiles, some of which have not been tested for a contingency
deployment, in the upcoming fiscal year?
General Myers. I think whatever system we deploy, we have
to have high confidence in its ability to do the job that we
require it to do.
Senator Reed. Could you estimate, given your knowledge
today, when you would have that high confidence, the next
fiscal year, or the following fiscal year?
General Myers. Senator Reed, I cannot give you the details
on that. I would rely on General Kadish and his folks to
provide that assessment.
Senator Reed. Thank you. In terms of the security of the
United States with the deployment of such a system, what
criteria would you look to?
General Myers. The one that Senator Allard talked about
before, in that we have to know that we have the technical
capability that meets the operational requirement, and that it
is affordable.
Senator Reed. Specifically, for example, there is a
discussion in the press that China is proposing to increase its
long-range missile fleet, and there is some suggestion that the
administration has not actively discouraged them, because such
a fleet could nearly overwhelm any NMD we would deploy, and
therefore the Chinese would take confidence that we would
deploy the system not as a threat to them. But that increase of
missiles, would that be a more stable world, in your view, or a
more complicated world?
General Myers. Let me attack your question from the other
side. I think one of the fundamental things we have to do is be
able to protect our troops overseas, and our U.S. citizens. We
have talked about the threat, and I think there is a threat on
both sides. We know we have a short-range threat. We have had
that for sometime now. There is a longer-range threat that has
been acknowledged. So whatever steps we can take to handle that
threat, to defeat that threat are appropriate. Our troops and
our allies and, I think, our U.S. citizens would want us to do
that.
Senator Reed. Let me just say that I think there is a
strong sense of support, obviously, for increased research in
all these areas, also for deployment, because it seems to be
capable. As you mentioned, the PAC 3 is ready for deployment of
theater missile defense systems, and with that I think we are
all in agreement.
Let me ask you another question. This is one that touches
upon the whole issue of strategic posture in the United States.
If a foreign power launched a missile against the United
States, even if that missile were intercepted, would you
recommend to the President we retaliate against that act of
war?
General Myers. That is a hypothetical situation, but I can
put my old hat on back at North American Space Defense Command,
because that was exactly the responsibility that fell on me,
and the situation you have posed. If there was a missile launch
and we intercepted it, would I advocate a response, and in that
narrow scenario, absolutely not.
In fact, as we sat there in Cheyenne Mountain, and taking
people through the mountain, we played the simulation of what
an attack on the United States might look like. The frustrating
part was, we do a pretty good job of telling folks we are under
attack with very high assurance, but there is nothing you could
do about it. It would be wonderful if we had that capability,
and would give the National Command Authorities time then to
refine a response, and it might not be to retaliate, which
might help stabilize the situation.
Senator Reed. General, again I think your experience and
your service is extraordinary. It gives me confidence because
you are going to be confronting these very difficult issues,
some of which at this point are mercifully hypothetical, but
your judgment and your experience is truly valuable.
If I have additional time, I would like to turn to a more
procedural issue, and that is, with the damage to the Pentagon,
when do you anticipate the QDR might be publicly released?
General Myers. An excellent question, sir. I can tell you,
sir, we have been meeting for the last 48 hours or so, and our
sole focus has been on the issue at hand. The QDR word has not
come up once, and I regret that I do not have a good answer for
you. I think, since that is the Secretary of Defense's product;
I know he has been totally consumed by the current situation,
we can get an answer for the record for you. I am sure he is
thinking about that probably about now as well, but I do not
have an answer for you.
[The information referred to follows:]
The Quadrennial Defense Review Report was publicly released
September 30, 2001.
Senator Reed. Just a final question, which goes back to the
events of last Tuesday. This was a national tragedy of
historical proportions. It seems to me in a very narrow point
of force projection that, in terms of the Pentagon, a major
military facility, you had absolutely no advance warning that
such an attack was being contemplated, or planned, or executed,
is that correct?
General Myers. There was no strategic warning that this was
contemplated or planned, to the best of my knowledge.
Senator Reed. I presume, based on your discussion with
Senator Cleland, that this has been a source of almost
immediate examination and review by the Department of Defense
as to what could be done in the future to avoid this situation.
General Myers. Absolutely, and not just the Department of
Defense, but all the civil agencies as well that have intel
apparatus, given that they may have knowledge as well.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Reed.
Senator Collins.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General Myers,
let me join my colleagues in congratulating you on your
appointment, but I also want to express my sorrow and sympathy
to you. I realize all of you who work in the Pentagon have
friends and coworkers and associates that are missing, and it
must be a very difficult time for all of you, and I just want
to extend my sympathy and condolences to you.
General Myers. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Collins. In the priorities that you have submitted
to the committee in response to an advance question, you said
we should better define the military's role in homeland
security, and obviously, given the events of this week, we are
very happy to see that you have included that as a priority
under the 1986 Goldwater-Nichols law.
Most of the world has been divided up into geographic
areas, each assigned to a specific regional commander in chief,
the CINCs, who in time of crisis serve as the military's top
crisis manager or warfighter in that area. It is my
understanding, however, that the United States territory itself
is not thought of in those same terms. If we are going to
increase our focus on homeland defense, does that mean that we
should consider the possibility of treating our own country to
some extent as a military operational command, the way we have
divided the rest of the world?
General Myers. Senator Collins, I think the best way to
answer is that in a sense we have already done that. We have
the command United States Joint Forces Command (USJFC), which
is located in Norfolk. There is some exception with naval
forces and marine forces on the West Coast, but for the most
part the forces in the United States, the components of the
Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines report to the Joint Forces
Command.
In addition, we have within the last year-and-a-half stood
up a Joint Task Force (JTF) for civil support at USJFC which
has the responsibility of handling incidents of weapons of mass
destruction in these United States. On top of that, we have the
USSPACECOM, which has sovereignty over Canada and the United
States. I think what we need to do beyond that is, what I think
you are suggesting is, to determine if there is a larger role
for the DOD in handling potential incidents in the future, and
exactly what that role will be, and that is one that, as I have
indicated, I think will take a lot of debate.
If you remember the first time this was brought up to my
knowledge, and the debate was made public, there was a lot of
concern about the DOD getting into areas that were
traditionally those areas of civil responsibility. This is a
huge question. What do you want your United States military to
do for this country? We have been tip-toeing around that issue
for quite sometime.
My view is, this tragedy is going to help crystallize our
thoughts, and we will have some thoughtful debate and find a
way forward.
Senator Collins. It is a difficult issue, about the
military's appropriate role in our society, and I am struck by
the fact that the attacks we experienced this week are being
treated more as a matter of law enforcement. That the
Department of Justice, for example, is the lead agency, rather
than as an act of war, where the Department of Defense would
be, I would assume, the lead agency. Do you have any comments
on how we better define the role of the Department of Defense?
General Myers. Well, as I indicated earlier, it was on the
question of cyber warfare as well. It is the same issue as
this. Is it a civil law enforcement issue, or national
security? However you decide that question will decide who has
primary responsibility. This is the same issue. I think the
debate needs to occur, and we need to define our roles and
responsibilities probably in ways that we have not yet today.
I will tell you, though, that the cooperation among all the
departments and agencies of this Government has been absolutely
superb. Yes, this was a terrorist act, and the FBI and the
Department of Justice are working the evidentiary piece of
this, and that is appropriate. There are pieces being worked,
of course, by the Department of Defense and the United States
military, that are appropriate as well, and the cooperation
between all of these agencies and departments is very, very
good.
Senator Collins. General, I recall that after the terrorist
attack on the U.S.S. Cole, there was discussion that the
military's force protection planning, while quite comprehensive
and effective, had neglected part of the picture, that we had
been prepared for asymmetric threats from ashore when a vessel
was in a foreign port, but that we had not been properly
prepared for an attack from small harbor vessels, and in some
ways this came to mind when I thought about the attack on the
Pentagon.
It strikes me that a great deal of our force protection
efforts have focused upon ensuring the security of facilities
and military personnel overseas. Does what occurred this week
at the Pentagon suggest that the Department needs to refocus
its planning on force protection issues here in the United
States itself?
General Myers. Well, I think the answer to that is yes, and
I think some of that has already begun. I think the force
protection here in the United States has always been front and
center.
I know when I was at Peterson Field, Colorado, that was an
issue for us. We conducted exercises throughout all the bases
that were under our purview on just that very issue, and I know
those Services are doing the same. I think the United States
has just recently taken steps to start closing bases that were
formerly open to the public, and closing them in the sense that
you have go through an entrance procedure at a gate to meter
the flow in and the flow out. So I think there are steps being
taken.
To other comments, what the Cole showed us, as you
correctly described, Senator, is that there were some seams we
had not thought about. But, it goes to the larger issue of how
we deal with this in the first place. I will just tell you that
what will keep me awake at night in this job are those things
that we have not thought about. I mean, we have been surprised
before. We were certainly surprised on Tuesday.
There are probably more surprises out there, and my job,
and the job of the Armed Forces and everybody that supports us,
is to try to be as creative in our thinking as we can to try to
plug these seams and these gaps.
Having said that, we are deployed worldwide to do this
Nation's bidding is we know that we will never be 100 percent
effective, but what we ought to answer to is, have we thought
about everything we can think about, are we doing all we can
possibly do, have we asked for the resources to do that, and if
I cannot say yes to that, then I am not doing my job.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Collins.
Before I call on Senator Bill Nelson, let me just make an
announcement for the information of members of the committee.
There will be a bus at the corner of 1st and C Streets at 6:30
this evening to take Members over to the Pentagon and to bring
them back, and please let the committee's Chief Clerk know if
you want to go.
Senator Bill Nelson.
Senator Bill Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General
Myers, Mrs. Myers, last week I moved into an apartment
overlooking the Pentagon. Tuesday morning, I was here in the
Capitol in a meeting with Senator Daschle, but my wife was at
our apartment and she witnessed the whole thing, and each
evening, as I have been home since then, I have witnessed the
very heroic efforts of a lot of people out there as I get up
periodically through the night, fitfully sleeping. My
congratulations to you.
Now, that leads to my question, to follow-up Senator
Collins' line of questioning. The second World Trade Tower was
hit shortly after 9:00, and the Pentagon was hit approximately
40 minutes later. That is approximately--you would know
specifically what the time line was. The crash that occurred in
Pennsylvania, after the Newark westbound flight was turned
around 180 degrees and started heading back to Washington, was
approximately an hour after the World Trade Center second
explosion.
You said earlier in your testimony that we had not
scrambled any military aircraft until after the Pentagon was
hit, and so my question would be, why?
General Myers. I think I had that right, that it was not
until then. I would have to go back and review the exact time
lines.
Senator Bill Nelson. Perhaps we want to do this in
executive session, but my question is an obvious one for not
only this committee, but for the executive branch and the
military establishment. If we knew that there was a general
threat of terrorist activity, which we did, and we suddenly
have two Trade Towers in New York being obviously hit by
terrorist activity, of commercial airliners taken off-course
from Boston to Los Angeles, then what happened to the response
of the defense establishment, once we saw the diversion of the
aircraft headed west from Dulles turning around 180 degrees,
and likewise, in the aircraft taking off from Newark, and in
flight turning 180 degrees, that is the question.
I leave it to you as to how you would like to answer it,
but we would like an answer.
General Myers. After the second tower was hit, I spoke to
the commander of NORAD, General Eberhart, and at that point I
think the decision was to start launching aircraft.
One of the things you have to understand, Senator, is that
in our posture right now, we have many fewer aircraft on alert
than we did during the height of the Cold War, so we have just
a few bases around the perimeter of the United States, and so
it is not just a question of launching aircraft, it is
launching to do what? You have to have a specific threat. We
are pretty good if the threat is coming from outside. We are
not so good if the threat is coming from inside.
In this case, I will have to get back to you for the
record. My memory said that we had launched on the one that
eventually crashed in Pennsylvania. We had gotten somebody
close to it, as I recall. I will have to check that out.
[The information referred to follows:]
At 0846 EDT, American Airlines Flight 11 impacts the North Tower of
the World Trade Center (WTC). At 0852 EDT, two F-15 aircraft from Otis
AFB, MA, launched and were directed to establish a Combat Air Patrol
(CAP) over New York City. At 0902 EDT, United Airlines Flight 175
impacted the South Tower of the WTC. At this time, the two F-15
aircraft were 71 miles away. At 0930, two F-16 aircraft launched from
Langley AFB, VA, and were directed to establish a CAP over Washington,
DC. At 0937 EDT, American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon.
At this time the F-16s were 120 miles away. The F-16s established a
defensive CAP over Washington, DC, at approximately 0950 EDT. At 1010
EDT, United Airlines Flight 93 crashed in Somerset, PA.
General Myers. I do not recall if that was the case for the
one that had taken off from Dulles, but part of it is just
where we are positioned around this country to do that kind of
work, because that was never--and it goes back to Senator
Collins' issue. This is one of the things that we are worried
about. What is next? But our posture today is not one of the
many sites, and the many tens of aircraft on alert. We just
have a handful today.
Senator Bill Nelson. That is one that we need to talk about
together as we get prepared for the future.
General Myers. Yes, sir.
Senator Bill Nelson. Because we know of a new kind of
threat now, unfortunately.
My second question is this. You were talking about--
particularly from your experience, which I greatly value,
having been the Space Command--our surveillance assets, and the
necessity of having those assets there and working, and being
able to get those assets to orbit.
We have a risk factor of catastrophe on such launch
vehicles like the Titan down to about 1 in 20. In the old days,
when we first started launching, it was 1 in 5, but it is 1 in
20, and that may necessitate the only other access to space
that we have, which is the manned vehicle.
I bring this up to you because just last week I was invited
to have, as a member of the Science, Space and Technology
Subcommittee of the Commerce Committee, a hearing on space
shuttle safety. The essence of the hearing, and the unanimity
of the five witnesses, was that the NASA budget has been
starved sufficiently over the years and presently, such that
space shuttle safety will be severely compromised in the
future, not today, but in the future, and so I wanted you to
know the conclusion of that hearing because in your new
capacity as Chairman, it is clearly in your interest that you
have reliable access to space when you need it, and although
your payloads are configured for expendable booster rockets,
should that access to space ever go down, you would need that
backup, even though there would be some considerable time delay
because of reconfiguration of the payloads, and so I would
certainly commend you to have your folks start checking into
this.
I think, because of the actions of the tragedy of this
week, that we are going to be able to now turn around that
budget and start getting the shuttle upgrades over the course
of the next 5 years in place in order to give the United States
that reliable access to space that we have in the space
transportation system.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Nelson.
General Myers, just a very brief request. When I asked you
what time it was that the FAA or the FBI notified the Defense
Department after the two crashes into the World Trade Center,
and you did not know the time, could you ask someone on your
staff to try to get us that time so that we will have that
either for this session here, or for the executive session?
General Myers. Mr. Chairman, I just did that.
Senator Bill Nelson. Mr. Chairman, may I just for the
record, commenting from CNN on the timeline, 9:03 is the
correct time that the United Airlines flight crashed into the
South Tower of the World Trade Center, 9:43 is the time that
American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, and
10:10 a.m. is the time that United Airlines Flight 93 crashed
in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, so that was 40 minutes
between the second tower being hit and the Pentagon crash, and
it is an hour and 7 minutes until the crash occurred in
Pennsylvania.
Chairman Levin. The time that we do not have is when the
Pentagon was notified, if they were, by the FAA, or the FBI, or
any other agency, relative to any potential threat, or any
planes having changed direction, or anything like that, and
that is the time that you will give us.
General Myers. I can answer that. At the time of the first
impact on the World Trade Center, we stood up our crisis action
team. That was done immediately, and so we stood it up, and we
started talking to the Federal agencies. The time I do not know
is when NORAD responded with the fighter aircraft. I do not
know what time.
Chairman Levin. Or the time that I asked you for, which is
whether the FAA or FBI notified you that other planes had
turned direction from their scheduled path, and were returning
or aiming towards Washington, whether there was any notice from
any of them, because that is such an obvious shortfall if there
was not.
In any event, more important, if you could get us that
information.
General Myers. I was not in the Pentagon at that time, so
that part of it is a little hazy. After that, we started
getting regular notifications through NORAD, FAA to NORAD on
other flights that we were worried about, and knew about the
one that crashed in Pennsylvania. I do not know, again, whether
we had fighters scrambled on it.
Chairman Levin. Senator Bunning is next.
Senator Bunning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I join with my
colleagues in thanking you and your wife for your service to
our country.
Tuesday's tragic events have again reminded us of the
importance of a continuous vigilance in the defense of this
Nation. You will have a very large job ahead of you to protect
this great Nation from this and other threats. I look forward
to working with you and your colleagues to fulfill our
constitutional responsibility to protect our country.
I want to get on to some other things that have not been
discussed. Many air power advocates believe air power alone can
accomplish our defense goals. They believe that ground and sea
power should be minimalized at best. General Billy Mitchell
subscribed to this kind of thinking, yet in every bombing
campaign we have engaged in, our initial bombing asset
assessments were more optimistic than when it was actually
accomplished.
No one here denies we should be the supreme commanders of
the air. However, air power is just one component of the combat
power. To be able to respond to all threats, we must have a
balanced and combined armed forces. We must assert sea and land
power as well as air power. The administration has heavily
pushed air and space power. This is fine, because we need to
continue improving our capabilities, but I am a bit concerned
there are some who believe we can simply fight battles and wars
with cruise missiles and laser-guided bombs.
General Myers, how do you view the role of air power and
all the other components that make up our Armed Services?
General Myers. Senator, the United States needs the
capability that all our Services bring to our Armed Forces, and
I will just simply say that we cannot do without----
Senator Bunning. Do you subscribe to the fact that we can
bring people to submission just with air power?
General Myers. I think it is going to take a balance of all
our capabilities. One particular scenario may lend itself more
to ground power than to air power. One scenario might be more
air power dominant than ground power or naval power. That does
not mean you do not need all those elements, so the President
can have the flexibility to do what the objectives of the
mission call for. So, I do not subscribe to just one element of
our service power as adequate.
Chairman Levin. Senator Bunning, would you withhold just
for one moment? My estimate of when our executive session will
start is now 5:00, because there are six Senators here who have
at least the first round, so that is my best estimate as to
when we will initiate that executive session, and Senator Ben
Nelson, I have asked if he will now chair, so excuse the
interruption, Senator Bunning.
Senator Bunning. Tuesday's tragic events highlighted to us
the threat posed by terrorism. For some time there has been a
debate in academic circles and among the counterterrorism
community as to whether the proper response to acts of
terrorism should be a legal one, or threatening them as crimes,
or military, treating them as acts of war. Which do you believe
is the proper way to respond to acts of terrorism, whether
abroad or here in our country?
General Myers. Senator, this is an issue a little bit
outside the military's lane, in the sense it is a policy and a
political decision.
Senator Bunning. Do you mean the military is not political,
General? Is that what you are telling me?
General Myers. Senator, I hope we are not political. What
we need to do is provide the President the best military advice
that we can.
Senator Bunning. What I am getting at is, we do not want
the end result of a terrorist attack on the United States to be
handled in court, because we believe it is an act of war. Now,
if it is an act of war, the military should be involved in
determining how the punishment should be dealt out through the
administration's use of the military. We surely do not want any
terrorist you could think of to use a court system rather than
a military solution to an act of terrorism, whether it be
against U.S.S. Cole, or whether it be against the Pentagon.
General Myers. I think the President has said it exactly
right. We will essentially use all elements of national power
to thwart this aggression, and that includes the use of the
United States military.
Senator Bunning. Would you call this an act of war, then,
or not?
General Myers. Again, I do not want to get into the
semantics of whether it is an act of war. I mean, we can get
wrapped around a legal----
Senator Bunning. That is what I am afraid of.
General Myers. I am not for doing that. I am for responding
exactly as our national command authorities want us to respond,
and if they make a decision that it is appropriate to use U.S.
military force, I absolutely support that.
Senator Bunning. The horrific acts against us on Tuesday
will obviously require a reassessment of our defense
priorities. If confirmed, what action would you take to ensure
the security of our Nation, of our Armed Forces from terrorist
attacks?
General Myers. Senator, some of the ones we have already
talked about, but I think we need to look really closely at our
intelligence capabilities, our ability to analyze the
information we get. We get a lot of information. It is the
ability to analyze it, I think, and disseminate it in a timely
manner that makes the difference.
I think we need to look at our communications as well, and
again I go back to the other issue of homeland security,
homeland defense. There are a lot of unanswered questions in
this area that we just have to wrestle to the ground. We cannot
keep putting this off or we will not be prepared in the future.
Senator Bunning. Thank you. My time has expired.
Senator Ben Nelson. According to the chairman, who has
departed, I am next in line, and so it may serve a useful
purpose to call upon myself. But first, I would ask unanimous
consent that the written statement of Senator Thurmond be
included in the record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Thurmond follows:]
Prepared Statement by Senator Strom Thurmond
Thank you, Mr. Chairman:
Mr. Chairman, I want to extend my deepest sympathy to the grieving
families throughout the United States on their tragic losses from the
heinous attack on the United States by a group of terrorists. Life in
our great Nation will never be the same. However, I am confident that
this tragedy will make us stronger and more resolute to defend our
democracy and life style.
Mr. Chairman, I applaud your decision to hold this hearing. It
reflects the resolve that is found throughout our Nation to carry on
the functions of government, the economy, and life and not succumb to
the terrorist. It is especially important that we act on General Myers'
nomination to ensure our Armed Services to have the continuity of
leadership to carry the fight to the home bases of the terrorist
wherever they may be.
General Myers, despite the tragic event of Tuesday, I want to
extend my congratulations on your nomination to be the next Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The challenges ahead of you will be immense,
however, I am confident you are prepared to meet them. I pledge you my
support and wish you success.
Senator Ben Nelson. General Myers and Mrs. Myers, I
certainly appreciate very much your public service and your
commitment to the United States and to our country and to our
citizens. I welcome you in advance of your confirmation to this
very important position that you will occupy.
I was looking very carefully at your biography to determine
whether or not you had been stationed at Offutt to claim you as
a Nebraskan. Somewhere along the line you may have escaped
Offutt, but I am sure you visited there on occasion, and that
is close enough.
General Myers. Absolutely, Senator, many times.
Senator Ben Nelson. The acts of Tuesday have probably in
the most indelible way framed the issue for us for the future,
and that is that national security requires that we be prepared
both internationally and internally.
There are those who would suggest that, as Senator Collins
and Senator Bunning and others have said, we make certain that
we not treat the acts of this week as some sort of a legal or
criminal matter alone, that they must, in fact, be dealt with
as a military matter with a military response to this
situation.
I am one of those. I believe we need to. I think it is
important that we do the forensic work to establish the
particulars of what happened here, and I commend those who are
doing that. As a matter of fact, it leads me into the area of
cooperation internally that I think may set, if you will, the
protocol, if not the framework for internal national security.
Before I do that, I note with some irony that it is
important to document all of the time frames by using our most
able informant, CNN, about the time frame and other
particulars, but as we look at how we can bring together the
intelligence community, as well as the military establishment
and our law enforcement agencies, the FBI, the Justice
Department, it is important to point out that the FBI is
recognized and has stated four separate situations where the
military is most likely to be called upon to assist in the
domestic law enforcement situation, which involves: either a
threat or an act of terrorism, including weapons of mass
destruction terrorism, one to provide technical support and
assistance to law enforcement and other crisis response
personnel--obviously, I think that is being undertaken--
interdicting an event and apprehending those responsible,
restoring law and order following an incident, and then
finally, abating the consequences of a terrorist act.
I hope that I am learning from you today not only your
reaction to the events of this week, not only your
determination and commitment, but perhaps some idea of what you
would take, what you would bring to the table to bring about
the kind of protection that we are looking for today to
preserve our security for internal national defense as well as
for international, national defense.
Is there anything you have not said about that, that you
might say to help us come to terms with the importance of it,
and perhaps some general thoughts about what can be done?
General Myers. Obviously, the importance of it is very
high, and I think I would just go back to defining DOD's role
inside the United States. That is one that legitimately
requires very serious debate.
I think the one thing we must do is continue to enhance our
intelligence capabilities, not just inside the military, but in
the civil agencies as well.
Senator Ben Nelson. If it is not predictable, it is not
protectable.
General Myers. In some cases, that is true. In some cases,
probably in many cases, that is true. So, that is again where I
would focus our efforts. I think this review we have ongoing,
on the whole intelligence community, is appropriate, and I
think they will pick up on this and probably come out with some
really good recommendations on how we can do a better job of
coordinating and cooperating.
The human side of our intelligence collection has been
bolstered in recent years but could probably be bolstered some
more. We just have to look at this whole spectrum of, when we
gather all this information, how we can quickly analyze it and
get it to people that need to know it. My personal view is, we
are not as good as we need to be? Not because of this recent
incident, but previous things that I have seen that indicate
that we really need to work on that issue as well. So, that
would primarily be where I would focus my efforts.
Senator Ben Nelson. I have confidence in your ability to do
this, particularly in the military setting, because whether it
is true or not, I think the general public perception is, the
military knows how to cooperate without stepping all over
itself. At least you have given us that impression. I hope the
reality is the same, even in spite of some exceptions, but it
would seem that if there is any hope for it to occur, that you
will be able to bring it about.
General Myers. Senator Nelson, I think we can do that.
Senator Ben Nelson. I thank you. Senator Hutchinson is
next.
Senator Hutchinson. Thank you, Senator Nelson.
General Myers, congratulations. I am very pleased to
support your nomination, and we have listened to Kansas,
Missouri, Colorado, Nebraska, and Oklahoma all try to claim
you. If Arkansas could, we would. I cannot, but I am very
pleased to support your nomination. I know you will do a
wonderful job, and thank you for your service to our Nation.
I know some of my colleagues are going out to the Pentagon
later today. I went out earlier today, and I join those who
have been out there and those who have seen the work that is
going on in commending those brave responders and those who are
risking their lives. It is still an unstable situation, and I
do not have reservations about the FBI being the lead on this
and the Department of Justice, because I, like Senator Nelson,
believe that we have to have the forensic, we have to have the
evidentiary base in order for the military to take an action,
for the commander in chief to order action, and I am convinced
that when we have that, indeed, there will be a military
response to the attack upon our Nation.
I want to present a little scenario to you. What happened
at the twin towers, while unprecedented in magnitude, is not
unprecedented in the type of attack. As a Nation, we have had
Oklahoma City, we have had attacks upon towers, the twin
towers, we have had experience in plane crashes, and so while
this is a national tragedy of unprecedented proportions, it is
not unprecedented in the type of situation that we are dealing
with, excavating and trying to uncover bodies. With the
understanding that there is an ongoing debate as to the proper
role of the military in protecting from domestic terrorist
attack, if this attack had been, instead of airliners, flying
bombs piercing the Pentagon, and piercing these towers, if the
attack had been--and I think the estimate is it could be up to
50 people who were coconspirators or participants in this.
If there had been 50 people going into 50 U.S. cities
carrying briefcases with biological pathogens, biological
weapons, what would have been the consequences, and how
vulnerable are we, and how prepared are we in your considered
opinion?
General Myers. Well, again, this is a hypothetical, but in
the scenario you painted I think we are vulnerable, and I think
the consequences could be great.
Senator Hutchinson. Indeed, I agree. We are talking tens of
thousands, which is absolutely unimaginable tragedy for our
Nation. Our vulnerability to a biological or chemical attack
could result in millions of victims, or to put it in military
terms, had it been a private jet, a general aviation aircraft
loaded with biological weapons, flying into the Pentagon, are
we prepared, would we have had protection in that situation?
General Myers. Limited protection, but obviously, there are
a lot of folks around the Pentagon.
Senator Hutchinson. I was very pleased, in the advance
questions, by your response to the issue of vaccine production.
You said, I support establishing a long-term reliable national
vaccine production capability. The Department of Defense has a
long-term need for reliable sources of FDA-approved vaccines
for any biological health threat that may impact our soldiers,
sailors, airmen, and marines now and in the future. I
appreciate that, and I think that commitment is absolutely
essential.
You said earlier in your comments--you speak to anthrax,
but you also expand that to recognizing that there are a lot of
biological threats to force protection that confront us. What
concerns me is that while we have a terrible shortage in
vaccines now, we are not able to protect our men and women in
uniform, that the estimates, if we go with the Government Owned
Contractor Operated (GOCO) if the determination is that is the
best way for us to address this, we are still talking years.
I think we have to do better. I think we have to place a
higher priority on that. We have to protect against this
threat, and the added benefit of that kind of production
capability will be to, I think, also provide protection to the
American people, who are equally vulnerable, so I thank you for
your commitment to that. I want to urge that it be given a
priority under your leadership, and that we expedite it to the
extent possible.
We spend hours, and we did during defense authorization, on
missile defense. I do not object to that, but we need to debate
it. That is a serious issue that there is a lot of pros and
cons we spend relatively little time talking about what we
ought to be doing in the National commitment on vaccine
production, and the cost, compared to missile defense, is
minuscule.
Any response or comment?
General Myers. Senator Hutchinson, the only response is
that this particular issue has been highlighted, again, in the
DPG and in the QDR. I think it is a recognized shortfall,
speaking largely now about the inability to confront weapons of
mass destruction, including chemical and biological, that will
get attention and increased resources. That is the intention at
this point.
Senator Hutchinson. Thank you, General.
Senator Ben Nelson. Senator Dayton.
Senator Dayton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General Myers, I
share the admiration of my colleagues for your many years of
very, very distinguished service to our Nation, and I also want
to express my admiration for your candor and directness in your
replies here today.
In the 8 months I have been a Senator, in all the meetings
I have sat through, your candor and directness stands out first
among them all in marked contrast to some of the difficulties
in getting candid and direct answers from others in the last 48
or 60 hours, I would say, particularly, so thank you very much.
I think that bodes very well for the working relationship you
will have with the members of this body.
In response to one of Senator Carnahan's questions, you
brought up the role of the National Guard, which Minnesota has
both the components of. We have Reserves as well, among other
things, who certainly stand ready and willing to serve their
country and have done so admirably, but who have expressed to
me some concerns about their future assignments, which are now
extending to as much as 5 months or so. Could you just
outline--and I realize we have limited time to cover that whole
terrain, but with the appropriate roles, as you alluded to, of
those respective components?
General Myers. I think we can state today that for the
Armed Forces of the United States to carry out their missions
around the world we cannot do it without the Reserve component,
both the Reserve Forces and the National Guard forces. We just
cannot do it.
I will also say that I think each Service has worked very
hard to mitigate the impact on the lives of our Reserve
component individuals so they can contribute. So, it does not
destroy their job and their lives that they were leading.
We probably have not done that perfectly, and that will
continually need to be evaluated, but they are absolutely
essential to our conduct of our missions today.
Senator Dayton. Thank you. I was intrigued by your answer
on page 20 of your response about, you believe it is in the
national security interest of the United States that all land-
based ICBMs be de-MIRVed. You said there are no significant
military advantages to the elimination of MIRVed land-based
ICBMs, which has particular relevance given President Putin's
comments that that might be a Soviet response to us pulling out
of the ABM Treaty. Can you elaborate on that, sir?
General Myers. As I recall that question, I think I was
talking about the significance of U.S. missiles. We have de-
MIRVed some under previous agreements, and we still have some
that are MIRVed.
Senator Dayton. Maybe I am misinterpreting. Is this because
the question that preceded that said, referred to the Russians,
that they may not de-Multiple Independently-Targetable Reentry
Vehicle (MIRV), and you pointed out that that START II Treaty
is not in force, so they are not required to do so, so maybe I
misunderstood.
Let me just rephrase it, then, and say, would that be of
strategic and security concern to the United States, if Russia
took the position that it would not de-MIRV its nuclear
warheads in response to something such as withdrawing from the
ABM Treaty?
General Myers. I do not think the issue of whether they are
MIRVed or de-MIRVed is really the issue. The issue to me would
be, first of all, what is our strategic relationship with
Russia. Today, I think it is quite different than what it was,
obviously, during the Cold War. The second point would be that
it would be the overall levels of warheads that would be of
concern.
The missile defense system is conceived as one of limited
defense. So, whether they are MIRVed or de-MIRVed there is not
really an issue about overwhelming defenses, because it will
probably never be the case that we will have a defense against
a large attack. I would be more concerned with the total number
of warheads that are on delivery vehicles in accordance with
presidential guidance, trying to take that to the lowest level
possible consistent with our national security needs.
Senator Dayton. Finally, I was very impressed with your
statement about the lessons you learned in your previous
positions. You said first the Armed Forces are not made up of
people, rather that the people are the Armed Forces. Sometimes
we lose that focus. I thought that was very well-stated, and
very appropriately so.
This committee in my brief time here has focused itself on
meeting some of the needs that have not been sufficiently
addressed in support of the men and women who make up our Armed
Forces. I know that the authorization bill we are going to be
acting on next week will take a further step forward. What else
can we do, or must we do, to provide the kind of support they
deserve?
General Myers. I think, Senator, I absolutely agree with
you. We have made great strides, and this committee has led the
charge. In fact, Congress has led the charge in making sure
that we have appropriate pay. We have worked some housing
issues. We have worked medical benefits. These are issues,
though, that if you do not keep working them they are going
backwards. So, pay comparability is an issue we need to
continue to work, and you saw the fiscal year 2002, the bill
you have just all worked very hard on. That was the big issue.
The housing issue is not only the adequacy of the housing
that we provide, but the housing pay to our folks to make sure
there are not exhorbitant out-of-pocket expenses for the
housing needs. Then I would say access to medical care
continues to be an issue. As we try to find that right balance
between what we do in-service and what we do with managed care,
I am sure your constituents have probably told you there are
issues of access there that we need to continue to work.
Senator Dayton. Thank you very much. I am assured that you
will help us to make sure we do not go backward, but also that
we can move forward, and also to apply that consideration to
the Reserves as well, and the National Guard, the men and women
who make those up.
General Myers. Any time I talk about our Armed Forces I am
talking about the total team, which includes, by the way, those
civilians, those Department of Defense civilians, some of whom
were tragically killed in the recent attack on the Pentagon. We
are one team.
Senator Dayton. Well-stated. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Ben Nelson. Senator Sessions.
Senator Sessions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congratulations,
General Myers. It is a great honor to be given this high post,
and I know that you will give your very best to it. I also
congratulate your wife, and both of you for your great career
together. Everybody wants to claim a piece of your background.
I certainly will. I note that you attended Maxwell Air War
College in Montgomery, Alabama, and earned your master's degree
from America's great university, Auburn University, so we are
delighted to see you receive this great and high honor.
I was at the Pentagon yesterday and during the course of
that had the opportunity to talk to a lieutenant colonel who
was in his office when the plane hit on that very side. He said
he was blown across the room, up against the wall. He went
outside and realized just how bad it was, and he and a sergeant
broke out a window and went back in. He described one person
coming out all in flames that they had to put down and put the
fire out.
That gentleman was saying over and over again, there are
others in there, please go back and help those who are in
there, and they went back repeatedly until the fire marshall
told them not to go back in. This is the kind of courage,
commitment, and dedication to unity and to one another that I
think is characteristic of our Armed Forces, and I do believe
we have the greatest Armed Forces in the world, and I know that
you are very honored to be able to lead that.
General Myers. Definitely, Senator.
Senator Sessions. I thought I would just ask you a few
questions that are real fundamental, and will go to your
challenges in your job, not unlike what you and I discussed
when you came by for a visit, and that is basically about our
budget.
President Bush this year is proposing, and will achieve, I
believe, a $38 billion increase in our defense budget from
$290-something last year to nearly $330 billion this year with
a supplemental in between, and so it is a major increase.
However, we have committed to do more for our men and women in
uniform, their pay and benefits, and much more needs to be
addressed.
It is distressing to me, and I will ask you if you will
agree, that even with this largest increase we have had in over
a decade, we still are not able to do as much as we need to be
doing to recapitalize our aircraft, our ships, and our Army and
Marine equipment.
General Myers. Senator Sessions, that is absolutely the
case. The account, the modernization account, if you will, has
for a lot of this past decade been used to ensure current
readiness and current operations. So, we borrowed from that
account to make sure that we were ready to do what we have to
do today.
We are reaching the point now where our shipbuilding
accounts, our aircraft modernization accounts, our Army
transformation accounts are short, and the average age of our
aircraft continues to go up. Things are just getting older. The
consequences of that are that it costs more to maintain them,
and that they are not always as ready as we want them to be
when we have to call upon them.
That is a major challenge, how to balance our modernization
and transformation needs with our current readiness needs and
our personnel needs, the three major elements of our budget. So
I agree with you, that is the challenge. That is one of the
things that I feel I have to focus on, and have to provide
advice to the Secretary as required to do so.
Senator Sessions. As Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, I would
suggest long-term service to the Department of Defense. That
would be your greatest challenge, would you agree, how to
handle our transformation and recapitalization?
General Myers. Yes, Senator, it has to be right up there. I
would mention one other, and that is to make sure that the
national security strategy, the national military strategy, and
our defense strategy are in balance with the force structure
that we have to do the job. It kind of goes hand-in-hand with
what you are talking about, but those are probably the biggest
challenges.
Senator Sessions. Well, I think that is well said, so let
us look at this. I have heard several talking heads in the last
several days say this terrorist attack is what we are going to
see in the future. It is the 21st century war. I believe
Secretary Rumsfeld has said something like that.
We know that does not mean there will not be any other kind
of war, so we have to be prepared for others, but it certainly
I think has an element of the truth to it, that we are in an
asymmetric threat situation that presents new and unique
challenges different from the time when we faced the Russians
on the plains of Europe.
Question: do you think the leaders of the services fully
understand that we do need to make a transformation? Do they
also understand that there will not be as much money as we
would like to have to hold onto everything that we may like to
do, and is there enough commitment within the uniformed
services to make the transformations that will be painful at
times to get us ready to handle the threats we will be seeing
in the future?
General Myers. Senator Sessions, you know as well as I do,
the Service Chiefs, members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that I
have been with, here, for the last year and a half, are the
best this country has to offer. They are very smart men, and
they understand very well the challenges of the future. They
understand the need to modernize. They understand the need to
transform their capabilities to be responsive to the asymmetric
threats that we have faced and that we will face, and I think
they are absolutely the right ones to do that.
The question is always, this is a tough balance between
today's problem and tomorrow's challenge, and it is one--I
mean, we wrestle with every day, but they are absolutely the
right people to do it, and they are committed to do it.
Senator Sessions. I think you are going to have to lead
that, and at times some are going to have to give up the
cherished dreams for their service. Some of us in Congress may
have to find some more money than we actually have been able to
find so far, and even with this large increase, it is still not
enough, so I think it is going to take a combination of change,
refitting for the future.
I believe Secretary Rumsfeld is doing the right thing. I
think he has to challenge the old-established thinking. I hope
you will help him in that.
General Myers. Sir, I will. I am committed to that as well.
Senator Sessions. Thank you.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Sessions. OK, it is
5:00. We are going to move to Hart 219, which is out that door,
and we will ask those Senators who are within the sound of my
voice to come there. Secretary Wolfowitz is I believe within
earshot, and we will notify him.
One other important announcement which is going to affect
the length of this executive session. There is going to be a
5:20 roll call vote on the Harkin amendment on the Commerce,
State, Justice Appropriations Bill, which means we are going to
have perhaps a half-hour for our executive session, so we are
going to begin immediately.
[Whereupon, at 5:04 p.m. the committee adjourned.]
[Prepared questions submitted to Gen. Richard B. Myers,
USAF, by Chairman Levin prior to the hearing with answers
supplied follow:]
The Vice Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
Washington, DC, Sept. 10, 2001.
The Hon. Carl Levin, Chairman,
Senate Armed Services Committee,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am greatly honored by the President's
confidence in nominating me as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff. I pledge my full support to our Nation, the President, Congress,
the Secretary of Defense, and the men and women of our Armed Forces.
My responses to the questions of your 5 September 2001 letter are
attached.
Sincerely,
Richard B. Myers,
General, USAF.
Attachment:
Question Responses.
cc: Senator John Warner,
Ranking Member.
______
Questions and Responses
defense reforms
Question. Almost 15 years have passed since the enactment of the
Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and
the Special Operations reforms. You have previously answered the
committee's policy questions on this subject in connection with your
nominations to be Commander in Chief, U.S. Space Command and Vice
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Has your view of the importance, implementation, and practice of
these reforms changed since you testified on October 27, 1999?
Answer. No. My views have not changed. I still believe that the
defense reforms initiated by Goldwater-Nichols were the appropriate
antidote. Today, the reforms have strengthened the warfighting
capabilities of our combatant commands by facilitating our evolution
into a truly joint force.
Question. Do you foresee the need for additional modifications of
Goldwater-Nichols in light of the changing environment and possible
revisions to the national security strategy? If so, what areas do you
believe it might be appropriate to address in these modifications?
Answer. I believe Goldwater-Nichols has provided the necessary
flexibility to allow us to conduct business the way we should--jointly.
There are some necessary mechanical issues related to joint officer
management and joint professional military education that must be
addressed.
Question. Based upon your experience as Commander in Chief, U.S.
Space Command and Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, do you
believe that the roles of the combatant commanders and the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff under the Goldwater-Nichols legislation are
appropriate and that the policies and procedures in existence allow
those roles to be fulfilled?
Answer. Yes.
duties
Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff?
Answer. The Chairman is the principal military advisor to the
National Command Authorities (NCA) and National Security Council (NSC),
as established by Title 10. The Chairman is just that--the principal
military advisor--and not, according to the law, in the chain of
command that runs from the NCA directly to each combatant commander.
The law allows the President to direct that communications between the
NCA and the Combatant commanders be transmitted through the Chairman.
The current Unified Command Plan (UCP) directs this method of
communication, as have all the UCPs since Goldwater-Nichols was
enacted. This method of transmission of information ensures that the
Chairman is fully involved so that he can provide the NCA with his best
military advice.
Question. What background and experience do you possess that you
believe qualifies you to perform these duties?
Answer. The United States military has fully prepared me for this
position through myriad duty assignments working with the greatest
soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and coastguardsmen in the world.
During my career, I have commanded at the squadron, weapons school,
wing, numbered air force, major, subunified, and unified command
levels. I served as the Assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff where I gained an even greater understanding of Washington's
interagency processes. Of course, during the last year and a half I
have served as the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, working
under the superb leadership and guidance of Hugh Shelton, and dealing
with the full spectrum of issues and crises I can expect to face should
I be confirmed as the Chairman.
Question. Do you believe that there are actions you need to take to
enhance your ability to perform the duties of the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff?
Answer. No.
Question. Do you expect the President to continue to direct that
communications to the combatant commanders be transmitted through you,
if you are confirmed as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff?
Answer. This time-tested method of communication is critical to the
Chairman's ability to fulfill his statutory role and responsibilities
as principal military advisor to the NCA and NSC. The Chairman must be
kept informed and this is the most effective way to do it. This
communications process is equally critical to the Chairman's ability to
perform other NCA-assigned responsibilities such as assisting the NCA
in the performance of their command functions, overseeing the
activities of the combatant commands, and serving as spokesman for the
combatant commanders especially on the operational requirements of
their commands.
Question. Do you expect the Secretary of Defense to continue to
assign responsibilities for overseeing the activities of the combatant
commands to you, if you are confirmed as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff?
Answer. This is a critical role and is provided for in current DOD
directives.
relationships
Question. Section 151(b) of title 10, United States Code, provides
that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is the principal
military adviser to the President, the National Security Council, and
the Secretary of Defense. Other sections of law and traditional
practice, however, establish important relationships.
Please describe your understanding of the relationship of the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the following officials:
a. The Deputy Secretary of Defense.
Answer. Under existing directives, the Deputy Secretary of Defense
has been delegated full power and authority to act for the Secretary of
Defense on any matters which the Secretary is authorized to act. As
such, the relationship of the Chairman to the Deputy Secretary is
similar to that with the Secretary.
Question. b. The Under Secretaries of Defense.
Answer. Title 10, United States Code, and current DOD directives
establish the Under Secretaries of Defense as the principal staff
assistants and advisors to the Secretary regarding matters related to
their functional areas. Within their areas, Under Secretaries exercise
policy and oversight functions. In discharging their responsibilities,
the Under Secretaries may issue instructions and directive memoranda
that implement policy approved by the Secretary. These instructions and
directives are applicable to all DOD components. They may also obtain
reports and information necessary to carry out their functions. As with
other communications between the NCA and combatant commanders,
communications between the Under Secretaries and combatant commanders
should be transmitted through the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff.
Question. c. The Assistant Secretaries of Defense.
Answer. With the exception of the Assistant Secretaries of Defense
for C\3\I, Public Affairs, Legislative Affairs, and Intelligence
Oversight, all Assistant Secretaries of Defense are subordinate to one
of the Under Secretaries of Defense. This means any relationship with
an Assistant Secretary of Defense would be through the Under Secretary
of Defense for Policy, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology
and Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller/Chief Financial Officer).
Since the Assistant Secretaries of Defense for C\3\I, Public Affairs
and Legislative Affairs are the Secretary's principal staff assistants
and advisors for matters within their functional areas, relations
between the Chairman and ASD(C\3\I), ASD(PA) and ASD(LA) would be
conducted along the same lines as those discussed above regarding
relations with the various Under Secretaries of Defense.
Question. d. The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Answer. Title 10, United States Code, section 154(c) states that
the Vice Chairman performs the duties prescribed for him as a member of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff as well as those duties prescribed by the
Chairman, with the approval of the Secretary of Defense. If confirmed,
I do not foresee making significant changes to the duties currently
carried out by the Vice Chairman. In addition to the duties as a member
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Vice Chairman serves on the
Chairman's behalf as the Chairman of the Joint Requirements Oversight
Council (JROC) and is his representative to the National Security
Council Deputies Committee. Further, the Vice Chairman has the
responsibility to stay abreast of ongoing operations and policy
deliberations, so that he is able to provide appropriate military
advice to the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the NSC and also
act as Chairman in the Chairman's absence.
Question. e. The Secretaries of the Military Departments.
Answer. Title 10, United States Code, section 165 provides that,
subject to the authority, direction and control of the Secretary of
Defense, and subject to the authority of the combatant commanders, the
Secretaries of the Military Departments are responsible for the
administration and support of the forces they have assigned to
combatant commands. The Chairman, or the Vice Chairman when directed or
when acting as the Chairman, advises the Secretary of Defense on the
extent to which program recommendations and budget proposals of the
Military Departments conform with priorities in strategic plans and
with the priorities established for requirements of the combatant
commands.
Question. f. The Chiefs of Staff of the Services.
Answer. As a result of the Goldwater-Nichols Act, the Service
Chiefs are no longer involved in the operational chain of command. They
now have two significant roles. First and foremost, they are
responsible for the organization, training, and equipping of their
respective Service. With the full support and cooperation of the
Service Chiefs, the Combatant commanders can ensure the preparedness of
assigned forces for missions directed by the NCA. Next, as members of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Service Chiefs have a legal obligation
to provide military advice. Individually and collectively, the Joint
Chiefs are a source of experience and judgment for the Chairman, the
combatant commanders and the NCA. If confirmed, I will continue to work
closely and meet routinely with the Service Chiefs as we work together
to fulfill the warfighters' requirements.
Question. g. The Combatant Commanders.
Answer. The combatant commanders are the warfighters. By law and to
the extent directed by the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman serves as
spokesman for the combatant commanders and is charged with overseeing
their activities. He provides a vital linkage between the combatant
commanders and other elements of the Department of Defense. If
confirmed, I will have frequent dialogue with the CINCs and serve as
their advocate and spokesman.
transformation
Question. If confirmed, you will be assuming your duties as the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at a time of great expectations
for the transformation of our armed forces to meet new and emerging
threats.
Please explain what the term ``transformation'' means to you and
the role that technology and experimentation, including joint
experimentation, should play in transforming our armed forces?
Answer. Transformation is an on-going process for conceptualizing,
developing and fielding new combinations of operational concepts,
capabilities, organizational arrangements and training regimens that
provide U.S. joint forces with advantages that fundamentally change our
own, or render less effective others, ways of waging war. It is usually
evolutionary but can be revolutionary. Technology and material-based
solutions are only one element of transformation. True transformation
can only occur through a co-evolution of change recommendations within
all the critical joint force considerations of doctrine, organization,
training, material, leadership and education, personnel and facilities
(DOTMLPF). A comprehensive DOTMLPF approach is necessary to field and
employ future capabilities that fundamentally change and improve our
operational and warfighting effectiveness.
A key feature for the achieving joint transformation will be the
clear identification and delineation of the roles and responsibilities
of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Combatant Commands, the
Services, JFCOM and the Joint Staff to ensure unity of effort under the
Secretary of Defense.
Joint transformation also requires changes within the three
supporting processes of requirements generation, acquisition, and the
planning, programming, and budgeting system processes. Over the past
year, the military has made significant strides in the improvement of
the requirements generation process through the evolving strategic
integration role of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC).
The Requirements Generation System (RGS) process was shifted from a
threat-based system to a joint operational concept and capabilities-
based system. Additionally, the process was adapted to enable the
introduction and consideration of transformation initiatives from a
variety of sources, to include Joint and Service experimentation. The
Secretary of Defense is working hard to streamline the acquisition and
PPBS systems to facilitate transformation. Further, modernization is a
key part in the transformation equation.
Question. Are you confident that the defense review process, now
concluding, will outline a clear vision for transformation within the
Department and understandable mechanisms for measuring progress toward
accomplishing stated transformation goals?
Answer. The Secretary of Defense has received a comprehensive
overview of current transformation efforts and processes underway
within the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Combatant Commands,
JROC, JFCOM and the Services as a frame of reference. Significant
process reform has already been accomplished and the mechanisms to
nurture develop and eventually field new joint operational concepts and
capabilities are in place.
The defense review process does provide a solid foundation for
pursuing and achieving the joint and Service transformation desires of
the administration, Congress and the military Services. One of the many
challenges is the development of a comprehensive DOD strategy for the
transformation of the Defense Agencies and the military Services. Unity
of effort is essential with clear delineation of the roles and
responsibilities within all the Office of the Secretary of Defense,
Service, Combatant Command, Joint Staff and JFCOM initiatives to insure
the development of a more integrated and highly effective joint force.
Transformation is a long-term effort within an organizing construct
that defines the joint operational concepts, capabilities and process
metrics that will focus our efforts and enable us to measure progress.
joint force
Question. Retired Air Force General James McCarthy, who headed a
study on Defense Transformation for Secretary Rumsfeld, recently stated
that, ``Today we do not have a truly joint force'' and, ``The problem
is we have not identified a way to organize, train and equip joint
forces.''
How would you respond to those statements?
Answer. We have come a long way since 1985, but we still are not
where we need to be. The Services need to field truly `plug and play'
forces while JFCOM develops a functional, standardized joint force
headquarters so we all can work as a true joint team. Equipment needs
to be interoperable so we can share information and act decisively on
that information as a true joint team. We need to better integrate
Service specific training and joint command and control so we can train
as a true joint team like we fight. Of course, the military view of
jointness is not the absence of Service uniqueness. Instead the
approach to jointness within the U.S. military emphasizes the following
key elements:
it leverages service core competencies to produce a
comprehensive joint capability;
it relies on the integration of the Active and Reserve
components for a total joint force;
it is focused at the strategic and operational levels
of war;
it retains necessary redundancy with minimal
duplication of capability in Service provided forces; and
it effectively operates within the interagency and
multinational environments.
The current law and force planning development system uses the
military Services to organize, train, equip and provide joint-capable
forces to combatant commanders. The core competencies of each Service
reflect their unique capabilities and ensure continuation of both the
ethos and the means for future operational and warfighting success. As
we seek to transform the armed forces, we do not want to lose the
characteristics that have produced the world's premier warfighting
Services in their operational dimension. Our challenge is to develop a
future joint force with joint core competencies that enable, integrate
and employ Service, interagency and multinational core competencies for
the achievement of desired effects and outcomes.
The development of complementary joint and Service core
competencies will provide a basis for fielding a more capable,
effective and integrated future joint force from Service force
providers. In that effort we are also addressing joint processes and
standards across the critical joint force development considerations of
doctrine, organizations, training, material, leadership and education,
personnel, and facilities.
anthrax vaccination
Question. DOD officials have testified that anthrax is the greatest
biological weapon threat to our military force because it is highly
lethal, easy to produce in large quantities, and remains viable over
long periods of time. The anthrax vaccination program has been
curtailed because of limited quantities of FDA-approved vaccine.
Do you continue to support the policy of vaccinating our service
men and women to immunize them against the use of weaponized anthrax?
Answer. I strongly support any policy protecting our service
members against anything that puts them at risk. As you stated in the
question, and as was recently re-confirmed with our warfighting
commanders, anthrax is the agent of highest concern in biological
warfare. The pre-exposure vaccination program is the safest and most
effective countermeasure in existence today and is the medical
cornerstone of our integrated defense strategy to counter this very
real threat.
Question. If confirmed, will you support full implementation of the
Anthrax Vaccine Immunization Program if sufficient supplies of FDA-
approved anthrax vaccine become available?
Answer. Yes. The protection of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and
marines is a top priority. The vaccine is a safe and effective medical
pre-exposure countermeasure to anthrax. It's the right thing to do.
Question. The difficulty the Department has experienced in
procuring a reliable source of FDA-approved anthrax vaccine has
resulted in the Department examining alternative sources of the
vaccine, including the establishment of a government-owned, contractor-
operated production facility; a contractor-owned, contractor-operated
production facility; and other options.
If confirmed, would you support establishment of an additional
dedicated vaccine production facility (whether a GOCO or private
industry source)?
Answer. I support establishing a long-term, reliable national
vaccine production capability. The Department of Defense has a long
term need for reliable sources of FDA-approved vaccines for any
biological health threat that may impact our soldiers, sailors, airman,
and marines now and in the future. How it is done is a policy decision.
paradigm shift
Question. During Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz's August 8 and August
16 press conferences in which you participated, he referred to a
consensus on a ``very significant paradigm shift,'' which appears to
relate to changes in strategy, risk assessment, and warfighting
requirements.
Would you describe the elements of this ``very significant paradigm
shift'' and indicate the areas, such as force structure, that could be
impacted by it?
Answer. In the past, DOD focused on building a force capable of
defeating the threat posed by two, nearly simultaneous major theater
wars while also handling smaller scale contingencies. We essentially
sized our force to fight two very distant foes, Iraq and North Korea.
This approach has been overshadowed by the uncertainties of the
changing strategic landscape, and contributed to an imbalance between
our previous strategy and the force structure to execute that strategy.
The world continues to grow more dangerous and more complex, limiting
our ability to forecast who might be possible adversaries. This set of
circumstances requires the ``paradigm shift'' that the Deputy Secretary
of Defense referred to in his remarks. The Department will, I believe,
be recommending a new, broader strategy to address not only the need to
fight and decisively win major theater war, but also the growing need
to defend our territory. It will also account for myriad other tasks,
including small-scale contingencies, we have asked our forces to do.
These small-scale contingencies have been driving up the tempo of our
people and equipment. This also drives us to transition from a near
term, threat-based approach to a capabilities-based approach required
to execute a wider range of possible missions in the mid- and long-
term. This paradigm shift requires we address not only the warfighting
requirements for today, but simultaneously set the stage for building a
force that can deal with possible future scenarios that are not in our
current planning set. We must then carefully balance between
modernizing our current fleets of aging weapons systems and selectively
transforming the Department in ways that will allow us to successfully
address an entirely new set of threats in the future.
science and technology
Question. The fiscal year 2002 budget request remains short of the
Department's stated 3 percent goal for defense science and technology.
Do you believe that the request of $8.8 billion is adequate to meet
the military's need for innovative technologies?
Answer. To meet the 3 percent objective in fiscal year 2002 would
have required a total of $9.9 billion. The current program of $8.8
billion represents 2.7 percent of the total DOD budget. It reflects the
priorities established in the President's Blueprint Budget by providing
emphasis on rotorcraft technologies; unmanned underwater vehicle (UUV)
research; unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV) development; exploration
of technologies in support of the Next Generation Bomber (NGB) for the
Air Force and the Future Combat System (FCS) for the Army; development
of foliage penetration radar; support of an accelerated Joint
Experimentation schedule; chem-bio defense modeling and standoff
detection; and high speed sealift development.
use of military force
Question. If confirmed, you will be responsible for providing
military advice on the use of military force and the other instruments
of U.S. power.
What factors do you believe should be considered when contemplating
the use of force?
Answer. The National Command Authorities (NCA) will decide when
U.S. Armed Forces are employed in a given situation. In consultation
with the Service Chiefs and combatant commanders, and based on a clear
definition of the mission and interagency and multinational resources
available, I expect to advise the NCA in a number of areas. Among them
are the effectiveness of the military instrument to achieve the desired
national security objectives, employment options and expected costs,
and the potential impact on the force's ability to respond to other
requirements. I would also provide an assessment of any long-term
effects on operations and personnel tempo.
space
Question. What are your views on weapons in space?
Answer. U.S. Space Command has a ``Force Application'' mission that
requires them to plan for and conduct research and development of
space-based systems as insurance should the nature of threats and
opportunities significantly change. I believe this is a sound approach.
Question. Do you support placing offensive weapons in space?
Answer. Placing weapons is space is a policy decision of the NCA.
Consistent with national laws, policy and international treaty
commitments, I support research and development into weapons options,
should we 1 day be directed to deploy such capabilities.
Question. Under what circumstances and for what purposes would you
place offensive weapons in space?
Answer. It's difficult to say under what specific circumstances and
for what purposes we would do that. However, if it were determined that
offensive weapons in space were the appropriate means to protect our
national security interests then the NCA should consider them.
Question. Describe your understanding of the current U.S. military
space doctrine as it pertains to the deployment of weapons in space.
Answer. The placement of nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass
destruction in orbit around the earth, and use of the moon or other
celestial bodies for military purposes are clearly prohibited. Space
Doctrine, Joint Publication 3-14, addresses space control and generally
addresses force application; however, no such weapons exist. Therefore,
the specific deployment of weapons in space is not addressed.
Question. Do you support current U.S. space doctrine as it relates
to space control?
Answer. Yes. Our space control doctrine is consistent with our
long-standing air and sea doctrines--to ensure freedom of action for
ourselves and our allies, and to deny it, where appropriate, to
potential adversaries.
Question. Do you believe that achieving control of space will
require deploying offensive weapons in space?
Answer. Not necessarily. The easiest way to ensure space control is
to interdict satellite ground stations or their communications links.
Question. Describe your understanding of other methods and weapons
systems that might be used to achieve space control objectives.
Answer. We use four primary methods for space control:
surveillance, protection, prevention, and negation. Tactics vary from
attacks with conventional munitions on ground sites or electronic
warfare attacks on their links, to encryption, to fielding redundancy
in our systems, to our ground-based space surveillance systems. Any
weapons system that can be used in these tactics are appropriate to
achieve space control objectives.
Question. Do you support increased funding and focus on improving
space situational awareness? How would you increase situational
awareness?
Answer. Situational awareness is key to operating effectively in
any medium. Modernization of our space surveillance capabilities is key
to increasing our situational awareness.
Question. Is such an increased awareness a prerequisite to placing
offensive weapons in space?
Answer. Space situational awareness is much more than an enabler
for offensive weapons in space. The foundation of all space missions is
space control.
Question. Do you believe that threats to our space assets are
increasing?
Answer. Yes, just like any other technological advancement
throughout history, we can expect an increasing challenge for what to
us is a key warfighting capability.
Question. Do you agree with the Space Commission assessment that
the United States is ``an attractive candidate for a `space Pearl
Harbor' ''?
Answer. I think the Space Commission did the nation a service by
bringing such a possibility into the national debate about the future
of space. The lesson we learned from Pearl Harbor is that the only way
we can avoid repeating that experience is if we anticipate its
possibility again, and are ready for the challenge.
Question. Do you believe that improved space surveillance and space
situational awareness can reduce the vulnerability of our space assets?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you believe that there is a need to establish an
international framework that would be intended to ensure continued
access to space for peaceful purposes?
Answer. The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 provides such a framework.
It has been the bedrock of the peaceful use of space. I do not
currently see the need for any new treaty or international agreement
that would address military uses of space.
Question. What are your views on legislative implementation of the
recommendations of the Space Commission?
Answer. The Secretary of Defense is currently reviewing S.1368,
dealing with the recommendations of the Space Commission. It would be
inappropriate for me to comment on it until this review is complete.
nuclear force structure
Question. Do you believe that the Strategic Triad should be
maintained, or that we should consider eliminating any portion of the
triad?
Answer. The Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) is examining the role of
the TRIAD and will make recommendations on its composition. The TRIAD
has been the foundation of our nuclear deterrent force posture for over
30 years. The inherent capabilities of a robust TRIAD ensure against a
catastrophic failure of any one leg of our forces, thereby assuring
that the U.S. is always capable of responding to any potential threat.
The NPR is examining the unique contributions of each leg.
Question. Do you believe that the United States can make reductions
in nuclear weapons below those levels included in START II and still
meet current nuclear deterrence guidance?
Answer. Nuclear weapons levels as outlined in the START II Treaty
were agreed to in the context of bilateral arms control with the former
Soviet Union. The START II Treaty has not entered into force due to
conditions added by them during their ratification (April 2000). The
ongoing Nuclear Posture Review mandated by Congress is currently
examining the strategy and scope of potential reductions. Therefore, it
is premature to state at this time what level of reductions can be
made.
Question. Can the targeting requirements derived from current
nuclear deterrence guidance be met at a level of 2,000-2,500 warheads?
Answer. It is prudent to complete the examination of our national
strategy and nuclear deterrent posture prior to committing to a
specific warhead band. This is currently being examined in the Nuclear
Posture Review.
Question. Do reductions below the level of 2,000-2,500 warheads
require revisions to current nuclear deterrence guidance?
Answer. The President has committed to ``achieving a credible
deterrent with the lowest possible numbers of nuclear weapons
consistent with our national security needs including our obligations
to our allies.'' The congressionally mandated Nuclear Posture Review
that the Secretary of Defense has undertaken is examining U.S.
deterrence strategy to achieve the President's objective.
Question. Do you support revisions to current nuclear deterrence
guidance that would allow reductions below the level of 2,000-2,500
warheads?
Answer. I support the President's call for a reduction of nuclear
forces to the lowest possible numbers of nuclear weapons consistent
with our national security needs. I also support revisions to U.S.
strategy which accurately reflect the challenges and opportunities of
the new international strategic environment. Deterrence will continue
to be the primary role of our nuclear forces particularly against
potential adversaries that may consider the use, or threat of use, of
nuclear weapons or other WMD. This question is a critical component of
the ongoing Congressionally mandated Nuclear Posture Review; therefore,
it is premature to comment while the review is still in progress.
Question. Do you support dismantlement of retired nuclear warheads?
Answer. Today the United States no longer has the ability to
manufacture some key nuclear weapons components. We have placed in
storage a number of weapons components from previously retired weapons
that can be used to assemble weapons in times of emergency. We can only
address dismantlement on a case-by-case basis until we restore our
ability to manufacture new weapons.
Question. In your view, what should be the minimum number of
strategic nuclear warhead designs included in the inactive and active
inventories of U.S. nuclear weapons?
Answer. Currently, the United States retains the ability to design
and assemble new warheads if the required components are available.
While no minimum number of designs can be specified, a sufficient
amount must be retained as a hedge against weapons failures and
emergency weapons re-manufacturing requirements. The question is
currently being examined in the ongoing Congressionally mandated
Nuclear Posture Review.
Question. Would you support a return to nuclear weapons testing in
the absence of a significant stockpile related problem?
Answer. Today, we can certify the safety and reliability of our
nuclear weapons stockpile without testing. The Stockpile Stewardship
Program continues to improve our understanding of complex weapons
performance issues. Our future capability to certify our stockpile is
uncertain. The requirement for testing is evaluated annually and
reported to the President. However, we need to retain our ability to
conduct nuclear testing in case of unforeseen technical issues.
Question. Under what conditions would you support a resumption of
nuclear weapons testing?
Answer. Currently, there is no need for a resumption of underground
nuclear weapons testing as science-based tools and an aggressive
surveillance program have proven effective thus far in maintaining a
safe and reliable stockpile. However, if unforeseen problems arise with
weapons in our stockpile, we may need to recommend that nuclear testing
be resumed to reestablish confidence in our nuclear arsenal.
Question. If DOD eventually requires a new nuclear weapon design,
will the existing science-based Stockpile Stewardship Program allow us
to develop a new, safe, and reliable nuclear weapon without testing?
Answer. I must defer to the experts at DOE for this answer.
Question. Do you support development of new low yield nuclear
weapons? If so, what requirement would such a weapon meet? Under what
circumstances would you support using such a weapon? Does such a weapon
have any deterrent value?
Answer. This area is currently being examined in the Nuclear
Posture Review. Moreover, we already have a number of low-yield weapons
in the current stockpile. It would be premature to speculate on the
need for a new weapon.
Question. Do you support the development of a new weapon design in
an effort to make sure our experienced weapon designers are maintaining
their skills and transferring their expertise to the new generation of
designers?
Answer. We currently have no military requirements for a new weapon
design, but we support DOE's efforts to sustain the skills and
expertise as they see fit.
Question. Do you believe that the Stockpile Stewardship Program can
maintain the necessary skills to maintain the nuclear weapons
stockpile?
Answer. The skill sets in question reside in DOE. I must defer to
their experts for the answer.
Question. If a new design requirement were forthcoming, are you
confident our weapon designers could develop the new weapon design,
especially if they are not allowed to test such a weapon?
Answer. I must again defer to the DOE experts for the answer. I
would rely on their judgement.
Question. Would your confidence remain the same if the new weapon
design was primarily developed by designers who never had the
opportunity to test a nuclear weapon?
Answer. I understand NNSA is expending significant resources to
ensure this new generation benefits from the experience of our current
scientists and engineers before they retire. I would defer to NNSA on
this issue.
Question. As our experienced nuclear weapons designers continue to
reach retirement age, are you concerned that without the development of
a new weapon design, their skills, experience, and expertise may be
lost forever?
Answer. NNSA is aggressively pursuing programs to ensure that this
will not happen, but I would defer to them on this issue.
Question. Is there any requirement for any new nuclear weapon, and
under what circumstances would you support development of a new nuclear
weapon?
Answer. No, there is currently no military requirement for a new
nuclear weapon, but this issue is also being examined as part of the
congressionally mandated Nuclear Posture Review.
nuclear testing
Question. Former Secretary of Defense and Energy James Schlesinger
stated that the United States will have to retain the option of testing
nuclear devices on an as-needed basis. He further stated that
limitations on testing have already changed the way weapons planners go
about their business and that we have had to forego development of new
nuclear systems, such as those designed to attack hardened or dispersed
targets, to live within the bounds of the self-imposed testing
moratorium.
Do you agree with his assessment, and, if not, why not?
Answer. Again, there is currently no military requirement for a new
design nuclear weapon. As part of the Stockpile Stewardship Program,
however, DOE has retained an ability to resume underground nuclear
testing in 2 to 3 years if required.
cooperative threat reduction programs
Question. Do you support the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR)
Program?
Answer. Yes. Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) helps the Former
Soviet Union eliminate strategic offensive arms consistent with their
treaty obligations; prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction and associated delivery systems, materials and expertise;
and pursue military reductions and reform. All of this serves to
enhance U.S. security. Given their fiscal austerity, it is not at all
clear that countries such as Russia, Ukraine, Kazkahstan and Uzbekistan
would eliminate their strategic arms and be able to comply with their
treaty obligations without the CTR program of assistance. Moreover,
leaving those systems in place makes them vulnerable to theft or sale
to other state or transnational groups.
Question. In your view, does the CTR program support national
security through its strategic forces dismantlement and other efforts
and should it continue to be a DOD program?
Answer. Yes. Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) does support
national security. What's important is not where the program resides as
long as we continue to execute it effectively and reap the benefits of
fewer weapons of mass destruction.
ballistic missile defense
Question. The Clinton administration established four criteria for
determining whether to deploy ballistic missile defense systems to
defend the United States against limited ballistic missile attacks:
1) The threat should warrant deployment;
2) The system should be cost-effective and affordable;
3) The system should be operationally effective; and
4) Deployment should make us more rather than less secure.
Do you believe these criteria should continue to be used for
considering whether to deploy missile defenses against limited long-
range missile attacks? Please indicate the reasons for your answer.
Answer. Militarily, these criteria make sense for any weapons
system under consideration. Missile defense is an essential component
for deterring the emerging ballistic missile threat. It is part of a
broader security approach that encompasses non-proliferation and
counter-proliferation.
Question. The Bush administration has proposed a large missile
defense research and development program for fiscal year 2002,
including efforts in boost-phase, midcourse and terminal defenses for
land-based, sea-based, air-based and space-based systems.
How do you believe we should determine the proper level of effort
and resource allocation to ballistic missile defense relative to other
defense needs?
Answer. We balance program needs through the Department's
programming and budget review process. The Department initiated several
major reviews at the outset of the new administration and the defense
strategy review is still in progress. Any major defense program changes
will await the outcome of that review.
Question. Today, our forward deployed military forces face current
and growing threats from short-range and medium-range theater ballistic
missiles.
How high a priority do you believe that fielding operationally
effective theater missile defense systems should be for our military?
Answer. The President has stated we will deploy defenses capable of
defending the U.S., our allies, and friends. The Department has already
signaled its intention to stop differentiating between ``national'' and
``theater'' missile defense systems. We are pursuing a layered
defensive system, capable of intercepting missiles of any range at
every stage of flight--boost, mid-course, and terminal. Since the Gulf
War and the casualties we suffered due to a missile attack, protecting
our troops against such a missile attack is a top priority.
multiple independent re-entry vehicles (mirv)
Question. Certain Russian officials have indicated that if the U.S.
withdraws from the ABM Treaty, Russia may not de-MIRV its land-based
ICBMs as required by treaty and may re-MIRV or newly MIRV other land-
based systems.
Answer. The START II Treaty is not in force. It is the only treaty
requiring elimination of MIRVed ICBMs. The START I Treaty is in force
and allows for retention of MIRVed ICBMs by both Russia and the U.S.
Question. Do you believe that it is in the U.S. national security
interest that all land-based ICBMs be de-MIRVed?
Answer. There are no significant military advantages to the
elimination of MIRVed land-based ICBMs. From the U.S. perspective, the
recent budget submission reflects future retirement of all U.S.
Peacekeeper MIRVed ICBMs, and the U.S. is downloading one of three
wings of MIRVed Minuteman III ICBMs to a single reentry vehicle. These
actions reflect the military conclusion that these MIRVed systems are
no longer required for national security.
Question. Do you believe that it is in the U.S. national security
interest to deploy a ballistic missile defense system to defend the
United States against limited ballistic missile attack and to defend
U.S. troops deployed abroad and U.S. allies from such attack?
Answer. Yes. We should take all measures possible to defend U.S.
and allied interests.
military-to-military contacts
Question. This committee has been a strong supporter of military-
to-military contacts and comparable activities that are designed to
encourage a democratic orientation of the defense establishments and
military forces of other countries.
What is your view of the value of military-to-military contacts?
Answer. They are absolutely essential to the execution of our
National Military Strategy. They are fundamental to our ability to
enhance the national security of the United States, and our
interoperability with allies in securing theirs. Military-to-military
contacts range from senior officer visits, counterpart visits, ship
port visits, bilateral and multilateral staff talks, personnel exchange
programs, unit exchange programs, formal military contacts programs,
and State Partnership for Peace activities. They are essential for
enhancing the U.S. military's ability to operate with coalition and
partner nations through interactions with foreign military personnel,
equipment, and culture. The experiences and relationships developed by
military-to-military contact significantly enhance the operational
flexibility and cohesiveness of future coalition operations at the
tactical, operational and strategic levels. The trust, goodwill, and
influence our military gains with those of other nations are
invaluable. By promoting democratic ideals among militaries worldwide
provides, we also enhance regional security, ensure U.S. access, and
increase coalition interoperability.
national military strategy
Question. The last National Military Strategy document was issued
in September 1997, shortly after the completion of the last Quadrennial
Defense Review (QDR).
Although there is no statutory requirement for such a document, if
confirmed, would you prepare and issue a National Military Strategy in
the aftermath of the completion of the 2001 QDR?
Answer. The National Military Strategy (NMS) and Joint Vision are
key documents used by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to
fulfill his Title 10 responsibility of assisting the President and
Secretary of Defense in providing for the strategic direction of the
Armed Forces. If confirmed, I intend to issue a new NMS. It will be
developed in consultation with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and combatant
commanders, and convey my advice in implementing the Secretary of
Defense's Quadrennial Defense Review, and any additional guidance
contained in the President's National Security Strategy.
colombia
Question. U.S. military personnel have been involved in the
training and equipping of Colombian military forces involved in
counter-drug operations. U.S. military personnel, however, do not
participate in or accompany Colombian counter-drug or counter-
insurgency forces on field operations in Colombia.
Do you favor continuation of this limited role for U.S. military
personnel in Colombia?
Answer. Yes, in accordance with current law and Secretary of
Defense directives. Any proposed increase in role or scope of military
actions in Colombia is a matter of policy.
quadrennial defense review
Question. Section 118(e) of title 10, United States Code, provides
for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to prepare and submit to
the Secretary of Defense the Chairman's assessment of the QDR,
including the Chairman's assessment of risk. The Secretary, in turn, is
required to submit the Chairman's assessment, with the Secretary's
comments, in the report in its entirety, when the report is submitted
to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of
Representatives. If the QDR is not complete by the end of the current
Chairman's term, the preparation and submission of the Chairman's
assessment of the QDR, including the Chairman's assessment of risk,
will be the responsibility of the next Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff.
If confirmed, are you committed to making a comprehensive and
straightforward assessment of the report, including an assessment of
risk, even if that assessment differs from the view of the Secretary of
Defense?
Answer. Yes.
priorities
Question. General Shelton has established asymmetrical warfare,
joint readiness, information operations and force protection as
priorities and readiness, modernization and core compensation elements
as enduring priorities.
If confirmed, what would be your priorities?
Answer. I agree with General Shelton. I think they're all enduring
priorities, and will continue to demand our attention for quite some
time. If confirmed, my initial priorities will be closely related to
them. First, joint warfighting is fundamental. The Armed Forces must
continue to enhance our joint warfighting capabilities. Second we must
find the proper balance between, and find resources for modernization
and transformation. Third, we need to continue our efforts to make the
JROC more strategically focused. Fourth, we should better define the
military's role in homeland security. Fifth, we must find ways to
enhance Joint Forces Command's role in experimentation and
transformation. Sustaining our quality force and taking care of our
people first are, of course, the ultimate means of accomplishing all of
this.
lessons learned
Question. What are the most important lessons that you have learned
as Commander in Chief, U.S. Space Command and Vice Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff?
Answer. Those experiences were invaluable. The lessons I took from
them only confirmed what I have learned throughout the 36 years of my
uniformed service to the nation.
First, the armed forces aren't made up of people, rather that the
people are the armed forces. Sometimes we lose that focus. The issue
isn't the Services or the gadgets they bring to the fight, but rather
that the people who, regardless of the tools they use or the uniform
they wear, are the key to achieving our national security objectives.
They're the real source of our Armed Forces power.
Second, all efforts of those in our Armed Forces must be geared
toward one thing--warfighting. Every effort made, from the smallest
field detachment to the loftiest offices in the Pentagon should be
focused on that one idea.
Third, there must be unity of effort with DOD as we work through
our modernization and transformation activities.
Finally, Service competition can often be a good thing as
competition breeds excellence. But in the end, all efforts must be
focused on the contribution to the joint fight.
joint requirements oversight council
Question. During your tenure as the Chairman of the Joint
Requirements Oversight Council (JROC), there has been a shift in the
JROC's focus to a more strategic level and an initiative to better
integrate Joint Forces Command's joint experimentation efforts into the
JROC and other DOD decision-making processes.
Would you describe the reasoning behind and the impact of these
changes?
Answer. In April 2000, I appeared before the Emerging Threats and
Capabilities Subcommittee to discuss the Joint Requirements Oversight
Council (JROC) and its evolving role in supporting our Armed Forces. My
concern was centered on improving the JROC's ability to provide the
strategic guidance necessary to advance future joint warfighting. The
JROC needed to provide the up-front guidance necessary for requirements
integration and joint interoperability.
A critical key to achieving joint interoperability rests in
establishing a framework from which to assess increasingly complex
systems. This framework consists of joint operational concepts and
joint operational architectures that drive development of materiel and
non-materiel solutions. We view this as a crucial component of DOD-wide
transformation. Operational architectures are the key to system
interoperability because they establish the interoperability
requirements that give us the ability to make the necessary system and
technical architecture decisions.
The impact of these changes has been significant. It is my view
that the JROC has been working to establish a process that supports
institutional transformation. First, the JROC is leading the ongoing
development of joint operational concepts and architectures, which it
will use to provide discrete standards that ensure systems are ``born''
joint interoperable. Second, the JROC is now integrating joint
doctrine, organizations, training, leadership, personnel and facilities
(DOTLPF), with the materiel (system) solutions. Third, the JROC is
continuing to work very closely with Joint Forces Command (JFCOM) to
integrate its experimentation efforts in support of operational concept
and architecture development.
Finally, I would like to comment on three specific initiatives the
JROC is working. First is our standup of the Joint Interoperability and
Integration (JI&I) organization at JFCOM. This organization's function
is to act as the transformation engine for joint interoperability
requirements of future and legacy systems and provide operationally
prioritized recommendations regarding joint doctrine, organization,
training, material, leadership, personnel and facilities. Second, is
our Single Integrated Air Picture (SIAP) System Engineer effort, which
is focused on recommending system level fixes to the JROC for existing
Joint Distributive Network deficiencies with the goal of delivering
fused, near-real-time and real-time data from multiple sensors to
produce a common, continuous and unambiguous air picture. Third, our
commitment to develop a Family of Interoperable Operational Pictures
(FIOP) will provide an all-source picture of the battle space
containing actionable, decision-quality information to the warfighter
through a fusion of existing databases. I would solicit your continued
support for all of these important initiatives.
Question. If confirmed, would you intend to make any other changes
in the JROC's role or process?
Answer. I am confident we're on the right track. We need to
continue our current efforts to develop operational concepts and
architectures that will drive future system development. In fact, I am
looking at ways to accelerate these efforts. I am also committed to
continuing our work with Joint Forces Command to fully integrate its
joint experimentation efforts. It's going to take us some time to work
our way through the development of these joint operational concepts and
architectures that will form the basis of future JROC guidance and
requirement integration.
excess infrastructure
Question. How high a priority would you place on the closure of
excess Department of Defense installations and why?
Answer. I share the Secretary's view. According to the April 1998
DOD BRAC report, we currently have 23 percent excess infrastructure
capacity, a situation that directly impacts the ability of the Service
Chiefs to provide, train, maintain, and equip today's force. By
removing excess capacity, we could save significant resources in the
long-term--money needed to fix infrastructure in remaining bases. We
also need a sustained period of increased funding for infrastructure to
develop and properly maintain what's needed to support the next
generation of weapon systems. The Services should be relieved of the
burden of maintaining sites with limited military use.
encroachment
Question. On November 27, 2000, the Senior Readiness Oversight
Council identified several ``encroachment'' problems confronting the
Department of Defense including protection of endangered species,
unexploded ordnance and other constituents, commercial demand for
bandwidth and frequency, sustainability of the maritime environment,
demand for use of airspace, protection of air quality, abatement of
airborne noise, and growth of urban areas. At a March 20, 2001, hearing
before the Readiness and Management Support Subcommittee,
representatives of the military services expressed concern that this
encroachment was hindering their Title 10 responsibility to train the
forces.
If confirmed, what actions would you take to address these
problems?
Based on the testimony provided by the services at the Readiness
Subcommittee hearing on March 20, 2001, it appears that the time is
ripe for the development and implementation of a comprehensive strategy
that addresses both the individual and the cumulative effects of
environmental encroachment issues.
If confirmed, how would you propose to facilitate the development
and implementation of a comprehensive strategy intended to address
readiness concerns related to these encroachment issues?
Answer. Training is critical to the readiness of combat forces and
encroachment is a serious issue with national security implications.
The training of the Armed Forces is a Service responsibility, and the
Services are working hard not only to maintain their training
facilities, but to improve their stewardship of the environment, while
strengthening their relationships with local communities.
There is a collaborative Departmental effort to address
encroachment issues. We have draft action plans for the various aspects
of encroachment. We are working a community outreach program to
minimize the impact of encroachment by fostering a dialogue with local
leadership, discussing work-around initiatives, and developing
potential technology solutions to provide a similar level of training.
This is a solid and prudent approach for resolving the encroachment
issues. If confirmed, I'll continue to support these efforts.
readiness reporting system
Question. The systems that the military services use to measure
their readiness have been criticized as outdated and inappropriate for
a military of the 21st century. Some of the specific criticisms raised
have been that they measure past readiness rather than future
readiness, and they measure the readiness of the forces to perform a
major theater war mission rather than the mission to which they are
currently assigned.
Do you agree with these criticisms and, if confirmed, what actions
would you take to change the systems?
Answer. As Vice Chairman I have been involved in the readiness of
the force, the assessment process, and in identifying solutions to our
shortfalls. The Joint Staff hosts annual CINC/Service conferences on
readiness, and based on the CINC/Service's feedback, I believe our
focus on joint warfighting is the proper emphasis, and is also in
accordance with Title 10, U. S. Code, Section 117. Units are designed-
manned, armed, equipped, and trained-to conduct wartime missions. But I
also recognize the necessity to assess our readiness for missions other
than war. Less than 2 years ago we created a reporting mechanism within
the Global Status of Resources and Training System to do this. While
this was a good first effort, expansion and/or refinement of this
reporting mechanism needs to be explored. As set forth in the DPG, the
Services and Chairman must recommend to the Secretary of Defense a
comprehensive readiness reporting system. If confirmed I will continue
to further enhance the timeliness, accuracy, and usefulness of the
readiness reporting system.
cinc-identified readiness deficiencies
Question. Over the last several years the Quarterly Readiness
Reports that the Department prepares for Congress have outlined a
number of CINC-identified readiness related deficiencies. Many of these
are listed as Category I deficiencies which entail significant
warfighting risk to execution of the National Military Strategy.
Although these deficiencies have been reported for the past several
years, they have not as yet been effectively addressed. This has raised
concerns that the requirements of the warfighting CINCs are not being
incorporated into the military services budgets and the Department's
acquisition process.
If confirmed, what actions will you take to ensure that these
requirements are understood and funded within the Department's budget?
Answer. If confirmed, I will continue to report the combatant
commanders' identified readiness deficiencies. I will also make
assessments and recommendations to the Secretary of Defense regarding
the effectiveness of the Services' budgets and the acquisition process
to solve these deficiencies.
commercial vs military requirements for frequency spectrum
Question. The Federal Government is trying to identify a band of
frequencies that can be used for the operation of 3rd Generation
Wireless Communications devices. As a part of this overall effort, the
Department of Defense conducted a study to determine the cost and
operational impact that would result if the military services were to
surrender the use of the 1755--1850 MHZ band of frequencies upon which
they currently operate their equipment. That study found that it would
take at least $4.3 billion and 17 years to vacate the band if a
suitable band of alternative frequencies were identified for the
Department's use. The Secretary of Defense and General Shelton recently
signed a letter to Members of Congress that outlined the importance of
spectrum availability, and this band in particular, for the
Department's operations.
What is your view of this assessment?
Answer. I fully support the position of the Secretary of Defense
and General Shelton. Spectrum access is vital to combat operations and
training. Guaranteed access to spectrum is a cornerstone of information
superiority and our warfighting abilities. Without this access, the
ability of the Department to use current and planned weapon systems,
employ new technologies, and effectively command and control
conventional and nuclear forces is seriously compromised. The 1755-1850
MHz frequency band supports over a $100 billion investment in key
satellite, air combat training, precision weapons guidance and
battlefield communications systems. These systems provide commanders
and their forces real-time intelligence, voice, data, and video
information and precision strike ability necessary for a leaner, more
agile and more flexible force to meet global mission requirements.
Competition for spectrum, nationally and internationally, is increasing
and the Department's growth and need for spectrum parallels commercial
industry's needs. We must ensure any spectrum decision carefully
considers national security, the needs of commercial interests, and
other important national interests.
I agree with the conclusions of the Department's report on the
1755-1850 MHz band. We simply cannot afford to lose the capabilities
the systems in this band provide the warfighters. The report concluded
we cannot share the band with 3rd generation systems and vacating the
band cannot occur prior to 2017 without potentially compromising
critical capabilities and support. Also, spectrum that is comparable in
terms of technical characteristics and regulatory protections in which
to relocate our systems must be identified, DOD must receive full and
timely reimbursement of any relocation costs, and we require adequate
time to transition to new spectrum. We are working with the White
House, Department of Commerce, and the Federal Communications
Commission to explore different scenarios for 3rd generation systems.
We are fully committed to cooperating with Congress and the Federal
Communications Commission and within the administration in finding
solutions for 3rd generation implementation that meets commercial needs
while protecting essential national security capabilities.
combating terrorism
Question. Chairman Shelton recently recommended to the Secretary of
Defense that the Antiterrorism/Force Protection functions of the Joint
Staff be transferred to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special
Operations and Low-Intensity conflict.
What are your views on this recommendation?
Answer. I agree with General Shelton's recommendation and rationale
to transfer the Antiterrorism/Force Protection (AT/FP) functions of the
Joint Staff to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special
Operations/Low Intensity Conflict (ASD(SO/LIC)).
ASD(SO/LIC) and J-34 perform many overlapping functions. Therefore,
to eliminate redundancies, it is appropriate to consolidate AT/FP
functions under ASD(SO/LIC) and return the J-34 military billets to the
Services and return the two civilian billets to the Washington
Headquarters Service.
africa
Question. The Defense Department is currently involved in a number
of initiatives in Africa to help certain nations be better prepared to
provide their own regional peacekeeping forces and humanitarian
missions.
In your view, is it in our national security interest to continue
such programs as the African Crisis Response Initiative, which are
aimed at helping African nations to be better prepared to respond to a
regional crisis?
Answer. The U.S. has a number of important interests in Sub-Saharan
Africa to include:
Deterrence/response to transnational threats
(terrorism, weapons proliferation, organized crime, narcotics
trafficking, and diseases (HIV))
Secure strategic lines of communication
Prevention/response to humanitarian crisis
Conflict resolution
Access to bases/facilities for U.S. operations
Support for U.S. allies
Protection of U.S. citizens.
In the previous decade the majority of our material resources have
been utilized to support our allies, both European and African in
responding to conflicts and humanitarian crises. U.S. personnel have
seen service all over the continent in the conduct of Non-Combatant
Evacuations (NEO) and humanitarian relief operations. Current
initiatives, including ACRI are designed to not only enable African
nations and institutions to address these issues on their own but also
to prevent such occurrences. ACRI has provided a base of knowledge on
peacekeeping, humanitarian crisis response, multi-national military
operations and protection of human rights. Specifically, ACRI and our
other engagement efforts, such as African Center for Strategic Studies
(ACSS) and IMET seek to encourage shaping of African militaries to:
Develop the proper size, budget, and capability for
legitimate security requirements
Support initiatives to encourage regional approaches
to African problems
Support structuring of militaries to emphasize
defensive capabilities, peacekeeping and humanitarian response
Support efforts to foster a regional conflict
prevention and resolution capability
Support democratic principles and respect the rules of
law and promotion of human rights.
command and control
Question. Despite significant investment in military service,
national and combatant commander command and control systems, more than
one of the recently convened defense review panels concluded that U.S.
forces do not have a deployable, joint command and control system that
can immediately be placed into operation to coordinate the efforts of
U.S. and coalition forces.
If confirmed, what actions would you take to ensure the rapid
development of such an important capability?
Answer. This is an absolutely critical capability and we do have
deficiencies in addressing the full command and control
interoperability required by a Joint Task Force (JTF) headquarters. The
current DPG calls for plans to establish standing JTF headquarters and
recommends improvements to operating procedures and capabilities, to
include addressing rapidly deployable interoperable command and
control. This will be a major part of the experimentation in JFCOM's
Millennium Challenge 2002 exercise. Additionally, Joint Forces Command
will take the lead to identify and fix current mission critical JTF C2
legacy interoperability issues. Further, I fully support the
criticality of development and fielding of rapidly deployable,
interoperable, command and control systems. If confirmed, I will ensure
the Vice Chairman, in his delegated role as Chairman of the Joint
Requirements Oversight Council along with the Service Vice Chiefs,
provide the necessary senior military perspective to achieve an
interoperable joint command and control capability.
information operations
Question. Joint Vision 2020 and various defense reviews have
highlighted the importance of information operations in future warfare.
What role and what obstacles do you see for information operations
as an integral part of U.S. joint military operations?
Answer. Information operations are a means to ensuring decision
superiority--the key to successful military operations in the future.
But we're faced with three challenges: planning and executing these
activities the same way we would any wartime campaign; integrating the
military's efforts with those of other U.S. Government agencies;
identifying and removing unintended effects while keeping up with
rapidly changing information technologies. We can meet these
challenges.
Question. Are you satisfied that there is unity of effort within
the Department of Defense in the development of information operations
capabilities?
Answer. Emerging computer network attack and defense capabilities
represent an important aspect of information operations. We have been
working hard to enhance the security of DOD computer networks and to
defend those networks from unauthorized activity (e.g., exploitation of
data or attack). Recognizing that the threat to our networked systems
is real and increasing, we established the Joint Task Force--Computer
Network Defense in December 1998, and assigned responsibility for that
mission to U.S. Space Command in 1999. We have incorporated intrusion
detection software in many of our networks, erected firewalls, and
increased awareness training for our personnel through our information
assurance program.
In October 2000, we designated the Commander in Chief, U.S. Space
Command, as the military lead for computer network attack as well, and
charged U.S. Space Command with overseeing the development of
capabilities and procedures for this aspect of offensive information
operations. In April 2001, U.S. Space Command redesignated the Joint
Task Force--Computer Network Defense as the Joint Task Force--Computer
Network Operations to reflect this new mission. The Services also
cooperate with other Defense and Intelligence Community agencies in
efforts to defend the networks that are vital to our national security.
As you have indicated, the Services, Defense Agencies, and
combatant commanders are all devoting a great deal of effort to this
area. I believe we have the structures and procedures in place to keep
duplication of effort to a minimum and ensure the broadest diffusion of
advances in information operations capabilities across the Department.
major challenges and problems
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will
confront the next Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff?
Answer. If I am confirmed, my first priority will be to ensure our
soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and coastguardsmen are ready to
meet the near-term challenges of executing the tasks that support our
defense strategy. We have to make sure they are organized, trained,
equipped, and supported with the tools required to protect our nation's
security interests--at home and abroad. Second, we must have the proper
force structure to exercise our military strategy. Third, we must make
the investment to modernize, recapitalize, and transform our forces to
meet the challenges of the 21st century. Finally, we must adopt
knowledge and decision based warfare to enable us to win in the joint
battlespace of the future.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, I'll work with the Secretary of Defense,
Combatant Commanders, and Service Chiefs to ensure we focus on
readiness issues for the near-term challenges while implementing
programs in concert with the Secretary's Defense Planning Guidance to
transform and modernize the force.
Question. What do you consider to be the most serious problems in
the performance of the functions of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff?
Answer. The most important function of the Chairman is to provide
military advice to the President, the National Security Council, and
the Secretary of Defense. Currently there are no major problems in
performing this function. But, recent exercises demonstrate the need to
enhance the Chairman's ability to communicate with military
organizations around the globe on a real time basis.
Question. If confirmed, what management actions and time lines
would you establish to address these problems?
Answer. If confirmed, my first priority would be to better equip
our staffs to enable swift, accurate information flow. Our information
and decision capabilities are critical to providing accurate and timely
advice to the NCA. We must ensure that these systems are state of the
art and interoperable. We must further ensure that our transformation
efforts enhance joint command and control throughout DOD. Initiatives
such as the Standing Joint Task Force Headquarters will ensure these
efforts provide timely and accurate information in warfighting
headquarters as well as other higher headquarters.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, when asked, to give your personal views,
even if those views differ from the administration in power?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings, and
other communications of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Bill Nelson
aircraft carriers
1. Senator Bill Nelson. What, in your view, is the operational risk
of having all but one of the Navy's east coast aircraft carriers
stationed at Naval Station Norfolk?
General Myers. With five of the six east coast carriers stationed
in Norfolk, operational risks are increased somewhat by the number of
carriers in port at any given time. This number averages between two
and three, with one in shipyard maintenance and one or two pier-side.
These operational risks are mitigated by a robust force protection plan
(on both the ship and Naval Station), training, and situational
awareness. The disadvantages are also balanced by the ability to
consolidate protection forces in one place.
Although the channel leading from sea to the Naval Station is deep
enough to accommodate the carriers, it is also narrow. Any restriction
of the channel could affect the movement of carriers out of the harbor.
This risk is mitigated as well by a robust force protection plan, which
includes the Coast Guard and local and state law enforcement.
2. Senator Bill Nelson. What, in your view, is the operational
value of having an aircraft carrier stationed at Naval Station Mayport,
Florida? What, in your view, would be the operational risk if we do not
have an aircraft carrier stationed at Naval Station Mayport?
General Myers. Maintaining a carrier homeported in Mayport provides
operational flexibility for the Navy by keeping that facility active
and fully operational as an alternative east coast facility. As Mayport
Naval Station can service two carriers simultaneously, it provides an
operational value to the Navy. There is no specific risk associated
with not having a carrier based at the Mayport Naval Station other than
the reduced flexibility should the Norfolk facility become untenable.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator John McCain
aircraft carrier and amphibious battle groups
3. Senator McCain. Later this month, the Pentagon will forward the
Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) to Congress. There have been some
disturbing press reports regarding cuts in our military's power
projection capability, including cuts in the number of aircraft
carriers battle groups and amphibious readiness groups. Based on recent
events, the history of aircraft carrier battle groups and amphibious
battle groups have been called upon in times of crises by JCS over 80
times in the past 25 years, and the self-sustaining nature and
flexibility of the CVBG, do you believe that we can afford to further
reduce the number of aircraft carrier and amphibious battle groups?
Would you please elaborate on your answer?
General Myers. The short answer is the Quadrennial Defense Review
(QDR) did not recommend further reductions in the number of aircraft
carrier battle groups (CVBGs), amphibious ready groups (ARGs), or the
wide range of aircraft they support. As recent events make all too
clear, the availability of CVBG strike and fighter aircraft has been
and will continue to be an essential element in the maintenance of
global security and stability.
b-1 force structure
4. Senator McCain. General Myers, you seem qualified to answer my
next questions based on your background-especially your distinguished
military record of over 600 hours of combat flying in the F-4 Phantom
in Vietnam.
Do you support the force structure cuts of 33 B-1B Lancer bomber
aircraft announced earlier this year by the Secretary of the Air Force
and the Secretary of Defense? Please explain.
General Myers. I support the Department's decisions on current
Force Structure levels. The fiscal year 2002 DOD budget reflects the
Departments commitment to sound stewardship by reshaping and
modernizing the B-1 Lancer fleet. The consolidation of the B-1 force--
from 93 to 60 aircraft, to be based at two major facilities--is part of
an overall approach to maximize the strategic and operational
effectiveness of America's long-range strike aircraft fleet for the
21st century. The savings that will result from this plan--estimated at
upwards of $1.5 billion over the next 5 years--will be reinvested
directly to enhance the lethality, survivability, readiness, and
sustainability of the B-1 force.
5. Senator McCain. Is the delay in the B-1B force restructuring
worth the $100 to $165 million that it will cost the taxpayer and would
you describe higher priority programs where this critical funding could
be better used based on what you understand from the Services' ``Fiscal
Year 2002 Unfunded Priority Lists?''
General Myers. Until we complete the Fiscal Year 2003 Budget Review
later this fall, I will be unable to confirm whether $100-165 million
is the right cost to the taxpayer. Based on an earlier assessment we
realized the current B-1 force structure was neither cost-effective nor
efficiently deployed for future combat operations. By reshaping the
size and posture of the B-1 fleet, the Department could save hundreds
of millions of dollars annually that could be invested in overdue
defensive systems upgrades and weapons modernization efforts to make
the remaining fleet ``whole.'' At the same time, by basing the
remaining B-1's at two large, active duty Air Force bases, the new
Lancer fleet would be more capable, efficient and affordable. Under
this consolidation plan, no bases will close, and the new arrangement
will free up hundreds of airmen who can be employed in critical and
emerging missions, ranging from current mobility and surveillance
systems to next generation strike and unmanned vehicles.
6. Senator McCain. Do you find it necessary, as this committee has
done, to prohibit the cuts in the B-1B bomber force before the
following reports have been submitted to Congress: the National
Security Strategy Review, the Quadrennial Defense Review, the Nuclear
Posture Review, Secretary of Defense Report on the B-1B Bomber, Bomber
Force Structure Report, and Comptroller General Report on the B-1B
Bomber.
General Myers. There will be a window of opportunity to readdress
bomber force structure in the coming months. While the Air Force has
announced plans to reduce B-1B from 93-60 Aircraft, the future bomber
force structure is not final pending results of the fiscal year 2003-
2007 Program and Budget Review currently in progress. These reviews
will allow the Secretary of Defense to evaluate how the Air Force
intends to integrate guidelines established by Quadrennial Defense
Review, Nuclear Posture Review, and relevant bomber studies. A final
decision on B-1 force structure will be reflected in the fiscal year
2003 President's Budget Submission in February 2002.
7. Senator McCain. As you understand Defense Secretary Rumsfeld's
proposal called the ``Freedom to Manage Act,'' does the Senate Armed
Services Committees' prohibition with respect to the B-1B appear to be
in conflict with the Secretary's legislative proposal--as you
understand it? Please explain your answer.
General Myers. Until the legislative proposal is finalized, I am
not in a position to comment on it.
iraq
8. Senator McCain. Given the clear and present danger of both
terrorism and weapons of mass destruction--and Iraq's aggressive
development of such weapons, as extensively documented by Gary
Milhollin and other proliferation experts--would you agree that we need
to undertake a more assertive policy against Saddam Hussein that relies
not on simply patrolling Iraq's skies, but that instead seeks to
liberate Iraqi territory and undercut his rule?
General Myers. There is clear and indisputable evidence that Saddam
Hussein has demonstrated the will to use WMD as a terror weapon. He has
employed chemical weapons against his people and his neighbors. Absent
on-site inspections of suspected Iraqi WMD facilities, we must monitor
Iraq's actions related to its WMD capability from a distance. We should
do everything possible to keep WMD from falling into the hands of
terrorists and we can not rule out the possibility that Saddam would
provide WMD to terrorist organizations that are hostile to the United
States.
homeland defense
9. Senator McCain. Homeland defense now takes on immediate urgency
in the wake of Tuesday's horrors, although its details remain
controversial. Do you support the creation of a Department of Homeland
Defense, as called for by the Hart-Rudman Commission on U.S. National
Security in the 21st century? What other steps do you envision
implementing to improve our defenses here at home?
General Myers. I fully support the President's creation of an
Office of Homeland Security and the Homeland Security Council and
believe that this initiative should meet the overall goals of the Hart-
Rudman Commission's report. In regard to what other steps are required
to improve our defenses here at home, the SECDEF and I are reviewing
the current unified command structures. To ensure that the DOD is
properly organized we should structure ourselves to take on the
challenges outlined in the QDR to meet not only the risks to our home
but also maintain the global campaign against terrorism. Additionally,
the U.S. Armed Forces will continue to provide military support to
civil authorities wherever military capabilities are required by the
President or Secretary of Defense, or in the case of the National
Guard, State Governors.
10. Senator McCain. Are you satisfied that the expressions of
political and diplomatic support we have received from friends and
allies across the globe will be matched by their provision of any
military support necessary to conduct retaliatory actions in staging
areas for U.S. forces and/or joint military operations?
General Myers. One of the most gratifying parts of this campaign is
the support we have received from our friends and allies around the
world. Support for this effort has come in many different forms and
includes elements from all the instruments of national and
international power. Our friends and allies are contributing in
different ways according to their own capabilities, geographical
location, and interests. Examples range from political leverage to
economic measures to information sharing to military forces for support
or combat operations. A broad range of military support has already
been offered and accepted in this multinational and multifaceted
effort. The U.S. has received overflight authorizations for aircraft,
landing rights, basing and logistical support, intelligence sharing,
military equipment and air, land, and sea forces. More specifically, 45
countries have offered military forces and capabilities including
combat and support forces. These contributions provide the capability
to conduct and support joint and combined missions such as surveillance
and reconnaissance, combat search and rescue, special operations, and
direct offensive actions.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Bob Smith
space plane
11. Senator Smith. Last week, I received notice from General Ryan
that the Air Force was terminating its work on a military space plane/
reusable launch vehicle with NASA's X-33 and X-37. With Al Smith bowing
out as AF Undersecretary--whom I know from his days at Sanders/Lockheed
in New Hampshire--I'm concerned there may be a vacuum in Air Force
thinking about space at the highest levels. Some people believe we
won't be able to test and demonstrate any capability in Bush's first
term. I've heard you support a military space plane. Do you agree that
a space plane could address our long-range bomber needs? How does the
Air Force plan to support reusable launch capability?
General Myers. We believe reusable launch vehicles (RLVs) will play
a key role in our Nation's ability to leverage the space medium. The
Air Force is presently working with NASA to develop a roadmap that will
identify the way ahead for RLVs. This roadmap, which includes a
military space plane concept, will better define DOD and NASA
requirements, build on previous NASA efforts (including the X-33 and X-
37), and harness current technology initiatives.
From an Air Force perspective, the Air Force/NASA team is exploring
the potential military utility of space planes as future long-range
bombers, as well as for precision strike and maneuver against hardened
targets, deployment of responsive satellite sensors, and the refuel and
repair of on-orbit systems. We will have a better understanding of the
art of the possible when the roadmap is complete in the spring of 2002.
air force war planning
12. Senator Smith. There has been criticism of Air Force war
planning as drifting towards the improbable. Specifically, that the
U.S. has been steadily losing access to foreign bases, and buying
short-range fighters, while its long-range bombers are shrinking in
number. Second, that although Air Force war planning contends that
enemy defenses will be quickly destroyed, the Air Force retired
electronic-warfare planes capable of hiding non-stealthy planes from
enemy radar. How do you respond to this criticism?
General Myers. Although we have closed some overseas bases for
budgetary reasons as we drew down the force over the last 10 years, we
continue to have access to foreign airfields when we need them.
Regarding the fighter/bomber mix, as well as the retirement of the Air
Forces EF-111s, these decisions are two good examples of how we must
balance our capabilities as we modernize our force. It is crucial that
we balance range, lethality, responsiveness, cost, survivability, and a
number of other factors, within budgetary constraints and global
realities, to meet our Defense Strategy. I am confident the Air Force
will continue to work toward the best possible force structure mix to
meet our Nations needs.
Retiring the EF-111 allowed us to consolidate our electronic
warfare capability into one platform, the Navy and Marine Corps EA-6B.
The savings from deactivation of the F-111 and its support structure
could then be used to meet ocher high priority requirements. To ensure
that our electronic warfare requirements will continue to be met, the
EA-6B will be receiving further capability enhancements, including an
improved avionics package. An additional EA-6B squadron is slated to
become operational in fiscal year 2003, bringing the total number of
Navy and Marine Corps EA-6B squadrons to 20. Five of the Navy squadrons
will be earmarked for land-based expeditionary deployments. Given the
planned retirement of the EA-6B force beginning in 2010-2015, the
Department has initiated a joint effort to determine the capabilities
that should be developed for a successor system or systems.
All force structure decisions are critically reviewed during the
Quadrennial Defense Review and each year during the budget review cycle
and development of the Defense Planning Guidance. Constructive
criticism is welcomed as a healthy input to these reviews. We will, of
course, continue to review current plans in light of the events on 11
September 2001.
space
13. Senator Smith. Today we cannot afford to build enough ships to
sustain our Navy, enough tankers and long-range bombers to give us the
dominant global force we need without relying on overseas bases; and
enough lift capability to get our current heavy ground forces quickly
into theater. We must consider the possibility that spacepower systems
can meet some of our future needs in a cost-effective way. We need
advocates for space systems. When I think of GLOBAL force projection, I
don't think of flying 18 hours from point A to point B to deliver
ordnance, only to fly 18 hours home. I don't think of months of
preparation time to bring forces into theater. I don't think of
sensitive negotiations with allies for basing rights. I think of
space--24 hour per day global presence. Yet space has, so far, been
relegated a support role--providing information superiority for our
land, sea, and air forces. Do you think space should have a force
projection role? What space systems other than spaceplane, should we
develop for force projection?
General Myers. Our ability to address emerging threats may well
require the use of space in a force application role. For the time
being, however, the U.S. has not fielded operational space weapon
systems. U.S. Space Command's third mission, Force Application,
requires them to plan for and conduct research and development of
space-based systems as insurance should the nature of threats and
opportunities significantly change. Some of this R&D is focusing on
concepts such as the spaceplane, exo-atmospheric common aero vehicles,
and space-lased lasers. I would anticipate that developing these
capabilities would serve as a deterrent to potential adversaries, and
may be appropriate should the policy decision be made to field them.
unmanned aerial vehicles
14. Senator Smith. Do you think our global force projection
aircraft need to be manned (given our low tolerance for casualties and
breakthroughs in automation and remote operations)? Should aircraft
like Global Hawk be delivering ordnance? General Ryan recently promoted
spiral development for Global Hawk--and said our U2s are attriting--is
Global Hawk or other unmanned aerial vehicles more or less vulnerable
than U2s--esp. in light of recent losses in our UAVS over Iraq? Is
reopening the U2 line a cost-effective option?
General Myers. Advances in automation and remote technologies have
created opportunities for us to expand the use of unmanned aerial
vehicles (UAVs)in numerous military operations(e.g., Nobel Anvil,
Southern Watch, Enduring Freedom). As UAV programs continue to mature
and meet operational requirements, we will increasingly depend upon
unmanned vehicles to carry out missions which place manned vehicles in
unnecessary risk.
The GLOBAL HAWK program was initiated with the goal of alleviating
shortfalls in Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR)
capabilities. There exists the possibility that during spiral
development of GLOBAL HAWK, the capability to deliver ordnance may be
added. However, it could possibly delay achieving the required ISR
mission if an attempt to add the capability to deliver ordnance is made
at this juncture, as reengineering of the current system would likely
be required. In addition, other programs such as the Unmanned Combat
Air Vehicle (UCAV) are already being developed to address the
capability to deliver ordnance.
The current plan for spiral development of GLOBAL HAWK is necessary
in order to both achieve the fastest possible introduction of high
altitude, long endurance unmanned ISR support while simultaneously
allowing the program to keep pace with the rapidly improving
technologies associated with these systems.
While we have experienced the loss of several PREDATOR air vehicles
over Iraq, GLOBAL HAWK was designed to fly at higher altitude (65,000
feet vice 25,000 feet). This has the added benefit of defeating many
anti-air capabilities. Due to its high altitude capability, GLOBAL HAWK
has proven to be less vulnerable than the PREDATOR.
The U2, while tremendously capable, is nearing the end of it's
service life and represents aging airframe technology. To reopen the U2
production line would be costly. The current plan is for GLOBAL HAWK to
replace the U2 when it demonstrates the ability to provide comparable
capabilities. Prior to that occurring, it would be premature to make
any force structure decisions.
air force space programs
15. Senator Smith. It was encouraging to see a space program,
``Space Lift,'' as the Air Force's number one priority. Unfortunately,
it is an unfunded priority. While more space programs are on this
year's list than ever before, space programs still constitute a
disproportional small percentage of Air Force unfunded priorities--are
space programs properly funded or is there a continuing aircraft bias
in the Air Force that tends just to support expensive fighter upgrades?
General Myers. I agree that correctly funding space is a concern.
Accordingly, I have made Joint Warfighting and Transformation two of my
highest priorities. Within this context, we will attempt to balance
space programs against more traditional programs to provide optimum
capabilities to the Joint Warfighter. I believe funding decisions will
be based upon operational requirements and that space programs will be
properly represented as opposed to any institutional bias favoring
aircraft.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Rick Santorum
precision guided munitions
16. Senator Santorum. In 1998, President Clinton ordered Tomahawk
cruise missile attacks on Afghanistan and Sudan in response to the
terrorist attacks on U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Later, the
U.S. led an air-dominated attack on the Yugoslav forces of Slobodan
Milosevic, relying on large quantities of stand-off munitions to halt
the aggression of these military and police forces. In a classified
briefing I received, I learned of the approximate number of precision
guided munitions (PGMs) or preferred munitions that were in the
inventory of the U.S. military at the time. Can you tell me if the U.S.
has enough PGMs to enforce a robust military operation against the
parties responsible for carrying out the terrorist attacks of September
11, 2001 in New York City and Arlington, Virginia? Are there sufficient
PGMs to support an attack on the perpetrators of these terrorist
attacks and yet still provide a necessary reserve for other possible
military engagements? Lastly, do you support the competitive
procurement of laser guided bombs?
General Myers. Considering our worldwide standing ordnance
stockpiles, which contain a wide array of cruise missiles, precision
guided munitions and more conventional ordnance, and industry's ability
to flex production, we are confident that we have sufficient capacity
to carry out our global war on terrorism, while still retaining an
adequate, but reduced, Reserve for future military engagements.
However, over the entire course of Operation Enduring Freedom, our
expenditure rates for select PGMs, such as Joint Direct Attack
Munitions (JDAM), exceeded current production rates. We have received
supplemental funding to increase munitions production rates and enhance
industry's long term production capacity for both JDAM and the family
of laser guided bombs. We also would support competitive procurement of
laser guided bombs.
cyber-terrorism
17. Senator Santorum. One of the main concerns of this committee
has been the threat posed by cyber-terrorists or by those who carry out
malicious/criminal attacks on our economy and/or government. In your
opinion, what are the things that we are doing well with respect to
cyberthreats?
General Myers. We are doing well in identifying cyber threats in a
timely manner and reacting with sufficient speed to guard against what
I would consider a loss of our command, control, and communications
capability. Making this possible are several interrelated things. The
Commander Joint Task Force, Computer Network Operations watches the
cyber environment for threats as well as managing the Information
Assurance Vulnerability Alerts (IAVA) program. IAVA provides DOD
critical information to resolve a recognized information
vulnerabilities that if exploited could cause grave damage to our C\4\
networks.
We also have instituted an Information Condition program that
outlines certain procedures and actions that must be taken to guard
against a cyber threat. USSPACECOM is assigned responsibility to manage
worldwide the military Information Condition program.
18. Senator Santorum. Conversely, what are those areas that require
additional effort?
General Myers. Two primary areas: People and allied/coalition
interoperability.
People are our primary resource in protecting our digital
environment. That means a training continuum to meet the ever-growing
sophistication of the cyber threat. System administrators are the foot
soldiers of the cyber battlefield. They must not only know the basic
skills necessary to keep the networks up and functioning, but must be
able to detect, defend, react, and restore those networks when a cyber
threat impacts performance. One thing we are doing is pursuing a
standard skill set for our system administrators that cross service
boundaries and provide known & expected level of skill expectations.
Future warfare means working with coalitions and allies. We need to
improve our C\4\ interoperability and we are working to accomplish
this. Coalition Wide Area Networks (COWANs) are proving themselves
tactically valuable. We are working to establish doctrine and policy to
govern setup, operations, security certification & accreditation, and
developing training opportunities to refine all of the above.
19. Senator Santorum. Can you tell me the types of actions or
policy directives you will consider implementing to guard against
cyberthreats as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs?
General Myers. Future warfare on the cyber battlefield requires an
interagency approach that cross DOD and non-DOD governmental lines. We
need to improve an already growing interaction to further develop an
effective information assurance umbrella that protects both military
networks and critical civilian infrastructures. This will support
Homeland Defense and National Defense objectives.
20. Senator Santorum. Do you believe that the cyber security
scholarships authorized by this committee will be useful in helping to
address the shortage of skilled personnel to address cyberthreats?
General Myers. I am strongly in favor of this scholarship action by
the committee. We hope to see more colleges become accredited to
support this scholarship action and we ask the committee's continued
support for a most welcomed initiative. Young men and women who take
advantage of this scholarship program will focus on cyber security/
information assurance. The cyberthreat will grow as information
technology advances. People skilled in the field of information
assurance/cyber security will play the most important role in our
government in protecting our critical infrastructures from the
cyberthreat. This scholarship program also generates opportunities for
us to employ some of the Nation's brightest men and women in government
service. Once they have experienced the challenges that face us in
information assurance/cyber security many of them will remain for a
career.
the abm treaty
21. Senator Santorum. In your opinion, do you believe that the
provisions specifying that the President of the United States must
secure additional congressional approval before spending money that
conflicts with the ABM Treaty strengthens or weakens the President's
hand in consultations with the Russian government?
General Myers. As you are aware, after my September 13, 2001,
testimony, the provisions of the Fiscal Year 2002 Defense Authorization
Bill mentioned in your question were withdrawn from the bill. The
United States provided formal notification of its withdrawal from the
ABM Treaty, effective 6 months from 13 December 2001, due to new
national security threats and the imperative of defending against them.
Although President Putin said the U.S. decision to withdraw from the
ABM Treaty is a ``mistake,'' he also said that U.S. missile defense is
no threat to the security of the Russian Federation and both countries
should create, as soon as possible, a ``new framework of our strategic
relationship.'' We are currently engaged in intensive consultations
with the Russian government intended to move beyond the Cold War
mentality enshrined in the ABM Treaty. To give these consultations
every chance for success, I believe it is essential that we maintain
maximum flexibility as we proceed through the coming months.
national guard and reserves
22. Senator Santorum. What do you think is the appropriate role of
the National Guard and Reserves as to the mission of homeland defense?
General Myers. As the requirements of Homeland Security evolves, we
will find many mission areas for the National Guard and Reserves.
Homeland security is a vital mission for the Reserve component forces,
however it clearly is not, nor should it be their only mission. Reserve
component forces must also continue to fulfill their other vital
peacetime and wartime missions, to include force generation, wartime
augmentation, and as a strategic Reserve.
A vital aspect of homeland security is the dual roles performed by
the National Guard, in which they serve both their individual states
and our Nation as a whole. Most Guardsmen presently safeguarding our
airports nationwide, are mobilized in a Title 32 state active duty
status. Only through existing Federal wartime missions, and the
subsequent equipping and training initiatives, is the National Guard
able to successfully perform their multiple missions. The suitable role
of the National Guard and Reserves in fulfilling a homeland security
mission is to perform a variety of mutually protective homeland
security missions-providing safety of our land, airspace, and coastal
waterways-defending the U.S. populace and protecting its critical
infrastructures.
[Deleted].
23. Senator Santorum. What are the missions or tasks that you
believe the National Guard and Reserves are ideally suited for in the
area of homeland defense?
General Myers. In addition to fulfilling the tasks as described in
the previous question, Reserve component members are ideally suited for
sustaining homeland security missions by fulfilling a variety of
operational and support tasks, to include: security, logistics,
transportation, intelligence, command & control, administrative, and
training base support functions.
The National Guard and Reserves are capable of performing a wide
range of homeland security missions and tasks. In essence, Reserve
component forces serve as one of the military's most visible
institutional links to the American society-for Guardsmen and
reservists are directly representative of the many communities from
which they are from and which they are protecting.
The missions and tasks that Guardsmen and reservists are ideally
suited for are those, which leverage both their prior service and
civilian acquired skills. Specifically, members working in civilian
life in such specialized fields as emergency management, security & law
enforcement, aviation, hazardous material management, medicine,
computer technology, civil assistance, and human services are able to
apply their professional expertise by serving in units performing
similar tasks for homeland security.
24. Senator Santorum. Do you believe that National Guard and
Reserves end strength ought to be on the table during the Quadrennial
Defense Review and the Administration's Strategic Review?
General Myers. Yes. We are a total force. It is important that we
not separate our forces into segments, especially when making
adjustments that will potentially affect the entire force and our
overall warfighting ability.
25. Senator Santorum. If so, how might end strength level
reductions impact our ability to carry out the homeland defense
mission?
General Myers. Before we can decide whether force structure changes
may be necessary, we must first determine the appropriate homeland
defense role for the Department of Defense (DOD). At the present time,
the DOD homeland defense role is still emerging. Once this role is
determined, mission requirements will follow. We can then assign and
apportion the proper force structure--Active, Guard, and Reserve--to
meet the mission requirements.
As noted earlier, homeland security mission is only one of our
significant missions. Sufficient Reserve component forces must also be
readied to fulfill other wartime missions, to include: force generation
(training & preparing units for deployment), augmentation of Active-
Duty Forces (to support war plans and contingency missions), and to
serve a strategic Reserve (to exploit operational opportunities and to
avert tactical disasters). These issues must also be considered during
force structure discussions.
objective force
26. Senator Santorum. I am concerned that the Army is not receiving
the resources necessary to maintain its legacy systems, support a new
interim force and transition to an effective objective force. It
appears that the Army has been expected to transform itself without an
increase in its budget. That is, the Army has been expected to
transform by taking funds ``out of hide.'' Regrettably, the Army lacks
the resources needed to transform and sustain current modernization
requirements. What actions can you take to ensure the viability of the
U.S. Army and its ability to transform to meet 21st century threats?
Will you be a vocal supporter of additional resources to help address
the Army's modernization needs? Lastly, will you strongly support
robust increases in science and technology funds to support the Army's
transformation initiative?
General Myers. The Army has worked hard to maintain its current
readiness and warfighting capabilities while transforming for tomorrow.
I will work with the SecDef to ensure that future budget submissions
provide funding for the Army's Interim and Objective Force, while
ensuring the Army priority is to be ready for war today.
______
[The nomination reference of Gen. Richard B. Myers, USAF,
follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
September 4, 2001.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
The following named officer for appointment as the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff and appointment to the grade indicated while
assigned to a position of importance and responsibility under Title 10,
United States Code, Sections 601 and 152:
To be General
Gen. Richard B. Myers, 7092.
______
[The biographical sketch of Gen. Richard B. Myers, USAF,
which was transmitted to the committee at the time the
nomination was referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Gen. Richard B. Myers
General Richard B. Myers is the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff. In this capacity, he is a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
and the Nation's second highest ranking military officer. General Myers
is the fifth officer to hold the position.
General Myers was born in Kansas City, Missouri. He is a 1965
graduate of Kansas State University, and holds a Masters Degree in
Business Administration from Auburn University. The General has
attended the Air Command and Staff College at Maxwell Air Force Base,
Alabama; the U.S. Army War College at Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania;
and the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.
General Myers entered the Air Force in 1965 through the Reserve
Officer Training Corps program. His career includes operational command
and leadership positions in a variety of Air Force and Joint
assignments. General Myers is a command pilot with more than 4,000
flying hours in the T-33, C-21, F-4, F-15 and F-16 including 600 combat
hours in the F-4.
From August 1998 to February 2000, General Myers was the commander
in chef, North American Aerospace Defense Command and U.S. Space
Command; commander, Air Force Space Command; and Department of Defense
manager, space transportation system contingency support at Peterson
Air Force Base, Colorado, responsible for defending America through
space and intercontinental ballistic missile operations. Prior to
assuming that position, he was the commander, Pacific Air Forces,
Hickam Air Force Base, Hawaii, from July 1997 to July 1998. From July
1996 to July 1997 he served as the assistant to the chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Pentagon; and from November 1993 to June
1996 General Myers was the commander of U.S. Forces Japan and 5th Air
Force at Yokota Air Base, Japan.
As the Vice Chairman, General Myers serves as the Chairman of the
Joint Requirements Oversight Council, Vice Chairman of the Defense
Acquisition Board, and as a member of the National Security Council
Deputies Committee and the Nuclear Weapons Council. In addition, he
acts for the Chairman in all aspects of the Planning, Programming and
Budgeting System to include participating in meetings of the Defense
Resources Board.
General Myers is married and has three children, two daughters and
a son.
______
[The Committee on Armed Services requires certain senior
military officers nominated by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
form that details the biographical, financial and other
information of the nominee. The form executed by Gen. Richard
B. Myers, USAF, in connection with his nomination follows:]
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Room SR-228
Washington, DC 20510-6050
(202) 224-3871
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation
of your answer applies.
Part A--Biographical Information
Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.
1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
Richard Bowman Myers.
2. Position to which nominated:
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
3. Date of nomination:
September 4, 2001.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
5. Date and place of birth:
1 March 1942; Kansas City, Missouri.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Mary Jo Myers (Rupp).
7. Names and ages of children:
Nicole M. Little, 30; Erin L. Voto, 28; Richard B. Myers, Jr., 22.
8. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative, honorary
or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State, or local
governments, other than those listed above.
None.
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational or other institution.
Vice President, Myers Brothers of Kansas City (Non-active position
with family-owned business).
10. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable and
other organizations.
Air Force Association, Kansas State University Alumni Association,
U.S. Army War College Alumni Association, Sigma Alpha Epsilon
(Fraternal), The Retired Officers Association, Vietnam Veterans of
America.
11. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals and any other special recognitions
for outstanding service or achievements.
Ira Eaker Fellow, Air Force Association; 1991 Alumni Fellow Award,
College of Engineering, Kansas State University; Kansas State
University, Engineering Hall of Fame; General Thomas D. White Space
Award; General James V. Hartinger Space Award; Canadian Meritorious
Service Cross; American Academy of Achievement Award.
12. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree,
if confirmed, to respond to requests to appear and testify before any
duly constituted committee of the Senate?
Yes.
13. Personal views: Do you agree, when asked before any duly
constituted committee of Congress, to give your personal views, even if
those views differ from the administration in power?
Yes.
______
[The nominee responded to the questions in Parts B-E of the
committee questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set
forth in the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to
Parts B-E are contained in the committee's executive files.]
------
Signature and Date
I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate,
and complete.
Gen. Richard B. Myers, USAF.
This 31st day of August, 2001.
[The nomination of Gen. Richard B. Myers, USAF, was
reported to the Senate by Chairman Levin on September 14, 2001,
with the recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The
nomination was confirmed by the Senate on September 14, 2001.]
NOMINATIONS OF GEN. PETER PACE, USMC, FOR REAPPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE OF
GENERAL AND FOR APPOINTMENT AS THE VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF
STAFF; GEN. JOHN W. HANDY, USAF, FOR REAPPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE OF
GENERAL AND FOR APPOINTMENT AS COMMANDER IN CHIEF, UNITED STATES
TRANSPORTATION COMMAND AND COMMANDER AIR MOBILITY COMMAND; AND ADM.
JAMES O. ELLIS, JR., USN, FOR REAPPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE OF ADMIRAL AND
FOR APPOINTMENT AS COMMANDER IN CHIEF, UNITED STATES STRATEGIC COMMAND
----------
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2001
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:19 a.m., in
room SH-216, Hart Senate Office Building, Senator Max Cleland,
presiding.
Committee members present: Senators Cleland, Landrieu,
Reed, Akaka, Bill Nelson, E. Benjamin Nelson, Warner, Roberts,
Hutchinson, and Collins.
Committee staff members present: David S. Lyles, staff
director.
Majority staff members present: Richard D. DeBobes,
counsel; and Terence P. Szuplat, professional staff member.
Minority staff members present: L. David Cherington,
minority counsel; Suzanne K.L. Ross, research assistant; and
Richard F. Walsh, minority counsel.
Professional staff members present: Charles W. Alsup, Brian
R. Green, Gary M. Hall, Carolyn M. Hanna, and Thomas L.
MacKenzie.
Staff assistants present: Dara R. Alpert, Daniel K.
Goldsmith, and Thomas C. Moore.
Committee members' assistants present: Barry Gene (B.G.)
Wright, assistant to Senator Byrd; Andrew Vanlandingham,
assistant to Senator Cleland; Elizabeth King, assistant to
Senator Reed; Davelyn Noelani Kalipi, assistant to Senator
Akaka; Eric Pierce, assistant to Senator Ben Nelson; J. Mark
Powers, assistant to Senator Inhofe; George M. Bernier III,
assistant to Senator Santorum; Robert Alan McCurry, assistant
to Senator Roberts; James P. Dohoney, Jr., assistant to Senator
Hutchinson; Kristine Fauser, assistant to Senator Collins; and
Derek Maurer, assistant to Senator Bunning.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MAX CLELAND
Senator Cleland. The hearing will come to order.
As might be obvious to the audience, you can see the
terribly low state of our readiness with Senator Roberts and
myself chairing the hearing. [Laughter.]
We need you fine men to fill the holes out there and do the
great job for our country that we want you to do.
I would like to thank all of you for your attendance at the
hearing today. The Senate is considering the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002, and Chairman Levin has
asked that I begin this important hearing while he manages the
bill on the Senate floor.
This morning we will recognize the nominations of three
individuals to senior leadership positions in the United States
Armed Forces: Gen. Peter Pace, United States Marine Corps, to
be Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Gen. John Handy,
United States Air Force, to be Commander in Chief, United
States Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM), and Commander, Air
Mobility Command (AMC); and Adm. James O. Ellis, Jr., United
States Navy, to be Commander in Chief, U.S. Strategic Command
(STRATCOM). We will need your strategic guidance as the days
move forward.
On behalf of the Armed Services Committee, I would like to
welcome you and your families. I apologize that my schedule and
recent events prevented me from meeting with each of you.
However, having read your biographies, I have tremendous
confidence in the ability of each of you to carry out your new
positions. You certainly have my support.
We have a tradition of asking nominees to introduce family
members who are present. General Pace.
General Pace. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Several
members of my family are present today; first is my wife Lynne,
who has held my hand for 34 years and been my wife for 30; our
daughter, Tiffany Marie, who is a year 2000 graduate of the
University of New Hampshire, is currently working with a law
firm here in Washington, DC as a research assistant; my brother
Sim, a 1965 graduate of the United States Naval Academy, United
States Marine, 6 years active duty, twice wounded in combat in
Vietnam; his wife of 33 years Mary; and one of their three
sons, Bradley, who works with Worldcom in the Washington, DC
area. That is my family present today, sir. My son, who is not
here, is a First Lieutenant in the United States Marine Corps.
He just returned to Camp Pendleton, California, from a 6-month
deployment. I regret that he cannot be here, but I am proud he
is serving his country.
Senator Cleland. Hoorah.
General Pace. Thank you, sir.
Senator Cleland. General Pace, we are honored to have you
and your family here today. I now see that part of the secret
of your success is the great support you have had from your
family. We are honored to have you and your family members
here, especially those who have served the country.
I would like to thank you for all your help over the past 2
years. General Handy, why don't you introduce your family.
General Handy. Yes, sir. I am pleased to introduce my wife
of 33 years, Mickey; my sister, Margaret McLaurin; her husband,
Bill, who came from Kernersville, North Carolina, to be with me
this morning; my secretary, Eleanor Bain, is also in the
cheering section, and I am proud because she is an
extraordinary member of my family, too.
Senator Cleland. Thank you very much, General Handy. Ladies
and gentlemen, we are glad to be with all of you.
Admiral Ellis, do you have family members with you today?
Admiral Ellis. Thank you, Senator Cleland. Present with me
today is my wife, Polly, my bride and partner over these 31
years of an incredible journey. My son cannot be with us today.
He is a Captain in the United States Army serving with the 2nd
Ranger Battalion in Fort Lewis, Washington, and is currently
deployed to Germany. I have a daughter who lives in California
and also cannot be with us, but she presented us with a new
granddaughter last month. Thank you very much.
Senator Cleland. Thank you very much. You are very kind to
mention those distinguished members of your family.
General Handy, I would like to thank you for all your help
over the last 2 years in formulating the Air Forces' plan to
invest in the C-130J aircraft. As an airlifter, General Handy,
you understand the importance of investing in this next
generation of aircraft, and I personally appreciate your vision
and work on this program.
I think that your experience and background make you more
than qualified to command the United States Transportation
Command and Air Mobility Command. No matter what form of action
the President takes in responding to the recent terrorist
attacks on our Nation, your position will be vital in getting
the mission started, sustaining the mission, and bringing our
troops home.
General Pace has led marines in Vietnam, Korea, Japan, and
Somalia. For the last year as Commander in Chief, U.S. Southern
Command, he has guided our military relations with 32 nations
in Central America, South America, and the Caribbean. If
confirmed for the position of Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, General Pace will be the first marine to be the Vice
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Admiral Ellis, as Commander in Chief, U.S. Strategic
Command you will help shape and implement the ongoing review of
this Nation's long-range nuclear force structure. That is a
vital mission.
Again, I welcome you all. You are going to play a pivotal
role in our military in the days to come.
I will recognize my colleague here, Senator Roberts, for
any comments he might want to make.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR PAT ROBERTS
Senator Roberts. Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to serve
with you as chairman during this important confirmation
hearing. We have been riding either stagecoach or sidesaddle,
or whatever the term should be, for some time. It is a real
privilege to be here with you.
I have a very short statement, some of which will be
repetitive. But it bears repeating, especially because of the
quality of the witnesses and their families.
Welcome to General Pace, Admiral Ellis, and General Handy,
and congratulations on your nominations.
I would like to say the world has changed dramatically
since you were nominated by the President for these high
positions. The importance of these key positions and the grave
responsibilities of the individuals placed in these commands
have only intensified since the infamous day of September 11.
If you are confirmed, as I fully expect, we will look to you
for innovative leadership in the difficult, challenging years
ahead.
On September 13, only 2 days after the terrorist attacks on
the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, we conducted the
nomination hearing for General Myers. The Senate quickly
confirmed him as the next Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. It was
imperative then, and it remains so today, that we demonstrate
our resolve and our commitment to meet the new challenges we
face by trying to expedite and facilitate these nominations and
provide the Secretary of Defense the strong and determined
military leaders he needs to fight the war on terrorism. I
thank the chairman for scheduling this hearing so promptly.
General Pace is no stranger to this committee. If
confirmed, he will be the first marine to serve in the capacity
of Vice Chairman, a milestone this marine and all marines, past
and present, can certainly be proud of. In his present capacity
as Commander in Chief, United States Southern Command, General
Pace has confronted firsthand the very corrosive effects of
terrorism. There are numerous, difficult challenges facing the
United States and our friends and allies in the Southern
Command region. I commend General Pace on his service in that
area of operations. His many leadership accomplishments in
numerous joint billets worldwide with combat marines will serve
him well as the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Admiral Ellis is also well known to this committee. He has
had a most distinguished career as a naval aviator. He
performed superbly as the NATO Joint Force Commander for
Operation Allied Force, exercising operational command of U.S.
and allied forces involved in Kosovo combat and humanitarian
operations. He also served admirably as the Deputy Chief of
Naval Operations for Plans and Policies. He is a nuclear-
trained officer with extensive command experience.
General Handy, as Vice Chief of Staff for the Air Force,
has played a key senior leadership role in directing the air
staff, serving on the Joint Requirements Oversight Council. He
has had extensive experience in the United States
Transportation Command, serving as Director of Operations and
Logistics. He is a command pilot with more than 4,800 flying
hours, primarily in airlift aircraft, as indicated by our
distinguished chairman.
General Handy and all of our witnesses are eminently well
qualified for the positions to which they have been nominated.
Gentlemen, you have my support. I applaud your willingness to
serve and I look forward to working with you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cleland. Thank you, Senator Roberts.
Senator Hutchinson, do you have any comments to make about
our panelists?
STATEMENT OF SENATOR TIM HUTCHINSON
Senator Hutchinson. I have had the opportunity to visit
with all of the nominees today, and they are, as Senator
Roberts said, very qualified.
I also commend the chairman and the committee for the
determination to move quickly on these confirmations. We cannot
choose the times in which we live, and these times are
difficult. They are trying, challenging, and dangerous. While
we grieve the loss and suffer the pain of the tragedy of recent
days, it is also an opportunity for good men and qualified
leaders to serve and serve well. While I do not relish the task
that you have ahead of you, I am assured that we have the right
people for the times in which we live. I look forward to
supporting your nominations.
Senator Cleland. Thank you very much, Senator Hutchinson.
Now we have a special introduction by Senator Bill Nelson,
who has a word to say about one of our nominees.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR BILL NELSON
Senator Bill Nelson. Mr. Chairman, I could, of course,
speak for all the nominees, but I particularly want to speak on
behalf of General Pace, a resident of my State. He is
particularly suited for this time in this position because of
his extraordinarily honed skills as a diplomat.
I had the privilege of observing him in action earlier this
year with our chairman, Senator Levin, and several other
members of the committee because we went to southern Colombia
and into the jungles. We were accompanied by General Pace. It
soon became apparent that this was a military officer
extraordinaire, not only skilled in matters of military, but
skilled in matters of diplomacy as well.
I was intrigued, for example, when he was extolling the
fact that the location of the Southern Command, once we had to
leave the Republic of Panama, was put in a crucial area where
the traffic was the highest for the diplomats and governmental
officials from all of the Central and South American countries.
The Southern Command is in Miami, which is a focal point for so
many of these governmental officials who travel in and out of
the country. He explained how that gave him the additional
opportunity to interact and build a personal relationship with
the leaders and diplomats of foreign governments. That is
modernized thinking about how we are going to conduct our
military affairs. Indeed, as we now are responding to the
tragedy of September 11, we see that not only is a military
response necessary, but that a diplomatic response is required
for the best possible, most successful response.
It is interesting how Gen. Pete Pace was nominated before
the September 11 tragedy to be Vice Chairman, and how the value
of that nomination has been underscored since.
I am happy to be here. Of course, I could say other things,
but I do not want to get the other services all up tight about
the fact that General Pace is going to be the first marine in
this position. It is an exceptionally good choice, and I am
glad that I can be here.
I apologize for not being present earlier, but we just had
a crucial vote on the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2002 and the chairman had asked me to stay and help
him.
I am glad to be here to highly recommend Gen. Pete Pace.
Senator Cleland. Thank you very much, Senator Nelson. We
appreciate those glowing remarks. General Pace, you have a lot
to live up to there. [Laughter.]
At this point, I would like to submit the statements of
Senators Thurmond and Allard.
[The prepared statements of Senators Thurmond and Allard
follow:]
Prepared Statement by Senator Strom Thurmond
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I want to join Chairman Levin and Senator
Warner in welcoming General Pace, General Handy, and Admiral Ellis.
Although each of these officers has had a long and distinguished
career, the fact that Admiral Ellis is a native of Spartanburg, South
Carolina, makes him stand out in my eyes.
To each nominee, I want to extend my congratulations. The
challenges ahead have always been enormous, but after the tragic events
of September 11, they will be greater yet. I believe I can speak for
every member of the committee when I say that you should not hesitate
to call on us if you need support as you carry out the national
security role of your command.
I wish you success and expect the Senate to act swiftly to confirm
your promotions and appointments.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
______
Prepared Statement by Senator Wayne Allard
Thank you Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the three of you for coming
here today. Your areas of responsibility are of vital interest and of
strategic importance to the United States. You are accepting an immense
amount of responsibility at a most important and challenging time in
our country. I want to thank you in advance for your efforts, your
dedication to duty, and your overwhelming commitment to the soldiers,
sailors, airmen, and marines in your charge.
Your areas of responsibility are of much political and economic
interest to the United States. There are areas of conflict, but of
opportunity as well. I have the upmost confidence in your ability to
handle them.
So gentlemen, I thank you for your service, and I look forward to
working with you.
Senator Cleland. The nominees have responded to the
committee's prehearing policy questions and our standard
questionnaire.
It is now time for opening statements. Why do we not go
General Handy, General Pace, and Admiral Ellis? General Handy.
STATEMENT OF GEN. JOHN W. HANDY, USAF, FOR REAPPOINTMENT IN THE
GRADE OF GENERAL AND FOR APPOINTMENT AS COMMANDER IN CHIEF,
UNITED STATES TRANSPORTATION COMMAND, AND COMMANDER, AIR
MOBILITY COMMAND
General Handy. Senator, thank you very much for the kind
remarks from all of you this morning. It is with a great deal
of humility that I appear before you today. You have our
statements submitted for the record, and I look forward to any
questions that we might engage in throughout this morning.
Thank you very much.
Senator Cleland. Thank you very much, General.
General Pace.
STATEMENT OF GEN. PETER PACE, USMC, FOR REAPPOINTMENT IN THE
GRADE OF GENERAL AND FOR APPOINTMENT AS THE VICE CHAIRMAN OF
THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF
General Pace. Sir, I would like to thank you and the
committee for the opportunity to appear before you this
morning. It is indeed a great honor to be nominated to be the
Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I pledge to you and
the members of the committee that, if confirmed, I will do
everything in my power to ensure that the magnificent men and
women in our Armed Forces receive all the support that they so
richly deserve.
I would also like to thank the members of this committee
for your strong bipartisan support of all of us in uniform. It
makes a difference. Although Senator Nelson has had to leave, I
would like to thank him publicly for adopting me today, for
saying things about me that my father would be scratching his
head about and my mother would be saying, that is exactly
right. [Laughter.]
But I deeply appreciate him taking time to do that.
I look forward to your questions, sir.
Senator Cleland. Thank you very much, sir.
Admiral Ellis.
STATEMENT OF ADM. JAMES O. ELLIS, JR., USN, FOR REAPPOINTMENT
IN THE GRADE OF ADMIRAL AND FOR APPOINTMENT AS COMMANDER IN
CHIEF, UNITED STATES STRATEGIC COMMAND
Admiral Ellis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a personal
and professional pleasure to appear before you today as the
nominee for the position of Commander in Chief, United States
Strategic Command. As you have noted, in this time of
unprecedented challenge and change for our Armed Forces and our
Nation, I too am humbled by the prospect of continued service
in this post alongside the incredibly talented men and women in
both the Strategic Command and in its service components. If
confirmed, I will add all my energies to theirs in sustaining
and enhancing the unique and essential contributions that
STRATCOM makes to our national security.
I thank you and the members of the committee for the speed
with which you are moving on this with the pace of other events
which make demands on your time. As with the other nominees, I
look forward to your questions.
Senator Cleland. Thank you very much, sir.
The nominees have responded to the committee's prehearing
policy questions and to our standard questionnaire. Without
objection, these responses will be made a part of the record.
The committee also has received the required paperwork on
the nominees, and we will be reviewing that paperwork to make
sure that it is in accordance with the committee's
requirements.
There are several standard questions that we ask nominees
who come before the committee. I would like to ask all of you
the same question, and you can answer all at once.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to
appear before this committee and other appropriate committees
of Congress and to give your personal views, even if those
views differ from the administration in power?
General Handy. Yes, sir.
General Pace. Yes, sir.
Admiral Ellis. Yes, sir.
Senator Cleland. Thank you.
Have you adhered to the applicable laws and regulations
governing conflict of interest?
General Handy. Yes, sir, I have.
General Pace. Yes, sir, I have.
Admiral Ellis. Yes, sir, I have.
Senator Cleland. Thank you.
Have you assumed any duties or undertaken any actions which
would appear to presume the outcome of the confirmation
process?
General Handy. No, sir, I have not.
General Pace. No, sir, I have not.
Admiral Ellis. No, sir, I have not.
Senator Cleland. Will you ensure that the joint staff
complies with deadlines established for requested
communications, including prepared testimony and questions for
the record in hearings?
General Handy. Yes, sir.
General Pace. Yes, sir.
Admiral Ellis. Yes, sir.
Senator Cleland. Thank you.
Will you cooperate in providing witnesses and briefers in
response to congressional requests?
General Handy. Yes, sir, I will.
General Pace. Yes, sir, I will.
Admiral Ellis. Yes, sir, I will.
Senator Cleland. Will those witnesses be protected from
reprisal for their testimony?
General Handy. Yes, sir, they will be.
General Pace. Yes, sir, they will be.
Admiral Ellis. Yes, sir, they will be.
Senator Cleland. Thank you.
We will proceed with the first round of questions limited
to 6 minutes for each Senator on the basis of the early bird
rule. I will let my distinguished colleague, Senator Roberts,
go ahead with questions.
Senator Roberts. I thank the distinguished chairman.
General Pace, in the Senate version of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 we worked hard to put a
provision establishing a central transfer account for all of
DOD's combatting terrorism programs. I know that it is hard to
define what is and what is not terrorism. But we had some
objections from the administration at that time in the House
conference. They did not want to go down that road. The
provision was not included in the final bill.
However, the DOD, as directed by Congress, has now
consolidated all of its combatting terrorism programs under the
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low
Intensity Conflict. Having taken that step, do you believe that
establishing a central transfer account for all of the
Department's combatting terrorism programs is a next logical
step?
General Pace. Senator, thank you. I do not have the
specifics in my head yet of the mechanisms that function here
in Washington, as far as funding. My approach to answer that
question would be to determine the most efficient and effective
way to support our service members in the field, and if a
centralized account would, in fact, provide the best
protections for the young men and women in uniform, then I
would support that, sir. But sitting here before you today, I
do not understand the mechanism well enough to define it.
Senator Roberts. We can have a good conversation about
that. We were trying to determine from a funding standpoint and
an authorizing standpoint exactly where we were in combatting
terrorism and force protection within the DOD. It sounds easier
than it is.
General Pace. Yes, sir.
Senator Roberts. We will be happy to visit with you about
that.
President Bush recently announced the establishment of a
cabinet level homeland security agency led by Governor Ridge.
How will the establishment of this agency, in your view, impact
the Department's current supporting role in combatting domestic
terrorism?
My specific question is, will this agency have ultimate
authority over DOD's combatting terrorism budget, including
force protection? There is a school of thought by many
commissions that the distinguished chairman and I have worked
with on how you approach terrorism, that says in the new
position or homeland security agency somebody has to have the
horsepower and the budget authority. How is that going to match
up with what some of us feel is a pretty important pasture that
we are in charge of? Can we work that out? How do you feel
about that?
General Pace. Senator, I think we can work that out, and I
think that the position itself will help focus the government
debate on the proper way ahead. Clearly, the Department of
Defense has many things that we can do to assist in homeland
defense. There are also some lines which, as a citizen, I would
not want to cross as a person in uniform as we work together to
find out how our intelligence network, Reserve Forces, and
National Guard Forces, which in a very real measure are forward
deployed today inside the United States, can assist with
homeland defense. Just like how our Active Forces are forward
deployed overseas and Reserves support them, in a very real way
the Reserve and Guard Forces are forward deployed in the
communities around the Nation, and they have tremendous
capabilities that they can bring to bear. As we work together
to determine how best and most efficiently to use the resources
involved, I think that having the new cabinet level position is
going to assist us all in focusing the debate in making the
right decisions.
Senator Roberts. One of the things I have been interested
in with regard to your predecessor in the Southern Command,
General Wilhelm, who I think is an outstanding general,
outstanding marine, is there has been a lot of debate in regard
to our country's role in Colombia. Some insist we should
provide only counternarcotics support to the Colombian
Government. Others believe that the counternarcotics assistance
is inseparable from the war against the revolutionary armed
forces of Colombia. Some would call those terrorists. I would.
Can you give me your views on this issue, particularly in light
of the recent events?
General Pace. Sir, I can. Thank you. I agree with your
estimate of General Wilhelm. He is a great man and a great
patriot, and I thank you for bringing him up in this hearing,
sir.
I believe that our current support to Colombia has been
exactly and properly focused to support President Pastrana in
Plan Colombia. Senator, Plan Colombia has 10 parts, one of
which is the military; the others address health and judicial
reform, schools, roads, and alternative development. None of
those other parts of Plan Colombia can grow until there is
security throughout the Nation.
Today, the combination of the Colombian police and the
Colombian military is not sufficient to provide security
throughout the Nation. Our assistance to their counternarcotics
brigade, the provision by this Congress through our State
Department of helicopters, has, in fact, strengthened Joint
Task Force South under Brigadier General Montoya in the
Putamayo Province and allowed him to do a fantastic job. They
began operations last December. In less than a year, they have
eradicated almost 30,000 hectares. They have wiped out some 300
labs. They are providing security where they are. But the fact
of the matter is, if they were to move from the Putamayo
Province to somewhere else, then the stability of that province
would be undermined.
I believe the proper way ahead in the current support for
Plan Colombia is to assist the Colombian Government in building
additional counternarcotics brigades that can do what Joint
Task Force South has done; first, take on the counternarcotics
problem; second, move more into a homeland security type
organization that can provide stability so that Plan Colombia
can ultimately be successful.
The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia (FARC) are
terrorists. The National Liberation Army (ELN) are terrorists.
The Autodefensas in Colombia (AUC) are terrorists. The amount
of money in the drug trade, hundreds of millions of dollars, is
awash throughout the world, and within at least that specific
category, there are very healthy targets for our worldwide
campaign against terrorism, sir.
Senator Roberts. Basically, you are saying that when you
are awash in money from the drug cartels, regardless of the
region, that that money is fungible, which is precisely the
subject that the President and others are addressing even as we
speak.
My time is expired, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Cleland. I would like to ask a couple basic
questions. I would like to ask each of you, bringing your
military experience to this issue, what have you learned in the
wake of the September 11 terrorist attack's on the country? Can
you also comment across the board about anything you have
learned?
How will the September 11 terrorist attacks affect your new
role? What are some of the challenges you face?
General Handy.
General Handy. Thank you, Senator.
Clearly, the events of September 11 struck a deeply
personal blow to each of us as Americans. It has caused us all
to have a great deal of personal reflection as individuals.
Also, as a man with almost 35 years in the military, I have
some deep and lingering thoughts from a professional
perspective about what the future may portend.
The sanctity of this Nation and the protection of its
citizens has always been something that we hold very sacred,
and a challenge such as this from terrorists outside this great
Nation should cause us all to pause.
As I look in the future, if I am confirmed as the Commander
in Chief of United States Transportation Command, I see the
potential for a worldwide aggressive approach to suppressing
terrorism and eradicating these horrendous individuals, the
stresses and strains on the U.S. transportation system, our
airlift, sealift, and in great measure, even our internal road
and rail networks. They have become quite a challenge. On the
long distance support of troops abroad, our airlift resources
come into potentially very stressful situations as we are today
moving in that direction. General Pace mentioned our issues in
Southern Command. There is no doubt we need to exercise our
authorities continually in that region, as well as others
around the world. So, as I approach this job, I will remain
concerned and very anxious to try to work with this committee
to highlight and solve those stressing problems in this
business of ours.
Senator Cleland. Thank you very much.
General Pace. What have you learned?
General Pace. Senator, as we all have known for the past
decade, the United States' conventional forces are, quite
simply, untouchable, and we would, if attacked, be attacked
asymmetrically. We obviously have not been able to understand
the type of attack that would occur, like it did, nor to be
properly positioned to defeat it. But, now that it has occurred
and we have begun to focus our attention on how to prevent it
in the future and how to disassemble the terrorist
organizations that spurn this, I think we have several things
we need to do.
We must increase our intelligence capability, whether it be
for a combatant commander in the field like myself right now,
or in support of organizations like the FBI and other law
enforcement. We must have the eyes and ears both forward
deployed and at home, to understand the environment in which we
are working and to understand the networks against which we are
going to proceed.
We are also going to need an interagency approach to
execution of the decisions made by our President. I think our
system of Deputy Committees' meetings, Principals Committees'
meetings, National Security Council meetings are very good at
teeing up for the President the decisions that he makes.
The execution side sometimes devolves back to stovepipe
approaches so that what comes to the State Department to do,
they do, what comes to the Department of Defense, we do,
without enough coordination at the top to ensure that all of
our energies are being expended wisely and in synergy. I
believe that what we are going to need to do, and if confirmed,
what I will strive to do as Vice Chairman, is to bring together
the interagency here in Washington in a way that allows us to
focus all the energies of this Nation.
There is some part of this that is going to be kinetic.
There will be bombs dropped. There will be things that happen
in a purely military way. But there are enormous strengths of
this government that will be brought to bear that are outside
the realm of DOD. In DOD, we must understand how we can support
a mechanism to make all the work smoothly and efficiently, sir.
It is going to be needed.
Senator Cleland. Senator Roberts has a comment.
Senator Roberts. It is more of a question, and I apologize
to Senator Hutchinson and Senator Collins and Senator Nelson.
When something happens, we have been having hearings, what
I call the ``oh, my God'' hearings, in the Intelligence
Committee and on this committee as well. I am terribly
concerned about what I consider to be, I do not know if I want
to call it a massive failure, but certainly an unintentional
failure of preventive analytical ability in terms of our
intelligence capabilities. We have the technology. We have an
amazing amount of resources. We have good people. We have
plused up accounts on Signals Intelligence (SIGINT), on Human
Resources Intelligence (HUMINT), and on attracting people to
our intelligence agencies.
But I must tell you that after Khobar Towers, after the
U.S.S. Cole, after the Khartoum chemical plant bombing where we
made a mistake and ended up in world court, after the failure
of the intelligence community to detect the India nuclear test,
and we can go on and on, something is dreadfully wrong. We are
still continuing hearings on the Cole to get the preventive
intelligence available, in your case, sir, to the warfighter.
When Tommy Franks was in charge of the Central Command, it
seemed to us on the Intelligence Committee, upon investigation,
that there were enough red flags. As you take a look at what we
are into now, we are at war, perhaps a warning notice could
have been sent. Now, that is very difficult to do. It is very
easy to criticize with 20/20 hindsight.
But we have to do better in regards to our analytical
ability, and I think we have too many folks there who are into
risk aversion, who do not think out of the box, do not think
improbably. If we are going to detect so that we can deter the
next attack--because the same people that planned the bombing
in regards to Khobar Towers are the same kind of people that
did it with the Cole, the same kind of people that did it in
Washington and New York, and the same kind of people that are
doing it right now--and I must say that I am terribly concerned
and frustrated.
Every time we have hearings, we have people who sit in
front of us and say, ``Here is what we reported, here is what
we reported, here is what we reported.'' It is very difficult.
It takes weeks and months to do. We have ``leap-ahead''
technology now to help us out in that respect. I am very
concerned about it. If we do not do that, much of what we talk
about here is just not going to be possible.
I am being a little argumentative, and I apologize to my
colleagues for making a speech.
Do you have any comment about this in regards to force
protection and what you are going to be about? You say that you
are going to be the person that tries to develop a better joint
approach to this so that all of these stovepipes and the
cultures we have can say, ``Whoa, wait a minute.'' We have to
step back from this, understand we are at war, and come up with
a better plan.
General Pace. Senator, you clearly have articulated it
better than I could. I would simply add, based on my recent
experience in SOUTHCOM, that human intelligence is where I see
our biggest failing. For example, the vast majority of the
large successes that we have had in the counternarcotics
operations have been because we received information that
something was going to happen at a certain time, and received
it from a person who had knowledge from another person. It is
that kind of information that we do not have enough of, and
that is an area that I would recommend we focus on as we look
to shore up our intelligence apparatus.
Senator Roberts. Would either of the other two gentlemen,
Admiral, General, have any comments about this, other than to
say, ``yes, I agree?''
General Handy. Certainly, that is an imperative. General
Pace is absolutely right about the human intelligence problem
today.
But, Senator, what you point out is also the over-arching
issue that we all face, and that is integration of all of the
intelligence that we receive. Certainly, our intense focus must
be on breaking down those stovepipes and continuing to pull
this together with the technology that we know is within our
reach. The technology is a potential solution. From an Air
Force perspective, with my Vice Chief of Staff hat on, our
endeavors certainly bring us some relief, potentially in the
near term, as well as in the long term. Sharing integrated
intelligence, especially human intelligence, is a huge leap in
the right direction. We have certainly almost dispatched that
capability, and we need to resurrect it and give some strength
to it as well.
Senator Roberts. Admiral Ellis.
Admiral Ellis. Yes, sir. I would only add that while an
improvement in the intelligence architecture and the automated
tools can clearly bring us what you and my colleagues have
described, speedier analytical capability is essential. But
Pete is right on the mark when he talks about the critical
utility and role of human intelligence.
I would only add, based on my experience overseas, that we
also have the ability to draw human intelligence from allies
and coalition partners. They are increasingly forthcoming in
those types of dealings, based on my experience with our Balkan
operations, and this certainly is the case in the tremendous
outpouring of support that we have received overseas from our
allies since the tragic events of September 11. I would only
add that as we think HUMINT, in addition to those capabilities
which we need to generate ourselves, perhaps there are ways in
which we could expand and draw more completely on those
capabilities that already exist on the part of our allies and
partners.
Senator Roberts. Mr. Chairman, in the interest of my
colleagues and their valuable time, please consider that my
second 6 minutes, and I will cease and desist.
Senator Cleland. Thank you very much, Senator.
Admiral Ellis, any further lessons learned about September
11?
Admiral Ellis. Certainly, sir; I share the lessons that
everyone has brought home so tragically on September 11 in the
unexpected scope of this terrorist threat, which we know has
been confronting us for over a decade. Clearly, we have been
looking outward and we have worked very hard, as we have
already articulated, to ensure the safety of our deployed
forces and for those forces that go in harm's way. We have
redefined the nature of that threat clearly in one single,
heinous act on the 11th of September.
As I mentioned earlier and alluded to in my previous
remarks, the support that we have received from our allies has
been absolutely tremendous, and it is right down to the
tactical level. I have received calls from the heads of the
Armed Forces of virtually all of the NATO allies, telegrams of
support, offers of sympathy, and more importantly, they have
translated that into real offers of security. Heretofore,
issues that had been perhaps pushed back a bit by them, in the
interest of sovereignty concerns, all of those obstacles have
been removed and they certainly have been forthcoming.
If confirmed as Commander of the United States Strategic
Command, the future of what we now define as deterrence has to
include a larger number of elements in that concept as we look
at new threat environments and, indeed, in a real sense, new
strategic environments in which that deterrent policy must
serve us.
In the meantime, based on my understanding, Strategic
Command continues to support the Commander in Chief's (CINCs)
worldwide in terms of intelligence information. I believe that
the organization also would stand ready to support, in whatever
construct is deemed appropriate, the issues that are emerging
in terms of homeland defense. Clearly, all of us, as you have
properly noted, are going to see a much different situation
than we would have anticipated when initially nominated for
these posts a few short months ago.
Senator Cleland. Thank you all very much.
Senator Nelson.
Senator Ben Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is a pleasure to see you again, General Pace. As the
other Senator Nelson said, we journeyed together to Colombia. I
appreciated very much your insight, as well as your support
there for that mission.
It is good to see Admiral Ellis, soon to become a
Cornhusker. We are looking forward to having you come to
Nebraska. I saw Admiral Mies socially on Saturday evening and
he is very much looking forward to you succeeding him as the
CINC at Strategic Command.
General Handy, I look forward to working with you in the
months and years ahead, certainly to deal with the logistics of
moving troops quickly and safely. You have a significant role
and a tremendous job ahead of you, as we look forward to the
months, possibly years ahead, to deal with challenges as we
battle against terrorism.
My question to you all today comes from an opinion in the
Atlanta Journal Constitution written by the former chairman of
this committee, former Senator Sam Nunn. He tells about the
time that the communist empire broke apart. The former Soviet
Union left as a legacy some 30,000 nuclear warheads, more than
1,000 tons of highly enriched uranium, 150 tons of plutonium,
40,000 tons of chemical weapons, 4,500 tons of anthrax, and
tens of thousands of scientists who know how to make weapons
and missiles, but obviously do not even know how to feed their
families.
The fear continues to be that the former Soviet Union and
the republics, even working the United States, have been
unsuccessful in assuring the security of these weapons of mass
destruction. Do we have and can we put together a plan that, in
the midst of a war against terrorism, focuses on objects that
could be used against the United States, against the world for
that matter, in this battle against terrorism?
I guess I would start with you, General Pace.
General Pace. Senator, thank you.
The answer to can we put together that type of an
organization----
Senator Ben Nelson. Or have we? I think the suggestion is
that we have not been able to do it to date. If that is the
case, then the question obviously becomes can we.
General Pace. Sir, if I may constrain my answer in this
public forum?
Senator Ben Nelson. Yes. I think we have to keep it secure.
General Pace. In a very general overview way, I would
address your question by saying that there have been efforts in
the past which are being reinforced as we speak. I believe we
can have a proper mechanism for cooperating and sharing as much
information as available. My personal opinion is that we
probably can never have a foolproof system of knowing
everything about every possible type weapon that has been
transferred from legitimate government hands to illegitimate
hands.
If I may stop there in this forum, sir, I would like to.
Senator Ben Nelson. That would be fine.
Admiral Ellis, I know that you are going to be taking
charge of the offensive portion of our nuclear force, and
perhaps you have some thoughts as well.
Admiral Ellis. Yes, sir, Senator, I would be pleased to
share those.
Certainly, as we discussed in the office the other day,
those types of concerns that you have just articulated and that
Senator Nunn articulated in the op-ed piece are shared by all
of us. Indeed, there have been programs, as you are well aware
that have attempted to address this in the past and have done a
great deal in terms of addressing some of the specifics of
that.
How we need to reshape and reevaluate the magnitude and the
level of those programs, in light of current situations, is
certainly an appropriate question. The Nunn-Lugar program has
contributed over $2.7 billion to an effort to provide technical
advice to the Russians specifically on how to dismantle and
enhance the security of their nuclear and strategic systems.
There is, and there has been, a focus on the security
element, the counterproliferation element, and the
denuclearization of the former Soviet states, as you are well
aware. How we need to readdress that in the light of the
current strategic environment is certainly an appropriate
issue.
Senator Ben Nelson. Thank you.
My question involves you, General Handy, as you move
troops.
General Handy. Senator, thank you very much.
Recognizing the constraints that General Pace has
mentioned, I have perhaps another thought, that it is not just
the Defense Department that has these concerns. There are
several other agencies of our Government that are actively
engaged. Together, we ought to continue working the problem.
The other point would be that I think it is well known to
everybody that it is not just a former Soviet Republic problem.
We must be diligent around the world for weapons of mass
destruction and be on our guard in more than just that sector.
Nunn-Lugar has certainly pointed us in the right direction, but
there are other issues too that we ought to be very careful
about.
Senator Ben Nelson. This is not so much a question as it is
a comment of optimism. It is encouraging that there is a
recognition that we have to think outside the box, as we
protect for homeland security and for our force protection,
that we are willing to think of new ideas.
I hope it does not get to the point, either in protecting
against the use of these weapons against ourselves or in the
protection of other areas, that we are unwilling to listen to
people such as Tom Clancy, who make their living thinking
outside the box, entertaining and thrilling us with their novel
ideas. I hope that we, in our intelligence efforts, are willing
to listen and bring people in who will challenge our thinking
about security rather than simply go with the old ways. If you
always do what you have always done, you will always get what
you have always got. We have to move beyond that. I am
encouraged to hear you suggesting things of this sort, and I
appreciate it.
My time is expired. I, too, have to return to the Senate
floor because I have an amendment. Thank you.
Senator Cleland. Senator Nelson, would you consider
entering Senator Nunn's op-ed piece into our hearing record?
Senator Ben Nelson. If there is no objection, I certainly
would. Thank you.
[The article of Senator Nunn follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Cleland. Thank you very much.
Senator Hutchinson.
Senator Hutchinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
If I might pick up on Senator Nelson's comments regarding
our force protection and homeland security. For quite a while,
I have expressed serious concerns about our military
vaccination program, which has been in disarray for a number of
years. General Pace, if I could just ask you, are the troops
that are being deployed to the Middle East in your opinion
receiving adequate protection against biological weapons?
General Pace. Sir, to my knowledge, not all the troops we
are deploying have had the opportunity to receive the
vaccination because of the lack of vaccine. I do not know the
specifics. I can get you who has and who has not, but I would
be surprised if all the forces that are deploying have had the
opportunity because it has not been available recently.
Senator Hutchinson. Right. Of course, that is the only
answer we can give. We know that the vaccines have not been
available because of a disastrous program over the last several
years.
As I listened to Senator Roberts talk about the hearings on
the failures of the intelligence services and how we rue our
failure to either provide the resources or to provide the
guidance or to make the adjustments to have properly alerted us
to what we were facing, I fear that we are going to, in the
years ahead, look back at the failure that we have had on our
vaccine production program or lack thereof, and we are going to
rue that day. We are going to rue the fact that we have not
taken adequate steps, that we have not taken that issue
seriously enough, and that we have not moved quickly and
expeditiously enough. I think the implications are not just for
force protection, but for homeland security and the threat of
biological, terrorist attack upon the United States. Frankly,
as I remarked to General Myers, the tragedy of New York City
would pale in comparison to a biological weapon attack on the
homeland or upon our forces who are inadequately protected.
I hope that we will now begin to take this issue very
seriously, and move toward a vaccine production facility that
will have the backing of the United States Government and the
assurance that those vaccines are going to be available not
only for our military but for our public.
General Pace, you mentioned in response to Senator Roberts'
questions about homeland security and the role of the military
in homeland security that there are certain lines that you
would not feel comfortable crossing as a citizen. Can you
expand upon that? Where is that line?
General Pace. Sir, I think if it is properly the role of
law enforcement agencies in this country, it should remain role
of the law enforcement agencies in this country. If we are
going to expand military capabilities in particular areas, I
think we should also look to what law enforcement capabilities
need shoring up in this country and exert or apply the proper
resources to that.
I would think one area that the military could assist in,
for example, would be chemical decontamination. It would be
very useful for our Reserve and National Guard Forces to have a
chemical decontamination capability. That would be very useful
inside the U.S. military structure, but would also possibly be
very useful to support civil authorities in the homeland.
I would not want to see U.S. troops given the authority to
arrest citizens, for example, just to use two examples of the
kinds of things that I think are valuable to do and things that
would be, in my mind, threats to the Bill of Rights.
Senator Hutchinson. Good. Thank you.
General Pace, when do you anticipate the Quadrennial
Defense Review (QDR) will be submitted to Congress, and will it
take into account the new strategic realities since September
11?
General Pace. Sir, what I have been told in the building is
that the Secretary of Defense intends to meet his obligation of
sending the QDR to this building by the 30th of September. I
have no reason to believe that is untrue.
We all had the opportunity, as combatant commanders, to
participate in the development of the QDR. If anything, the
recent events have validated many of the concepts that were
being put into the QDR. I think in a very real sense, the QDR
already embodies the lessons that we would reinforce, sir.
Senator Hutchinson. General Handy, let me join Chairman
Cleland in thanking you for your support of the C-130 program.
Does the active duty Air Force currently have any of the C-
130Js?
General Handy. Not yet, Senator.
Senator Hutchinson. It was a leading question. Go ahead.
General Handy. As we have discussed many times, our current
plan for the C-130J beddown started with the hurricane hunters
at Keesler, Mississippi and has continued to respond to some of
the oldest aircraft that the Air National Guard has. We
currently have plans to introduce the ``J'' appropriately
through active duty units by targeting the schoolhouse for the
C-130, as well as the oldest aircraft in our fleet at Pope and
Ramstein. Those plans are on target, and with your tremendous
support on this committee, we look forward to executing it.
Senator Hutchinson. Thank you for that. It has come to my
attention that the active duty C-130 fleet is significantly
older than the Reserve and National Guard.
General Handy. Absolutely. Just anecdotally, several of the
aircraft I flew in my checkout and initial program in 1968, I
still fly. Aircraft I flew in 1970 in Vietnam that supported me
well then as a pilot, we are still flying at Pope and Ramstein.
So, that is a vote for an incredible airplane. It also says, no
sort of dagger at my own personal age in the cockpit, but these
are old airplanes, Senator, and we certainly, as you well
appreciate, need to replace them.
Senator Hutchinson. Thank you, General Handy. My time is
up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Akaka [presiding]. Thank you very much.
At this time I would like to call on Senator Collins.
Senator Warner. I wonder if the Senator would be kind
enough to yield to me because I am on the floor managing the
bill, and I have a very strong need to get back right away.
Senator Collins. I would be happy to.
Senator Warner. Would that be agreeable?
Senator Akaka. Senator Warner.
Senator Warner. I will not take but a minute.
General Pace, as one who wore marine green with great
humility many years ago, I cannot tell you the pride that I
take in seeing our President recognize you first as an
individual and then, of course, as the first marine in the
history of the United States to serve in this high a position.
It is a great recognition of your own career.
As I remarked to you yesterday when we spoke together in my
office, General Jones undoubtedly laid the path to this
appointment and you recognize that. He was under serious
consideration himself for the top slot, and then at his own
initiative he withdrew because of his loyalty and the
longstanding tradition of commandants of the Marine Corps: when
they get their assignment by the Commander in Chief they serve
out their terms.
The combination of these factors led to your appointment,
and you are eminently qualified to take on this heavy
responsibility at this very critical time in the history of our
Nation. I thank you and I thank your family for also
volunteering to stand by your side in the years to come.
General Pace. Thank you, sir.
Senator Warner. Admiral Ellis, you and I have known each
other for many years, and again the President has recognized
excellence within the ranks to take on this responsibility. As
you and I visited yesterday, we shared our views on the need
for you to review the work done by your predecessor,
particularly his ability to, from time to time, communicate to
Congress, both in hearings and in private sessions with Members
of Congress, the complexity of our strategic posture and the
need for the utmost care as the President arrives at decisions
predicated on the recommendations of people in your position,
as well as the Chairman of the Joint Staff, and others.
I wish you well in this task because it will be an integral
part of our future relationships primarily with Russia. You and
I know full well of the need to move forward in this area for
both nations. I wish you luck, together with your family.
Admiral Ellis. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Warner. General, when we visited yesterday you said
you have some of the oldest inventory and some of the newest
inventory, and somehow you have to bridge the gap between the
old and the new aircraft and press on with future acquisition
of the C-17, as well as the J model of the C-130. You also have
to keep up the morale of your brave aviators, as they fly some
of those machines which are older than they are in some
instances. Am I not correct on that?
General Handy. Yes.
Senator Warner. But the B-52 fellows laid down that
tradition and established it well, and I am sure your pilots
and air crew will do the same.
I am interested, though, in this program by which there
could be private sector participation in another acquisition of
C-17s. Would you basically outline the program that we
discussed yesterday, and address the procedural aspects as the
Department of the Air Force looks at that program?
General Handy. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Warner. It is the one that General Cassidy, one of
your predecessors, has worked on for some period of time.
General Handy. We currently have a proposal. There is a
Request for Proposal (RFP) out to industry now to approach,
primarily, the potentially large or even small package carriers
to acquire the C-17, up to 10, to introduce as a commercial
variant of the C-17 that, in times of crisis or need, could be
put in service of the United States Air Force and the Services
who need that lift capability.
Senator Warner. In other words, recalled from the private
sector and taken into the active Air Force rolls. Is that
correct?
General Handy. That is correct. The advantage, of course,
is that the Air Force gets the lift that they produce without
the cost of having acquired the entire airframe, and it is a
combination of an underwritten purchase agreement. Those
bidders for that business, supported by the United States Air
Force, but primarily by their own dollars out of their pockets.
As we develop this proposal, as we communicate with
industry, we are excited about that. It is something that
currently the Air Mobility Command and the United States
Transportation Command and the Air Force are watching very
carefully. It will take as we discussed yesterday, the strong,
continued support of this committee as we march forward.
Senator Warner. It is sort of a first cousin to the Civil
Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) program, which we have had for many
years whereby the private sector incorporates in the
construction of certain of their passenger aircraft features
which then, in the event those aircraft are required for
military use, are there in the airframes. This is somewhat
different, but the concept is the same, bringing aircraft from
the private sector back into active duty, somewhat like a
Reserves and National Guard call-up.
The issue that I think requires very careful scrutiny is
the private sector undertaking this heavy lift capacity offer
at a time when the projected business is not as firm as we
would like to see it. Consequently, they would require, I
think, some backup by the Federal Government should there come
a time they need it after an honest effort to make this program
work. I am not suggesting it will not work. But any financial
planner has to be cautious, particularly the private sector
that has to protect their stockholders and lenders. Then, if it
does not work, there is a system by which these planes can be
brought into the Department of the Air Force and that Congress
can authorize and appropriate the necessary funds to acquire
them from the private sector.
That is an area which I understand you are looking at now,
and eventually some proposal, hopefully, will come before
Congress. Am I correct?
General Handy. Yes, sir. The current analysis clearly
demonstrates that this is a viable option for industry, so it
is very appealing to a wide range of potential bidders out
there today. But as you point out very accurately, we are
concerned about the long-term impact honestly brought on by the
September 11 terrorist attacks. There are some insurance
concerns, some liability concerns, that complicate this
relationship. We will have to play out in time and be very
careful about where we proceed.
Senator Warner. I intend to work with you and other
colleagues here in the Senate, and hopefully we can make it
happen.
I thank the chairman. I thank my colleagues.
I shall support each of you. My welcome to your family too,
General Handy. I would like to submit my opening statement for
the record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Warner follows:]
Prepared Statement by Senator John Warner
Welcome, General Pace, Admiral Ellis, and General Handy, and
congratulations on your nominations.
The world has changed dramatically since you were nominated by the
President for these high positions. The importance of these key
positions and the grave responsibilities of the individuals placed in
these commands have only intensified since September 11. If you are
confirmed, as I fully expect, we will look to you for innovative
leadership in the difficult and challenging years ahead.
On September 13, only 2 days after the terrorist attacks on the
World Trade Center and the Pentagon, we conducted the nomination
hearing for General Myers, and the Senate quickly confirmed him as the
next Chairman of the Joint chiefs. It was imperative then--and it
remains so today--that we demonstrate our resolve and our commitment to
meet the new challenges we face by facilitating these nominations in
order to provide the Secretary of Defense the strong, determined
military leaders he needs to fight this war on terrorism. I thank the
Chairman for scheduling this hearing so promptly.
General Pace is no stranger to this committee. If confirmed, he
will be the first marine to serve in the capacity of Vice Chairman, a
milestone all marines, past and present, can be proud of. In his
present capacity, as Commander in Chief, United States Southern
Command, General Pace has confronted firsthand the corrosive effects of
terrorism. There are numerous, difficult challenges facing our friends
and allies in the United States Southern Command region, and I commend
General Pace on his service in that area of operations. His many
leadership accomplishments, in numerous joint billets worldwide and
with combat marines, will serve him well as the Vice Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Admiral Ellis is also well known to this committee. He has had a
most distinguished career as a naval aviator. He performed superbly as
NATO Joint Force Commander for Operation Allied Force, exercising
operational command of U.S. and allied forces involved in Kosovo combat
and humanitarian operations. He served admirably as Deputy Chief of
Naval Operations for Plans and Policy. He is nuclear-trained officer
with extensive command experience.
General Handy, as Vice Chief of Staff for the Air Force, has played
a key senior leadership role, directing the Air Staff and serving on
the Joint Requirements Oversight Council. He has had extensive
experience in the U.S. Transportation Command, serving as director of
operations and logistics. He is a command pilot with more than 4,800
flying hours, primarily in airlift aircraft. He, and all our witnesses,
are eminently well-qualified for the positions to which they have been
nominated.
Gentlemen, you have my support. I applaud your willingness to
serve, and I look forward to working with you.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Senator Warner.
Senator Collins.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, I want
to congratulate you on your appointments and thank you for your
service to our great Nation. I look forward to supporting each
of your confirmations.
General Handy, at my request the General Accounting Office
(GAO) has been working for many months with my staff at the
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Senate
Governmental Affairs Committee on a project relating to the
security of a certain type of facility that falls under the
authority of the Transportation Command.
Now, in light of recent events, TRANSCOM has deemed it
necessary to classify what were previously unclassified results
of the investigation. In fact, we had been scheduled to release
the two reports with the GAO on September 13. Due to the
classification of the reports, I cannot discuss the details
now, but I will say that we found some very serious security
problems with these facilities. The problems would make these
facilities dangerously vulnerable to terrorists. In short, the
sites that we examined are terribly insecure and vulnerable to
unauthorized access by criminals or by terrorists.
After we discovered the problems, I immediately telephoned
Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz, this was back in May, to alert him
to the problems and to urge the Department to move quickly to
correct these very serious deficiencies. As a result of my call
and his intervention, some steps have, indeed, been taken to
improve security at the facilities in question. In my view,
however, and in the judgment of the GAO, much more needs to be
done, especially in light of the terrorist threat that we face.
My first question to you is, are you familiar, and I
realize I am talking sort of in code here, with the findings
and the recommendations of my subcommittee's investigation with
the GAO? If you are not, I would request that my staff brief
you very soon about what we found.
Second, can I count on your commitment to take these very
serious security lapses seriously and to resolve completely all
the problems that we identified?
General Handy. Thank you very much, Senator.
Let me assure you that I am familiar with the report and
have read it. I agree entirely with every word that you have
said. I know that our folks that are out in TRANSCOM, as well
as the commander himself, are aggressively pursuing solutions
to those problems. I assure you that I will be very eager to
work with you and your staff, if I am confirmed in this
position, to eliminate every potential problem that we have
seen articulated in that report. I will be very anxious to talk
with you about it.
Senator Collins. Thank you. I look forward to working with
you very soon, to make sure that all the steps that need to be
taken, are. Thank you for that commitment.
General Pace, last week when I was in Maine, I discussed
the role of the National Guard with General Tinkham, who is the
head of the Maine National Guard. We talked about expanding the
role of the National Guard and our Reservists in homeland
security. Could you comment on the critical role of our
National Guard and Reserve Forces in the defense of our
homeland, and in particular, do you see them playing an
expanding role in combatting asymmetric attacks on our Nation,
such as we experienced on September 11?
General Pace. Yes, Senator. Thank you. I specifically
endorse the concept that our Reserves and our National Guard
have a great deal to offer our Nation for homeland security and
support to civil authority in that endeavor, everything from
the heavy lift capability that they have, to the ability to
provide security, communications, and intelligence. There are
many ways in which the U.S. military in the form of the
National Guard and the Reserves can, in fact, play a key and
essential support role to the lead law enforcement agency or
lead agency of the Federal Government. I would look for them to
expand that opportunity.
Senator Collins. As General Tinkham pointed out to me, they
are already forward deployed, which is a major advantage to
their being able to assist in beefing up our homeland defenses.
General Pace. Yes, ma'am. Just before you were able to join
the committee today, we had a previous discussion on that, and,
in fact, that exact point was brought out.
Senator Collins. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman, and I want to thank my colleague from Louisiana as
well.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Senator Collins.
Senator Landrieu.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize. I
had another committee meeting and had responsibilities on the
floor. I know that there have been some excellent statements
submitted for the record and excellent questions asked. My
staff has been able to brief me on those in a shorthanded way.
Let me say I have a statement for the record that I would
like to submit. I would also like to make a few statements and
then I ask one or two questions.
I guess it goes without saying, gentlemen, that our
military is in a state of transition and transformation. With
the tragic events of last week, these transitions hopefully
will become more dynamic, and the urgency in which we address
them will be more clear. I want to say what you already know,
that our traditional notions of warfighting are being, and must
be, reconsidered, that our Armed Services must have the vision
and wherewithal to adapt to a new paradigm of warfighting. I
chair the Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee, and
unfortunately, these threats have emerged and are emerging and
developing before our eyes, and they will continue to pose
great obstacles to peace and freedom throughout the world. No
longer is it a time to be anchored to the way things used to be
done.
As I have reviewed each of your backgrounds in preparation
for this hearing, I am confident that each one of you has the
ability, the intelligence, background, experience, and vision
to lead us at an extraordinary time like this. You will have my
full support and my vote in your confirmations, and I look
forward to working with all of you as we overcome the
tremendous challenges of this new century.
I know you are aware of this, but 260 million-plus
Americans count on your good work every day, and the quality of
life of millions if not billions of people around the world,
will be dependent on the decisions you will make in the months
and years to come. You most certainly have my support.
Mr. Chairman, without objection, I would like the rest of
my statement submitted for the record.
Senator Akaka. Without objection, it will be included in
the record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Landrieu follows:]
Prepared Statement by Senator Mary L. Landrieu
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, it goes without saying that our military
is in a state of transition and transformation. The tragic events of
September 11 will, unfortunately, but necessarily so, speed up the
transformation. Our traditional notions of warfighting must be
reconsidered, and our armed services must have the vision and where
with all to adapt to a new paradigm of warfighting. Emerging threats
have emerged, and they will only continue to pose an obstacle to peace
and freedom around the world. No longer is it a time to be anchored to
the way things used to be done. I am confident that you gentleman
before us today have the vision to use your new roles of leadership to
innovate and create an armed forces that can successfully overcome the
new challenges of the 21st century. Two hundred and eighty-five million
Americans and millions of people around the world depend on you.
General Pace, it certainly has taken too long for a marine to rise
to such prominence on the Joint Chiefs of Staff. As we enter this new
era in military strategy and war fighting, I am hopeful that the hard
nosed marine work ethic and the innate ability for marines to think
intelligently and react quickly will positively affect the hearts and
minds of all those on the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I am also excited that
you have an M.B.A. The Pentagon is not run like a business. Rather, all
too often, the deliberation of procurement, research and development,
and readiness issues move through the department of defense at a
snail's pace. I am hopeful you can use your business acumen as Vice
Chairman to improve the efficiency along your chain of command.
Admiral Ellis, your track record is impeccable. You have served as
both a ship captain and fighter pilot. Your background in nuclear
engineering can only serve as an asset as Commander in Chief of the
U.S. Strategic Command. Deterrence is a critical issue in the 21st
century. Moreover, I am confident you will capably oversee the nuclear
triad and its deterrence capabilities while working with the Russians
to reduce their nuclear stockpiles. The reduction of Russia's nuclear
stockpiles is an issue of great importance to me, and I look forward to
talking with you today and at a later date on this matter.
I also look forward to working with you both in my role Chair of
the Emerging Threats Subcommittee and as a Senator from Louisiana, home
to Barksdale Air Force Base and the B-52s that are so crucial to
STRATCOM.
What I truly want to know is how a Navy man with such a
distinguished career and so many tours at sea will get used to
defending the shores of Nebraska?
General Handy, you have performed admirably as an airlift pilot
during times of war, and you have served the Air Force well during your
time as Vice Chief of Staff. Nevertheless, the importance of
Transportation Command today is as great or greater than it has ever
been.
TRANSCOM's importance will only continue to grow in the coming
years. As you have stated, TRANSCOM is tasked to (a) get our
warfighters to the fight, (b) sustain the warfighter during the fight,
and (c) bring the warfighter home after the fight. TRANSCOM is
displaying its reason for being as we speak, as it delivers service men
and women to desolate far reaches across the globe. Under your
guidance, I am confident TRANSCOM will accomplish its three objectives.
As Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and
Capabilities, I look forward to working with all of you as we address
new challenges and work to overcome them. Thank you.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you.
I just have three questions at this time. General Pace, the
North American Aerospace Defense Command is conducting the
operation designed to keep hijacked aircraft from being used as
terrorist missiles currently in the United States. Meanwhile,
Joint Force Command has the responsibility through the Joint
Task Force-Civil Support to provide military assistance to
civil authorities for the consequence management of weapons of
mass destruction.
Does that mean that the defense of the U.S. homeland is
assigned to several commands, or are some aspects of homeland
defense not assigned at all? This is one of the issues that
Congress is grappling with with the administration to try to
stand up the kind of operations that we need to. Could you just
comment specifically on the record about that and share any
thoughts you might have with us?
General Pace. Yes, Senator. Right now, the defense of the
United States is shared amongst commands. North American
Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) certainly has the defense
responsibilities that you have already mentioned, and Joint
Forces Command in Norfolk, Virginia, with their Joint Task
Force-Civil Support, has the response to chemical, biological,
radiological, and high explosive events to support civil
authorities.
It was a part of the Quadrennial Defense Review plan for
the way ahead was to determine how best to provide for the
security of the United States. That, of course, now has been
put on a significantly reduced time line, but that is an item
of interest and importance to those in the leadership right
now.
I am aware of the need to do that. I am aware of my fellow
combatant commanders saying we should do that. I have not yet
had any briefings on where we might be, because I currently
have my responsibility for SOUTHCOM. But I do know that is a
proper and important function to have efficiently conducted for
the United States.
Again, I would simply state that one of my concerns would
be, as we provide what the U.S. military can provide for the
defense of the United States, that we do so with absolute
respect for the Bill of Rights.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you.
Let me just follow up with your role in SOUTHCOM. I
understand that Senator Roberts, the ranking member on Emerging
Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee, had asked you this
question, but Plan Colombia has been of interest to us both,
particularly in light of this new emerged threat. I know that
you have gone on record explaining or giving your views about
the situation, but could you just take this moment to either
add to those thoughts for the record, thoughts that you did not
get out on that particular question? Basically should we be
aware of something more in light of what has happened? What are
our plans of intercepting planes right now, given the pulling
of assets to other areas?
General Pace. If I may take those in inverse order,
Senator. The Colombian military, the embassy led by Ambassador
Ann Patterson, and myself, all are prepared for and support
resumption of providing the Colombian military the intelligence
support they need so that they can vector to their own aircraft
to intercept airplanes.
There are several parts of the two investigations that were
done by our own State Department folks and there are a couple
of checks that still need to be put in the block, but we have a
U.S. military/U.S. State Department agreement and we are
prepared to resume that data flow. There is much that we can do
through our radar system without having the additional input of
some of the airframes that we would like to have, but they are
not absolutely critical to the information flow.
To answer your second question, with regard to the money,
the hundreds of millions of dollars that are available to the
terrorist organizations, the FARC, the ELN, and the AUC, all of
those organizations, although not directly linked, that we know
of, to Al-Qaeda and the attacks of September 11, the enormous
amount of money awash in the international terrorist community
needs to be addressed. My recommendation would be that we find
a way to suck that money out of the international arena. It
would help us both in what we are trying to do for global
terrorism and in what we are trying to do to support President
Pastrana in Plan Colombia.
Senator Landrieu. I hear what you are saying, but the
difficulty of actually accomplishing that is quite complicated.
Even today, the President is announcing the suggestion of
freezing 37 specific accounts. That number might have gone up
since this morning. While freezing assets is an important
deterrent, it gets to be quite difficult in the way this money
is moving through the system.
I thank you for going on record because I think you have
made an excellent point.
My time has expired, Mr. Chairman, and I have another
committee hearing to attend. I thank you very much. Gentlemen,
you have my full support.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Senator Landrieu.
I want to welcome you even at this late time to this
meeting and especially welcome your families who are here and
who have supported you. As my wife says, she made me what I am,
and I am sure your families have done the same. We welcome you
here and know that you made a big difference in the rise of
those who have been nominated. I want to also congratulate you
for being nominated to the positions to be confirmed.
You know that you come at a time when our Nation is under a
huge burden of continuing to keep, not only our country, but
also the rest of the world, secure. You, and all of us, have a
tough job to do that. With that, you are up for confirmation,
and I want to wish you well.
I have read the answers to the advance policy questions and
was pleased to see that all of you placed emphasis on the
necessity of working together or bringing about a cohesive team
to accomplish your mission not only within the military, but
with other agencies, as well as with communities that support
the military's activities.
I would like to ask General Handy just one question. I am
interested in your assessment of the Full Service Moving
Project (FSMP) pilot program. You indicated in your advance
answers that the military services decided to cease
participation in the FSMP at the end of fiscal year 2001 and
that USTRANSCOM is going to make an assessment between the FSMP
pilot program, the Navy sailor arranged move pilot program, and
the Military Traffic Management Command's (MTMC) pilot program.
Understanding that the FSMP pilot began in January 2001, is
there going to be enough data for a fair assessment of this
program?
General Handy. Senator, thank you very much. I can directly
answer from an Air Force perspective as the Vice Chief that it
is in fact true, as indicated in my advanced remarks. All the
services will cease their funding for the full service movement
program as it currently exists in test at the end of this
month.
One reason for that was the exponential rise in cost within
the program lacking a commensurate rise in quality of service
to the families involved in those moves. It became very clear
that we, in fact, do have a considerable amount of data to
support that conclusion.
We will then take the good portions of the data, the good
feedback, and develop programs over the near term to try to
ensure that when we move family members and the military person
as well, that we are doing that with the care and concern that
we owe them. This particular project was just not returning
quality on the investment.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much.
Admiral Ellis, I am pleased to see your support for the
National Nuclear Security Administration and its plan to
modernize many aspects of the nuclear weapons manufacturing
complex. If confirmed, what actions will you take to ensure
that the U.S. nuclear stockpile remains safe, secure, and
reliable?
Admiral Ellis. Thank you, Senator.
As you know from the answers to the questions that I
submitted, that is certainly my top priority both in my role as
CINCSTRAT, if confirmed to that position, and in support of
General Gordon in his efforts in the National Nuclear Security
Administration.
Clearly, the proper resourcing of NNSA in its roles is
essential, and I thank you, other members of this committee,
and our Congress for that support. It is critical that we
continue to resource them at the level that is appropriate so
that they can then deliver on the commitment that they have to
the Nation to certify the continued reliability of that
strategic stockpile.
My personal commitments are to be involved personally in
meeting with General Gordon to familiarize myself, if
confirmed, with all of the agencies that have direct oversight
on this critical responsibility; to personally visit the
laboratories and the infrastructure facilities that are such an
important element of this so that I more fully understand the
challenges that are confronting NNSA in their august
responsibilities; and to appropriately exercise the roles that
have been established for CINCSTRAT in assessing the continued
safety and reliability of our nuclear stockpile.
Senator Akaka. Thank you for those responses.
General Pace, with respect to the training range located in
Vieques, are you aware of any suitable alternatives that would
satisfy the current training capability for the Navy and Marine
Corps?
General Pace. Senator, I participated in a long analysis of
alternate training sites. Admiral Fox Fallon and I were not
able to find another location in the Atlantic or in the Gulf of
Mexico that provided the air, land, and sea space to conduct
the full range of operations that we are able to do in Vieques.
My short answer to your question is, no, sir.
Senator Akaka. Given the Secretary of Navy's announcement
that training on Vieques will cease in fiscal year 2003 and the
fact that there is no suitable alternative training range, as
you have mentioned, do you have any thoughts regarding
appropriate actions to take to maintain the readiness of the
Navy and Marine Corps units which utilize the training range at
Vieques?
General Pace. Sir, my recommendation to the Navy and the
Marine leadership will be that they continue to use the other
facilities that are available to them to hone the skills as
best they can. If I can use a football analogy, they will still
be able to block, they will still be able to tackle, they will
still be able to throw passes and catch them at various ranges;
they will be able to perfect those skills. But without Vieques,
they will not be able to scrimmage and they will not be able to
pull all of the elements together at one time, sir.
Senator Akaka. I thank you for that. We will be discussing
this, or we are doing it right now on the floor of the Senate.
I thank you very much for your responses.
I have no further questions, and there are no other
Senators to ask questions here. Again, I want to thank you so
much for your responses to all of our questions. I want to
congratulate you for your nomination and wish you well in your
confirmation. To your families, I want to wish them well as
they support you.
There being no further questions, this meeting stands
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[Prepared questions submitted to Gen. Peter Pace, USMC, by
Chairman Levin prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
Department of Defense,
United States Southern Command,
Office of the Commander in Chief,
Miami, FL, September 21, 2001.
Hon. Carl Levin,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: As requested, my responses to the questions of
your 12 September 2001 letter are attached.
It is my distinct honor to receive the President's nomination to be
Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I am humbled by the
opportunity to continue to serve our Nation, and the magnificent men
and women of our Armed Forces.
Sincerely,
Peter Pace,
General, U.S. Marine Corps.
Enclosure.
cc: Senator John Warner.
Ranking Member.
______
Questions and Responses
defense reforms
Question. Almost 15 years have passed since the enactment of the
Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and
the Special Operations reforms.
Has your view of the importance, implementation, and practice of
these reforms changed since you last testified on this matter?
Answer. No.
Question. Do you foresee the need for additional modifications of
Goldwater-Nichols in light of the changing environment and possible
revisions to the national security strategy? If so, what areas do you
believe it might be appropriate to address in these possible
modifications?
Answer. I do not see the need for any additional modifications at
this time.
Question. Based upon your experience as Commander in Chief, U.S.
Southern Command and Director for Operations (J-3) of the Joint Staff,
do you believe that the roles of the combatant commanders and the Vice
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under the Goldwater-Nichols
legislation are appropriate and that the policies and procedures in
existence allow those roles to be fulfilled?
Answer. Yes. In addition to strengthening civilian control over the
Armed Forces, it also gives the various unified combatant commanders
clear responsibility and authority for accomplishing their respective
missions. Command and control of joint forces from the National Command
Authorities through the combatant commander has eliminated much of the
confusion and competing command and service influences that existed in
the pre-Goldwater-Nichols era.
duties
Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff?
Answer. Section 154(c), Title 10, U.S. Code, states that the Vice
Chairman performs the duties prescribed for him as a member of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as those duties prescribed by the
Chairman, with the approval of the Secretary of Defense.
Currently, in addition to the duties as a member of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, the Chairman has assigned the Vice Chairman to act as
the Chairman of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC), and as
his representative to the National Security Council Deputies Committee.
Further, the Vice Chairman has been charged with responsibility to stay
abreast of on-going operations and policy deliberations, so that he is
able to provide appropriate military advice to the President, the
Secretary of Defense, and the National Security Council in the
Chairman's absence. Although it will be within the Chairman's judgement
as to which of these duties I will exercise as Vice Chairman, if I am
confirmed, I have no reason to anticipate significant changes.
Question. What background and experience do you possess that you
believe qualifies you to perform these duties?
Answer. From my first command as a platoon leader in Vietnam to my
current position as Commander in Chief, United States Southern Command,
I have served in command and staff duties that have given me a global
perspective and understanding on how our own government functions and a
keen appreciation of how fortunate we are to be citizens of the United
States. These insights and practical experience will serve me well if
confirmed as the Vice Chairman.
Question. Do you believe that there are actions you need to take to
enhance your ability to perform the duties of Vice Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff?
Answer. My background and experience have prepared me to assume the
Vice Chairmanship of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. That said, it will be
important for me to listen to the advice of those around me and to do
my homework on each issue and challenge I will face.
relationships
Question. Section 162(b) of Title 10, United States Code, provides
that the chain of command runs from the President to the Secretary of
Defense and from the Secretary of Defense to the combatant commands.
Other sections of law and traditional practice, however, establish
important relationships outside the chain of command.
Please describe your understanding of the relationship of the Vice
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the following officials:
The Secretary of Defense.
Answer. As a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Vice Chairman
performs the duties prescribed for him and other such duties as may be
prescribed by the Chairman with the approval of the Secretary of
Defense.
Additionally, in the absence or disability of the Chairman, the
Vice Chairman acts as the Chairman and performs the duties of the
Chairman until a successor is appointed or until the absence or
disability ceasesd. These duties include serving as the principal
military adviser to the NCA.
As a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Vice Chairman may
submit advice or opinions to the Chairman in disagreement with, or in
addition to, the advice presented by the Chairman to the President, the
National Security Council or the Secretary of Defense. The Chairman
submits such opinion or advice at the same time he delivers his own, to
the President, the National Security Council, or the Secretary of
Defense.
The Vice Chairman, as a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, may
also individually or collectively, in his capacity as a military
adviser, provide the Secretary of Defense advice upon the Secretary's
request.
Question. The Deputy Secretary of Defense.
Answer. Under existing directives, the Deputy Secretary of Defense
is delegated full power and authority to act for the Secretary of
Defense on any matters concerning which the Secretary is authorized to
act. As such, the relationship of the Vice Chairman with the Deputy
Secretary is similar to that with the Secretary.
Question. The Under Secretaries of Defense.
Answer. Title 10, United States Code, and current DOD directives
establish the Under Secretaries of Defense as the principal staff
assistants and advisors to the Secretary regarding matters related to
their functional areas. Within their areas, Under Secretaries exercise
policy and oversight functions. In discharging their responsibilities,
the Under Secretaries may issue instructions and directive-type
memoranda that implement policy approved by the Secretary. These
instructions and directives are applicable to all DOD components. They
may also obtain reports and information necessary to carry out all
their functions. In carrying out their responsibilities, communications
from the Under Secretaries are transmitted through the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Question. The Assistant Secretaries of Defense.
Answer. With the exception of the Assistant Secretaries of Defense
for C\3\I, Public Affairs, Legislative Affairs, and Intelligence
Oversight, all Assistant Secretaries of Defense are subordinate to one
of the Under Secretaries of Defense. In carrying out their
responsibilities, as with Under Secretaries, communications from the
Assistant Secretaries are transmitted through the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff.
Question. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Answer. The Vice Chairman performs the duties prescribed for him as
a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and such other duties as may be
prescribed by the Chairman with the approval of the Secretary of
Defense. When there is a vacancy in the office of Chairman or in the
absence or disability of the Chairman, the Vice Chairman acts as
Chairman and performs the duties of the Chairman until a successor is
appointed or the absence or disability ceases.
Question. The Secretaries of the Military Departments.
Answer. Title 10, United States Code, Section 165 provides that,
subject to the authority, direction and control of the Secretary of
Defense, and subject to the authority of the combatant commanders, the
Secretaries of Military Departments are responsible for administration
and support of forces that are assigned to unified and specified
commands. The Chairman or Vice Chairman when directed or when acting as
the Chairman, advises the Secretary of Defense on the extent to which
program recommendations and budget proposals of the Military
Departments conform with priorities in strategic plans and with the
priorities established for requirements of the combatant commands.
Question. The Chiefs of Staff of the Services.
Answer. As a result of the Goldwater-Nichols Act, the Service
Chiefs are no longer involved in the operational chain of command. They
have two significant roles. First and foremost, they are responsible
for the organization, training, and equipping of their respective
Service. Without the full support and cooperation of the Service
Chiefs, no CINC can ensure the preparedness of his assigned forces for
missions directed by the NCA. As advisors to the Chairman and the NCA
and as the senior uniformed leaders of their respective Services, the
Service Chiefs play a critically important role in shaping and
transforming their Services' force structure and capabilities. If
confirmed, I will work closely with the Service Chiefs and their Vice
Chiefs to fulfill warfighting requirements.
Question. The Combatant Commanders.
Answer. The combatant commanders are the warfighters. By law and to
the extent directed by the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman serves as
spokesman for the Combatant commanders and is charged with overseeing
their activities. He provides a vital linkage between the Combatant
commanders and other elements of the Department of Defense. When the
Vice Chairman is performing the Chairman's duties in the latter's
absence, Combatant Commanders' relationships are as if the Vice were
the Chairman.
joint requirements oversight council (jroc)
Question. As a combatant commander, you have been the user of the
equipment, systems and systems of systems that have been provided by
the Services to the operating forces. Over the years, there have been a
number of after-action reports that have documented the lack of
interoperability and jointness of equipment and systems. In the past
year, the JROC has shifted its focus to a more strategic level so as to
make sure that the systems coming along are, as General Myers put it in
his testimony before the committee, ``born joint.'' If confirmed, you
will be the Chairman of the JROC.
Question. Based on your operational experience, particularly as
Commander in Chief, U.S. Southern Command, do you support this shift in
focus?
Answer. Yes.
Question. What role, if any, do you see for the combatant
commanders in the JROC process?
Answer. The fundamental changes made to the JROC process, starting
16 months ago, have as their central focus and goal to advance joint
warfighting and give future joint force commanders the capabilities
they will need to decisively defeat future threats. To this end, the
JROC embarked on developing future operational concepts and
corresponding architectures that will drive future weapon system
requirements as well as crucial changes to doctrine, organization,
personnel and other non-material solutions.
In chartering the Joint Warfighting Capability Assessment (JWCA)
teams to lead the development of these operational concepts and
architectures, the JROC is ensuring that our combatant commanders have
an active and visible role in developing and validating those concepts.
The JROC has clearly recognized that the involvement of the combatant
commanders in developing future requirements is central to delivering
the interoperable joint systems and overall capability our warfighters
need and deserve. The same holds true for the ability of the combatant
commanders to influence and gain the JROC's support to deal with more
immediate priorities as they continue to work closely with the JROC
during the Planning, Programming, and Budgeting System (PPBS) decision
cycles.
Question. What is your vision for both the role and relevancy of
the JROC?
Answer. Since the Defense Reorganization Act of 1986, the JROC has
fulfilled a multifaceted role which includes overseeing military
requirements generation, defense acquisition programs, and formulating
the Chairman's programmatic advice and alternative program
recommendations. Early in 2000, the Chairman initiated efforts to
strengthen the JROC's strategic focus. These efforts represent a
fundamental shift in how the JROC does business, and are anchored on:
enhancing the JROC's influence of requirements integration through the
development of operational concepts and architectures; integrating US
Joint Forces Command joint experimentation efforts into the JROC
process; and shifting the JROC's focus to future joint warfighting
requirements while still addressing current CINC priorities.
Key to the JROC's strategic focus is the development of operational
concepts and architectures that establish up-front interoperability and
integration standards. This represents the cornerstone of the JROC's
crucial role in transforming the future joint force. In his recent
report to Congress on the status of the JROC evolution, General Shelton
outlined numerous examples and actions that demonstrate the JROC's
progress in accomplishing each of these goals.
Question. What changes in its organization, if any, would you
recommend?
Answer. I would not recommend any further organizational changes at
this time.
role of u.s. joint forces command
Question. U.S. Joint Forces Command (USJFCOM) has been assigned the
complementary missions of being the chief advocate for jointness and
interoperability, being the DOD executive agent for joint concept
development and experimentation, and playing a role in the joint
requirements process. Those are similar to the functions given to the
Chairman/Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff by law and
regulation.
If confirmed, how would you envision working with the Commander in
Chief, USJFCOM, and what role would you expect that individual to play
in the JROC process?
Answer. For the last 18 months, the Chairman, Vice Chairman,
Services, the USJFCOM CINC, and elements of the Joint Staff have been
working to formalize JFCOM's role. JFCOM supports the joint process by
evaluating operational concepts chartered by the Chairman and JROC, and
must focus its experimentation efforts to support the development of
these concepts and architectures. Also, because joint doctrine,
organization, training, materiel, leadership/education, personnel and
facilities (DOTMLPF) has the potential to be as crucial as materiel,
the agreed JROC process will now evaluate those key elements.
If confirmed as Vice Chairman, I will push for continued
cooperation between the JROC and JFCOM to enable early review,
oversight, and endorsement of critical JFCOM interoperability
recommendations.
vieques
Question. Over the past 2 years Naval forces deploying from the
East Coast of the U.S. have been unable to conduct live-fire training
on the Navy's training range on Vieques, Puerto Rico, which has
degraded the readiness of these forces to execute their wartime
missions.
Based on your previous experience in looking at potential
replacements for Vieques, do you believe a replacement site can be
found that satisfies the Navy's goal of providing equivalent training
capability for our Navy and Marine Corps units?
Answer. No. The Navy and Marine Corps have conducted a number of
very thorough examinations of various sites in a search for potential
training locations. No other single location in the Atlantic Ocean or
Gulf of Mexico provides the air, land, sea space, and support
facilities that exist at the Vieques range complex.
Question. If so, do you believe this can be accomplished with a
single replacement site?
Answer. No.
Question. Do you believe a replacement for Vieques can be
identified and made available for training purposes by May 2003?
Answer. No.
Question. Do you believe we should cease training on Vieques by a
certain date or only when a replacement for Vieques has become
operational?
Answer. The Secretary of the Navy has made that decision and it is
a service call his decision to make.
Question. Do you believe the referendum on the future of live-fire
training on Vieques currently scheduled for November 6, 2001, should be
canceled?
Answer. The planning and execution of the referendum on Vieques is
an issue addressed by both the current and previous administrations and
this Congress. I intend to follow the direction of the President and
the laws of the land.
colombia
Question. As Commander in Chief, U.S. Southern Command, you have
played a major role in dealing with the Colombian civilian, military
and law enforcement authorities and in overseeing the U.S. military's
training of the Colombian military's counter-narcotics forces and the
provision of other assistance. Some commentators have criticized U.S.
assistance on the basis that some members of the Colombian military
have allegedly violated the human rights of its citizens and have
cooperated with the paramilitaries; others believe that U.S. assistance
should not be limited to fighting drug traffickers and should be
expanded to include counter-insurgency so as to preserve Colombia's
democratic form of government; and finally, others fear that any U.S.
assistance might eventually result in U.S. military involvement in the
conflict in Colombia.
Would you provide your views on the appropriate role of U.S.
assistance to Colombia?
Answer. Our role should be one of continued training of the
Colombian security forces because today the combined capabilities of
both the Colombian National Police and military are insufficient to
provide security throughout the country. Without countrywide security
for both citizens and infrastructure, Plan Colombia will not succeed
nor will the Government of Colombia be capable of providing law and
order.
We can provide the needed training within the current personnel
limits and without U.S. military involvement in the conflict. Properly
trained counter-narcotics forces will ultimately transform from an
exclusive counter-narcotics role to one of providing sustained
security.
military-to-military engagement
Question. U.S. Southern Command uses military-to-military
engagement, including combined operations, exercises, training and
education, security assistance, and humanitarian assistance programs,
with host nations' forces to engender regional security.
Do you believe that Southern Command's military-to-military
engagement has been successful and is cost effective?
Answer. Yes. Through our investment in military-to-military
engagement, we are making a positive difference in helping to
strengthen democracy, promote prosperity, and foster regional security
in Latin America and the Caribbean. The resources invested in
appropriate, focused engagement have helped shape a security
environment characterized by increased regional cooperation and
improved regional security.
We deploy small preventive forces today to avoid large scale,
conflict resolution deployments later.
Question. Based upon your assignments elsewhere, do you believe
that military-to-military engagement is a valuable tool for other
regions of the world?
Answer. Yes.
anthrax vaccination
Question. DOD officials have testified that anthrax is the greatest
biological weapon threat to our military force because it is highly
lethal, easy to produce in large quantities, and remains viable over
long periods of time. The anthrax vaccination program has been
curtailed because of limited quantities of FDA approved vaccine.
Do you continue to support the policy of vaccinating our service
men and women to immunize them against the use of weaponized anthrax?
Answer. Yes. This is a force protection issue. We must do
everything possible as a nation, to protect our soldiers, sailors,
airmen and marines from the threats they face in an uncertain
environment.
Question. If confirmed, will you support full implementation of the
Anthrax Vaccine Immunization Program if sufficient supplies of FDA
approved anthrax vaccine become available?
Answer. Yes.
lessons learned
Question. What are the most important lessons that you have learned
as Commander in Chief, U.S. Southern Command.
Answer. I have gained an appreciation of the strategic importance
of the U.S. Southern Command's Area of Responsibility (AOR) to U.S.
national security interests. Thirty nine percent of U.S. trade is
conducted in this hemisphere. Nearly 35 percent of our oil imports come
from Latin America and the Caribbean, which is more than all of the
Middle East countries combined. Of every dollar spent by countries in
the AOR, 49 cents are on U.S. goods and services. Hispanics are the
largest and fastest growing minority in the U.S. due mainly to
immigration from Latin America. Although Colombia and counterdrug
activities are important, U.S. Southern Command should not become
Colombia or counterdrug centric. The strategic importance of the region
is far too great to neglect our other partners and issues in the
theater. We must strike a balance between our immediate priorities and
our long-term interests.
Given the dominant role that military forces traditionally play in
Latin America, U.S. Southern Command's comprehensive and multifaceted
engagement strategy has, and will continue to positively influence
governments in the region. We must allocate sufficient resources to
leverage these engagement opportunities and thereby continue to enjoy
the benefits of a stable southern flank.
I have also found that most regional problems and issues in the
U.S. Southern Command's AOR require an interagency approach to be fully
successful. Coordination and cooperation with the interagency has
significantly improved our engagement with Partner Nations, counterdrug
operations, and effectiveness in responding to regional crises.
Finally, I must state my admiration for the truly outstanding
soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen, coastguardsmen and civilians that
serve at U.S. Southern Command. They are dedicated professionals and I
am proud to serve with them and their families.
major challenges and problems
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will
confront the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff?
Answer. If I am confirmed, my first priority will be to ensure our
soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and coastguardsmen are ready to
meet the near-term challenges of executing the tasks that support our
National Military Strategy. We must ensure they are organized, trained,
equipped, and supported with the tools required to protect our Nation's
security interests--both at home and abroad. Second, we must have the
proper force structure to implement this strategy. Third, we must make
the investment to modernize, recapitalize, and transform our forces to
meet the challenges of the 21st century.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, I'll assist the Chairman in working with the
Secretary of Defense, the Service Chiefs, and the combatant commanders
to ensure we focus on readiness issues for the near-term challenges
while implementing programs in concert with the Secretary's Defense
Planning Guidance to transform and modernize the force.
Question. What do you consider to be the most serious problems in
the performance of the functions of the Vice Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff?
Answer. The most important function of the Vice Chairman is to
assist the Chairman in his duties to provide military advice to the
Secretary of Defense, the President, and the National Security Council.
Currently, there are no major problems in performing this function.
Question. If confirmed, what management actions and time lines
would you establish to address these problems?
Answer. If confirmed, one of my top priorities would be to assist
the Chairman in his efforts to better equip our staffs to enable swift,
accurate information flow. Our information and decision capabilities
are critical to providing accurate and timely advice to the National
Command Authority (NCA). We must ensure that these systems are state of
the art and interoperable. Furthermore, we must ensure that our
transformation efforts enhance joint command and control throughout
DOD.
combattting terrorism
Question. The Joint Task Force-Civil Support (JTF-CS) located
within Joint Forces Command is a relatively new task force that is
expected to be a key player should the Department of Defense be called
upon to play a supporting role in the U.S. Government's response to a
domestic weapons of mass destruction (WMD) event.
What steps do you think should be taken to ensure that the JTF-CS
is fully prepared to fulfill its responsibilities in the event of a
domestic WMD event?
Answer. Joint Forces Command was directed to create a full-time,
standing Joint Task Force Headquarters for Civil Support capable of
responding to a Lead Federal Agency (e.g., the Federal Emergency
Management Agency) request for assistance during an event involving
Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, or High Explosive (CBRNE).
Though JTF-CS has no standing forces assigned, forces may be assigned,
attached, or placed under the operational control of JTF-CS on a
situational basis.
Important steps associated with developing the capabilities of JTF-
CS have already taken place, to include mission analysis, (including
possible expansion) and then developing internal and external plans and
exercises with the interagency. In light of recent events, it is clear
that the capabilities of this trained Joint Task Force Headquarters are
more critical than ever if DOD should be needed to respond for
Consequence Management (CM) support to CBRNE incidents. Continued
interagency liaison and training exercises are critical to the
continued refinement of tactics, techniques and procedures to ensure a
rapid and efficient DOD response.
encroachment
Question. On November 27, 2000, the Senior Readiness Oversight
Council identified several ``encroachment'' problems confronting the
Department of Defense including protection of endangered species,
unexploded ordnance and other constituents, commercial demand for
bandwidth and frequency, sustainability of the maritime environment,
demand for use of airspace, protection of air quality, abatement of
airborne noise, and growth of urban areas. At a March 20, 2001, hearing
before the Readiness and Management Support Subcommittee,
representatives of the military services expressed concern that this
encroachment was hindering their Title 10 responsibility to train the
forces.
If confirmed, what actions would you take to address these
problems?
Answer. Training is critical to the readiness of combat forces and
encroachment is a serious issue with national security implications.
Under Title 10, U.S. Code, training of the Armed Forces is a Service
responsibility, and the Services are working hard not only to maintain
their training facilities, but to improve their stewardship of the
environment, while strengthening their relationships with local
communities.
There is a collaborative effort within the Department of Defense to
address encroachment issues. We have draft action plans for the various
aspects of encroachment. We are working a community outreach program to
minimize the impact of encroachment by fostering a dialogue with local
leadership, discussing work-around initiatives, and developing
potential technology solutions to provide a similar level of training.
This is a solid and prudent approach for resolving the encroachment
issues. If confirmed, I'll continue to support these efforts.
readiness reporting system
Question. The systems that the military services use to measure
their readiness have been criticized as outdated and inappropriate for
a military of the 21st century. Some of the specific criticisms raised
have been that the systems measure past readiness rather than future
readiness, and measure the readiness of the forces to perform a major
theater war mission rather than the mission to which they are currently
assigned.
Do you agree with these criticisms and, if confirmed, what actions
would you take to change the readiness reporting system?
Answer. I agree in part. As Vice Chairman, I will be involved in
the readiness of the force, in the assessment process, and in
identifying solutions to our shortfalls. The Joint Staff hosts annual
CINC/Service conferences on readiness, and based on the CINC/Service's
feedback, the focus on joint warfighting is the proper emphasis, and is
also in accordance with Section 117, Title 10, U.S. Code. Units are
designed-manned, armed, equipped, and trained to conduct wartime
missions. But I also recognize the necessity to assess our readiness
for missions other than war. Less than 2 years ago, the Joint Staff
created a reporting mechanism within the Global Status of Resources and
Training System to do this. While this was a good first effort, we need
to explore the expansion and/or refinement of this reporting mechanism.
As set forth in the DPG, the Services and Chairman must recommend to
the Secretary of Defense a comprehensive readiness reporting system. If
confirmed, I will assist the Chairman to further enhance the
timeliness, accuracy, and usefulness of the readiness reporting system.
cinc-identified readiness deficiencies
Question. Over the last several years, the Quarterly Readiness
Reports that the Department prepares for Congress have outlined a
number of CINC identified readiness related deficiencies. Many of these
are listed as Category I deficiencies which entail significant
warfighting risk to execution of the National Military Strategy.
Although these deficiencies have been reported for the past several
years, they have not as yet been effectively addressed. This has raised
concerns that the requirements of the warfighting CINCs are not being
incorporated into the military services budgets and the Department's
acquisition process.
If confirmed, what actions would you take to ensure that these
requirements are understood and funded within the Department's budget?
Answer. If confirmed, I will assist the Chairman to report the
combatant commanders' identified readiness deficiencies. I will also
assist the Chairman to make assessments and recommendations to the
Secretary of Defense regarding the reporting system, the effectiveness
of the Services' budgets, and the acquisition process to solve these
deficiencies.
commercial vs military requirements for frequency spectrum
Question. The Federal Government is trying to identify a band of
frequencies that can be used for the operation of 3rd Generation
Wireless Communications devices. As a part of this overall effort, the
Department of Defense conducted a study to determine the cost and
operational impact that would result if the military services were to
surrender the use of the 1755-1850 MHZ band of frequencies on which
they currently operate their equipment. That study found that it would
take at least $4.3 billion and 17 years to vacate the band if a
suitable band of alternative frequencies were identified for the
Department's use. The Secretary of Defense and General Shelton recently
signed a letter to Members of Congress that outlined the importance of
spectrum availability, and this band in particular, for the
Department's operations.
What is your view of that assessment?
Answer. I fully support the position of the Secretary of Defense
and General Shelton. Spectrum access is vital to combat operations and
training. Guaranteed access to spectrum is a cornerstone of information
superiority and our warfighting abilities. Without this access, the
ability of the Department to use current and planned weapon systems, to
employ new technologies, and to effectively command and control
conventional and nuclear forces is seriously compromised. The 1755-1850
MHz frequency band supports over a $100 billion investment in key
satellite, air combat training, precision weapons guidance, and
battlefield communications systems. These systems provide commanders
and their forces real-time intelligence, voice, data, and video
information and precision strike ability necessary for a leaner, more
agile and more flexible force to meet global mission requirements.
Competition for spectrum, both nationally and internationally, is
increasing and the Department's growth and need for spectrum parallels
commercial industry's needs. We must ensure any spectrum decision
carefully considers national security, the needs of commercial
interests, and other important national interests.
We are fully committed to cooperating with Congress and the Federal
Communications Commission and within the administration in finding
solutions for 3rd generation implementation that meet commercial needs
while protecting essential national security capabilities.
role of cinc's
Question. Based on your service as the Commander in Chief, U.S.
Southern Command, do you have any recommendation on ways to improve the
effectiveness and capabilities of the regional combatant commanders?
Answer. Sound management of PERSTEMPO, equipment modernization, and
investment in infrastructure will lead to more capable and efficient
forces. One area in need of greater interagency synergy is the
implementation of policy decisions. We need a mechanism at the national
level to track and coordinate the efforts of individual departments.
quality of life, u.s. southern command headquarters
Question. Since the establishment of U.S. Southern Command
Headquarters in Miami, there have been consistent concerns over the
quality of life of our military personnel assigned to the Command.
What, if any, improvements should be taken to improve the quality
of life for these dedicated personnel?
Answer. Concern for quality of life issues is a critical element of
leadership, one which properly reflects commitment to our personnel and
helps create an environment supportive of recruitment, retention, and
readiness. Regarding SOUTHCOM headquarters in Miami, I applaud the
efforts of the Army, in particular, and of other organizations such as
the Defense Commissary Agency, as they develop new and creative means
to support quality of life requirements for SOUTHCOM personnel. The key
element is providing predictability--a reasonable degree of consistency
in the programs, policies, and services offered from one assignment to
another, from one location to another.
The current SOUTHCOM headquarters location is strategically
important for executing the mission of the command but it is in no way
traditional; there is not an active installation from which to draw
support. However, this does provide the opportunity to develop new and
creative methods to meet requirements. Partnering with the local
community and local businesses has been a key to development and
continued improvement of support and services that are comparable to
those found on a typical military installation. Childcare requirements,
for example, are addressed by contracting for available space at
nationally accredited childcare centers so that the service member pays
rates comparable to those at any military installation. Junior enlisted
housing is another example, we lease apartments from the existing
capacity in the local community to provide for our junior personnel--
and currently no one is on a waiting list. These are just two examples
of progress.
Still, there are shortcomings. We have not yet established a
partnership within the local community to approximate typical
commissary savings for service members. However, we have received great
support and flexibility from the Defense Commissary Agency to bring
commissary benefits and savings to military personnel residing in Miami
through a ``Tent Sale'' every 4 months. This is only an occasional
relief, but it makes a positive impact and takes us a step closer to
predictability. Another concern is with medical support. There is a
small medical clinic and dispensing pharmacy at the headquarters that
adequately serves as the primary care manager for SOUTHCOM active duty
personnel and their family members. Additional requirements for
specialized treatment, laboratory work, or dental care are met through
the network of providers in the greater Miami area that participate
with Tricare. The turnover of doctors participating in Tricare has been
frustrating. Implementing changes or procedures that decrease the
turnover in doctors will greatly improve continuity of care and
satisfaction. Further, problems with administrative and billing
processes have caused difficulty in the past. Though some progress has
occurred in this area, systemic improvements are needed. In addition,
full implementation of the basic allowance for housing entitlement
increases--eliminating the ``out-of-pocket'' burden for our personnel--
is especially important. Finally, we will continue to seek a cost-of-
living allowance (COLA) to offset the high cost in Miami.
command and control
Question. Despite significant investment in military service,
national and combatant commander command and control systems, more than
one of the recently-convened defense review panels concluded that U.S.
forces do not have a deployable, joint command and control system that
can immediately be placed into operation to coordinate the efforts of
U.S. and coalition forces.
What actions do you think are necessary to ensure the rapid
development of such an important capability?
Answer. This is an absolutely critical capability and we do have
deficiencies in addressing the full command and control
interoperability required by a Joint Task Force (JTF) headquarters. The
current DPG calls for plans to establish standing JTF headquarters and
recommends improvements to operating procedures and capabilities, to
include addressing rapidly deployable interoperable command and
control. This will be a major part of the experimentation in JFCOM's
Millennium Challenge 2002 exercise. Additionally, JFCOM will take the
lead to identify and fix current mission critical JTF C2 legacy
interoperability issues. Further, I fully support the criticality of
development and fielding of rapidly deployable, interoperable, command
and control systems. If confirmed, I will, in my delegated role as
Chairman of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council along with the
Service Vice Chiefs, provide the necessary senior military perspective
to achieve an interoperable joint command and control capability.
information operations
Question. Joint Vision 2020 and various defense reviews have
highlighted the importance of information operations in future warfare.
What role and what obstacles do you see for information operations
as an integral part of US joint military operations?
Answer. Information operations are a means to ensure decision
superiority--the key to successful military operations in the future.
IO provides non-kinetic options, with promising effects to defeat
adversaries, at low-risk to military forces. But we're faced with three
challenges: planning and executing these activities the same way we
would any wartime campaign; integrating the military's efforts with
those of other U.S. Government agencies; identifying and removing
unintended effects while keeping up with rapidly changing information
technologies. We can meet these challenges.
Question. Are you satisfied that there is unity of effort within
the Department of Defense in the development of information operations
capabilities?
Answer. Emerging computer network attack and defense capabilities
represent an important aspect of information operations. We have been
working hard to enhance the security of DOD computer networks and to
defend those networks from unauthorized activity (e.g., exploitation of
data or attack). Recognizing that the threat to our networked systems
is real and increasing, we established the Joint Task Force--Computer
Network Defense in December 1998, and assigned responsibility for that
mission to U.S. Space Command in 1999. We have incorporated intrusion
detection software in many of our networks, erected firewalls, and
increased awareness training for our personnel through our information
assurance program.
In October 2000, the Commander in Chief, U.S. Space Command
(USSPACECOM), assumed responsibility as the military lead for computer
network attack as well, and charged USSPACECOM with overseeing the
development of capabilities and procedures for this aspect of offensive
information operations. In April 2001, U.S. Space Command redesignated
the Joint Task Force--Computer Network Defense as the Joint Task
Force--Computer Network Operations to reflect this new mission. The
Services also cooperate with other Defense and Intelligence Community
agencies in efforts to defend the networks that are vital to our
national security.
As you have indicated, the Services, Defense Agencies, and
combatant commanders are all devoting a great deal of effort to this
area. I believe we have the structures and procedures in place to keep
duplication of effort to a minimum and ensure advances in information
operations capabilities across the Department.
transformation/revolution in military affairs
Question. The President and the Secretary of Defense have called
for a significant transformation of at least a portion of our Armed
Forces to counter emerging 21st century threats.
In your opinion, what will constitute transformation of our Armed
Forces?
Answer. Transformation is an on-going process for conceptualizing,
developing and fielding new combinations of operational concepts,
capabilities, organizational arrangements and training regimens that
provide U.S. joint forces with advantages that fundamentally change our
own, or render less effective potential adversaries', ways of waging
war. It is usually evolutionary in nature, but may be revolutionary.
Modernization of our weapons systems, information technology, and other
defense materiel equipment is a key part, but only one of many elements
in the transformation equation.
True transformation can only occur through evolution within all the
critical joint force considerations of doctrine, organization,
training, material, leadership and education, personnel and facilities
(DOTMLPF). A comprehensive DOTMLPF approach is necessary to field and
employ future capabilities that fundamentally change and improve our
operational and warfighting effectiveness.
Joint Transformation also requires changes within the three
supporting processes of requirements generation, acquisition, and the
Planning, Programming, and Budgeting System (PPBS) processes. Over the
past year, the military has made significant strides in the improvement
of the requirements generation process through the evolving strategic
integration role of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC).
The Requirements Generation System (RGS) process was shifted from a
threat-based system to a joint operational concept and capabilities-
based system. Additionally, the process was adapted to enable the
introduction and consideration of transformation initiatives from a
variety of sources, to include Joint and Service experimentation. The
Secretary of Defense is working hard to streamline the acquisition and
PPBS processes to facilitate transformation.
Question. Are you confident that the defense review process/QDR now
concluding will outline a clear vision for transformation within the
Department?
Answer. The senior civilian and military leadership within DOD have
reached consensus on an approach to transformation--one that focuses
clearly on six critical operational challenges: (1) homeland defense;
(2) projecting forces in anti-access environments; (3) engaging mobile
targets at long range; (4) information operations; (5) space
operations; and (6) developing a common operational picture. The QDR
has identified the need for strengthening joint organizations and
operations through the development of standing joint task force
headquarters. It calls for increasing joint experimentation and concept
development. It places emphasis on exploiting U.S. advantages in
intelligence. Finally, it charts a course for transforming U.S.
military capabilities over time to address key operational challenges.
quadrennial defense review
Question. If confirmed, you will take office on or about the day
the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) is forwarded to Congress.
Not having had a formal role in the review process, how do you
perceive your role and responsibilities in implementing the
recommendations of the QDR?
Answer. I did have a role in the process for this QDR. My fellow
unified commanders and I had meetings with Secretary of Defense
Rumsfeld to discuss this and we were encouraged to participate. I am
familiar with the process and direction of the review. If confirmed as
the Vice Chairman, my role will be to support the Chairman in
implementing the actions directed by the Secretary of Defense.
Question. As a combatant commander, were you satisfied that
warfighting CINCs had ample access to the review process?
Answer. I was satisfied that I had as much time as was available in
the review process. There was insufficient time given that a new
administration had recently taken office and was populating the defense
establishment and establishing its own strategies and priorities.
joint standing task forces
Question. At least two of the strategic review panels made
recommendations concerning the need for permanent, operations-oriented,
joint headquarters to better and more quickly integrate joint forces
and conduct complex joint operations. Recent reporting indicates the
Department of Defense may recommend the establishment of these standing
joint headquarters at each of the combatant commands.
As a combatant commander, did you perceive a need for such a
standing operations headquarters in your area of responsibility?
Answer. Yes. In fact, U.S. Southern Command has had its own
standing joint task force with JTF-Bravo in Soto Cano, Honduras. JTF-
Bravo has served Southern Command's mission and our Nation well both in
cooperative engagement and disaster response.
Question. In your opinion, are such elements needed at every
combatant command?
Answer. This question has been thoroughly debated within the
Department of Defense over the past few months. There is a general
consensus that some form of standing joint headquarters structure for
each geographic combatant command will improve the performance of our
joint forces.
The department is considering standing headquarters alternatives,
including a model developed within JFCOM's joint experimentation
program that will be tested next August during the Millennium Challenge
experiment. Any alternative must help build habitual pre-established
relationships, provide continuity of planning and operations, and
provide baseline Command, Control, Communications, Computers,
Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C\4\ISR), and Standing
Operating Procedures.
However, there are many significant issues, including manning,
infrastructure, and cost, which we must consider before implementation.
Also, each geographic combatant command has different requirements that
may drive a different standing JTF headquarters structure. DOD is
currently working toward final decision in Fall 2002, following the
completion of Millennium Challenge.
Question. Should any or all of these headquarters have specifically
assigned joint forces that regularly train and operate together?
Answer. The Secretary of Defense tasked the Chairman to examine the
issue and submit plans for establishing standing Joint Task Forces
(JTFs) in spring 2002. If we successfully implement our standing joint
headquarters concept, we can tailor each JTF as required by the
situation, leaving forces available for other important uses in
peacetime. One of the beauties of a JTF is its flexibility in
organization to meet the requirements of each mission. Through
effective joint training and aggressive joint experimentation, we can
improve joint interoperability and effectiveness without incurring the
disadvantages of assigning forces habitually to the standing JTF
headquarters.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, when asked, to give your personal views,
even if those views differ from the administration in power?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as the Vice Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings and
other communications of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu
plan colombia
1. Senator Landrieu. General Pace, Secretary of State Colin Powell
was scheduled to meet with President Andreas Pastrana of Colombia to
discuss Plan Colombia on September 11. What are your views on Plan
Colombia as it currently operates? What could be done to improve the
efficacy of Plan Colombia? In light of the events of September 11,
should the U.S. resume intercepting planes that trigger red flags out
of Colombia because there is a chance such planes could reach U.S.
airspace with a weapon of mass destruction?
General Pace. Our current support to Colombia has been properly
focused to support President Pastrana in Plan Colombia. Plan Colombia
has ten parts, one of those parts is military. Our assistance to the
Colombian Counternarcotics Brigade and the provision of the helicopters
by the U.S. Congress, through the Department of State, has strengthened
Colombia's Joint Task Force South. Since they began operations last
December, they have eradicated almost 30,000 hectares and have wiped
out some 300 labs. They provide security where they are in Putumayo
Province. But the fact of the matter is, if they were to move from that
province to somewhere else, then the stability of that province would
be undermined.
The other parts of Plan Colombia include things like health,
judicial reform, schools, roads, and alternative development. None of
these can grow until there is security throughout the Nation. Although
Colombian Military and Colombian Police have been strengthened since
the beginning of Plan Colombia, the Colombian Military and Police
combined is insufficient to provide security throughout the Nation. The
proper way ahead in the current support for Plan Colombia is to assist
the Colombian Government in building additional counternarcotics
brigades. These brigades could take on first the counternarcotics
problem and then second transition more into a homeland security type
organization that can provide stability--to improve the efficacy of
Plan Colombia--so that Plan Colombia can be ultimately successful.
The Colombian military, the American Embassy led by Ambassador
Patterson, and myself, all are prepared and support the resumption of
providing to the Colombian military the intelligence support they need
so that they can vector their own aircraft to intercept airplanes.
There is much that we can do through our radar system without having
the additional input of some of the airframes that we would like to
have but that are not absolutely critical to the information flow. Our
capability and procedures that are in place are sufficient to intercept
an aircraft, which has triggered a red flag and may be carrying a
weapon of mass destruction, approaching U.S. airspace, regardless of
its point of origin outside North America.
homeland defense
2. Senator Landrieu. General Pace, the North American Aerospace
Defense Command is constructing the operation designed to keep hijacked
aircraft from being used as terrorist missiles in the United States.
Meanwhile, Joint Forces Command has the responsibility, through its
Joint Task Force-Civil Support, to provide military assistance to civil
authorities for the consequence management of weapons of mass
destruction incidents within the United States. Does that mean that
defense of the U.S. homeland is assigned to several commands, or,
perhaps, some aspects of homeland defense are not assigned at all?
General Pace. An Execute Order was signed 16 October by the
Secretary of Defense that delineated the Joint Operations Area,
responsibilities, and relationships among the combatant commanders for
Homeland Security. The responsibilities and relationships provided in
the Execute Order are an extension of guidance already provided for in
the Unified Command Plan and other DOD directives.
All aspects of Homeland Defense are assigned to the combatant
commanders and the Services. The events of 11 September have
illustrated possible areas where seams can be eliminated or mitigated.
We are currently reviewing the Unified Command Plan and will make
necessary organizational changes for Homeland Security while ensuring
we retain the ability to fight and win our Nation's wars.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Strom Thurmond
role of joint staff in base closure process
3. Senator Thurmond. General Pace, the Senate is currently
considering our defense authorization bill. The bill authorizes an
additional base closure round in 2003. The intent of the legislation is
not only to elimination excess infrastructure, but also to reshape the
infrastructure with the force structure. What role does the Joint Staff
have in the base closure process?
General Pace. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is required
to advise the National Security Council, and Congress of the United
States concerning all matters of military capability and readiness.
Installations contribute to overall force readiness by providing the
infrastructure to project and sustain military force to any area of the
world where U.S. national interests are threatened. Excess
infrastructure detracts from military readiness by diverting limited
resources from personnel, training, and equipment modernization
programs. During all previous BRAC actions, the Chairman and the Joint
Staff conducted analytical reviews in order to develop comments and
provide recommendations on operational issues generated from proposed
realignments and closures. That analysis is critical to assure
continued support to the combatant commands and overall national
security.
4. Senator Thurmond. General Pace, what prevents the Department
from reshaping the infrastructure based on force structure
requirements?
General Pace. In the absence of legislated BRAC authority, there
are no existing measures to effectively realign and/or dispose of
infrastructure that is not required. Prior to 1977, the Department had
much greater authority in the area of closing excess military
installations. However, since the enactment of the BRAC law (codified
in Title 10, U.S. Code, section 2687) in 1977, there have been no
substantial base closures outside of the BRAC rounds specifically
authorized by Congress. Section 2687 is extremely restrictive in its
terms. Additionally, compliance with the National Environmental Policy
Act further restrains the Department's ability to facilitate the
closure, disposal, and economic redevelopment of installation
properties.
innovative technology
5. Senator Thurmond. General Pace, as the Vice Chairman, you will
serve as the Chairman of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, and
will have a key role ensuring that our forces have the latest
technology and weapons systems to carry-out their national security
role. Although I believe the JROC has had a positive impact on the
types of systems the Services develop, I am concerned that in this era
of rapidly changing technology it may slow down or hinder getting that
technology into the hands of our warfighters. What are your views on
this matter?
General Pace. I agree the U.S. technology base is clearly a
national asset, and as JROC Chairman, I am absolutely committed to
ensuring our forces are equipped with systems and capabilities that
take advantage of the breakthroughs generated by the research and
development community in a timely manner. Currently, there are a number
of avenues we're already using to incorporate new technology into the
system development process such as spiral development, planned ``block
upgrades,'' and advanced concept technology demonstrations (ACTDs).
Were also reviewing developmental and operational testing plans for
opportunities to employ emerging systems in real-world conditions.
Additionally, the combatant commanders' message from the field has
remained consistent: they not only want the latest technology, but it's
crucial the systems they take to the fight are interoperable. That's
where the JROC is adding the most value. I am convinced our current
plan to get the JROC involved at the beginning of the requirements
process will better integrate complex requirement and architectural
issues, more fully incorporate the substantial Joint Experimentation
efforts in work at Joint Forces Command, and ultimately drive future
weapon systems that are born joint.
Finally, I see JROC reviews as ``surgical'' in nature, occurring at
key points prior to major acquisition milestone decisions.
Specifically, the amount of time new systems or requirements require
oversight and guidance from the JROC is literally measured in days. So
rather than hindering the transition of technology from laboratory to
warfighter, the JROC process is designed to ensure requirements are
calibrated against the constantly changing threat environment,
performance parameters are on-track, and systems are ready to
transition from development to production.
In summary, while we continue to look at procedures to improve the
responsiveness of our process to technological innovation, the JROC is
a vital component in the effort to link the development of material and
non-material solutions with a shared view of required operational
capabilities to achieve true DOD-wide transformation.
reliance on reserves
6. Senator Thurmond. General Pace, the call-up of Reserve Forces to
support the war against the terrorists proves the important role the
reservists have in support of our national security. Despite the
willingness of the reservists to respond to the call of duty, I am
concerned that the emerging threats will require increased call-ups of
our reservist, which potentially will have an impact on their
employment. Since the call-up of reservists reflect a shortage of
certain skills in the active ranks, is it time to adjust the type and
number of skills we maintain in the Active Forces so the Nation is
better prepared to meet the new threats?
General Pace. As an integral part of the Total Force, we continue
to rely on our Reserve components across a wide range of missions. They
are essential to current war plans and the homeland defense mission as
detailed in the 30 September 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR)
Report and confirmed by the recent call-up for Operations Noble Eagle
and Enduring Freedom. The QDR Report also outlines the Department of
Defense's transformation strategy for U.S. military forces, which will
draw on the strengths and capabilities of the Reserve and National
Guard. Some of the most significant issues to deal with in the coming
months are the size, composition, and missions of our defense forces.
The QDR Report stipulates the Department of Defense will initiate a
thorough review of the active and Reserve mix to ensure the appropriate
use of the Reserve component. The review will build on recent
assessments of Reserve component issues that highlighted emerging roles
for the Reserve components in homeland defense, in smaller-scale
contingencies, and in major combat operations.
joint staff
7. Senator Thurmond. General Pace, we frequently hear that the
Joint Staff has become too large and is encroaching into areas that
have historically been the sole domain of the military departments.
What is your perspective or these issues?
General Pace. I disagree with any assertion that the Joint Staff is
too large and is encroaching into areas that have historically been the
domain of the Military Departments. First, in recent years, the actual
number of personnel assigned to the Joint Staff has steadily declined,
in spite of the fact that we have had more duties--in addition to our
statutory ones--levied upon us. In 1987, the Joint Staff's authorized
personnel strength was 1,627. Today, it's 1,242. In keeping with the 15
percent management headquarters cuts directed in the Fiscal Year 2000
National Defense Authorization Act, the Joint Staff is girding for yet
another round of cuts that will translate into 195 people. Second, the
DOD Reorganization Act of 1986 (also known as the Goldwater-Nichols
Act) added considerable definition and clarity to the roles and
responsibilities of the Chairman, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the
combatant commanders, and the Services. The roles and responsibilities
of the Chairman and his Joint Staff are those spelled out in Title 10,
as well as those duties assigned by the National Command Authorities.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Rick Santorum
afghanistan
8. Senator Santorum. General Pace, in 1993, elite United States
forces attempted to capture General Mohamed Farrah Aidid, the dominant
political leader in Somalia, one of the worlds' poorest countries. The
decision would result in a bloody firefight as Rangers and men of the
Delta Force made their seventh attempt to grab Aidid. Eighteen American
soldiers died, and 77 were wounded. An estimated 300 Somalis were
killed and another 700 wounded, a third of the casualties women and
children. General Aidid was not captured and the U.S. withdrew from
Somalia.
General, you served as Deputy Commander, Marine Forces, Somalia
from December 1992 to February 1993, and as Deputy Commander, Joint
Task Force-Somalia from October 1993 to March 1994. Based on your
experiences in Somalia, can you share with me your insights on the
challenges facing U.S. military forces in Afghanistan? Are there
parallels between the U.S. seeking to capture Osama bin Laden and U.S.
attempts to capture Somalian warlord Aidid?
General Pace. Since Afghanistan is a landlocked country located a
great distance from the United States, we must rely heavily on our
forward-deployed forces in order to conduct military operations in that
region of the world. Afghanistan is a country of extremely inhospitable
terrain with rugged, mountainous regions and numerous choke points. The
Taliban know their countryside well and understand the best locations
from which to defend and the best routes along which to attack. The
weather there is also extreme. Winter is approaching quickly and could
impact military operations. I want to reassure you however, that our
forces train on a regular basis under varying harsh conditions and
stand ready today to answer our Nation's call to arms in this new war
on terrorism. I am confident that the American military will prevail.
Both men are leaders of their respective factions, command extreme
respect and obedience from their followers, are surrounded by loyal and
irregular combatants, and rely heavily on graft and money to retain
power. There are however, stark differences between the two scenarios.
Osama bin Laden is widely recognized in the international community as
a criminal and a murderer. As such, there exists widespread support to
eliminate him and his terrorist organization. Also, Somalia was a
limited, small-scale operation compared to the current operation being
conducted in Afghanistan. We have committed the full range of military
might of the U.S. Armed Forces to this operation. We fully support the
President and his vision to root out the terrorists and those who
harbor and support them.
______
[The nomination reference of Gen. Peter Pace follows:]
Nomination Reference
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
September 4, 2001.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
The following named officer for appointment as the Vice Chairman of
the Joint Chief of Staff and appointment to the grade indicated while
assigned to a position of importance and responsibility under Title 10,
United States Code, Section 601 and 152:
To be General
Peter Pace, 7426.
______
Resume of Peter Pace, General, U.S. Southern Command
General Peter Pace is currently serving as the Commander in Chief,
U.S. Southern Command, Miami, Florida.
General Pace was born in Brooklyn, NY, and raised in Teaneck, NJ.
He received his commission in June 1967, following graduation from the
United States Naval Academy. He also holds a masters degree in Business
Administration from George Washington University (1972). Upon
completion of The Basic School, Quantico, VA, in 1968, he was assigned
to the 2d Battalion, 5th Marines, 1st Marine Division in the Republic
of Vietnam, serving first as a rifle platoon leader and subsequently as
assistant operations officer.
Returning from overseas in March 1969, he reported to Marine
Barracks, Washington, DC. During this tour, he served as Head, Infantry
Writer Unit, Marine Corps Institute; Platoon Leader, Guard Company;
Security Detachment Commander, Camp David; White House Social Aide; and
Platoon Leader, Special Ceremonial Platoon. He was promoted to captain
in April 1971. In September 1971, General Pace attended the Infantry
Officers' Advanced Course at Fort Benning, Ga. Returning overseas in
October 1972, he was assigned to the Security Element, Marine Aircraft
Group 15, 1st Marine Aircraft Wing, Nam Phong, Thailand, where he
served as Operations Officer and then Executive Officer.
In October 1973, he was assigned to Headquarters Marine Corps,
Washington, DC, for duty as the Assistant Majors' Monitor.
During October 1976, he reported to the 1st Marine Division, Camp
Pendleton, Calif., where he served as Operations Officer, 2d Battalion,
5th Marines; Executive Officer, 3d Battalion, 5th Marines; and Division
Staff Secretary. He was promoted to Major in November 1977. In August
1979, he reported to the Marine Corps Command and Staff College as a
student.
Upon completion of school in June 1980, he was assigned duty as
Commanding Officer, Marine Corps Recruiting Station, Buffalo, NY. While
in this assignment, he was promoted to Lieutenant Colonel in October
1982. Reassigned to the 1st Marine Division, Camp Pendleton, General
Pace served from June 1983, until June 1985, as Commanding Officer, 2d
Battalion, 1st Marines.
In June 1985, he was selected to attend the National War College,
in Washington, DC.
After graduation the following June, he was assigned to the
Combined/Joint Staff in Seoul, Korea. He served as Chief, Ground Forces
Branch until April 1987, when he became Executive Officer to the
Assistant Chief of Staff, C/J/G3, United Nations Command/Combined
Forces Command/United States Forces Korea/Eighth United States Army.
General Pace returned to Marine Barracks in Washington, DC, in
August 1988, for duty as Commanding Officer. He was promoted to Colonel
in October 1988. In August 1991, he was assigned duty as Chief of
Staff, 2d Marine Division, Camp Lejeune. During February 1992, he was
assigned duty as Assistant Division Commander. He was advanced to
Brigadier General on April 6, 1992, and was assigned duty as the
President, Marine Corps University/Commanding General, Marine Corps
Schools, Marine Corps Combat Development Command, Quantico, VA, on July
13, 1992. While serving in this capacity, he also served as Deputy
Commander, Marine Forces, Somalia from December 1992-February 1993, and
as the Deputy Commander, Joint Task Force--Somalia from October 1993-
March 1994. General Pace was advanced to Major General on June 21,
1994, and was assigned as the Deputy Commander/Chief of Staff, U.S.
Forces, Japan. He was promoted to Lieutenant General and assigned as
the Director for Operations (J-3), Joint Staff, Washington, DC, on
August 5, 1996. On November 26, 1997 he assumed duties as Commander,
U.S. Marine Corps Forces Atlantic/Europe/South with Headquarters in
Norfolk, Virginia; Stuttgart, Germany; and Miami, Florida. He was
advanced to his current grade and assumed duties as Commander in Chief,
U.S. Southern Command on September 8, 2000.
General Pace attended Harvard University in the program for Senior
Executives in National and International Security.
General Pace's personal decorations include: Defense Distinguished
Service Medal; Defense Superior Service Medal; the Legion of Merit;
Bronze Star Medal with Combat ``V''; the Defense Meritorious Service
Medal; Meritorious Service Medal with gold star; Navy Commendation
Medal with Combat ``V''; Navy Achievement Medal with gold star; and the
Combat Action Ribbon.
______
[The Committee on Armed Services requires certain senior
military officers nominated by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
form that details the biographical, financial and other
information of the nominee. The form executed by Gen. Peter
Pace, USMC, in connection with his nomination follows:]
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Room SR-228
Washington, DC 20510-6050
(202) 224-3871
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation
of your answer applies.
Part A--Biographical Information
Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.
1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
Peter Pace.
2. Position to which nominated:
Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
3. Date of nomination:
September 4, 2001.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
5. Date and place of birth:
5 November 1945; Brooklyn, New York.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to former Lynne Anne Holden.
7. Names and ages of children:
Peter Pace, Jr., 25, 26 Oct. 76.
Tiffany Pace, 23, 21 Aug. 78.
8. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative, honorary
or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State, or local
governments, other than those listed in the service record extract
provided to the committee by the Executive Branch.
None.
9. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, firm, partnership, or other business
enterprise, educational, or other institution.
None.
10. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
Member, Marine Corps Association.
Member, The Retired Officers' Association.
Member, Honorable Order of Kentucky Colonels.
Member, Naval Academy Alumni Association.
Member, National War College Alumni Association.
Member, Board of Directors, Marine Corps--Law Enforcement
Foundation--non-compensatory.
11. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, and any other special recognitions for outstanding
service or achievements other than those listed on the service record
extract provided to the committee by the Executive Branch.
None.
12. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree,
if confirmed, to appear and testify upon request before any duly
constituted committee of the Senate?
I do so agree.
13. Personal views: Do you agree, when asked before any duly
constituted committee of Congress, to give your personal views, even if
those views differ from the administration in power?
I do so agree.
______
[The nominee responded to the questions in Parts B-E of the
committee questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set
forth in the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to
Parts B-E are contained in the committee's executive files.]
------
Signature and Date
I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement
of Biographical and Financial Information and that the information
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate,
and complete.
Peter Pace.
This 18th day of September, 2001.
[The nomination of Gen. Peter Pace was reported to the
Senate by Chairman Levin on September 26, 2001, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on September 26, 2001.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to Gen. John W. Handy, USAF,
by Chairman Levin prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
Questions and Responses
defense reforms
Question. Almost 15 years have passed since the enactment of the
Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and
the Special Operations reforms.
Do you support full implementation of these defense reforms?
Answer. Absolutely. The Goldwater-Nichols Act was a much needed and
very timely piece of transition legislation for our military. The
issues articulated in the act were real. Pre-Goldwater-Nichols,
insufficient JCS review, oversight of contingency planning, unclear
chains of command, and inadequate attention to both the quality and
training of officers assigned to joint duty hampered the efficient
employment of our Armed Forces.
Question. What is your view of the extent to which these defense
reforms have been implemented?
Answer. Since 1986, the Joint Staff, the Unified Commands, and the
Services have vigorously pursued the intent of the Goldwater-Nichols
Act. Today, the corporate advice provided by the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff is detailed, meaningful, timely, and extremely
influential. Our civilian leadership trusts that our Armed Forces can
and will carry out our assigned missions in the most effective and cost
efficient manner possible. The strategic planning, contingency
planning, theater engagement planning, crisis response activities,
programs and budgets of the Unified Commands and the services are in
sync with the National Security Strategy and are based upon realistic
combat and support force projections. Lastly, there has been an
exponential leap in the quality and education of the personnel assigned
to the various joint staffs. The Services now realize that joint
experience is an absolute necessity in the career progression of its
best and brightest officers and are resolutely filling their joint
billet allocations with the same.
Question. What do you consider to be the most important aspects of
these defense reforms?
Answer. The most important aspect of these defense reforms has been
the demonstrated improvement in the joint warfighting capabilities of
the United States Armed Forces. Over the past 15 years, the Goldwater-
Nichols Act has given us a focus on joint doctrine, joint professional
military education, and coordinated military planning. Chains of
command have been clarified from the National Command Authority all the
way down to individual on-scene commanders. Today, Combatant Commanders
clearly understand their planning, training and execution
responsibilities. Equally important, they understand that their ability
to articulate their equipment resource needs and priorities weighs
heavily in the services' POM inputs and the overall Department of
Defense fiscal planning effort.
Question. The goals of Congress in enacting these defense reforms,
as reflected in section 3 of the Goldwater-Nichols Department of
Defense Reorganization Act, can be summarized as strengthening civilian
control; improving military advice; placing clear responsibility on the
combatant commanders for the accomplishment of their missions; ensuring
the authority of the combatant commanders is commensurate with their
responsibility; increasing attention to the formulation of strategy and
to contingency planning; providing for more efficient use of defense
resources; and enhancing the effectiveness of military operations and
improving the management and administration of the Department of
Defense.
Do you agree with these goals?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you foresee the need for additional modifications of
Goldwater-Nichols in light of the changing environment and possible
revisions to the national security strategy? If so, what areas do you
believe it would be appropriate to address in these modifications?
Answer. The military now has 15 years' experience operating under
Goldwater-Nichols it has significantly changed the way the Department
of Defense operates. By and large, the changes have enhanced the way
our Nation employs its military forces. There may be some areas that
could benefit from legislative changes; however, I would like to
reserve judgment on this until after I've studied any specific
proposals. If confirmed, I would be pleased to share my thoughts with
the committee as appropriate.
Question. Based upon your experience as Vice Chief of Staff for the
Air Force, do you believe that the role of the combatant commanders
under the Goldwater-Nichols legislation is appropriate and that the
policies and procedures in existence allow that role to be fulfilled?
Answer. Based upon my experience as Vice Chief of Staff of the Air
Force, the role of the combatant commanders under the Goldwater-Nichols
Act seems appropriate to me. Existing policies and procedures appear to
allow that role to be fulfilled. If confirmed, I'll carefully monitor
my roles and responsibilities under Goldwater-Nichols and share any
future observations with the committee as appropriate.
duties
Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
the Commander in Chief, U.S. Transportation Command?
Answer. The mission of the Commander in Chief, United States
Transportation Command is to provide air, land, and sea transportation
for the Department of Defense (DOD), both in time of peace and time of
war. To accomplish this mission, for day-to-day execution, the
Commander in Chief, U.S. Transportation Command relies on U.S.
Transportation Command's Component Commands: the Air Force's Air
Mobility Command (AMC); the Navy's Military Sealift Command (MSC); and
the Army's Military Traffic Management Command (MTMC). To accomplish
this mission requires leadership of a blend of active and Reserve
Forces, civilian employees, and partnership with commercial industry to
provide mobility forces and assets in a force structure continuum
designed to make a seamless transition from peace to war.
That said, the number one mission of the Commander in Chief, United
States Transportation Command is to provide strategic mobility support
to the regional CINCs during crises. Simply put, the U.S.
Transportation Command wartime mission has three objectives:
1. Get the warfighter to the fight.
2. Sustain the warfighter during the fight.
3. Bring the warfighter home after the fight is done.
Question. What background and experience do you possess that you
believe qualifies you to perform these duties?
Answer. Since my commissioning as an Air Force officer in 1967, I
have been blessed with a host of opportunities and experiences, as well
as with some of the finest commanders, bosses, teachers, mentors, role
models and friends that the Services have ever produced. From July 1997
to October 1998, I commanded half of AMC's airlift and tanker aircraft,
supporting global mobility operations worldwide. Prior to that
assignment I had served 2 years as the commander of Headquarters
Military Airlift Command's Airlift Control Center and later as
commander, Headquarters Air Mobility Command's Tanker Airlift Control
Center. This assignment was followed by almost 2 years as the U.S.
Transportation Command director of operations and logistics.
Additionally, I have twice served as a wing commander for an airlift
wing, and as director of programs and evaluations and deputy chief of
staff for installations and logistics at Headquarters U.S. Air Force.
As the Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force, I had direct, personal and
frequent contact with the SECDEF, CJCS, all the CINCs and the Service
Chiefs on many major issues, operations, and planning matters
confronting all the CINCs, including USCINCTRANS. Throughout these past
34 years I have watched our military grow and evolve into a force that
today is recognized as the best equipped, trained, and educated in the
world--perhaps the finest team of military professionals the world has
ever known. If confirmed, I will be honored to lead one of the most
critical components of that team. I am a true believer in the Total
Force Concept that leverages active, guard, and Reserve component
forces of all services to meet our national security challenge. The
command experiences, field training and education I've been fortunate
to have thus far have prepared me for the tasks ahead. I look forward
to the opportunity to serve our country and the great men and women of
the United States Transportation Command.
Question. What are the most important lessons that you have learned
as the Vice Chief of Staff for the Air Force?
Answer. In my role as Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force, I've
learned the true value and critical importance of building a cohesive
team not only within the Air Force, but also with the other Services
and organizations within the interagency process, as well as the many
civilian communities that support our Nation's military. If confirmed,
I will continue to nurture and build the great team at U.S.
Transportation Command, ensuring our Nation continues to have trained
and ready mobility capabilities to support the Nation's interests
anytime, anywhere.
Question. Do you believe that there are actions you need to take to
enhance your ability to perform the duties of the Commander in Chief,
U.S. Transportation Command?
Answer. A complete understanding of current Defense Department and
national transportation issues is essential to my ability to discharge
these important duties. If confirmed, I will do everything within my
power to insure I remain ready for this critical duty.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what duties and functions do
you expect that the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff would prescribe for you?
Answer. I would anticipate the Secretary and the Chairman to direct
me to prepare U.S. Transportation Command to meet the supported CINC
requirements for any contingency. I also believe they would direct me
to provide the most effective and efficient transportation services
available in peace or war. All the normal duties and functions of
command would be directed toward those ends. That said, I stand ready
to follow any duties or functions assigned.
relationships
Question. Please describe your understanding of the relationship of
the Commander in Chief, U.S. Transportation Command to the following
officials:
The Secretary of Defense.
Answer. An objective of the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986 was to
clarify the command line to combatant commanders and to preserve
civilian control of the military. That act stated that the operational
chain of command runs from the President to the Secretary of Defense to
the combatant commanders. As such, the Commander in Chief, U.S.
Transportation Command is directly responsible to the National Command
Authorities, President and Secretary of Defense, for the performance of
the defense transportation mission and the preparedness of the command.
Question. The Deputy Secretary of Defense.
Answer. The Deputy Secretary of Defense is delegated full power and
authority to act for the Secretary of Defense and exercise the powers
of the Secretary on any and all matters for which the Secretary is
authorized to act according to law. As such, the Commander in Chief,
U.S. Transportation Command will normally report through the Secretary,
but will report to and through the Deputy Secretary the same as he
would the Secretary when the Deputy Secretary is representing the
Secretary.
The Under Secretaries of Defense.
Answer. Under current DOD Directives, Under Secretaries of Defense
coordinate and exchange information with DOD components, including
combatant commands, having collateral or related functions. In process
and in practice, this coordination and exchange is normally
communicated through the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. If
confirmed as a combatant commander, I will respond and reciprocate
accordingly.
Question. The Assistant Secretaries of Defense.
Answer. With the exception of the Assistant Secretaries of Defense
for C\3\I, Public Affairs and Legislative Affairs, all Assistant
Secretaries are subordinate to one of the Under Secretaries of Defense.
This means that any relationship U.S. Transportation Command would
require with any Assistant Secretary of Defense would be through the
Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, the Under Secretary for
Personnel and Readiness, or the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition and Technology. Since the Assistant Secretaries of Defense
for C\3\I, Public Affairs and Legislative Affairs are SECDEF's
principal deputies for overall supervision of C\3\I, Public Affairs and
Legislative matters respectively, any relations required between U.S.
Transportation Command and ASD(C\3\I) and ASD(LA) would be conducted
along the same lines as those discussed above regarding relations with
the various Under Secretaries of Defense.
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Answer. The Chairman is clearly established by Title 10 as the
principal military advisor to the National Command Authorities (NCA).
However, he serves as an advisor and is not, according to the law, in
the chain of command that runs from the NCA directly to each combatant
commander. The law does allow the President to direct that
communications between him or the Secretary of Defense and the
combatant commanders be transmitted through the Chairman and former
President Clinton directed this to happen though the Unified Command
Plan. This action keeps the Chairman fully involved so that he can
execute his other legal responsibilities. Certainly a key
responsibility is his role as spokesman for the CINCs, especially on
the operational requirements of their respective commands. While the
legal duties of the Chairman are many and they require either his
representation or personal participation in a wide range of issues, if
confirmed as a CINC, I will have an obligation to keep both the
Chairman and the Secretary of Defense promptly informed on matters for
which they may hold me personally accountable.
The Secretaries of the Military Departments.
Answer. The Secretaries of Military Departments are responsible
under Title 10, for the administration and support of the forces they
have assigned to combatant commands. The authority exercised by a
combatant commander over Service components assigned to his command is
quite clear, but requires a close coordination with each Secretary to
ensure there is no infringement upon those lawful responsibilities a
Service Secretary alone may discharge.
The Chiefs of Staff of the Services.
Answer. The Chiefs of Staff of the Services have two significant
roles. First and foremost, they are responsible for the organization,
training, and equipping of their respective Service. Without the full
support and cooperation of the Service Chiefs, no CINC can hope to
ensure the preparedness of his assigned forces for whatever missions
the NCA directs. Next, as members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the
Service Chiefs have a lawful obligation to provide military advice.
Individually and collectively, the Joint Chiefs are a source of
experience and judgment that every CINC can call upon. If confirmed as
Commander in Chief, U.S. Transportation Command, I intend to pursue a
full and continuing dialogue with the Chiefs of all four Services, as
well as with the Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard.
Question. The Combatant Commanders.
Answer. If confirmed, my relationship with the other combatant
commanders will be one of mutual support, continued dialogue on key
issues, and frequent face-to-face interaction. In today's security
environment, an atmosphere of teamwork and complete trust is critical
to the successful execution of U.S. national policy.
major challenges and problems
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will
confront the Commander in Chief, U.S. Transportation Command? Assuming
you are confirmed, what plans do you have for addressing these
challenges?
Answer. In my view, in order to provide world-class support for the
warfighting CINCs as well as meet the DOD's peacetime transportation
needs, we must have robust capability and readiness--now and in the
future. While our current National Military Strategy demands we be able
to provide strategic deployment and sustainment support for two near
simultaneous major theater wars, we must also prepare ourselves for the
future. The United States Transportation Command team plays a critical
role in fulfilling the four operational concepts espoused in the
Chairman's Joint Vision 2020: dominantmaneuver, precision engagement,
full dimensional protection, and focused logistics. The challenges I
see on the horizon for the Defense Transportation System (DTS) are:
People. There are no more precious resources in the DTS than our
people. Our soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen must enjoy a quality
of life that allows them to focus on their military tasks without
distraction. We are obliged to keep faith with these self sacrificing
individuals and families by providing an adequate standard of living,
quality medical care, inflation adjusted retirement benefits, quality
household goods moving services, respectable housing accommodations,
and caring family support programs. I salute our Congress for its
continued support in all these areas and I ask for your continued
assistance in championing initiatives that reassure our troops that
they are indeed our number one priority.
Readiness. While overall military end strength numbers continue to
drop, the requirements and demands of today's contemporary
international security environment remain very high. The pace of
activity in the DTS in the post Desert Shield/Desert Storm era, in
support of mobility operations worldwide, continues at an almost
wartime level of effort. We must curb the impacts of this high OPTEMPO
by improving our efficiency and carefully monitoring the day-to-day
demands and requirements placed on the DTS. Specifically, ensuring the
command remains ready will require continued focus on the readiness of
air mobility, sealift, forward presence, partnerships with industry,
and Antiterrorism and Force Protection (AT/FP).
Modernization. U.S. Transportation Command's modernization efforts
are focused on being able to fully meet America's strategic mobility
requirements, across the spectrum of operations, while simultaneously
reducing risk, ensuring future readiness, and providing a framework for
meeting future MRS-05 requirements. Continued acquisition of the C-17,
upgrade of our C-5 and KC-135 fleets, standardization and modernization
of our C-130 fleet, completion of existing sealift programs,
improvements to the network of bases which comprise our global
transportation infrastructure, and upgrades to the tremendous
capability enhancers inherent in our transportation information systems
capability, are all key pillars of this comprehensive modernization
program. Additionally, the command is looking well ahead to identify,
develop, and program projects for the inevitable future
recapitalization of aging air mobility and sealift systems, as well as
our global transportation infrastructure.
Process Improvements. U.S. Transportation Command processes, the
collection of rules and procedures which govern day-to-day business
practices, are under constant revision as the command seeks to improve
the speed and reliability of customer service. The goal is a set of
``most effective and efficient'' processes that are applicable across
the entire spectrum of our activities, from interaction with our
commercial transportation providers to our ``warfighter CINC''
customers. Whether the issue is information technology, supply-chain
management, doctrine or training, U.S. Transportation Command is
constantly searching for the best business practices available today.
These efforts must be continued to ensure the future viability of the
DTS.
Question. What do you consider to be the most serious problems in
the performance of the functions of the Commander in Chief, U.S.
Transportation Command? If confirmed, what management actions and time
lines would you establish to address these problems?
Answer. The most serious problem facing us in the mobility business
is the daily challenge of meeting the readiness needs of our theater
CINCs. While we have done a superb job of meeting these needs on a
daily basis over the years since Operations Desert Shield and Desert
Storm, our capability to continue meeting this challenge, at the levels
we are sustaining, is very fragile. We must be ever vigilant in our
struggle to keep our forces the best organized, trained, and equipped
in the world. The challenges are many: maintenance of an adequate
quality of life, modernization of our equipment and facilities, and
controlling an escalating OPTEMPO in the face of level funding and
personnel fielding. I believe we can meet these challenges, and if
confirmed, I look forward to working with the members of this committee
to do just that. As far as a time line goes, I can only say that I see
this as a continuing challenge which, with your approval, I will
formally pick up--with enthusiasm--on day one.
priorities
Question. If confirmed, what broad priorities will you establish in
terms of issues which must be addressed by the Commander in Chief, U.S.
Transportation Command?
Answer. Like my predecessor, I believe U.S. Transportation
Command's approach to posturing (and improving) itself to be able to
meet DOD's transportation mission today and tomorrow requires
flexibility and initiative, and must be guided by the following four
basic themes:
Theme one: Maintaining readiness to perform our global
mobility mission;
Theme two: Continuing modernization and upgrade of
aging equipment and infrastructure;
Theme three: Improving key processes in the DTS; and
Theme four: Investing in the care and quality of U.S.
Transportation Command's most valuable resource--its people.
lift requirements
Question. One of the principal shortfalls faced by the United
States military is the ability of our lift assets to support two major
theater wars. While we have made great efforts to eliminate the
deficiency in lift assets, this shortfall continues to emerge as one of
the greatest threats to our ability to successfully execute the
National Military Strategy.
If confirmed, what actions will you take to ensure that we have
sufficient lift assets to support the combat forces' execution of the
National Military Strategy?
Answer. USTRANSCOM is sized as a 1 MTW mobility force. As long as
the command executes current programs, sealift is in acceptable
condition, although there is a need for specialty ships such as heavy
lift sealift. Airlift is the most pressing challenge. As MRS-05
validated, an increase is needed to the capability of our airlift fleet
(54.5 MTMs) through additional C-17s and modernization of our C-5s.
Initial review of the new strategy, coupled with Service transformation
efforts, leads to conclusions that strategic mobility will be more
demanding not less. Therefore, the MRS-05 conclusions are the minimum
improvements needed.
As USCINCTRANS, I will continue advocating for additional C-17s and
a robust C-5 RERP program. I will also continue to pursue the
possibility of commercial BC-17s augmenting our organic fleet. The time
is now to make a commitment to a new 60 aircraft Multi-Year Procurement
(MYP) in order to get these additional C-17s at the best possible
price.
threat
Question. Do you believe that projected changes in the threat and
in overseas bases should affect the mix of U.S. Transportation
Command's strategic mobility triad of prepositioned ships, airlift, and
sealift?
If so, how should the current mix be changed?
Answer. Although the Mobility Requirements Study 2005 (MRS-05)
assumed accomplishment of all overseas infrastructure projects that are
currently programmed, air and sea port availability and capability
still remain a concern. Past and present demands have strained the
overseas air mobility infrastructure facilities and raised questions
about their sufficiency to meet the National Military Strategy.
USTRANSCOM has focused its most important current infrastructure
efforts on recapitalization of runways, ramps, and fuel systems at en
route airfields. In keeping with the findings of USTRANSCOM's en route
Studies, the command has worked with USEUCOM, USPACOM, and DLA to
develop recapitalization plans. For example, DLA has allocated
approximately 85 percent of its fuels MILCON fiscal year 1999-2004 POM
to en route projects.
September 11 drove home to all Americans that we face a changing
threat. Be assured that USTRANSCOM is ready to respond to the call to
deploy forces in response to those atrocities. To that end, I'm
confident that the command's prepositioned ships, airlift, and sealift
assets are properly configured and prepared to support Operations Noble
Eagle and Infinite Justice. USTRANSCOM continues efforts to counter the
threat from weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical and
biological weapons, at our aerial and seaports. Such weapons can
severely hinder strategic mobility industrial infrastructure and
particularly threaten the civilian partners in the CRAF and VISA
programs. Consequently, USTRANSCOM has become one of DOD's strongest
proponents for improved detection, protection, and decontamination
capability. The command is actively engaged in several joint projects
intended to address the WMD threat, including the development of
national standards for decontamination. Additionally, USTRANSCOM's
Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP) program is underway, stemming
from Presidential Decision Directive 63. The CIP program, in
coordination with other DOD agencies, Joint Staff, Services, geographic
CINCs, and Department of Transportation (including MARAD and U.S. Coast
Guard), is actively identifying assets critical to the Defense
Transportation System (which includes those assets of our commercial
partners). Vulnerability assessments will then be conducted at critical
transportation locations, with necessary follow-on actions taken to
ensure that those critical assets are protected.
port and airfield availability
Question. In your opinion, are sufficient port and airfield on-load
and off-load assets available in CONUS and in the most likely conflict
areas to rapidly move the equipment and supplies that might be required
over the full spectrum of conflict?
If not, what steps do you believe should be taken to improve this
situation?
In your opinion, are the conditions of these facilities adequate to
support the strategic deployments of our forces? What is the condition
of the en route system and their ability to refuel and support the
airlift mission?
Answer. Assessments of the sufficiency of CONUS and overseas ports
and airfields to support strategic mobility are highly ``scenario
dependent.'' Overseas, whether mobility supports a small-scale
contingency (SSC) or a Major Theater War (MTW), our forces require
access to host nation ports and airfields. In some cases, particularly
for the air mobility en route system, our forces require friendly
nation airfield resources at locations that may or may not be directly
involved in the contingency. For example, any U.S. response in
Southwest Asia will require air mobility en route basing in Europe and
will usually require access to peripheral Gulf State airfields as well;
any U.S. response in the Pacific Rim becomes problematic without
Mainland Japan and Okinawa support. If the SSC occurs in areas
accessible from our established Airlift en route systems, our ability
to respond effectively is reasonably assured with host nation
concurrence. If the SSC occurs in areas not in line with our Airlift en
route system, response time would be difficult (Africa, South America,
areas of Southeast Asia). USTRANSCOM should continue to work with the
geographic CINCs to ensure the Strategic Mobility requirements for
overseas ports and airfields are met in planning for the total range of
conflict. The en route system is aging but it is currently funded for
upgrades to meet the future demands that are outlined in MRS-05.
USTRANSCOM should also continue to support the Army and Navy in the
development of a Joint Logistics Over-the-Shore capability for those
scenarios where fixed port facilities are degraded or denied by enemy
forces.
In CONUS, if the Services fund the MRS-05 shortfalls identified,
(to include depot shortfalls), I believe throughput constraints and
availability of ports and airfields for the most demanding Major War
requirements will be addressed. The Army Power Projection Program
should improve key installations, ammunition depots and ports. This
program provides for rail, airfield, and staging area improvements,
completion of key projects at the West Coast containerized ammunition
port (Concord), and other installation-specific projects. Acceleration
of many of these projects is needed. Interfaces between the Services
must be improved for power projection of one service from another
service's installation. Funding of Container Handling Equipment (CHE)
is also necessary for movement of containerized cargo at installations
and ammunition depots. Also, the National Port Readiness Council is
functioning and working closely in planning with DOT and the Nation's
commercial port industry to ensure wartime requirements can be met in
order to minimize our permanent presence at commercial ports.
The present inventory of aircraft loaders, called Material Handling
Equipment (MHE), used at aerial ports for onloading and offloading U.S.
military and Civil Reserve Airlift Fleet aircraft is still very old and
unreliable. That said, I believe the new Air Force 60K loader and Next
Generation Small Loader (NGSL) programs will provide the equipment
needed to meet future MHE requirements. An additional piece of critical
equipment is the 463L All-Terrain 10K forklift. Their numbers are high,
and they too require an aggressive replacement program. This piece of
equipment is critical to deployed operations in rough or unimproved
environments.
We continue to work closely with geographic CINCs on Host Nation
Support issues to support onward movement of equipment and supplies
from theater ports to the final destination.
tanker crews
Question. During the Kosovo operation, we found that we had
sufficient tanker assets available to support the air campaign, but
that, at times, there were limitations in having sufficient crews
available for these tankers to support operations due to a number of
considerations, including crew rest requirements.
What steps do you intend to take to ensure that there will be
sufficient tanker crews available to support air campaigns in future
conflicts?
Answer. USTRANSCOM and AMC recognize that the KC-135 crew ratio of
1.36 for the AMC force and 1.27 for all others was based on a Cold War
scenario and is not adequate for today's increased mission demands.
This was proven during the Gulf War when we operated with a 1.5 crew
ratio and again in Kosovo when we operated at a 1.8 crew ratio. Only
the limited nature of these conflicts kept us from experiencing
shortages in crews. To further quantify the requirement for tankers and
crews AMC conducted a thorough Tanker Requirements Study. In an attempt
to rectify the shortfall in crews and maintenance identified by these
events and study, a fiscal year 2002 POM initiative was submitted for
additional maintenance personnel and for 75 additional aircrews.
Unfortunately, the positions were either not funded or were only
approved without an increase in overall military end-strength. We have
continued to voice our concern by raising the issue through the Joint
Requirements Oversight Council and the Joint Warfighting Capabilities
Assessment.
As USCINCTRANS, I will continue to advocate for additional KC-135
maintenance personnel and a crew ratio increase. As we all work through
the details of the new strategy laid out in the QDR and DPG, we will
determine if tanker crew ratio will need to be increased even more. I
realize the competition for scarce dollars will always be keen and I,
along with all national leaders, will be forced to choose between
myriad critical programs. That being said, my goal will be full funding
of additional tanker personnel, to include the commensurate end-
strength increase.
ready reserve force
Question. U.S. military strategy depends on having sufficient
civilian merchant mariners available in a conflict to operate the ships
in the Ready Reserve Force (RRF). There are continuing concerns that
the combination of the reduction in numbers of U.S.-flag merchant ships
and the smaller sizes of crews on these ships could leave the United
States with an inadequate pool of trained manpower upon which to draw
in wartime.
Do you believe that this is a real problem?
Answer. Yes. However, it is a problem that USTRANSCOM is aware of
and is actively working with the Maritime Administration, the U.S.
Coast Guard, the sealift industry, maritime unions, and DOD. The
decline in the number of U.S. Flag ships has definite consequences for
our national security capabilities. Today, we can meet manning
requirements for the Ready Reserve Fleet. We will continue to support
ongoing efforts to ensure our manning capability for the future. The
assignment of partial crews to the highest priority vessels (ROS-4,
ROS-5) has improved the manning of RRF vessels, as well as the material
readiness of the fleet. Now, two thirds of the ships in the RRF are
partially crewed. I also support the Maritime Security Program which I
view as essential to maintaining a nucleus of U.S. flag ships that will
continue to employ American crews. Other programs such as the Jones Act
(domestic trade) and cargo preference help keep ships under the U.S.
flag (with American crews) and are key to maintaining the pool of
highly trained mariners.
Question. What steps would you propose to take to solve any
shortages that you might identify in manning the RRF?
Answer. I will continue to foster the strong partnership USTRANSCOM
has with the U.S. maritime industry and using this partnership as a
spring board to keep moving this difficult mariner issue forward. As
recently as last week, USTRANSCOM held a Video Teleconference with VISA
carriers to discuss current events (Operations Noble Eagle, Infinite
Justice) and exchange ideas about supporting potential future
operations. We continue to work the mariner issue hard with MARAD, the
U.S. Coast Guard, the carriers and the maritime unions. A key issue is
identifying active merchant mariners and licensed/certified mariners
that are no longer sailing; the goal is a consolidated database
identifying available and qualified mariners to crew organic sealift.
We also encourage all licensed and documented mariners to maintain
their licenses and/or documentation. This partnership is healthy and is
an absolute necessity in these uncertain times.
prepositioned ships
Question. If confirmed, what actions would you take to ensure U.S.
Transportation Command's support of the Army and Marine Corps'
strategies for afloat prepositioned ships?
Answer. In my view, the use of equipment and supplies strategically
positioned afloat near potential hot spots is a critical component of
the new strategy that requires the elements of speed and flexibility.
The services must continue to identify their specific prepositioning
requirements including special purpose shipping (Float-on/Float-off,
Heavy Lift), and we must ensure we have the proper mechanisms (e.g.,
acquisition, contracting) to provide the right types of vessels and
crews, that enable them to meet their mission. In view of recent
events, we will place more emphasis on the force protection aspects of
this relationship.
c-5 modernization
Question. Over the past several months, significant problems have
arisen with the readiness of the C-5 aircraft. These problems have
reduced the availability of this airframe which has a direct impact
upon the ability of our strategic airlift assets to support the
National Military Strategy.
The Air Force has been pursuing a two-pronged approach of upgrading
avionics for all C-5s, while, for the time being, only re-engining the
newer C-5B aircraft. General Robertson testified to the committee
earlier this year that he believed that we needed to upgrade and re-
engine all C-5 aircraft, and buy more C-17s in order to meet the lift
requirements USTRANSCOM faces.
What is your assessment of the requirements for additional airlift,
and the programs needed to meet those requirements?
Answer. I wholeheartedly agree with General Robertson's assessment.
MRS-05 clearly validated 54.5 MTM/D as the absolute minimum strategic
airlift requirement. That is an increase of almost 5 MTM/D from the
MRS-BURU requirement and an increase of 10 MTM/D over what AMC is
actually capable of today, recognizing that current capability is
reduced due to poor C-5 reliability. This leads to that two-pronged
approach that is so vital to meeting critical airlift needs. The C-17
and C-5 are essentially the only two airlifters capable of carrying
oversize and outsize cargo.
First let me discuss the C-5. As I mentioned earlier and the
committee is very much aware, we have been experiencing serious
degradation in the C-5 mission capable (MC) rate. The Air Force has
been pursuing the C-5 Reliability Enhancement and Re-Engining Program
(RERP) to increase the C-5 MC rate from below 60 percent to at least 75
percent. Due to the affordability of C-5 RERP, coupled with the
extensive structural service life remaining on the airframe, we feel
strongly about pursuing the RERP program. The best way to approach the
C-5 RERP program is to RERP the C-5Bs first and then tackle the C-5As.
The 50 C-5Bs are only 12 years old, they are the ones that are equipped
with air defensive systems, and they fly the most on a day-to-day
basis. Once we see the success of the RERP program on the C-5Bs, then
we can make a decision on modifying the 76 35-year old C-5As.
The second thing we absolutely must do to meet the 54.5 MTM/D
minimum requirement is purchase additional C-17s. While some may wonder
if the commercial sector can provide part of the 5 MTM/D increase via
the CRAF program, that is not possible. This is an over and outsized
requirement that can only be met by organic airlift; that leads us to
additional C-17s being the practical choice. Our analysis tells us that
we need an additional 50-60 organic C-17s, depending on what decisions
we make on the C-5 RERP. The most bang for the buck is a 60 aircraft
multi-year procurement (MYP) and the time to strike on making a firm
commitment to this new MYP is now. Boeing's supply line will begin to
close 1 Oct. 2001 without a follow-on decision by DOD. If we delay
beyond October 1, our cost per aircraft will grow significantly due to
the need to restart sub-contractor production lines that are scheduled
to shut down soon. Additionally, if the commercial sector finds there
is a niche market for the BC-17, we expect that small fleet will
augment our organic fleet.
In summary, an integrated solution that fixes the C-5 and acquires
additional C-17s via a new MYP is essential to meeting the Nation's
strategic airlift needs.
movement of household goods
Question. The committee is aware that the Department has launched a
Full Service Moving Project (FSMP) test program for handling the
transportation of household goods for permanent changes of station.
Do you believe there is sufficient funding in the budget request to
implement this program?
Answer. No. Due to funding constraints the Military Services
unanimously have decided to cease participation in the Full Service
Moving Project (FSMP) effective September 30, 2001. Initial estimates
are the program could be as much as 70-80 percent higher than the
current program. Historically, DOD has spent approximately $1.7 billion
annually on the current program.
Question. When will the Department have sufficient information upon
which to base a decision about whether to seek wider implementation of
this program?
Answer. USTRANSCOM is tasked with the independent evaluation of
three pilot programs (the FSMP pilot, the Navy Sailor Arranged Move
(SAM) pilot and the Military Traffic Management Command (MTMC) pilot).
Data collection is complete for the MTMC and SAM pilots, FSMP is
ongoing. The Military Services agreed to continue participation in the
pilot through the peak season (Jun-Jul 2001) pick-ups and deliveries.
After data collection and analysis is complete (Dec 2001), USTRANSCOM
will provide a recommendation to the Office of the Secretary of Defense
for a new personal property program, which could be adoption of one of
the pilots, but most likely will be a combination of features from
each. Our recommendation is scheduled to be complete in Jan 2002.
Question. In your opinion, how does this program compare to the
other pilot programs for improving the movement of household goods?
Answer. We have not had a chance to collect and analyze sufficient
data to draw any conclusions on the FSMP pilot program at this time. We
expect to complete our recommendation in Jan 2002.
selection of officers for assignment as commander in chief, u.s.
transportation command
Question. In S. 1416, the committee included a provision that, if
enacted, would express the sense of Congress that when deciding on
officers to be nominated to the position of Commander in Chief, U.S.
Transportation Command, the Secretary of Defense shall consider
nominating highly-qualified officers from the ranks of the Army and
Marine Corps. The rationale for this provision is that USTRANSCOM and
its component commands could benefit from the appointment of an officer
selected from the two branches of the Armed Forces that are the primary
users of their transportation resources.
What is your view of this provision?
Answer. The Commanders of the Unified and Specified Combatant
Commands are responsible to the President and the Secretary of Defense
for accomplishing the military missions assigned to them and exercise
command authority over the forces assigned as directed by the Secretary
of Defense. Based upon the requirement of the particular command, the
Secretary of Defense should nominate the best qualified officer for
command, regardless of service. In today's joint environment all
services must work together for mission accomplishment and it is
imperative that each command has the most highly qualified officers in
leadership positions.
theater access
Question. One of the principal concerns when preparing for future
operational deployments is the prospect of access denial, i.e., denial
of access to ports and airfields in the theater of operations. This
could pose a significant challenge to USTRANSCOM's ability to support
the deployment and replenishment of forces in a major theater war.
What actions would you propose to better prepare the U.S. military
for the prospect of fighting in a theater of operations where access to
critical ports and airfields is denied?
Answer. Access denial is already the toughest challenge we face
today. Conducting reception, staging, onward movement and integration
(RSO&I) of forces into a theater is tough business in countries with
modern facilities, let alone when access is denied.
First, USTRANSCOM will continue to work with geographic CINCs to
identify alternative basing opportunities within their AORs should we
be denied access to current en route basing. Working with our allies in
peacetime to ensure access is our first line of defense.
Second, USTRANSCOM must continue to develop Joint Logistics Over-
the-Shore (JLOTS) capability to provide the ability to operate in
degraded ports or conduct in-stream operations. These operations
include Army and Navy lighterage, Auxiliary Crane Ships (T-ACS) from
the Ready Reserve Fleet, our Offshore Petroleum Discharge Systems
(OPDS), and the trained units to execute these difficult operations.
Third, USTRANSCOM will work with the Navy on the Heavy Sealift
Study to ensure the specialized strategic lift to move Army watercraft,
Navy Mine Countermeasure vessels, and USCG patrol craft. These assets
are essential for opening ports and force protection during normal or
port denial operations.
combating terrorism
Question. Ensuring that the various Federal response teams arrive
at a domestic WMD incident in a timely fashion is of critical
importance.
In your view, does USTRANSCOM have sufficient lift assets to ensure
appropriate DOD support in a timely fashion?
Answer. First it is important to recognize that USTRANSCOM is sized
as a 1 MTW mobility force. So under normal peacetime operations, the
command will generally have sufficient lift assets to meet this
mission. The challenge is when other events are occurring around the
world, such as major wars and small-scale contingencies (SSCs). Airlift
is the most pressing challenge because of the early demands placed on
the fleet during any crisis. Our initial review of the new strategy
leads to the conclusion that strategic mobility requirements will be
even more demanding than MRS-05, in part due to the likelihood of a
homeland defense response occurring concurrently with major wars
overseas. We will have to rely on other transportation modes (rail,
truck) to free up critical airlift.
Question. If confirmed, how would you ensure that DOD has
sufficient lift assets to rapidly deploy its own various response units
in the event of a domestic WMD event?
Answer. Let me reiterate that I will ensure the homeland defense
options are integrated into future plans. We do not know the
requirements for this option today. Ensuring DOD has the appropriate
lift assets will require close inter-Departmental planning and
coordination with FEMA, FBI and other agencies that respond to such
events.
mobility requirements study for fiscal year 2005
Question. The Mobility Requirements Study for Fiscal Year 2005
(MRS-05), which was delivered to Congress this year, indicates the
major weakness in strategic lift assets is in the area of strategic
airlift. One of the studies that was used in the development of this
finding was the Oversize-Outsize Cargo Requirements Study, which has
yet to be delivered to Congress.
If confirmed, will you ensure that this study is delivered to
Congress?
Answer. As General Robertson reported to the Senate Armed Services
Committee, Seapower Subcommittee on 26 Apr 2001, the study is done. At
that time he also shared the results with you; I will be willing to do
the same. As the strategic review (QDR) is wrapped up and integrated in
OSD, I would then expect that the O&O AoA would be released.
Question. Since MRS-05 did not take into account the transformation
efforts of the services, particularly that of the U.S. Army, nor any
changes to the National Military Strategy, do you think that the
identified shortfall in strategic airlift is still valid?
Answer. MRS-05 did not include current service transformation
efforts nor the impact of the emerging National Military Strategy
(NMS). However, it does provide a moderate risk single MTW strategic
lift capability that can cycle to a second MTW while concurrently
supporting the warfighting CINC's intra-theater requirements, NCA
directed special operations missions, missile support to allies, and
some support to CINCs not engaged in warfighting. Therefore, I would
characterize the MRS-05 moderate risk solution (54.5 MTM/D) supported
by the Chairman, Service Chiefs and CINCS as a valid building block for
the future until we work out all the details of the new NMS. I should
also note here that as we shift from the current threat based strategy
to the new capability based construct, we are not only changing the
shape of forces, but the response times are faster (Service
Transformation). Additionally, the emerging strategy has new
overlapping requirement for homeland defense, deterrence in four
critical regions, the need to win decisively, defeat efforts in another
theater, and support SSCs (non-critical areas). Bottom line, I see the
mobility requirements for the new strategy as being at least as
demanding as the current strategy.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Yes. Our Nation was founded on the principal of civilian
control of the military. I am honored to have the opportunity to serve
in this challenging position, and I look forward to periodically
appearing before this committee to keep you personally apprised of the
readiness status and mission related requirements of the United States
Transportation Command.
Question. Do you agree, when asked, to give your personal views,
even if those views differ from the administration in power?Answer.
Yes. In 1967, I raised my right hand and swore then to ``support and
defend the Constitution of the United States''; my commitment to that
ideal has only grown stronger over the past 34 years. I am keenly aware
of the responsibility I have to provide candid, honest information to
my superiors, regardless of the pressures or politics surrounding the
situation.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as the Commander in Chief, U.S.
Transportation Command?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I look forward to appearing and
testifying before this committee at both annual posture hearings and on
any other specific issues you may require. I view frequent and open
interaction with this committee and the committee's staff as vital to
the successful resolution of United States Transportation Command's
issues--now and into the future.
Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings and other
communications of information are provided to this committee and its
staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I will ensure that this committee and
other oversight committees are provided with required and requested
information in as accurate and as timely a manner as possible.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Strom Thurmond
en route structure
1. Senator Thurmond. General Handy, a key factor in the deployment
of our forces, and I assume a major concern to you, as the soon to be
CINC TRANSCOM, is the en route infrastructure. This infrastructure
provides the essential fueling, repair and crew rest facilities that
are essential to any deployment.
What is the condition of the bases that make up our en route
infrastructure? Does the United States have sufficient access to
foreign bases to facilitate our deployments?
General Handy. The condition of the bases that make up our en route
infrastructure is currently less than adequate. Although great effort
has been applied to improve our bases, they will not be adequate any
earlier than fiscal year 2006. After years of neglect, the United
States Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM), in conjunction with the
United States European Command (USEUCOM) and the United States Pacific
Command (USPACOM), began drawing attention to and focusing resources
toward our en route bases in 1997. Our efforts are just now beginning
to pay off as both the Services and the Defense Logistics Agency have
made the repair of the en route bases a top priority. Repeated mobility
requirements studies sponsored by the Joint Staff have validated the
need for a robust en route system. To meet those validated
requirements, we currently have repair or enhancement projects underway
or programmed at all 13 of our designated en route locations. These
projects total over $1 billion. As these projects progress, we will
steadily rebuild our aged en route infrastructure and more closely
approach the goals stated in the mobility requirements studies. While
the overall health of the en route system is improving, we should keep
in mind that the en route system we are building today is focused on
the old two major theater war concept. Thus, we are successfully
building up our en route infrastructure to deploy forces to Northeast
Asia and Southwest Asia, but we have yet to design a system that
successfully blankets the globe. As our current conflict shows, our en
route system forms a solid base from which to begin our deployment, but
we still need to augment our designated 13 bases to facilitate our
global efforts. Wherever we choose to deploy forces outside the
Continental United States, we will find we are short of sovereign
United States territory.
Our current situation illustrates our dependence upon access to
foreign bases. In todays war effort, many of our allies have stepped
forward to offer their bases for our use. Many are taking great pains
to support us by waiving normal peacetime restrictions on operating
hours and relaxing notification requirements for access and overflight
clearances. We have not always been this fortunate, nor can we plan on
this being the case for future engagements. The condition of our en
route bases is improving, but we are a long way from the finish line.
joint use bases
2. Senator Thurmond. General Handy, as the Department of Defense
focuses ever more on force protection and strengthens the security at
our military bases, what concerns do you have regarding our joint use
bases, such as Charleston Air Force Base?
General Handy. The September 11 attacks and the ongoing threat
situation within the United States have changed our whole mind-set
regarding ``business as usual.'' I'm confident we have already moved in
the right direction to bolster the security posture at these and all of
our facilities. I'm equally confident that we can and will continue to
improve that posture through close coordination with our civilian
counterparts. The unfortunate reality is, however, that despite our
best efforts to make ourselves a hard target, we can not guarantee that
we will be able to prevent or thwart a well-planned terrorist attack.
We must re-evaluate all of our security practices, and require higher
standards and closer oversight to ensure the security of our joint use
bases, where controlling access to our operations is inherently more
challenging. Our wing commanders must be fully engaged with their
counterparts to ensure a closely coordinated relationship and security
plan. Much of our focus will be on the personnel providing force
protection oversight on the civilian side, in terms of selection
criteria, background checks, training, and equipment carried to perform
duties. I can share a few generalities about the current situation at
the United States Transportation Command's four joint use bases.
Commercial airports throughout the U.S. are in the process of
strengthening their security posture. This is the case at both
Charleston International Airport and Mid-America Airport, which are
joint use with Charleston Air Force Base and Scott Air Force Base
respectively. The situation at McConnell Air Force Base in Kansas is
slightly different, where the base shares access with Boeing and Cessna
Aircraft Corporations. These companies have contracts with other
nations, so complete confidence in their security program and our
ability to integrate it will be our goal. Lastly, at Dover Air Force
Base, we have the luxury of directly influencing use of the Civil Air
Terminal, which allows very restricted use by commercial aviation
assets. Current agreements allow for closure of the terminal during
necessary situations. This closure has been implemented as part of the
current Force Protection Condition.
deployment facilities
3. Senator Thurmond. General Handy, the military departments,
especially the Army, have made significant strides in improving their
deployment facilities at the military installations. However, we depend
heavily on commercial ports and railroads to deploy our logistic and
heavy forces.
What is the capability of our commercial ports and railroads to
support the deployment of our forces and are they keeping pace with
modernization?
General Handy. I am confident our partners in the rail and maritime
industries can provide the transportation support we need to meet
deployment requirements. We actively engage both industries to
communicate our requirements and stay abreast of changes that may
affect our deployment capabilities.
The United States Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM) is a member
of the National Port Readiness Network (NPRN) and the Interagency
Committee on the Marine Transportation System (ICMTS). Both of those
national-level forums include Department of Transportation (DOT)
participants such as the Maritime Administration (MARAD) and the United
States Coast Guard. They address issues of interest to both the
Department of Defense (DOD) and industry. Current issues under
discussion are increased traffic and the resultant demand on existing
infrastructure, the need to modernize and expand capability to meet
future cargo flows, and security to counter threats such as natural
disasters, crime, and terrorist acts. We will continue our active
participation to ensure DOD's deployment requirements will continue to
be met in the future.
Military Traffic Management Command's Transportation Engineering
Agency (MTMC TEA) effectively manages the Ports for National Defense
(PND) and Railroads for National Defense (RND) programs. The PND
addresses the ability of our commercial strategic seaports to support
deployments and the RND similarly examines the rail system. The RND
includes the Strategic Rail Corridor Network (STRACNET) and its
connectors that provide access to our military installations. The RND
program entails close coordination between MTMC TEA and the Federal
Railroad Administration, the American Association of Railroads, and
specific rail operators. We also maintain close liaison with our
commercial rail partners through the National Defense Transportation
Association Surface Committee. Combined, those organizations continue
efforts to ensure that as railroads modernize, the capability that DOD
requires will be there when we need it.
change in our strategic focus
4. Senator Thurmond. General Handy, earlier this year, the
Department of Defense (DOD) suggested that the focus of our defense
strategy would shift from Europe to Asia. Because of our historic focus
on Europe, we have in place facilities to support deployments into that
region.
What are our capabilities to deploy and stage forces to support our
focus on Asia?
General Handy. If we were called upon today to deploy forces in
support of a Northwest Asia contingency, I am confident we would be
able to answer the call. If called upon to support a Major Theater War
effort to a different location in Asia, we would be challenged to do so
given the geography of the Asian continent. Efforts are currently
underway to identify additional key areas and possible scenarios in the
Pacific. As those efforts mature we will perform detailed analysis to
determine our infrastructure requirements to support the desired
mobility throughput.
To support deployments to Asia--which historically has meant
supporting a major theater war in Korea--we have relied on our system
of en route military air bases, some civilian airfields, and a few key
naval installations and seaports. Our en route air bases are located in
Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, and Japan. We group the airfields into a North-
Pac route through Alaska and Japan, and a Mid-Pac route through Hawaii,
Guam, and Okinawa, Japan. The civilian airfields are in the Continental
United States and Japan. Outside Japan, we frequently stage airplanes
and naval ships through Singapore and Thailand. Both countries have
been most gracious partners and Singapore has even built a pier large
enough to accommodate ships up to and including aircraft carriers.
The critical seaports for deployment and sustainment support to
Asia are our West Coast ammunition ports at Concord, CA and Indian
Island, WA. Many of our east and Gulf coast commercial ports, (such as
Savannah, GA; Beaumont, TX; Corpus Christi, TX; and Jacksonville, FL)
would play a key role in supporting early deployment of combat units.
Pearl Harbor, HI, and our commercial ports in Tacoma, WA, San Diego,
CA, Long Beach, CA, and Oakland, CA, would also play a major role in
early deployments and would continue to support later deployments and
sustainment.
USTRANSCOM aggressively works Pacific infrastructure issues in
concert with the Pacific Command and the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA)
through the Pacific en route Infrastructure Steering Committee
(PERISC). The PERISC's charter requires it to ensure we have adequate
infrastructure in the Pacific to support requirements levied by both
the mobility requirements studies sponsored by the Office of the
Secretary of Defense, as well as chose specified by the supported
Commander in Chief through his approved operation plan. To meet those
requirements, the Pacific Command, in conjunction with United States
Transportation Command and DLA's Defense Energy Support Center, has
embarked upon an aggressive program to repair its aged infrastructure;
the bulk of these projects involve strategic airplane parking ramps,
fuel hydrants, and fuel storage facilities. Improvements in these
critical areas will increase the number of airplanes that can transit
our few bases and decrease the amount of time they spend waiting on the
ground to refuel. The repair projects already underway or programmed
will ensure our fragile en route system does not fail when we need to
surge in support of a contingency. One area of growing concern is
movement of munitions outside the Continental United States, primarily
in the Pacific. We are becoming increasingly constrained in where we
can transload or transship ammunition. The issue with air delivered
munitions is a shortage of hot pads and the Navy issue centers around a
shortage of staging areas to convert containerized ammunition to
breakbulk. Our PERISC is currently working this issue.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Rick Santorum
adequate strategic lift
5. Senator Santorum. General Handy, Gen. Eric Shinseki, Chief of
Staff, United States Army, has led the effort to transform the Army
into a force better able to meet 21st century threats. To meet these
goals, the Army will need to be quicker on the field of battle and
quicker to get to the fight. Part of the Chief's vision entails an
Interim Force of platforms that are C-130 deployable and are able to be
rapidly transported to the theater of conflict. While the Army has
embarked on a new platform to meet this vision (a LAV-III variant), it
is unclear that there is an adequate strategic lift necessary to get
the Interim Force to the conflict. Do you believe that the United
States Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM) and/or Air Mobility Command
has the lift assets necessary to get the Army to the conflict in the
deployment periods defined by General Shinseki?
General Handy. Currently, the United States Transportation Command
(USTRANSCOM) lacks the airlift assets necessary to meet the Army's goal
of deploying the Interim Brigade Combat Team (IBCT) in 96 hours. While
the C-130 might be desirable for movement of the deployable force
within the theater, C-17s and C-5s are the only aircraft capable of
inter-theater deployment and movement of outsized loads. Even when we
obtain the recommended airlift increases identified in the Mobility
Requirements Study 2005 (MRS-05), we will still be challenged to meet
the 96-hour timeline. The Army transformation will result in a smaller,
more lethal, and deployable unit. However, the decrease in unit size
that we are seeing with the IBCT is offset by the more demanding 96-
hour deployment timeline, actually increasing the airlift requirement.
Airlift assets are only one of the issues impacting faster deployment
of the Army's IBCT. Today we are teaming with the Army to identify and
fix a number of challenges to include infrastructure improvements,
interoperability issues, future equipment design, and the automated
tools needed to attain the aggressive goal of 96 hours. Needless to
say, USTRANSCOM will continue working closely with the Army to assess
the deployment aspects of the IBCT and assist in developing solutions
to rectify shortfalls.
______
[The nomination reference of Gen. John W. Handy follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
September 14, 2001.
Ordered, that the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
The following named officer for appointment in the United States
Air Force to the grade of indicated while assigned to a position of
importance and responsibility under title 10, U.S.C., section 601:
To be General
John W. Handy, 5379.
______
[The resume of service career of Gen. John W. Handy, USAF,
which was transmitted to the committee at the time the
nomination was referred, follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
------
[The Committee on Armed Services requires certain senior
military officers nominated by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
form that details the biographical, financial and other
information of the nominee. The form executed by Gen. John W.
Handy, USAF, in connection with his nomination follows:]
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Room SR-228
Washington, DC 20510-6050
(202) 224-3871
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation
of your answer applies.
Part A--Biographical Information
Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.
1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
John William Handy.
2. Position to which nominated:
Commander in Chief, United States Transportation Command and
Commander, Air Mobility Command.
3. Date of nomination:
September 14, 2001.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
5. Date and place of birth:
29 April 1944; Raleigh, North Carolina.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Mary L. Handy (Fagan).
7. Names and ages of children:
Mary K. Handy; Age: 27.
8. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative, honorary
or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State, or local
governments, other than those listed in the service record extract
provided to the committee by the Executive Branch..
None.
9. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, firm, partnership, or other business
enterprise, educational, or other institution.
None.
10. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
Daedalian Lifetime Member.
Air Force Association Lifetime Member.
Airlift/Tanker Association Lifetime Member.
Logistics Officer Association.
11. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, and any other special recognitions for outstanding
service or achievements other than those listed on the service record
extract provided to the committee by the Executive Branch.
None.
12. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree,
if confirmed, to appear and testify upon request before any duly
constituted committee of the Senate?
Yes.
13. Personal views: Do you agree, when asked before any duly
constituted committee of Congress, to give your personal views, even if
those views differ from the administration in power?
Yes.
______
[The nominee responded to the questions in Parts B-E of the
committee questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set
forth in the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to
Parts B-E are contained in the committee's executive files.]
------
Signature and Date
I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement
of Biographical and Financial Information and that the information
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate,
and complete.
John W. Handy.
This 23th day of July, 2001.
[The nomination of Gen. John W. Handy was reported to the
Senate by Chairman Levin on September 26, 2001, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on September 26, 2001.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to Adm. James O. Ellis, Jr.,
USN, by Chairman Levin prior to the hearing with answers
supplied follow:]
Department of the Navy,
Commander in Chief,
U.S. Naval Forces, Europe.
The Hon. Carl Levin,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman, I am greatly honored by the President's
confidence in nominating me for assignment as Commander in Chief, U.S.
Strategic Command. I pledge my full support to our Nation, the
President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, and the men and women of
our Armed Forces.
As requested in your letter of 17 September 2001, I have attached
my responses to your questions.
Sincerely,
J.O. Ellis,
Admiral, U.S. Navy.
Attachment:
cc: Senator John Warner
Ranking Member.
______
Questions and Responses
defense reforms
Question. Almost 15 years have passed since the enactment of the
Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and
the Special Operations reforms.
Do you support full implementation of these defense reforms?
Answer. Yes, I strongly support the Defense Reorganization Act of
1986 and the Special Operations reforms. They have definitely
strengthened our Armed Forces and the effectiveness of our combatant
commanders.
Question. What is your view of the extent to which these defense
reforms have been implemented?
Answer. I believe the Department of Defense has vigorously and
successfully pursued implementation of these important reforms.
Question. What do you consider to be the most important aspects of
these defense reforms?
Answer. The most positive aspect is the overall improvement in our
military operations. The Goldwater-Nichols Act has resulted in much
needed improvements in joint doctrine, joint professional military
education, and joint strategic planning. Another important element is
clarity in the chain of command from the National Command Authorities
to the combatant commanders and unambiguous responsibility placed upon
each CINC for execution of mission and preparedness of assigned forces.
Question. The goals of Congress in enacting these defense reforms,
as reflected in section 3 of the Goldwater-Nichols Department of
Defense Reorganization Act, can be summarized as strengthening civilian
control; improving military advice; placing clear responsibility on the
combatant commanders for the accomplishment of their missions; ensuring
the authority of the combatant commanders is commensurate with their
responsibility; increasing attention to the formulation of strategy and
to contingency planning; providing for more efficient use of defense
resources; and enhancing the effectiveness of military operations and
improving the management and administration of the Department of
Defense.
Do you agree with these goals?
Answer. Yes. The law gives combatant commanders sufficient
authority they need to carry out their assigned missions. This has been
well demonstrated through the many complex joint operations conducted
since the legislation was enacted, including the strategic deterrence
mission of USSTRATCOM.
Question. Do you foresee the need for additional modifications of
Goldwater-Nichols in light of the changing environment and possible
revisions to the National Security Strategy? If so, what areas do you
believe it might be appropriate to address in these modifications?
Answer. It is clear that the Goldwater-Nichols Act has profoundly
improved the performance and capabilities of the American military
establishment. We have significantly improved our ability to conduct
combat operations, manage defense resources, streamline management
practices, and address organizational issues within the Department of
Defense. The Goldwater-Nichols Act remains an important and effective
piece of legislation; as a result, I do not believe any major revisions
are required at this time.
Question. Based upon your experience as Commander, U.S. Naval
Forces, Europe and Commander in Chief, Allied Forces, Southern Europe,
do you believe that the role of the combatant commanders under the
Goldwater-Nichols legislation is appropriate and that the policies and
procedures in existence allow that role to be fulfilled?
Answer. Yes. Unity of command, input into resource allocation, and
most importantly, the imperative of combatant commanders to plan and
fight in a joint environment are all provided for while empowering the
Department of the Navy in its role of organizing, training, and
equipping naval forces.
duties
Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
the Commander in Chief, U.S. Strategic Command?
Answer. The Commander in Chief, United States Strategic Command
(CINCSTRAT) has responsibility and control for all strategic forces in
support of the National Security Objective of strategic deterrence.
CINCSTRAT also exercises combatant command (COCOM) over the
organization and operation of all assigned forces and headquarters in
accordance with public law and the policies established by the
Secretary of Defense. Additionally, he is a primary advisor to the
Secretary of Defense on strategic issues.
Question. What background and experience do you possess that you
believe qualifies you to perform these duties?
Answer. Thirty-two years of service in the United States military
have fully prepared me for this position through Navy and Joint
Assignments, in peace, crisis and conflict, alongside the finest
soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and coast guardsmen in the world. I
have commanded an aviation squadron, a deep draft flagship, a nuclear
aircraft carrier, a carrier battle group, U.S. Naval Forces in Europe
and Allied Forces Southern Europe in the NATO Alliance. I have been
privileged to serve on six occasions in Joint Task Forces (JTF's)
around the world and have been assigned overseas in the Middle East,
Asia and, now, Europe. I have been privileged to fill several
Washington staff positions including the Deputy Chief of Naval
Operations for Plans, Policy and Operations and in the Navy's Office of
Legislative Affairs. My career has included qualification as a fighter
pilot, test pilot, nuclear weapon delivery pilot, and ship's captain,
as well as graduate-level education in both aerospace and nuclear
engineering.
Question. What are the most important lessons that you have learned
as Commander, U.S. Naval Forces, Europe and Commander in Chief, Allied
Forces, Southern Europe?
Answer. This assignment has reaffirmed for me the importance of the
current readiness of our military forces and the important role of
their presence around the world. I have seen the unique capabilities of
our joint forces used both in support of national interests and in
concert with our allies. Finally, in addition to inter-service
cooperation, I have learned the value of an innovative, integrated,
cross-sector, interagency and interdisciplinary approach to our
National Security Challenges.
Question. Do you believe that there are actions you need to take to
enhance your ability to perform the duties of the Commander in Chief,
U.S. Strategic Command?
Answer. I certainly have much to learn. Not only are we in a period
of strategic transition, but I have not worked regularly with the many
organizations that contribute to the success of USSTRATCOM (Congress,
National Security Council, Nuclear Weapons Council, Defense Threat
Reduction Agency, Department of Energy, and others). If confirmed, I
will make it a priority to become more familiar with these
organizations and the contributions they make to the success of our
missions.
relationships
Question. Please describe your understanding of the relationship of
the Commander in Chief, U.S. Strategic Command, to the following
officials:
The Secretary of Defense.
Answer. In accordance with Title 10, United States Code, section
164, the Commander of U.S. Strategic Command (CINCSTRAT) performs his
duties under the authority, direction, and control of the Secretary of
Defense. He is directly responsible to the Secretary of Defense for the
preparedness of the command and the ability to carry out missions
assigned to the command.
Question. The Deputy Secretary of Defense.
Answer. In accordance with Title 10, United States Code, section
132, the Deputy Secretary of Defense will perform duties and exercise
powers as prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, and in the absence of
the Secretary of Defense, perform his duties. If confirmed, I intend to
work closely with the Deputy Secretary on all strategic matters.
Question. The Under Secretaries of Defense.
Answer. Title 10, United States Code, and current DOD directives
establish the Under Secretaries of Defense as the principal staff
assistants and advisors to the Secretary regarding matters related to
their functional areas. Within their areas, Under Secretaries exercise
policy and oversight functions. In discharging their responsibilities,
the Under Secretaries may issue instructions and directive-type
memoranda that implement policy approved by the Secretary. These
instructions and directives are applicable to all DOD components. They
may also obtain reports and information necessary to carry out their
functions. As with other communications between the NCA and combatant
commanders, communications between the Under Secretaries and combatant
commanders are transmitted through the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff.
Question. The Assistant Secretaries of Defense.
Answer. With the exception of the Assistant Secretaries of Defense
for C\3\I, Legislative Affairs, and Public Affairs, all Assistant
Secretaries are subordinate to one of the Under Secretaries of Defense.
This means any relationship USSTRATCOM would require with any Assistant
Secretary of Defense would be through the appropriate Under Secretary
of Defense. Since the Assistant Secretaries of Defense for C\3\I,
Legislative Affairs, and Public Affairs are the Secretary of Defense's
principal deputies for overall supervision of C\3\I, legislative
matters, and public affairs, respectively, any relations required
between USSTRATCOM and ASD (C\3\I), ASD (LA), or ASD (PA) would be
conducted along the same lines as those discussed above regarding
relations with the various Under Secretaries of Defense.
Question. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Answer. The Chairman is clearly established by Title 10, United
States Code, as the principal military advisor to the President,
National Security Council, and Secretary of Defense. He serves as an
advisor and is not in the chain of command that runs from the National
Command Authorities (NCA) directly to each combatant commander. The law
does allow the President to direct that communications between the NCA
and the combatant commanders be transmitted through the Chairman. This
action keeps the Chairman fully involved so that he can execute his
other responsibilities. By law and to the extent directed by the
Secretary of Defense, the Chairman serves as spokesman for the
combatant commanders and is charged with overseeing their activities.
He provides a vital linkage between the combatant commanders and other
elements of the Department of Defense. While the legal duties of the
Chairman are many and they require either his representation or
personal participation in a wide range of issues, if confirmed, I will
also have an obligation in accordance with Title 10, United States
Code, to keep the Secretary of Defense promptly informed on matters for
which he may hold me personally accountable. If confirmed, I will work
with and through the Chairman in the execution of my duties.
Question. The Secretaries of the Military Departments.
Answer. Title 10, United States Code, section 165, provides that,
subject to the authority, direction, and control of the Secretary of
Defense and subject to the authority of combatant commanders, the
Secretaries of Military Departments are responsible for the
administration and support of the forces they have assigned to
combatant commands. The authority exercised by a combatant commander
over Service components is quite clear, but requires close coordination
with each Secretary to ensure there is no infringement upon those
lawful responsibilities a Service Secretary alone may discharge.
Question. The Chiefs of Staff of the Services.
Answer. As a result of the Goldwater-Nichols Act, the Service
Chiefs are no longer involved in the operational chain of command. They
now have two significant roles. Their primary function is to provide
organized, trained, and equipped forces to perform a role--to be
employed by the combatant commander in the accomplishment of a mission.
Additionally, as members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Service
Chiefs have a lawful obligation to provide military advice.
Individually and collectively, the Service Chiefs are a source of
experience and judgment every combatant commander can and should call
upon. If confirmed, I would work closely and confer regularly with the
Service Chiefs.
Question. The Combatant Commanders.
Answer. CINCSTRAT fully supports other combatant commanders as
directed in the Unified Command Plan. USSTRATCOM provides theater
nuclear and counterproliferation support to combatant commanders to
assist them in developing tailored annexes designed to counter weapons
of mass destruction (WMD). USSTRATCOM also provides specialized
planning and consequence analysis, when requested by other combatant
commanders. Additionally, CINCSTRAT works closely with other combatant
commanders to initiate crisis action procedures contained in the
Nuclear Supplement to the Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan. In crisis
situations, when assigned as a supporting CINC, CINCSTRAT supports
planning and execution of military operations for the combatant
commander.
Question. The Administrator of the National Nuclear Security
Administration.
Answer. In accordance with title 32, section 3212, of the National
Nuclear Security Act of 1999, the Administrator is responsible to the
Secretary of Energy for all Department of Energy programs and
activities involving the production, safety, and security of nuclear
energy and nuclear weapons--including the stockpile stewardship
program. Though the Administrator is outside the DOD chain of command,
these issues are of concern to CINCSTRAT as well, and if confirmed, I
will work closely and confer regularly with the Administrator.
Question. The Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs, National
Nuclear Security Administration.
Answer. The Deputy Administrator is responsible to the
Administrator to oversee programs and efforts to prevent the spread of
materials, technology, and expertise relating to weapons of mass
destruction (WMD); detect the proliferation of WMD; eliminate
inventories of surplus fissile materials; provide for international
nuclear safety. These are strategic issues of concern to USSTRATCOM as
well, and if confirmed, my staff and I will work closely and confer
regularly with the Deputy Administrator on these issues.
major challenges and problems
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will
confront the Commander in Chief, U.S. Strategic Command?
Answer. I believe there are four major challenges:
Maintaining effective, credible, and secure strategic
deterrent forces.
Shaping a solid and stable environment and foundation
for any future arms reductions and promoting the
nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
Ensuring a safe and reliable nuclear weapons
stockpile.
Taking care of our people.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. If confirmed:
I will ensure our strategic force reductions are
managed in a way that maintains a viable deterrent for the
Nation and enhances strategic stability.
I would also continue to build on the work of Admiral
Mies and his predecessors in ensuring we strike the right
balance in our resource allocation and force sizing efforts and
in fostering productive military-to-military contacts which
further our threat reduction and confidence-building
activities.
In parallel with responsible management of our
relationship with Russia, I will work to strengthen our
capabilities to adapt to strategic challenges in South Asia or
elsewhere.
I will build on the cooperation which USSTRATCOM
already enjoys with other combatant CINCs to promote improved
planning, intelligence, exercises, resource management,
information security, force protection, and command and control
so that the Nation is better prepared to respond appropriately
to a variety of potential contingencies.
Question. What do you consider to be the most serious problems in
the performance of the functions of the Commander in Chief, U.S.
Strategic Command?
Answer. USSTRATCOM's challenge is to continue to ensure a viable
deterrent for the Nation and enhance strategic stability while working
towards the President's goal of a force structure at the lowest levels
consistent with the Nation's security needs. There are no new weapons
or platforms in development and the ones we have are well beyond their
initial design lives and need to be sustained. Critical to this
sustainment effort is our industrial base and retention of our people
with critical skills.
Question. If confirmed, what management actions and time lines
would you establish to address these problems?
Answer. If confirmed, I would promptly:
Meet with each of the USSTRATCOM Task Force
Commanders, and the Service Chiefs of the Air Force and Navy,
and the Strategic Advisory Group to ensure I am completely
familiar with the status of our strategic deterrent forces and
their command and control.
Visit the Department of Energy, each of the nuclear
laboratories, the Strategic Advisory Group, and other agencies
associated with USSTRATCOM to ensure our plans and policies
affecting stockpile stewardship, threat reduction, and
confidence building measures are closely aligned.
Verify our military-to-military contact program
aggressively supports our national policy and enhances the
stability of our strategic relationships.
Work closely with the Office of the Secretary of
Defense to implement requirements resulting from the ongoing
Nuclear Posture Review.
priorities
Question. If confirmed, what broad priorities will you establish in
terms of issues which must be addressed by the Commander in Chief, U.S.
Strategic Command?
Answer. In the wake of recent events, my first priority will be the
protection of facilities and forces, at home or deployed. Second, I
will examine the implications of the soon-to-be-completed Nuclear
Posture Review. Third, since there are no new weapons in development,
we must continue to examine sustainment of our current forces. Of
course, taking care of our people, both military and civilian, will be
key to accomplishing all these tasks.
deterrence and missile defense
Question. Do you believe that a national missile defense system
deployed by the United States would jeopardize or enhance strategic
stability?
Answer. The missile defense system that is proposed is designed as
a limited system to defend against rogue states with ballistic missile
technology. Such a system should have limited impact on overall
strategic stability.
Question. Do you believe that a national missile defense system
deployed by the United States would jeopardize existing strategic arms
control agreements or enhance the prospects for future strategic arms
reductions? Please explain.
Answer. The U.S. is currently engaged in dialogue with Russia about
missile defense and its affect on the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.
The outcome of these talks will give us a better idea of our future
prospects in this regard.
Question. What are your views on the relationship between national
missile defense--defenses against long-range ballistic missiles--and
nuclear deterrence?
Answer. At the height of the Cold War offensive based strategic
deterrence worked well. This deterrent, which was used in a bi-polar
environment, may need to adapt to a multi-polar environment. A more
comprehensive framework, including missile defense, can integrate
additional elements of military strategy to complement offensive
nuclear forces to assure sustainment of a deterrent capability.
Question. In your view, is there a connection between the number of
U.S. strategic delivery platforms and strategic warheads on the one
hand and the type of missile defense systems on the other? If so, what
is your view of that relationship?
Answer. Yes. The mix of offensive and defensive forces should be
combined to form a defensive capability coupled with a timely offensive
response posture that provides defense against small attacks from
ballistic missiles and a guaranteed retaliatory capability against
larger attacks, the result of and combination of which remains totally
unacceptable to any aggressor. The challenge is to develop a well
defined relationship between the offensive and defensive force.
Question. Do you believe that the effectiveness of Russian or
Chinese deterrent forces would be diminished in any meaningful way by
United States deployment of a limited defense against long-range
missiles?
Answer. The overall effectiveness of Russian deterrent forces would
not be significantly diminished by U.S. deployment of a limited missile
defense. A limited U.S. missile defense system would affect the
deterrent value of China's current strategic ballistic missile force.
However, that impact will lessen if, as expected, China increases
strategic nuclear arms over the next decade.
Question. Do you believe that the effectiveness of Russian or
Chinese deterrent forces would be diminished in any meaningful way by
United States deployment of a layered defense capable of intercepting
long-range missiles from land, sea, air and space-based platforms in
the boost, midcourse and terminal phases of their flight?
Answer. Without the benefit of classified analysis and modeling
against a specific layered system, it's hard to say. Generally,
however, the more effective a U.S. missile defense system is in
diminishing retaliatory capability of Russian and Chinese deterrent
forces the greater the incentive for expansion of these forces to
maintain their perceived deterrent effect. The more a U.S. missile
defense is capable of dealing with significant numbers of sophisticated
ballistic missiles, the greater the perceived U.S. capability to
conduct a pre-emptive attack on strategic deterrent forces and defend
against the residual retaliatory strike.
russian strategic doctrine
Question. In your view, what is the current Russian approach to
strategic nuclear weapons, and if Russia has a launch on warning
doctrine, what challenge does this pose for USSTRATCOM?
Answer. Russia has increasingly relied on its strategic nuclear
forces to maintain its great power status and to protect itself from
potential military aggression worldwide. [Deleted].
Question. In your view, how do the Russian nuclear doctrines for
strategic and tactical nuclear weapons relate to U.S. force structure
size and the number of nuclear weapons in the U.S. arsenal?
Answer. While demonstrating an increased reliance on its nuclear
arsenal, Russian leaders have openly discussed their intent to reduce
nuclear stockpiles. Russian policies and stockpile size, however, are
not the sole factors for determining U.S. force structure needs. U.S.
strategic force structure and policies must consider, among other
things, a more uncertain post-Cold War strategic environment and the
emergence of new, promising strategic offensive and defensive
capabilities. Again, this is an issue that the NPR is carefully
considering.
de-alerting strategic forces
Question. What is your view of the comparative safety and security
of U.S. and Russian strategic forces?
Answer. U.S.: The level of safety and security of U.S. strategic
forces is at a high level. The Nuclear Command and Control System End
to End Review led by (Retired) General Scowcroft has identified areas
where we can continue to evaluate our already significant safety and
security posture for strategic forces. Continuous evaluation of these
areas, and implementation of enhancements as recommended by the End To
End study groups will maintain the safety and security of our strategic
forces for the foreseeable future.
Russian: [Deleted].
Question. In your view, what is the likelihood of either an
accidental or unauthorized launch of either a Russian or U.S. ICBM or
SLBM?
Answer. United States nuclear forces are subject to numerous
procedural and technical safeguards to guard against accidental or
inadvertent launch.
Russian: [Deleted].
Question. In your view, do U.S. ICBMs or SLBMs maintain a ``hair
trigger alert?''
Answer. No, they do not. ``Hair trigger'' is an inaccurate
assessment. Multiple stringent procedural and technical safeguards have
been in place and will remain in place to guard against accidental or
inadvertent launch. These safeguards exist to ensure the highest level
of nuclear weapons safety, security, reliability, and command and
control. We can not launch without Presidential direction.
Question. How do you define ``hair trigger alert?''
Answer. It is any alert status that would allow the launching of
nuclear weapons in a less than deliberate manner--without the stringent
procedural and technical safeguards.
Question. In your view, should the U.S. reduce the alert status of
its ICBMs or SLBMs?
Answer. Reducing the alert status of our forces, in isolation, can
diminish the credibility and survivability of our deterrent forces.
However, if a de-alerting initiative does not degrade/curtail our
strategic capability/mission I would consider supporting it. In
general, de-alerting initiatives should not be adopted unless they are
reciprocative, verifiable, and, most importantly, stabilizing.
Question. Do you support reducing the alert status or deactivating
ICBMs and SLBMs other than in the context of implementing the protocol
to the START II Treaty that extends the deadline for destruction of
strategic nuclear delivery vehicles?
Answer. I do not support reducing the alert status of ICBMs and
SLBMs unless the actions are reciprocative, verifiable, and most
importantly stabilizing. As for deactivating ICBMs and SLBMs outside of
the START II framework, the ongoing NPR analysis will determine if any
systems should be deactivated and removed from strategic service, and
if other reductions are possible. I am committed to following the
President's guidance to reduce our nuclear forces to the lowest level
commensurate with national security requirements.
strategic modernization
Question. In your view, are the modernization and life extension
initiatives for ICBMs and SLBMs sufficient to retain their reliability
and effectiveness in the Strategic Triad?
Answer. As our Nation comes to rely on a smaller strategic force,
the imperative for modernizing and sustaining that force becomes even
more critical to ensure a continued viable deterrent.
In order to continue the reliability and effectiveness of our ICBM
force, we have commenced a decade-long effort to extend the Minuteman
III service life for another 20 years. Strong Congressional support of
these ongoing efforts is essential to the success of these programs and
the future viability of our ICBM leg of the Triad.
In the SLBM arena, we have commenced the conversion of our
strategic submarine force, with Congressional approval, from an 18 SSBN
force composed of both Trident I (C-4) and Trident II (D-5) missiles to
a 14 boat Trident II only force.
Continued Congressional support for the Trident II missile
conversion program remains essential to ensure a reliable sea-based
deterrent well into the 21st century.
Question. Do you believe that the current Air Force bomber roadmap
is an adequate plan to sustain the bomber force as an effective part of
the Strategic Triad?
Answer. The bomber roadmap details many of the programs required to
maintain the bomber force as an effective part of the Strategic Triad.
To that end, we fully support current Air Force programs designed to
meet critical sustainment and modernization shortfalls. Continued
Congressional support for our strategic bomber and nuclear cruise
missile initiatives remains critical to the future viability of our
bomber force.
u.s. strategic force posture beyond start ii
Question. During the Helsinki Summit meeting of March 1997, the
United States agreed to begin negotiations on START III once START II
enters into force. The START III framework would have limited the sides
to between 2,000 and 2,500 deployed strategic warheads.
If the United States and Russia reduce deployed strategic warheads
to between 2,000 and 2,500, how would you recommend that the U.S.
strategic force posture be adjusted?
Answer. The on-going Nuclear Posture Review is examining this
question in great detail; as such it would be premature to postulate
specific force posture adjustments.
Question. Currently, the U.S. Navy is planning to backfit four
older Trident submarines with D-5 missiles in order to support a START
II force of 14 Trident submarines equipped with the D-5 missile.
Do you believe that a 14 Trident submarine fleet will still be
required if the United States reduces to 2,000 to 2,500 strategic
warheads?
Answer. Yes. Trident submarines will continue to carry the largest
portion of our strategic nuclear warheads under any 2,000 to 2,500
strategic warhead force structure. Our SSBN force is the most
survivable leg of the Triad. Thus, the U.S. must preserve a large
enough SSBN force to enable two-ocean operations with sufficient assets
at sea to ensure a survivable, responsive retaliatory force capable of
dissuading any potential adversary.
Question. In your view, is there a scenario where the U.S. would
not need 14 Trident submarines if the U.S. reduced below 2,000
strategic warheads?
Answer. Possible reductions below 2,000 may create a situation
where 14 SSBNs are no longer numerically required. I would seek to
maximize combat capability by maintaining sufficient platforms to
maintain maximum operational flexibility. The need for survivable
submarines at sea will be necessary under any scenario. Fourteen
Trident submarines allow a credible, two-ocean, strategic deterrent
presence with our projected maintenance cycle and operating
environment.
Question. What kind of warhead loading would be required to remain
within a 2,000 to 2,500 strategic warhead level?
Answer. Based on preliminary analysis, warhead downloading is a
possible option, although it is premature to speculate on the force
composition until the NPR is complete. The issues and variables are
complex; but, if confirmed, I would explore options that make fiscal
sense and do not reduce the credibility of our strategic deterrent.
Question. What changes to the ICBM and bomber forces would you have
to make in order to remain within a 2,000 to 2,500 strategic warhead
level?
Answer. Based on preliminary analysis, a reduction in ICBM and
bomber force structure is possible, although it is premature to
speculate on the force composition until the NPR is complete. If
confirmed, I would support only those options that would continue to
maximize our operational flexibility and stability.
Question. Do you favor reductions in strategic nuclear delivery
systems beyond the 2,000 to 2,500 strategic warhead level?
Answer. The NPR is examining the appropriate force structure/
warhead level and the SecDef will provide a formal report to Congress
on the force structure. Stability is the most important criterion as we
proceed down the glide path to lower numbers of nuclear weapons.
Control of the glide path is critical--the journey is just as or even
more important than the destination. Any reductions must allow a hedge
capability by avoiding the elimination of platforms while preserving
nuclear infrastructure and technical skills.
Question. Do you believe that there is a minimum number of nuclear
weapons or delivery systems that the United States should maintain
under any scenario?
Answer. No, I do not believe there is a ``hard and fast'' minimum
number. The manner in which reductions are contemplated and carried out
is critical. The most important criterion in assessing prospective arms
control measures or unilateral reductions is stability. As we reduce
our strategic delivery systems to lower numbers, issues such as
disparity in non-strategic nuclear forces, transparency,
irreversibility, production capacity, aggregate warhead inventories,
and verifiability become more complex and sensitive.
Question. Do you believe that the U.S. will need to retain a
Strategic Triad under any future agreements or unilateral reductions?
Answer. I support maintaining a Triad. Each component provides
unique attributes that enhance deterrence and reduce risk; submarines
provide survivability, bombers provide flexibility, and
intercontinental ballistic missiles provide prompt response. Together,
they provide a stable deterrent and complicate an adversary's offensive
and defensive planning.
Question. In your view, what is the minimum number of strategic
nuclear warheads that should be deployed in the inactive and active
inventories of U.S. nuclear weapons? On what strategy are these numbers
based?
Answer. The ongoing Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) is studying this
topic and as such it is somewhat premature to postulate an active and
inactive inventory level. The NPR is developing the strategy for the
current/future strategic environment. This will then support
appropriate force structure numbers and active/inactive inventory
levels.
Question. In your view, what should be the minimum number of
strategic nuclear warhead designs included in the inactive and active
inventories of U.S. nuclear weapons? On what strategy are these numbers
based?
Answer. Again, the ongoing NPR will provide the details to these
answers. With the exception of the one type of warhead currently slated
for retirement, I believe we should retain all current designs in the
active and inactive stockpile. These designs provide a ready hedge for
an uncertain future strategic environment.
Question. In computing this force structure, do you assume
ratification of START II?
Answer. No. The NPR process is reviewing our strategy and policy to
ascertain the force structure requirements that are consistent with our
national security needs. In this context, we assume the U.S. will
comply with the START I Treaty requirements and START II is not
ratified.
strategic force industrial base
Question. From your perspective, are there key sectors of the U.S.
industrial base that must be protected in order to sustain U.S.
strategic forces for the foreseeable future?
Answer. It is my personal conviction that the support and
sustainment of our strategic systems are absolutely essential to ensure
a continued, viable deterrent. Our Nation has in hand, or is near the
end of production of, all of its major strategic systems. Since there
are no follow-on systems in development, the existing systems must be
maintained for an unforeseeable length of time. Therefore, it is
crucial for us to ensure continued support for key strategic components
and systems unique to our strategic forces. The Strategic Advisory
Group that advises CINCSTRAT has studied the industrial base and
continues to assess areas of concern. Some of the key ballistic missile
sectors they have identified that must be protected to sustain our
ICBM/SLBM forces include ballistic missile propulsion production
capability, re-entry vehicle technology, guidance systems, and
component vulnerability to electromagnetic pulse. If confirmed, I will
continue to support efforts to sustain our industrial base.
Question. In your view, are the ongoing efforts in this area
adequate?
Answer. It is my understanding that USSTRATCOM, in coordination
with the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Services, is
pursuing industrial capability sustainment initiatives which support
space-based communication and sensor systems, strategic missile
guidance technology, propellant technology, and reentry vehicle design
capability. The Radiation Hardened Micro-Electronics Oversight Council,
under the auspices of the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics) is an example of how present concerns are
being addressed. Additionally, the Strategic Advisory Group's
Industrial Base Special Study Group is studying future industrial base
concerns. Supporting crucial technologies and systems is key to keeping
our strategic forces robust, reliable, and modern/credible.
nuclear weapons complex
Question. In your view, are there opportunities to downsize and
modernize the nuclear weapons manufacturing complex?
Answer. The nuclear weapons manufacturing complex has no redundancy
built into the system. Each piece of the complex is unique and
irreplaceable. I don't feel there is room for further downsizing of the
manufacturing complex especially with the number of refurbishments that
will be scheduled to maintain the enduring stockpile over the next 20
years. The complex is old and there are many areas where modernization
would significantly enhance capabilities and throughput for the
manufacturing complex.
Question. If confirmed, would you support modernization of the
manufacturing complex?
Answer. Yes, if confirmed I would fully support modernization
efforts. The National Nuclear Security Administration has a plan and is
implementing the plan to modernize many aspects of the manufacturing
complex. I fully agree with their efforts and hope the funding will be
maintained to ensure the modernization programs are fully implemented.
Question. Does downsizing provide cost savings that could help
defray the cost of modernizing the manufacturing complex?
Answer. No. With the demanding refurbishment schedule planned for
the various warheads in the enduring stockpile, I don't believe there
would be any savings in downsizing and that it could adversely affect
the maintenance of the enduring stockpile.
nuclear posture review
Question. What is your understanding of your role, if confirmed, in
the Nuclear Posture Review?
Answer. While OSD and the Joint Staff are co-leads for the NPR,
USSTRATCOM has remained an integral player in all aspects of the NPR.
USSTRATCOM brings unique capabilities that should be integrated within
the NPR process.
role of strategic command
Question. Please describe the role you intend to play, if
confirmed, in assessing and participating in the Department of Energy's
science-based stockpile stewardship and management program.
Answer. USSTRATCOM is an active participant in the development of
the overall strategy and plan. The U.S. must ensure its nuclear
stockpile remains safe, secure, and reliable. I recognize CINCSTRAT has
specific responsibility in that regard. The Stockpile Assessment Team
is now holding an annual stockpile stewardship conference and reports
the results to CINCSTRAT. If confirmed, I intend to continue to
carefully monitor DOE progress in developing a viable stockpile
stewardship and management program.
Question. What is your view as to the role USSTRATCOM should play
with respect to tactical nuclear weapons?
Answer. USSTRATCOM has a unique planning capability for tactical
weapons that we can and do provide to theater CINCs. We should
continue, and expand this role, when appropriate.
Question. Should tactical nuclear weapons be brought under the
auspices of USSTRATCOM?
Answer. Currently, theater CINCs maintain responsibility,
authority, and operational control. Any change to this arrangement
would have to be carefully studied and evaluated for impact on our
strategies, forces, and international relationships.
warhead certification
Question. Are you confident in our ability to identify and fix
potential problems in all weapons expected to be included in the
enduring stockpile?
Answer. My confidence in the ability to identify problems rests on
the projected success of the science-based Stockpile Stewardship
Program. This will depend on fully supporting the NNSA program, and how
successful we are in the years ahead in developing the complex
technological tools and maintaining the necessary expertise in our
people. It is imperative as we move forward that we develop the tools
necessary to predict problems in the stockpile before they jeopardize
safety or reliability.
Question. What do you believe to be our biggest challenges in
maintaining the nuclear weapons expected to be in the enduring
stockpile?
Answer. Two critical challenges are aging and the certification of
modifications to weapons. The answer depends on the success of the
Stockpile Stewardship Program. NNSA is required to certify the
reliability and safety of the Nation's nuclear stockpile. CINCSTRAT is
charged with reporting on his confidence in the safety and reliability
as part of an annual assessment process. The certification process is
more difficult without nuclear testing, and the national laboratory
experts report there are issues that cannot be addressed with current
tools, although none currently are severe enough to warrant an
underground test. Funding levels must be maintained so that new tools
can be delivered on schedule.
annual warhead certification process
Question. The administrative process for certifying the safety and
reliability of the nuclear stockpile requires the Commander in Chief of
the Strategic Command and the three nuclear weapons laboratory
directors to report annually to the Secretaries of Defense and Energy
who in turn certify to the President the continued safety and
reliability of the nuclear weapons stockpile.
If confirmed, would you provide Congress a copy of your annual
certification?
Answer. CINCSTRAT does not certify the stockpile. NNSA is
responsible for certifying the safety and reliability of the stockpile.
CINCSTRAT is charged with providing an assessment of the safety and
reliability of the stockpile as part of an annual certification process
directed by the President. The Secretaries of Defense and Energy co-
sign the annual certification and are responsible for the control of
the certification document. If confirmed, and if requested, I would
provide my views to Congress.
limited life components
Question. How confident are you in the Department of Energy's
ability to manufacture limited life components for the enduring
stockpile?
Answer. I am confident the Department of Energy will meet DOD needs
in maintaining the required stockpile levels. If confirmed, I will
closely monitor the process. Given the importance of the issue and the
uncertainties about the future, their plans must stay on track.
pit manufacturing capability
Question. In your view, what is the annual requirement for pit
production, by weapons type, for which DOE should size a pit production
facility? Would this number change if the U.S. reduced the number of
warheads to a level of 2,000 to 2,500 or below?
Answer. The number depends on several factors including pit
lifetime and the size and composition of the enduring stockpile. NNSA
is currently studying the effects of aging on special nuclear
materials. The results of this effort will help establish functional
pit lifetimes.
maintaining nuclear weapons expertise in the military
Question. If confirmed, what actions would you propose to take as
CINCSTRAT to ensure that nuclear-related jobs are not viewed as career
limited and that nuclear programs continue to attract top quality
officers and enlisted personnel?
Answer. I fully support Service programs that are vital to ensure
we have the highest quality of men and women needed for our nuclear
forces. This includes initiatives to identify and track those personnel
with nuclear experience. If confirmed as CINCSTRAT and the lead
spokesman for our strategic forces, I will ensure the word gets out on
our successes. Officer and enlisted personnel are being promoted at the
highest rate since the stand up of USSTRATCOM and members completing
duties are receiving assignments that enhance their professional
development. I believe it is critical that we continue to communicate
the challenging opportunities and the successes of the men and women
assigned to our strategic nuclear forces.
comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty
Question. Do you believe that the U.S. can maintain a safe and
reliable nuclear weapons stockpile under the Comprehensive Nuclear Test
Ban Treaty?
Answer. If the Science Based Stockpile Stewardship and management
Program proceeds as designed it should be possible to maintain a safe
reliable stockpile. This requires full program funding and the
successful development of new technology. I am greatly concerned
between the widening gap between stockpile program requirements and
available resources. The delays in many high-priority stockpile
stewardship programs because of aging infrastructure and inadequate
funding must be addressed with greater urgency. The planned tools are
designed to give us a degree of confidence in the stockpile that would
not otherwise be possible without nuclear testing. Until those tools
are operational, some degradation in the reliability of the stockpile
is possible, but I cannot judge its significance at this time. Within
the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), Safeguard F provides that the
U.S. may resume testing if it is in the supreme national interest of
the Nation. In that regard, CINCSTRAT is charged with reporting on his
confidence in the safety and reliability of the stockpile as part of an
annual certification process directed by the President. For the past 6
years, USSTRATCOM has conducted an examination of each strategic
nuclear weapon type in the stockpile. In conducting that assessment, no
issues were found which would warrant the resumption of nuclear
testing. While no-one can guarantee that the SSP will allow us to
certify the safety, security, and reliability of the stockpile
indefinitely in the absence of testing, a judgment that testing is
required would not necessarily mean that SSP had failed.
Question. Do you support the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
as currently drafted? If not, what specific changes would be needed to
gain your support?
Answer. I support the philosophy of CTBT as component of an overall
arms control and stability framework. While there are genuine concerns
with the treaty and verification requirements, the philosophy is
consistent with the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Question. Do you believe that the CTBT is verifiable, as currently
drafted?
Answer. According to GEN Shalikashvili's recommendations to
Congress on CTBT, the treaty will give the U.S. access to the
international monitoring system. ``The IMS primary seismic system will
provide three-station 90 percent detection thresholds below 500 tons
and below 200 tons for all historic test sites in the Northern
Hemisphere.'' It should be noted that is not possible to verify a true
zero-yield test ban without additional measures that are not currently
provided for in the CTBT. However, even a true zero-yield test ban
would allow experiments that provide useful information for weapon
designers.
Question. In your view, will the planned science-based Stockpile
Stewardship Program, as it is currently being developed, allow us to
continue to certify our nuclear weapons stockpile as safe and reliable
indefinitely without testing?
Answer. The Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP) must be fully
funded in order to have all the needed tools delivered on schedule.
Ultimately, the SSP may uncover unanticipated problems in the
stockpile. Since we don't know what we don't know, SSP does not
guarantee a test will never be required. In fact, an important
obligation of SSP is to ensure that we maintain the ability to test.
Question. In your view, will the planned science-based Stockpile
Stewardship Program, as it is currently being developed, allow us to
continue to meet the DOD's requirements for our nuclear weapons
stockpile without future testing?
Answer. Our current stockpile was developed for the Cold War. We
need to be able to adapt our current arsenal to add or improve
capabilities in order to meet emerging threats. As these new
capabilities are added, it will be up to NNSA and the National Labs to
certify the weapons. The adaptations currently envisioned appear
possible to accomplish without underground testing.
Question. If the DOD eventually requires a new nuclear weapon
design, will the planned science-based Stockpile Stewardship Program
allow us to develop a new, safe, and reliable nuclear weapon without
testing?
Answer. NNSA and the National Labs are required to certify any new
designs developed. They will have to determine if an underground test
is required for any new weapon design.
nuclear weapons council
Question. If confirmed, what will be your relationship with the
DOE, and with the Nuclear Weapons Council?
Answer. A close, cooperative relationship with both the Department
of Energy and the Nuclear Weapons Council, as well as other
organizations such as the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, is vital to
address the challenges of ensuring a safe and reliable nuclear weapons
stockpile, building a stable foundation for the implementation of arms
control agreements, and helping shape the international environment to
promote the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. If
confirmed, I will continue to foster a strong partnership with each of
these organizations and frequently seek their counsel to address those
challenges.
Question. Do you support an active Nuclear Weapons Council, to
include regularly scheduled meetings?
Answer. Yes. With the many actions taking place within the nuclear
weapons complex and the many ongoing refurbishment programs or soon to
be going on, an active Nuclear Weapons Council is imperative. Their
guidance will be necessary to ensure programs continue on track and any
issues are resolved in a timely manner to preclude unnecessary delays
in programs.
trident submarine conversions and start accounting
Question. If the Navy continues on a path to convert either two or
four of the Trident submarines to be decommissioned to an SSGN
configuration that is treaty accountable, at what point would
``phantom'' warheads ascribed to these boats limit USSTRATCOM's ability
to maintain sufficient warheads to execute the National Military
Strategy?
Answer. Under START I Accountability Rules and Limits, converting
four Trident submarines to SSGNs presents no ``phantom warhead''
counting issues. If we move to lower limits within a treaty framework
and the accounting rules are not modified we cannot afford the numbers
lost to phantom warheads.
cooperative threat reduction program
Question. Do you support the Cooperative Threat Reduction program?
Answer. I strongly support Cooperative Threat Reduction. It has
proven itself to be an invaluable part of a broadened definition of
deterrence, as a cost-effective means to aid in the
``denuclearization'' of former Soviet states, to continue to promote
stockpile safety and security in Russia, and help stem the
proliferation of weapons.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed, it is my duty to keep you, the
representatives of the people, informed of the status of our strategic
deterrent forces.
Question. Do you agree, when asked, to give your personal views,
even if those views differ from the administration in power?
Answer. Yes. It is my responsibility to provide the best military
advice regardless of the administration's views.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as the Commander in Chief, U.S.
Strategic Command?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I will make myself available to this
committee or designated members whenever requested.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings, and
other communications of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes. I will be forthcoming with all information requested.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Strom Thurmond
requirements
1. Senator Thurmond. Admiral Ellis, modernization of our forces is
the key to maintaining their effectiveness to meet the future
challenges of this new threat environment. In your judgment, what is
the most critical modernization requirement of the Strategic Command?
Admiral Ellis. For United States Strategic Command to maintain a
credible strategic deterrence through the 21st century, the
modernization and sustainment of all three legs of the Triad, (the
bomber, intercontinental ballistic missile and sea launched ballistic
missile) must occur. In addition, the fourth leg of the strategic
``quadrad,'' the survivable, assured, and enduring command, control,
communication, and computer intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance (C\4\ISR) network, must be vigorously supported for
modernization. These include our airborne platforms, E-4 and E-6,
survivable satellite communications, fixed and mobile command centers,
and the network that supports them with planning and ISR information.
As recent events have shown, the vulnerability of national assets
necessitates increased vigilance in sustaining the security of our
nuclear forces and stockpiles.
balkans
2. Senator Thurmond. Admiral Ellis, the tragic events of September
11 have virtually taken the situation in the Balkans off the television
and the front page of our newspapers. As the Commander of forces in
that region, please give me your views on how the effort to eliminate
terrorism will influence our commitment to that troubled region?
Admiral Ellis. As the Commander of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization's (NATO) Southern Region, I can assure you that the tragic
events of September 11 have touched all of us, whether American, ally,
partner or friend. The global effort to counter the scourge of
terrorism has in no way weakened the resolve or the ability of all
involved in helping to bring peace to the Balkans. Indeed, in both
Bosnia and Kosovo, our NATO forces have expanded their vital security
efforts and have already made significant gains in identifying and
exploiting potential members of the global terrorist web. Those being
successfully pursued may be attempting to use the Balkan crisis as a
cover for the support of extremist activities worldwide. With our NATO
allies, we will continue this important effort, in addition to
continuing our shared support of the stabilization efforts in Bosnia,
Kosovo, and Macedonia.
status of nuclear stockpile
3. Senator Thurmond. Admiral Ellis, although the Department of
Energy has the responsibility for ensuring the reliability and safety
of our nuclear weapons, as CINC STRATCOM you have a vital interest in
these issues. What if any concerns do you have regarding the age
reliability and safety of our nuclear stockpile?
Admiral Ellis. As the stockpile ages, and as our diagnostic tools
and methods continue to improve, it is likely we will find more
problems with the stockpile that require fixing. Our ability to respond
to unforeseen problems is limited. I agree with the United States
Strategic Command Stockpile Assessment Team's (SAT) determination that
the weapons complex is fragile in many areas. The complex is challenged
to maintain the current workload of Stockpile Life Extension Programs
(SLEPs). Additional workloads could leave identified problems deferred
for an unacceptable length of time, or cause delays in scheduled SLEPs.
I support the recommendations of the SAT and the Foster Panel for
infrastructure improvements and reduction of maintenance backlogs
throughout the weapons complex. Additionally, I support a robust
Stockpile Stewardship Program, which should continue to develop the
tools necessary to allow us to be more predictive and less reactive in
dealing with aging, reliability, and safety issues.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Rick Santorum
replacement platform for the b-52
4. Senator Santorum. Admiral Ellis, the B-52 joined the Air Force
fleet in 1960. According to the Bomber Road Map recently provided to
Congress, the B-52 is going to continue performing its mission for
another 40 or 45 years. In light of the age of the B-52 fleet, do you
believe that the Department of Defense ought to begin considering a
replacement platform for the B-52? Do you support efforts to explore
unmanned combat air vehicles (UCAVs) as a potential replacement to the
B-52 or other bomber platforms?
Admiral Ellis. I support Air Combat Command's Bomber Roadmap, which
includes beginning bomber replacement analysis no later than 2010.
Absolutely critical to this plan, is the full funding and timely
fielding of the B-52 sustainment and modernization programs requested
by the Bomber Roadmap. To that end, procurement of a survivable,
secure, two-way communication system remains critical to the success of
my mission. In addition, I request your continued support for ongoing
Air Force programs to upgrade B-52 avionics, situational awareness and
self-protection capabilities. Taken together, these modernization and
sustainment programs should keep the bomber force viable until the
scheduled replacement is fielded. I would support and encourage
investigation of all options for a follow-on bomber platform and look
forward to reviewing the findings from a future analysis of
alternatives.
______
[The nomination reference of Adm. James O. Ellis, USN,
follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
September 14, 2001.
Ordered, that the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
The following named officer for appointment in the United States
Navy to the grade indicated while assigned to a position of importance
and responsibility under Title 10, U.S.C., section 601:
To be Admiral
James O. Ellis Jr., 4995.
______
[The resume of service career of Adm. James O. Ellis, USN,
which was transmitted to the committee at the time the
nomination was referred, follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
------
[The Committee on Armed Services requires certain senior
military officers nominated by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
form that details the biographical, financial and other
information of the nominee. The form executed by Adm. James O.
Ellis, USN, in connection with his nomination follows:]
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Room SR-228
Washington, DC 20510-6050
(202) 224-3871
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation
of your answer applies.
Part A--Biographical Information
Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.
1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
James O. Ellis, Jr., U.S. Navy.
2. Position to which nominated:
Commander in Chief, U.S. Strategic Command.
3. Date of nomination:
September 14, 2001.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
5. Date and place of birth:
20 July 1947; Spartanburg, SC.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Paula Dene Matthews Ellis on 20 June 1970; Atlanta, GA.
7. Names and ages of children:
CPT Patrick James Ellis, USA; Age: 29.
Mrs. Lauren Elizabeth Ellis Brandy; Age: 27.
8. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative, honorary
or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State, or local
governments, other than those listed in the service record extract
provided to the committee by the Executive Branch.
None.
9. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, firm, partnership, or other business
enterprise, educational, or other institution.
None.
10. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
U.S. Naval Institute (Life Member).
Naval Historical Foundation.
The American Legion.
Naval Academy Alumni Association.
11. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, and any other special recognitions for outstanding
service or achievements other than those listed on the service record
extract provided to the committee by the Executive Branch.
Guggenheim Fellowship in Aerospace Engineering, Georgia.
Institute of Technology (1969).
Grand Order of Merit of the Italian Republic (2001).
12. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree,
if confirmed, to appear and testify upon request before any duly
constituted committee of the Senate?
Yes.
13. Personal views: Do you agree, when asked before any duly
constituted committee of Congress, to give your personal views, even if
those views differ from the administration in power?
Yes.
______
[The nominee responded to the questions in Parts B-E of the
committee questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set
forth in the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to
Parts B-E are contained in the committee's executive files.]
------
Signature and Date
I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement
of Biographical and Financial Information and that the information
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate,
and complete.
James O. Ellis.
This 19th day of July, 2001.
[The nomination of Adm. James O. Ellis, Jr. was reported to
the Senate by Chairman Levin on September 26, 2001, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on September 26, 2001.]
NOMINATIONS OF LINTON F. BROOKS TO BE DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR FOR DEFENSE
NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION, NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION; DR.
MARVIN R. SAMBUR TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE FOR
ACQUISITION; DR. WILLIAM WINKENWERDER, JR., TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY
OF DEFENSE FOR HEALTH AFFAIRS; EVERET BECKNER TO BE DEPUTY
ADMINISTRATOR FOR DEFENSE PROGRAMS, NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION; AND MARY L. WALKER TO BE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE AIR
FORCE
----------
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 11, 2001
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:40 p.m., in
room SH-216, Hart Senate Office Building, Senator Carl Levin
(chairman) presiding.
Committee members present: Senators Levin, Kennedy,
Landrieu, Warner, and Allard.
Other Senators present: Senator Pete Domenici.
Committee staff members present: David S. Lyles, staff
director; and Christine E. Cowart, chief clerk.
Majority staff members present: Madelyn R. Creedon,
counsel; Gerald J. Leeling, counsel; Peter K. Levine, general
counsel; and Arun A. Seraphin, professional staff member.
Minority staff members present: Romie L. Brownlee,
republican staff director; Judith A. Ansley, deputy staff
director for the minority; L. David Cherington, minority
counsel; Gary M. Hall, professional staff member; Carolyn M.
Hanna, professional staff member; Mary Alice A. Hayward,
professional staff member; George W. Lauffer, professional
staff member; Patricia L. Lewis, professional staff member;
Thomas L. MacKenzie, professional staff member; Suzanne K.L.
Ross, research assistant; Scott W. Stucky, minority counsel;
and Richard F. Walsh, minority counsel.
Staff assistants present: Dara R. Alpert, Thomas C. Moore,
Jennifer L. Naccari, and Nicholas W. West.
Committee members' assistants present: Jeffrey S. Wiener,
assistant to Senator Landrieu; Robert Alan McCurry, assistant
to Senator Roberts; and Arch Galloway II, assistant to Senator
Sessions.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN, CHAIRMAN
Chairman Levin. The committee meets today to consider the
nominations of five individuals to senior positions in the
Department of Defense and the National Nuclear Security
Administration: Dr. Everet Beckner to be Deputy Administrator
for Defense Programs at the National Nuclear Security
Administration, Ambassador Linton Brooks to be Deputy
Administrator for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation at the
National Nuclear Security Administration; Dr. William
Winkenwerder, Jr. to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Health Affairs; Dr. Marvin Sambur to be the Assistant Secretary
of the Air Force for Acquisition, Research, and Development;
and Ms. Mary Walker to be General Counsel of the Air Force.
On behalf of the committee, let me welcome each of you and
your families. We have a tradition of asking nominees to
introduce family members who are present, and I think I will
hold off on that so we can let our two colleagues make
introductions, if they are ready to do that, because they, I
know, have incredibly hectic schedules. Are you ready, Senator
Kennedy?
Senator Kennedy. Yes.
Chairman Levin. We would start with you to make your
introduction. Then we will go to Senator Domenici so that you
are able to get on with your schedules.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR EDWARD M. KENNEDY
Senator Kennedy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The President has a great number of nominations to make on
a wide variety of positions. There are many positions of
extraordinary importance in any administration. We know that.
In this particular situation, in selecting William
Winkenwerder, Jr., as the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Health Affairs, he has made one of his very best. I am
delighted and honored to be able to say a word on his behalf,
although his record of achievement and accomplishment really
speaks for itself.
I know that he will introduce his wife, Mary Pride, who is
here, and their 9-year-old son, Will, who is with him today.
Listen to this list of achievements and accomplishments.
He had an extraordinary record at the University of North
Carolina in the medical school and then went on to a great
career as a primary care physician. He has currently been
working in Blue Cross/Blue Shield in the office of the CEO as
the vice chairman, and from all sides in Massachusetts, he has
just received rave reviews.
He has had experience in health finance, in the Health Care
Financing Administration (HCFA), which is enormously
significant, and he knows his way through that agency.
He was also an associate vice president of health affairs
at Emory University, and on top of that, he has a masters in
business administration from Wharton School.
In each and every one of these positions, he has been
associated with excellence, and he brings all of that
experience to this position. I think all of us want the very
best in terms of health care for the members of the Armed
Forces. I think this nominee brings an extraordinary experience
in managerial skills, with an incredibly deep commitment to
quality health care. Those elements can reassure the members of
the Armed Forces and their families that they are really
getting the best in this particular position.
I think we are extremely fortunate to have this nominee and
look forward to supporting him and working with him in the
years ahead. I congratulate him.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Kennedy. I know our
nominee feels fortunate in having an introduction such as that.
Senator Domenici.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW
MEXICO
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I am delighted to yield to Senator Kennedy since he is so
much my elder. [Laughter.]
I am here because I have a New Mexican, Dr. Everet Beckner,
that was born in a little town of Clayton, New Mexico, hardly a
town anybody would know anything about, near the border of
Oklahoma and Texas. But having been born in a rather small,
kind of hidden community, his scientific prowess has not been
hidden. He was a 28-year veteran expert at Sandia National
Laboratories.
Frankly, you are aware that a couple of years ago, we
created the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA),
kind of an outcropping of the DOE to take care of all matters
nuclear in terms of weaponry and also nonproliferation. General
Gordon has apparently achieved a high degree of satisfactory
performance even from those who were not too sure that that
approach was going to work. I think the distinguished chairman
is one of those who is now admiring the work of the good
general.
He really needs some help, and this is a very fortunate and
good day for the NNSA because you are confirming two people. I
am only introducing Dr. Beckner, but you also have the
Ambassador of whom you spoke, Ambassador Linton Brooks. The two
of them are going to add vastly to the capacity of General
Gordon to do his very difficult job.
All I can say, with reference to Everet Beckner, is he was
4 years the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Defense
Programs as the whole concept of stockpile stewardship began.
There was a scientist in the military named Vic Reis who
started science-based stockpile stewardship as a concept which
would make it such that we would not have to do underground
testing, if it worked. It is still a growing and a major
science effort to see if we can prove the efficacy of our
nuclear weapons without testing, and this nominee has been
active in that since its inception.
Now he goes to the new group within the Department to
become the first Deputy Administrator. I cannot tell you how
pleased I am, having been the one who came up with the idea
that we should form the nuclear organization that's an
outcropping of DOE, and having run it through on a very
controversial set of debates. I think everyone thinks it
deserves a chance. It cannot do that without people like this.
So, I hope you will expedite both of them. They are both very
competent.
I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I thank both of them
for taking this job. It is a very hard department that is just
beginning to get developed, very competitive with other aspects
of the defense establishment. They need your support. They need
ours from the Appropriations Committee and we will get them
that, and we hope you will continue to do that. Thank you very
much.
Chairman Levin. Thank you very much, Senator Domenici.
Let us now turn to our nominees and first ask each of them
if they would introduce family members who are present. Family
members are essential, to have their support for these nominees
and for all of our officials to carry out their duties and
responsibilities. So, why do we not start with you, Dr.
Beckner.
Dr. Beckner. My wife Caroline is here.
Chairman Levin. I wonder if she would stand up. Welcome.
Thank you.
Ambassador Brooks.
Ambassador Brooks. My wife Barbara is unable to be with us
today, Senator. I'm sorry.
Chairman Levin. That's fine. Thank you.
Dr. Winkenwerder. In addition to my wife, Mary Pride, and
my son Will, a family friend, Marilyn Murdock, is here.
Chairman Levin. I wonder if they would stand. Is that your
son Will?
Dr. Winkenwerder. That is my son Will.
Chairman Levin. How old are you, Will?
Mr. Winkenwerder. 9.
Chairman Levin. 9? Well, you are allowed to do a little
squirming here today, if you are 9. [Laughter.]
Not because the questions will be too tough for your dad,
just because you are 9 years old. It is nice of you to come and
support your dad. I know how much it means to him. To have my
children with me would be very important, and I know it is
important to your pop to have you around.
Dr. Sambur.
Dr. Sambur. I have my wife Arlene and my daughter Beth here
with me.
Chairman Levin. I wonder if they might stand. Welcome to
both of you.
Ms. Walker.
Ms. Walker. Yes, Mr. Chairman. My son was unable to be here
today, but I have two close friends from California, Catherine
Robertson and Anne Durning. I also have three colleagues from
my former days at the Department of Energy, Mike Farrell, Ray
Berube, and Kerrie Sullivan.
Chairman Levin. Well, we welcome them all. I wonder if they
might stand and be recognized. Thank you for coming and showing
your support.
Dr. Beckner served for nearly 30 years in a variety of
positions at Sandia National Labs and as Principal Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Defense Programs at the Department of
Energy. He is currently the Deputy Chief Executive of Lockheed
Martin's Atomic Weapons Establishment.
Ambassador Brooks, a Navy veteran with 30 years of service,
previously served as Chief Strategic Arms Reduction Negotiator
during the START I Treaty negotiations and as Assistant
Director for Strategic and Nuclear Affairs at the United States
Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. He is currently Vice
President and Director of Policy, Strategy, and Forces Division
at the Center for Naval Analyses.
Dr. Winkenwerder, a specialist in internal medicine,
previously served in senior management positions at several
health care providers, including Prudential Health Care, Emory
Health Care, and as Vice President of Blue Cross/Blue Shield of
Massachusetts and is currently a health care consultant.
Dr. Sambur has had a 25-year career at ITT Industries
serving in a variety of senior management positions, including
President of ITT Aerospace and Communications and President of
ITT Defense. Since leaving ITT earlier this year, he has served
as a consultant to the company.
Ms. Walker is a lawyer who previously served in Government
as Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Land and
Natural Resources, Deputy Solicitor at the Department of the
Interior, and as Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety
and Health at the Department of Energy.
I would now normally call upon Senator Warner, who is not
yet able to be here, but I wonder if Senator Allard had a
comment at this point. We would welcome it. If not, we would
ask some questions of our nominees.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD
Senator Allard. Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank you for
holding the hearing and also compliment them on being willing
to make the sacrifices that I am sure you are making now to
serve in your various positions. I think it goes without saying
that you accept immense responsibility at a most important and
challenging time in our country's history. I want to thank you
in advance for your efforts, for your dedication to duty, and
for your overwhelming commitment to the members of our military
service and to the security of the Nation. I am confident that
all of you will serve the Nation well.
Mr. Chairman, that is just a brief comment that I have, and
I would ask that Senator Thurmond's statement be inserted for
the record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Thurmond follows:]
Prepared Statement by Senator Strom Thurmond
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I join you and Senator Warner in welcoming our
distinguished group of nominees. The fact that we are holding this
hearing while we are joined in negotiations with the House on the
Defense Authorization Bill is significant. It demonstrates this
committee's bipartisan effort to ensure the Department of Defense and
the National Nuclear Security Administration have quality people in
place to carry out their duties to provide for our Nation's security.
Mr. Chairman, I believe each nominee will bring to the position for
which they have been nominated unique and professional experience. They
are highly qualified and most importantly dedicated to serving our
Nation.
To each of our nominees I want to express my support and that of
this committee. I wish you success, and hope that you will consider the
committee a partner in your efforts to improve the security of our
Nation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you very much.
Today's nominees have all responded to the committee's
prehearing policy questions and our standard questionnaire.
These responses will be made part of the record.
The committee has also received the required paperwork on
each of the nominees and will be reviewing that paperwork to
make sure that it is in accordance with the committee's
requirements.
Now, there are several standard questions that we ask every
nominee who comes before the committee. First, we would note
that in your response to advance policy questions, you agreed
to appear as a witness before congressional committees when
called and to ensure that briefings, testimony, and other
communications are provided to Congress.
So, the first question that I would ask each of you is,
have you adhered to applicable laws and regulations governing
conflict of interest? First, Dr. Beckner.
Dr. Beckner. Yes, sir, I have.
Chairman Levin. Ambassador.
Ambassador Brooks. Yes, sir.
Chairman Levin. Doctor.
Dr. Winkenwerder. Yes.
Dr. Sambur. Yes.
Ms. Walker. Yes, sir.
Chairman Levin. Have you assumed any duties or undertaken
any actions which would appear to presume the outcome of the
confirmation process? Dr. Beckner?
Dr. Beckner. No, I have not.
Ambassador Brooks. No, sir.
Dr. Winkenwerder. No.
Dr. Sambur. No, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Walker. No, sir.
Chairman Levin. Will you ensure that the Department
complies with deadlines established for requested
communications, including prepared testimony and questions for
the record and hearings?
Dr. Beckner. Yes, sir.
Ambassador Brooks. Yes, sir.
Dr. Winkenwerder. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Sambur. Yes.
Ms. Walker. Yes, sir.
Chairman Levin. Will you cooperate in providing witnesses
and briefers in response to congressional requests?
Dr. Beckner. Yes, sir.
Ambassador Brooks. Yes, sir.
Dr. Winkenwerder. Yes, sir.
Dr. Sambur. Yes, sir.
Ms. Walker. Yes, sir.
Chairman Levin. Will those witnesses be protected from
reprisal for their testimony?
Dr. Beckner. Yes.
Ambassador Brooks. Yes, sir.
Dr. Winkenwerder. Yes, sir.
Dr. Sambur. Yes, sir.
Ms. Walker. Yes, sir.
Chairman Levin. At this point I would like to recognize
each of our witnesses for any opening remarks that they would
like to make, and I would begin with Dr. Beckner.
STATEMENT OF EVERET BECKNER, PH.D., TO BE DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR
FOR DEFENSE PROGRAMS, NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Dr. Beckner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
committee. Thank you for the opportunity to come before you to
discuss my qualifications to become Deputy Administrator for
Defense Programs for the National Nuclear Security
Administration.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for moving expeditiously in
arranging this hearing.
I also want to thank Senator Domenici for his kind
introduction. I am very grateful for his support of my
candidacy and for the leadership and support he gives this
entire endeavor.
I am also grateful to the President, to Secretary Abraham,
and to Administrator Gordon for their confidence and the
opportunity to be considered for this position.
I promised several people that I would be brief with my
statement and I will. I have been either deeply or peripherally
involved in this important national security program for more
than 35 years. Although only 7 of those years have been in
Washington assignments, some people would say that is a good
ratio of work to anguish, and I would tend to agree with that
view. Washington exposure is obviously important in order to
know how the Government works and why it is often difficult to
move things forward.
I remember early in my first Washington assignment under
Secretary Watkins during the Bush administration, his Under
Secretary John Tuck frequently inquired at the end of a typical
day--did we advance the ball today? I am sure I do not have to
tell you that is a good description of a typical day in
Washington.
I think this job does take a lot of perseverance and
determination. Being just two generations removed from
grandparents who moved from east Texas to homestead on the
plains of northeastern New Mexico early in the 20th Century, in
order to get title to just 80 acres of barren farmland,
probably provides me with the right genetic base for this job.
They did not expect it, but they also had to deal with the
drought and the Depression of the 1930s--again, this was
probably pretty good experience for me to reflect on.
Let me now return to the present and to the future, which I
anticipate, if confirmed. The job of Deputy Administrator for
Defense Programs in the new National Nuclear Security
Administration is a work in progress. Administrator Gordon has
had both the enviable and the unenviable task of setting up
NNSA and organizing it to do the job which Congress mandated.
For those of you who are students of history--and I am sure
a number of you are--you will know that the birth of nuclear
weapons in 1945 led to the agonizing necessity to set up the
original Atomic Energy Commission, the AEC. I actually worked
for the AEC for the first 10 years of my career at Sandia
which, on truly rare occasions, required that I go to AEC
headquarters in Germantown and find the place in the woods of
rural Maryland. There were not many people in Germantown back
then, and most of them worried about either the nuclear weapons
production program or the birthing problems of getting the
Nation's civilian nuclear reactor program on its feet.
The 1970s brought the Energy Research and Development
Administration (ERDA) as the replacement for the AEC, to
broaden the mission of the agency, to reflect the newly
recognized importance of energy. Several years later, Congress
decided an even larger agency, the Department of Energy, was
required to concentrate the Federal energy programs in a single
organization.
Now with many other changes having occurred in the world,
not the least being the collapse of the Soviet Union, the end
of the Cold War, and the START agreements, Congress has
responded with this semi-autonomous agency, NNSA. As I see it,
my job, if confirmed, is to ensure to the President that this
country's enduring nuclear weapons stockpile remains safe,
secure, and reliable, and to make this NNSA program responsive
to the evolving requirements of the Federal Government in a
world of today and the decades to come, for as long as the
Nation requires a nuclear deterrent.
I sense that Congress wants less bureaucracy and more
output with fewer problems along the way. You want program
output which enhances security, which maintains and enhances
the safety, reliability, and performance of the nuclear
stockpile, and which bolsters U.S. leadership in science and
technology. I believe President Bush and General Gordon want
these same results, and if confirmed, it is certainly what I
will be striving to accomplish in the next few years.
However, I know enough about doing business in this town to
know that, though entirely reasonable and laudable, these
objectives will be hard to meet, not because they are
controversial or even debatable, but because we must make a
large course correction in a battleship running at full
throttle. If confirmed, I will need the dedicated and
deliberate support of this committee, the Senate, the House of
Representatives, the administration, indeed the entire Federal
support structure attached to this program in order to reach
those goals.
The ingredient which I often find missing in endeavors of
this magnitude is that of trust. To simplify the way we do work
in NNSA requires that we place more trust in the Federal
workforce and the contractors who actually do that work, that
we check everything we do to be sure that it works, but that we
do not ``check the checkers'' and on and on. We must also have
a system in place that does not tolerate waste, fraud, or
abuse. All this, and still our highest requirement is to do the
nuclear weapons job right, with no possibility of failing to
provide the country with the nuclear deterrent that it
requires.
The infamous events of September 11 serve as a reminder
that we cannot take our security for granted. Since the weapons
complex lacks the redundancy it once had during the Cold War, I
have been advised that enhanced security measures are in place
and that additional measures are under consideration. If
confirmed, one of my top priorities will be to review practices
and procedures to ensure that the uniquely skilled men and
women of the weapons complex can carry out their national
security responsibilities.
Let me say just a few more words about my qualifications.
Over and above the obvious technical and management
credentials and experience base, I think it is important that
the committee be comfortable with my personal commitment and
dedication to this job. It is the culmination of a lifetime of
work for me, starting as a research scientist at what was then
a 10-year-old Sandia Laboratory and evolving into senior
management responsibilities have included both the United
States and the United Kingdom nuclear weapons programs. I do
not like to say that I am an old hand at this work because in
this job no one ever knows enough to rely comfortably only on
experience. What counts most, I believe, is that I know when to
ask for help, whether it is from the laboratories, or from the
production plants, or Congress.
Next, though, I believe you will want me to make the hard
decisions to move the program forward. That is where experience
does count. We have urgent program needs in both research and
production. We have urgent needs in facilities to upgrade the
complex. We have urgent needs to develop new technical
capabilities so that we recruit and retain the best and the
brightest people to assure our capabilities for the future.
That is where I think I will earn my paycheck. I believe in
systems analysis and using the best information available to
find the right solutions not by intuition or accommodation, but
by hard-headed analysis. If confirmed, that is what you will
get from me. I hope that is what you want.
Mr. Chairman, I do not underestimate the difficulty of the
task. However, if confirmed, I know it will be the best job I
have ever had because it offers the most opportunity for
continuing success in a truly important program. I like that
way of living.
I would be pleased to answer questions, Mr. Chairman. Thank
you.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Dr. Beckner.
Ambassador Brooks.
STATEMENT OF AMBASSADOR LINTON F. BROOKS, TO BE DEPUTY
ADMINISTRATOR FOR DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION, NATIONAL
NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Ambassador Brooks. Mr. Chairman, I do not have a prepared
statement since I had the opportunity to make most of the
policy points I would have wanted to make in response to the
committee's questions. I would like to make four quick points.
First, I am deeply honored by the President's, Secretary
Abraham's, and General Gordon's willingness to entrust me with
this responsibility.
Second, I am grateful for the committee's willingness to
review my qualifications and, even more, for the committee's
strong support of the programs I hope to be responsible for in
the past and, I hope, in the future.
Third, I am immensely sobered by the events of the 11th of
September. What they show me is a degree of sophistication and
complexity that I had not previously recognized on the part of
terrorism. They seem to me to make the jobs of securing nuclear
weapons and nuclear materials even more urgent and even more
important than they were.
Finally, like my colleague, I have spent my whole life
working in the national security business, and I look forward,
if the committee and the Senate choose to confirm me, to the
opportunity to continue that over the next few years in this
position.
Thank you, sir.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Ambassador. Dr. Winkenwerder.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM WINKENWERDER, JR., M.D., TO BE ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR HEALTH AFFAIRS
Dr. Winkenwerder. Mr. Chairman, rather than a statement for
the record, I would like to just make brief opening remarks.
First of all, I would very much like to thank Senator
Kennedy for his kind and very generous remarks. I appreciate
that very much.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is indeed a
great honor and a privilege for me to appear before you today
as the nominee to be the next Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Health Affairs. I am especially grateful to the President
and to the Secretary of Defense for their confidence in me by
nominating me for this position of significant responsibility.
The events of September 11th blasted, I think for all of
us, a resounding warning that we must be prepared. I take that
warning personally in that, if confirmed, I will be responsible
for overseeing the health, fitness, casualty prevention, and
care of the men and women we ask to defend this country. If
confirmed, my foremost priority will be to ensure that our
military services have the capabilities and the support to
carry out our medical readiness missions and our preparedness
in all scenarios.
Also important are many challenges facing the military
health care system in this country today, many of which carry
implications for the military health care system and the
TRICARE health care program. Concerns for the quality of care,
patient safety and patient rights, the implementation of the
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)
legislation, advances in medical practice, and the ever-
increasing rise in the cost of health care delivery are just a
sampling of the issues that need to be tackled.
Should I be confirmed, I will promise to work very closely
with this committee and with other Federal agencies with the
Surgeons General of the services and with the leadership of the
Defense Department to address these challenges such that
military beneficiaries continue to enjoy the well-deserved
health benefits that they receive.
The responsibilities of the position for which I have been
nominated are formidable. If confirmed, I look forward to
working with Congress to ensure that military medicine is
prepared to meet the health needs of our Armed Forces and that
the military health system continues to provide world-class
care, which I know is a goal of Secretary Rumsfeld, for all of
its beneficiaries.
Finally, let me just say embarking on a career in public
service brings many challenges as well. In that regard, I want
to sincerely thank my family for their understanding and
support in this new endeavor. It means a lot to me.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I
look forward to any questions you might have.
Chairman Levin. Thank you.
Dr. Sambur.
STATEMENT OF MARVIN R. SAMBUR, PH.D., TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY
OF THE AIR FORCE FOR ACQUISITION
Dr. Sambur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and other distinguished
members of the committee. I am honored to appear before you
this afternoon as President Bush's nominee to serve as the
Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition.
I would like to thank the President, the Secretary of
Defense, and the Secretary of the Air Force for their support
and confidence in me by recommending me for this position.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for
taking time from your busy schedule, particularly during this
very trying time, to conduct this hearing.
To those who have spent the hours preparing me for the
moment and for the continuing support and constant love from my
family, my wife Arlene, my daughter Beth, and my son Ian, I
again say thank you.
If confirmed, now more than ever, in the wake of the
September 11th attack on our Nation, I look forward to the
opportunity to serve my country and especially to serve the men
and women of the United States Air Force. Mr. Chairman, I
cannot think of any finer job directly impacting the lives of
Air Force personnel than the position for which I have been
nominated. If confirmed to this high honor, I pledge my full
support and energies to making Air Force Acquisition the
absolute role model for the entire Federal Government in
integrity and excellence.
In closing, if confirmed, I look forward to an active
relationship with you, Mr. Chairman, and the members of this
committee as we work together to keep our Air Force the best in
the world.
Thank you.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Dr. Sambur.
Ms. Walker.
STATEMENT OF MARY L. WALKER, TO BE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE AIR
FORCE
Ms. Walker. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members
of the committee. I am honored to be here as well.
I only intend to make brief remarks and would ask that the
balance of my statement be made a part of the record.
Chairman Levin. It will be.
Ms. Walker. I want to thank the President, Secretary
Rumsfeld, and Secretary Roche for the confidence they have
expressed in me in considering me for the position of General
Counsel for the Air Force.
The Department of the Air Force is a magnificent
organization with a great team of dedicated and talented people
performing a crucial mission. Secretary Roche is a man of great
vision and talent, and I would look forward to working with him
and other senior members of the Department with the goal of
making a lasting contribution to the security of our Nation.
Every day the brave men and women of the Air Force,
including the excellent lawyers at the General Counsel's
office, have the satisfaction, when they go to work, of knowing
that their efforts are serving the national defense and helping
to preserve freedom around the world. If you honor me with
confirmation, at least for a brief period, I will be able to
join them in this important effort. It would be my sincere
privilege to do so. I can think of no more important place to
serve my country at this time.
I am happy to answer any questions you might have. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Walker follows:]
Prepared Statement by Mary L. Walker
Mr. Chairman, Senator Warner, and members of the committee, I am
honored to be considered as the President's nominee for General Counsel
of the Department of the Air Force. At this critical time in our
Nation's history, I can think of no better place to serve our Nation,
and I am deeply grateful to the President, Secretary Rumsfeld and
Secretary Roche for this opportunity.
I have practiced law for more than 20 years, specializing in land
use and natural resources law, but also handling many other matters,
including labor and contract issues and business litigation. While most
of my career has been spent in California, I have also previously
served the Federal Government in Washington, DC, and I am pleased to
now reside in the great Commonwealth of Virginia.
I began my career as counsel to Southern Pacific Company in San
Francisco in the early 1970s, representing the railroad, pipeline,
trucking and land subsidiaries in eight western states. It was a
formative time in the development of environmental and natural
resources law, and I was involved in helping Southern Pacific comply
with the Clean Air Act and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act from
the early days of those landmark laws. Together with the U.S. Coast
Guard, and several state governments, I taught seminars to the
company's mid-level managers systemwide on the new Federal statutes.
Since then, I've worked on many other environmental and land use
issues, representing local governments, private landowners, and
companies. I have been both the lawyer advising the decision-maker as
well as the decision-maker.
In my various roles, I have sought to understand the concerns of
competing interests in working with environmental and public interest
groups. I found the key is often establishing open communication and
retaining a willingness to hear each other's perspectives, while
working toward common goals. For example, as a U.S. Commissioner
serving on the Inter American Tropical Tuna Commission, from the late
1980s to the mid 1990s, I worked with environmental and public interest
groups, the fishing industry, the Commission's technical staff and the
State Department to reduce dolphin mortality in the tuna catch to
biological insignificance, while at the same time, maintaining a
healthy fishery that now feeds many nations. This was not an easy task.
It took the combined will of many people over many years, but in the
end, we achieved a great result. I was pleased to testify in favor of
Senator Ted Stevens' legislation in 1996 that recognized and built upon
this effort.
In the early 1980s, I had the privilege of serving the Federal
Government as Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Land & Natural
Resources Division of the Justice Department, enforcing the Nation's
environmental and natural resource laws. I worked with career Justice
Department lawyers to build a foundation of judicial opinions
supporting the Federal Government's new Superfund law. We also created
the Environmental Crimes Unit and helped train the first investigators
supporting the Federal Government's criminal enforcement effort. These
included successful undercover operations to stem the tide of illegal
international trade in endangered species.
As the Deputy Solicitor for the Department of the Interior in the
mid 1980s, I experienced first hand the challenges faced by a
department with many diverse missions. Among other tasks, I worked with
the Pacific Northwest Indian tribes on the team that negotiated the
Pacific Salmon Treaty with Canada; I helped defend the offshore oil
leasing cases; I supervised the team that drafted the first natural
resources damage regulations; and I was on the team that negotiated the
Bering Strait boundary with the USSR.
As Assistant Secretary of the Department of Energy for Environment,
Safety & Health in the late 1980s, I worked with talented career staff
in both headquarters and the field offices to assure that environmental
compliance of the nuclear weapons program was properly undertaken at
the Department's facilities. We worked in cooperation with Congress,
other Federal agencies, and the states, often in areas where regulatory
jurisdiction was unclear, in order to better address the legacy of
environmental issues at the Department's facilities and to effect full
compliance. I also worked closely with the Defense Department
concerning nuclear safety standards involving the nuclear Navy. It was
during my tenure at DOE that the Chernobyl incident occurred at Kiev,
and we were very involved in analyzing and presenting to Congress the
causes of that event.
In the private sector these past few years, I have represented a
diverse range of clients, ranging from high tech and biotechnology
companies to shipyards, the seafood industry and other, more
traditional industries. I have served my community in several pro bono
board relationships, including the San Diego Biocommerce Association
(``BIOCOM''), Floresta, Inc., the Professional Women's Fellowship, and
the Endowment for Community Leadership. I have also worked closely with
the Navy's lawyers in San Diego on regulatory issues under the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act.
If confirmed, I would look forward to using my background and
experience to serve the Air Force and to advise the Air Force Secretary
and the Assistant Secretaries in their efforts to renew and rebuild the
force structure. I would also look forward to working with this
committee and assisting you in whatever way I can. This is a crucial
time in our country's history and it would be a privilege to serve in
this role at this time.
I would be pleased to answer any questions you might have for me.
Chairman Levin. Thank you very much.
I think we will have rounds of 8 minutes. First, Dr.
Beckner.
Dr. Beckner, to your knowledge, is there any reason
associated with the safety, security, and reliability of the
current stockpile to conduct nuclear weapons tests at this
time?
Dr. Beckner. No.
Chairman Levin. The Stockpile Stewardship program has made
significant progress since you were last there in 1995. In
certain instances, the new Stockpile Stewardship tools have
enabled resolution of problems that in the past would have
required an underground nuclear test. These tools have also
allowed a greater understanding of the weapons.
Do you feel that the tools that are underway as part of the
Stockpile Stewardship program will be successful in addressing
the long-term needs of the stockpile?
Dr. Beckner. Yes, I do, but it will be a long and arduous
course that we will have to stay. It is a very difficult task
and one which, in the final analysis, means we rely on the
confidence of the people who do the work at the laboratories
and in the plants. The feature that I think we will have to
work hardest to protect is the confidence of the people, the
people who are in the trenches as it were. That will be my
major concern.
Chairman Levin. Thank you.
My last question for you is the following: The Department
of Energy and the National Nuclear Security Administration have
struggled to adequately plan and to execute projects, and to
address this problem, an office of project management was
created. Will you continue to fully support and fund this
effort to avoid the problems of persistent cost and schedule
overruns?
Dr. Beckner. The basic answer is yes. But let me say a
little more than that, and I have said this previously in
answer to some of the questions which were provided to me
earlier by the committee. I believe it is important that we
weigh all of our problems at any given time when we make our
decisions. We cannot make decisions in isolation from other
parts of the program. I want to be sure that we do the proper
analysis so that we know that we are working on the most
important problems, that we are funding the most important
problems, that we are seeking funds for the most important
problems, so that we do the right thing.
Within that context, there is no question in my mind we
have serious a problem in the complex with infrastructure. I
think we are moving in the right direction, and I support that.
Chairman Levin. Thank you.
Ambassador Brooks, given the recent terrorist attacks
highlighting where the major threats are to this Nation, do you
believe that the Department of Energy should increase its
efforts to secure nuclear materials and nuclear weapons usable
materials in Russia?
Ambassador Brooks. Yes, sir, I do, but I need to qualify
that ``increase its efforts'' may or may not translate into
more money. It also translates into more urgency. In some areas
in Russia, the limiting factor is not funding but access, and I
believe that both we and the Russian Federation, in recognizing
the changed environment reflected by 11 September, need to move
more quickly to resolve these issues. There is no question that
securing nuclear materials and weapons in Russia is one of the
most important responsibilities that I will have, if confirmed.
Chairman Levin. Are you familiar with the task force report
that Senator Baker and former White House Counsel Cutler
produced?
Ambassador Brooks. Yes, sir.
Chairman Levin. You are familiar with the conclusions that
they reached about the major threats to this country?
Ambassador Brooks. Yes, sir, I am, and I think that those
conclusions are sound and responsible. I found that report very
helpful in preparing for my new responsibilities.
As I said in my answer to the committee's questions, they
were not asked to balance funding requirements against other
priorities, so I think it would be dishonest to suggest that I
am going to achieve the tripling of funding that they would
call for. But if I had that tripling of funding, I could do
good things for the country with it.
Chairman Levin. The Department of Energy nonproliferation
programs are engaging thousands of scientists and engineers in
Russia and other countries of the former Soviet Union, but have
provided relatively few permanent full-time jobs. It is
important to provide work for scientists and engineers who
continue to be employees at their own institutes so that they
can remain in Russia. But it is also important to begin to work
to establish permanent full-time jobs outside of those
institutes where necessary. It is particularly true because
many are losing their jobs as Russia downsizes their nuclear
weapons complex.
Would you agree that it is important to provide that kind
of employment for those scientists?
Ambassador Brooks. Absolutely, and to do that, we have to
help transform that weapons complex into something that is more
appropriate for the modern world.
Chairman Levin. Do you know offhand how many scientists and
engineers are in permanent, full-time jobs as a result of the
DOE's efforts?
Ambassador Brooks. Only a few hundred are in permanent,
full-time jobs. There have been tens of thousands who have been
employed in part-time jobs, about 10,000 through the Intiatives
for Proliferation Prevention, another 35,000 through the State
Department's comparable program on science and technology.
We are looking this year, as I understand it, at having
several hundred employed as part of this new kidney dialysis
facility at Avangard. We are looking at several hundred more
employed in coal mining and oil drilling radar systems, and
there are some other projects of comparable numbers. But the
permanent employment thus far is measured in hundreds rather
than thousands.
Chairman Levin. Thank you.
Dr. Winkenwerder, our committee expects that you will, if
confirmed, exert a strong influence on the future of the
military health system, and the next generation of managed care
support contracts is a major feature of that future. The
President has nominated you for many reasons, but one is surely
your strong experience in the delivery of health care in the
commercial world. Your background and experience are going to
be invaluable as the Department makes changes to move the
military health system forward.
We understand the Department is going to conduct an
industry forum at the end of the month to discuss fundamental
changes in contracting for health care administration and
services. I am wondering, are you going to be involved in the
design of the next generation of managed care support
contracts? Have you been briefed on the recommendations of the
TRICARE management activity for the next generation of those
contracts? Are the proposals and recommendations, if you are
familiar with them, consistent with what you believe is an
appropriate approach for the Department to take?
Dr. Winkenwerder. Thank you, Senator, for that question. A
very important matter to the future of the TRICARE program is
the whole contracting structure or infrastructure for the
program. The quick answer to your question is that yes, I
definitely intend to be intimately involved with that. To date,
I have been briefed in a very general way about this upcoming
symposium or session that is to be held and about the concepts
of business that we are thinking about.
It would be my intention, if confirmed, to review those
concepts and to review all that has currently been proposed
and, frankly, to hopefully take advantage of my experience in
the private sector to bring forward ideas and thoughts about
how we can best do that contracting because it really is
fundamentally important to how the program works since so much
of the care is outside of the military treatment facilities but
in the ``private sector.''
Chairman Levin. This is my last question for this round.
Some of us have recently seen a presentation called Dark
Winter, which is an idea of what biological terrorism could
produce with smallpox in this country. Are you familiar with
the issues of biological terrorism? How would you act to make
sure that our Department is fully prepared in conjunction with
the Public Health Service and all the other facilities at the
local, State, and Federal level to respond to a terrorist
attack using a biological agent?
Dr. Winkenwerder. Senator, I have not seen the report of
the Dark Winter planning or preparation scenario, but I would
hope to get briefed on that and a whole manner of other matters
relating to bioterrorism and efforts that we have in place and
that we might put into place in the near future to further
prevent or minimize any harm from any attack in the way of
bioterrorism.
I could just tell you this, that if confirmed, the central
principle underlying all of my efforts to lead the military
health system would be simply this: Be prepared. Even though
the risks of certain events might be relatively small, if the
outcomes associated with those events are devastating or large,
I think our best approach is to be prepared. There are all
manner of ways that we can be prepared, and part of my task, I
think, is going to be to prioritize those risks and to do those
things that would have the most benefit for the dollars spent.
Chairman Levin. Thank you very much, Doctor.
I'm going to call on Senator Warner next. I think he takes
precedence.
Chairman Warner. Mr. Chairman, I am going to yield to
Senator Landrieu and Senator Allard and ask that my statement
be submitted for the record. I believe Senator Landrieu has an
understandable need to depart, and why does she not take a
question here?
[The prepared statement of Senator Warner follows:]
Prepared Statement by Senator John Warner
Thank you, Senator Levin.
I join you in extending a warm welcome to our nominees and their
families. Thank you for your willingness to serve at this challenging
and demanding time in our Nation's history.
Ambassador Brooks has had a distinguished career of government
service. During the previous Bush administration, he served as the
Assistant Director for Strategic and Nuclear Affairs at the United
States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, and, also, in the State
Department as Head of the United States Delegation on Nuclear and Space
Talks and Chief Strategic Arms Reductions (START) negotiator. He was
instrumental in the final preparation of the START I and START II
Treaties. Prior to that, he served as Director of Arms Control on the
staff of the National Security Council after completing a distinguished
30-year Navy career as a nuclear qualified officer.
Dr. Sambur has had a distinguished career in the private sector as
a senior executive of ITT Industries. As President of ITT Defense and
ITT Aerospace and Communications, Dr. Sambur has overseen multi-million
dollar programs involving military tactical communications, production
of space borne navigation and meteorological satellites, and a wide
array of Defense-related programs.
Dr. William Winkenwerder has compiled an impressive career in
medicine, academia, business, and government. He is a board-certified
physician who served in the Health Care Financing Administration of the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services from 1987 to 1988 as a
Special Assistant to the Administrator responsible for policy
coordination and development of payment issues in Medicare and
Medicaid. He was a member of Emory University's faculty from 1996 to
1998 serving as Associate Vice President for Health Affairs. Dr.
Winkenwerder has extensive executive experience on the business side of
health care as Vice Chairman in the Office of the CEO of Blue Cross and
Blue Shield of Massachusetts and Vice President and Chief Medical
Officer for Southern Operations with Prudential Health Care. Thank you
for your willingness to return to government service
Dr. Everet Beckner, if confirmed, will also be resuming his already
exceptional career of government service. From 1962 through 1990, he
was employed at Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New
Mexico, rising from Staff Member to Vice President of Defense and
Energy Programs. From 1991 to 1995, Dr. Beckner as the Principal Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Energy for Defense Programs. With his subsequent
experience in the private sector, he is highly qualified for this
vitally important position in the Department of Energy.
Ms. Walker also has a record of public service and achievements in
law. In the 1980's she served the Federal Government in several
positions: as Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety and Health
with the Department of Energy; as Deputy Solicitor of the Department of
Interior; and as Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the
Land & Natural Resources Division of the Department of Justice. She
subsequently engaged in a diverse legal practice representing a variety
of private and municipal government clients. I welcome all of you.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Senator Warner. I sure
appreciate that. If I could just have one moment because,
unfortunately, I do have to get to another meeting. But I
wanted to come and congratulate all of you on your nominations
and just to say I am going to submit my statement for the
record, if there is no objection, Mr. Chairman.
The subject areas for which two of the nominees will have
responsibility if confirmed fall within the jurisdiction of the
Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee. These are the
Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition and the
Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation.
Thank you, Mr. Sambur, for your commitment to excellence and
efficiency in purchasing. We look forward to working with you
on this, because at every time, but particularly at this time,
we have to be very careful and strategic about our investments.
I want also to call to everyone's attention and to thank you
for your comments about serving our Nation at this time.
Senator Sam Nunn, who has done wonderful work in this area
of nonproliferation, Ambassador Brooks, wrote a beautiful
editorial a couple of weeks ago that said the terrorists'
capacity for killing was restricted only by the power of their
weapons that they had at hand. We all have great responsibility
in this area, and many of you we will be working with directly.
I look forward to working with you all on the great
challenges ahead. I thank you for your willingness to serve
because our country needs you. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Senator Landrieu follows:]
Prepared Statement by Senator Mary L. Landrieu
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, one of the greatest powers entrusted to
Congress is the power to confirm executive appointments. Today, these
appointments and confirmations are even more important as we engage in
a long war with those terrorists and their supporters who threatened
our way of life on September 11. This war will have traditional
aspects, but it will also be a new and silent type of war. From my
vantage point, as Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats
and Capabilities, a key player on behalf of those who favor liberty and
democracy in this silent war will be the National Nuclear Safety
Administration. From the protection and safety of our nuclear
stockpiles--to the carrying out of the Nunn-Lugar programs to ensure
nuclear materials are reduced and kept out of the hands of those to
whom they do not belong--the NNSA's mission has never been so critical.
As Pope John Paul said in 1981 on a visit to Hiroshima, ``From now
on, it is only through a conscious choice and through a deliberate
policy that humanity can survive.'' Those words rang true at the height
of the Cold War. The Cold War is now over, but the Pope's words are
still prophetic and appropriate as we enter this silent war.
America must secure its own backyard. Our nuclear inventory must
remain both workable, if the unfortunate need for nuclear weaponry
should arise, and the inventory must remain safely in the hands of the
American military. Efforts must be undertaken to gird our nuclear
arsenal from those wishing to abscond with nuclear weapons or
perpetrate a terrorist attack on our nuclear stockpiles.
Moreover, we must also look abroad to ensure that those nations,
especially Russia and the independent states formerly in the Soviet
Union, with nuclear weapons do not allow them to fall into the hands of
terrorists and rogue nations. As Chairwoman of the Emerging Threats and
Capabilities Subcommittee, we must take all actions necessary to
strengthen our partnerships with Russia on non-proliferation and
weapons reduction programs.
I am encouraged that the administration has chosen two gentlemen
with keen awareness of these concerns to serve as Deputies at NNSA.
Ambassador Brooks, I enjoyed our conversation and visit a couple of
weeks ago. Please know we share a common vision on our Russian
partnership.
Furthermore, General Gordon, Director at NNSA, has also expressed
his faith in your nomination. Dr. Beckner, we have not met, but your
credentials are worthy, and hope we can meet soon. I look forward to
working with both of you closely in the future upon your confirmation.
Chairman Levin. Thank you.
Senator Allard.
Senator Allard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Senator Warner.
I want to direct my first question to Ms. Walker. Due to
the recent events that have transpired, there's a necessity of
all the Federal agencies to work closer together, particularly
the Defense Department and military affairs. Do you see any
legal or regulatory issues out there that would make it
difficult for the Department of Defense to work with other
Federal agencies during this time period?
Ms. Walker. Thank you, Senator, for that question.
I know that coordination with other agencies is going to be
very important and military affairs is, of course, one specific
area of the General Counsel's office that is very important to
its mission.
I know of no impediments to working with other agencies at
this time. However, we will be looking at all the necessary
coordination that needs to take place and we will be doing our
very best to do that. I am very glad that I have had prior
Government service, which I understand other General Counsels
before me, if I am confirmed in that position, have not had,
because I think it really helps facilitate those relationships
where they are going to need to be made for the mission. So, I
appreciate your concern and would be looking at that if I was
confirmed.
Senator Allard. If you run into those kind of problems, I
hope you will keep us informed of something that needs to be
done.
Ms. Walker. Absolutely. I will. Thank you.
Senator Allard. Also, the next question I would like to
direct to Dr. Winkenwerder. As you know, I am a veterinarian,
so I take a particular interest in animal diseases such as
anthrax. In light of the recent events down in Florida, it
highlights the issue. What do you believe the risks are to
military personnel, and what action should we be taking to
mitigate these risks? We have had a number of hearings on the
vaccination for anthrax. I would be glad to hear your comments
on that.
Dr. Winkenwerder. Senator, I cannot speak as an expert with
respect to the level of risks that would possibly be directly
applicable to the men and women who are in active duty or even
on bases here in the United States. But the events of September
11 I think raise the specter that our adversaries would use any
means they could put into their hands to inflict harm on us and
on our military.
We have an active anthrax vaccine program. A significant
number of the military have been either fully or partly
immunized. There are issues with respect to the adequate
manufacture and production of anthrax vaccine. It would be
among, if not the highest priority, as I step into this
position if confirmed, to do everything in my power working not
only with leadership in the Department of Defense, but also
with the people in Health and Human Services and Homeland
Security, to the extent that they are also involved, to
expedite the production and manufacture of an anthrax vaccine
that is safe and effective and to ensure that on a long-term
basis we have a stable source, a stable manufacturer, that is
well positioned to provide as much of the vaccine as not only
the military needs but the rest of the country may need.
Senator Allard. It seems to me that there is an opportunity
in your area to have some joint efforts that would provide some
efficiencies and probably cost savings to the taxpayer. Are
there any barriers that you see right now where it would
prevent you from working in a joint environment? For example,
the Veterans Administration. It seems like there could be some
savings there, for example, on pharmaceutical items. Would you
comment on that?
Dr. Winkenwerder. It is my view that we need to do a better
job communicating, coordinating, and avoiding not only
duplication of effort but making things more seamless between
the Veterans Administration and the Department of Defense
Health Affairs operations. I would be very committed to working
with those that are already working on this problem.
We have a committee that meets on a bimonthly basis to look
at opportunities for better coordination. As you know, there is
a presidential task force that was recently commissioned on
that very issue. I look forward to working with the task force
members and the leadership of the task force to try to
implement the recommendations that they may come forward with.
Senator Allard. Dr. Sambur, your position in working with
transition technology requires a significant bit of
communication between you and the ultimate users of your
technology. You have this transition occurring and then the
areas that you are trying to develop. What do you plan to do to
enhance communication between yourself and the ultimate users
of the technologies that you will be acquiring?
Dr. Sambur. Thank you for that question.
I think, if I am confirmed, the first action would be to
increase communication and put an emphasis on that transition
process. I believe where the failures occur are usually
associated with the lack of emphasis and the lack of
willingness to communicate and make sure that there is a
process involved with that transition.
Senator Allard. So, you think getting out and getting the
job done and showing a willingness to communicate is the
answer?
Dr. Sambur. Basically emphasizing that you need to make it
happen.
Senator Allard. Dr. Beckner, I have one specific area that
I am particularly interested in and that is the accelerated
strategic computing initiative. That is where we are talking
about basically increasing our computer capacity to 100 tera-
ops, which is 100 trillion mathematical operations per second,
which would make that the fastest computer in the world. In
your opinion, will our software be sophisticated enough and
will there be sufficient demand by the weapons laboratory in
2005 to justify this size of operating computing system?
Dr. Beckner. What we have to go on at this time is the
dramatic increase in computing power over the past 5 years
within the program structure to the point where it is today, in
the vicinity of 10 tera-ops as opposed to 100. 100 tera-ops is
coming in another few years.
To date, we have found that we have moved smoothly upward
in capability, as the machines have been available. Software
has been written and very successful, and the computers are
absolutely loaded to the maximum capacity by the users. So, I
would predict, since things have gone up so much over the last
few years, that 100 tera-ops is a very reasonable goal and will
be fully utilized.
Senator Allard. I think a lot of individuals in this
country assume that we have the capability to build a nuclear
warhead from scratch, which we no longer have with the closure
of Rocky Flats in Colorado. What is being done to move us
toward some kind of conceptual design for a pit production
facility? Can you share that with us without getting into the
top secret category?
Dr. Beckner. Yes. On the one hand, I am not yet fully
informed. I have not been briefed in-depth, but I do know at
least the basic structure of the path forward. The path forward
relies, in the short term, on increasing the capability of the
facilities at Los Alamos. Beyond that, however, it would appear
to be necessary to build a new pit fabrication facility with
the timing and the location to be worked out. The other thing
that plays into this is really the question of the stockpile
and the reviews that are presently ongoing as to the future
size and composition of that stockpile which will tell us what
size plant you need and what its capabilities need to be.
It is not yet imperative that we have all the answers, but
it will be soon. Over the next few years, it will be an
important element of the job I have to do, to bring forward to
Congress the requirements for that facility and to see if we
can get you to support it.
Senator Allard. My understanding is if we reach that point,
we could require some testing. Is that correct?
Dr. Beckner. I would not be prepared to say that at this
time. I think I will have to know a lot more before I would
answer in the affirmative.
Senator Allard. Very good. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Allard.
Senator Warner.
Senator Warner. Thank you.
I apologize for being late, but the leadership and those
Senators from the States that were struck by the terrorist
attacks held a ceremony on the Capitol grounds this morning,
and I was participating when this hearing started.
Dr. Winkenwerder and others, having spent some time in that
building myself, it is always nice to see all of you out here
in a very friendly spirit at this time. But once, hopefully,
you are confirmed by the Senate and you are back, you have got
to become fighters and infighters for your own budget. Believe
me, that is a rough arena. They built the Pentagon not unlike a
boxing ring, if you ever stop to think about it. It has five
instead of four sides, but you are going to have to get in
there and struggle to get your budgets.
Much of the budget before this committee and work on DOD
authorization is predicated on events that preceded the 11th of
September.
That brings me to the question in your case, Dr.
Winkenwerder, the reality now that this country could be faced
with another cataclysmic problem as it relates to biological,
or chemical or other terrorism. The Department has to think
through how they can work with local communities to handle
totally unanticipated numbers of casualties. I am sure you have
given some thought to that, recognizing that you would be here
today for a hearing and in all likelihood that you will assume
this post. That's going to take some money. Are you going to be
able to fight vigorously for that?
Dr. Winkenwerder. Senator, I am fully prepared to fight for
whatever resources we would deem at the Department would be
important and necessary to have for bioterrorism protection.
I think to your point earlier about local and civilian
efforts, obviously our focal point has to be on protecting the
men and women in the armed services, and we stand ready to help
the civilian sector but it is not our primary and principal
focus.
That said, speaking outside the realm, for a moment, of my
role at the Department of Defense, if confirmed, I can just
tell you that I think--things that have already been stated, in
terms of the local health departments, the State health
departments are very fundamentally important to protection of
the public health.
What I would want to do, if confirmed, is to make sure that
we are working very closely with the Centers for Disease
Control at the Federal level, the Food and Drug Administration,
other agencies at the Federal level, as well having good
contacts and communication with the State and local levels to
support where appropriate.
Senator Warner. One of the great things in the aftermath of
the 11th has been the unity of this Nation. The President has,
I think, courageously struck the theme--we are all in it
together. If a community had the misfortune of being hit and
they needed 1,000 beds in 24 hours, my guess is the Department
of Defense, unless FEMA has them tucked away somewhere, is
going to be there on the spot. So, yes, your primary
responsibility is for the uniformed personnel and their
families. Always remember that phrase, I caution each of you,
``and their families.''
Now, Ambassador Brooks, we are fortunate as a country. You
have a lot of experience in the area which you are undertaking.
Given now the events of the 11th, I think you have to go back
with your Secretary and reexamine that budget to see whether or
not there are some domestic needs that would require some
diversion of your budget for a period of time to take some
precautionary steps. Are you willing to do that?
Ambassador Brooks. Yes, sir. I think what is most
attractive in that area is research and development. A number
of the research and development efforts of the Department are
directly related to protecting against chemical and biological
as well as nuclear terrorism.
Senator Warner. Well, true, but also nuclear waste. Now,
that is an area for which everybody, from those of us sitting
here in the Senate to your agency, has identified as a very
high priority. Without spelling out the details here, you know
that we have to direct our attention to that subject right
away.
Ambassador Brooks. Yes, sir.
Senator Warner. You are aware of the reasons for that.
Ambassador Brooks. Yes, sir.
Senator Warner. Ms. Walker, I am going to read something to
you, and I think you best just say you are going to answer it
for the record.
Ms. Walker. Yes, sir. [Laughter.]
Senator Warner. I have known Secretary Rumsfeld since his
days in the Nixon administration. We were both young men
operating in that arena, so we have been personal friends for a
long time. But I love to read some of his pronouncements.
Listen to this one.
In a speech last month, Secretary Rumsfeld announced a new
initiative aimed at redundant Pentagon bureaucracy. He called
for a transformation of the way the Department works and
streamlining wherever possible. That is the introduction. As an
example of redundancy, Secretary Rumsfeld noted that there are
dozens of offices of General Counsel in the Department and that
there is another General Counsel's office whose only job is to
coordinate all the other General Counsel's offices.
Now, you will answer that for the record, will you not?
[Laughter.]
Ms. Walker. I sure will, sir.
[The information referred to follows:]
I am familiar with Secretary Rumsfeld's Assistant SECAF for Space
September 10th speech ``Bureaucracy to Battlefield.'' The Secretary
identified the Pentagon bureaucracy as an enemy of sorts and discussed
the need for transformation. One area he discussed was DOD's legal
support structure, stating ``. . . maybe we need many of them. But I
have a strong suspicion we need fewer than we have. We're going to take
a hard look to find out.''
I certainly support efforts to maximize efficiency, encourage
cooperation, and eliminate duplication. If confirmed, I would work to
increase efficiencies and seek ways to eliminate needless bureaucratic
obstructions.
The Air Force exists to defend our country and fight our Nation's
wars. As such, all organizations within the Department must carefully
consider how we contribute to that overall, defining mission. I am
convinced that the Office of the Air Force General Counsel has a
specific role in advancing the interests of the Department of the Air
Force across a broad spectrum of responsibilities directly contributing
to national defense. If confirmed, I will take great care to ensure the
manning and resources of the Office of the Air Force General Counsel
are appropriate to ensure the quality of legal support necessary to
support the Department.
Chairman Levin. You cannot get a better advisor than
Senator Warner, I will tell you that right now. [Laughter.]
Senator Warner. You may be in that arena pretty quickly.
But having again served in the Department, I have the
highest regard for the lawyers for the service Secretaries.
This President and this Secretary of Defense have chosen three
extraordinary individuals to serve in those posts. The lawyer
is a very needed asset. So, do the best you can to show that
you are going to be consistent in trying to reduce redundancy,
but keep that staff that the Secretary and you feel is
necessary.
Ms. Walker. Yes, sir.
Senator Warner. Mr. Chairman, I know that we have another
hearing, and I am going to ask that some of my questions to
these nominees be submitted for the record because both of us
have responsibilities elsewhere. Do you have one or two and
then I will follow up with just one?
Chairman Levin. I do have some additional questions.
Senator Warner. Why do you not go ahead with one or two of
them.
Chairman Levin. Well, maybe a few more than that.
Back to Dr. Winkenwerder. Are you familiar with the
Department's anthrax vaccine immunization program?
Dr. Winkenwerder. Yes, sir.
Chairman Levin. Do you support it?
Dr. Winkenwerder. Yes, sir.
Chairman Levin. There has been a delay in FDA approval of
vaccine and the processing of that vaccine and the approval of
the only current producer of the vaccine. It is expected later
this year, but FDA in this way is incredibly slow at times in
acting. I am wondering whether or not you would take some
action to facilitate and speed up the FDA approval if you are
confirmed.
Dr. Winkenwerder. Yes, sir, I sure would. I am told at this
point that action has been taken to try to expedite that review
and approval. It would be my plan, if confirmed, to review that
plan and to ask the question, is there any way that we can
further expedite that approval? Certainly we cannot ask the FDA
not to do what it needs to do, but that said, I would like it
if things could be done exceptionally quickly.
Chairman Levin. There have been too many instances where
they have said that some of their actions are going to be on a
fast track where they have not put them on a fast track. I
agree with you, you cannot take shortcuts in those processes,
but it is taking them much longer than they have committed to
in a whole host of areas, and I cannot think of anything much
more important than this anthrax immunization program. So, your
voice will hopefully speed up that process.
We have a provision in our bill that relates to claims
processing procedures. In the DOD and outside of the DOD, there
is an incredible amount of paperwork when it comes to health
care claims and health payment claims. I think you are probably
familiar with how much of our health care dollar goes just
purely into administration. The private sector is beginning to
try to do something about the high cost of claims processing.
We have a provision in our bill which instructs the
Department to examine their current processes and procedures
relating to processing, to reduce the high cost of claims
processing, to improve the timeliness of payment of claims and
explanation of benefits, simplify information provided to
beneficiaries relating to such claims through more automated
processing is flexible and understandable. Will you pay some
attention to that, assuming that that stays in the final bill?
Dr. Winkenwerder. Yes, sir. If confirmed, I would
absolutely want to look at that.
Chairman Levin. I have been involved for a long time in
trying to increase the amount of organ donors. A number of our
colleagues have been involved in that effort, by the way. I
have focused on the Defense Department and our hospitals inside
the Defense Department because of the jurisdiction of this
committee. We have a program to inform the beneficiaries that
use the military health system of the value of the program, to
encourage them to sign up for the program, and to inform loved
ones of those who pass away of what is at stake if they are
able to utilize the organs of that loved one to keep life
sustained for somebody else. The Department is now looking into
noting organ donors on military IDs.
I am wondering whether or not you are a supporter of organ
donor programs in general and whether you will give some
support to that program inside the Department.
Dr. Winkenwerder. The quick answer, sir, is absolutely.
Organ donation and organ transplantation save lives. One of the
keys to making those programs work is awareness of the public
or, in this case, the military personnel and their families. We
need to do all that we can to get their participation levels at
the highest.
Chairman Levin. Well, thank you for that. I hope that you
would take a look at some of the statistics that have been
produced inside the Department. They are a little encouraging
but not nearly as much as they should be. So, take a look at
what the hospitals have been able to do.
Dr. Sambur, let me ask you just a couple quick questions.
The Air Force has cut its science and technology investments by
about 50 percent since the Cold War was over. How do you
protect investments in research given the need for a lot of
short-term items?
Dr. Sambur. Well, that is obviously a very fine balancing
act, but I think the issue here is basically to make sure
people understand that the seeds of our future security rest
with the science and technology programs we are doing now. If
you don't have an emphasis on science and technology, if it is
not brought up to the importance level it deserves, then you
are really risking our security.
If confirmed, I would like to work very closely with you
and the committee to make sure that the proper attention is
given to the science and technology programs.
Chairman Levin. Thank you.
In a recent report on Air Force research and development
(R&D) programs, the National Academy of Sciences noted that the
broad scope of responsibilities of the Assistant Secretary of
the Air Force for Acquisition can prevent effective advocacy
for Air Force scientific and technical (S&T) at the corporate
policy and decision making level of the Air Force. Do you agree
with that assessment and how are you going to balance your
responsibilities for large acquisition programs with the need
to protect smaller but very important, as you have just pointed
out, R&D programs?
Dr. Sambur. Well, as I said, Mr. Chairman, this is a very
fine balancing act. You need to make sure that you are in
constant communications with everybody to make this happen, and
at the end of the day, you have to give emphasis to these
science and technology programs, otherwise things will happen
in the future that you will be sorry for.
Chairman Levin. Are you familiar with that National Academy
of Sciences report?
Dr. Sambur. No, I am not.
Chairman Levin. Well, perhaps then after you are confirmed,
you would take a look at it.
Dr. Sambur. I will certainly do that, if confirmed.
Chairman Levin. Congress has worked with the Department to
waive regulations and create new hiring and promotion
authorities so that the Department can become a more attractive
work place for highly trained technical workers. Congress and
the National Academy of Sciences have been disappointed with
the degree to which the Department has utilized those new
authorities, and I am wondering how you would have the Air
Force address the issue of attracting and retaining the finest
technical work force possible.
Dr. Sambur. I am not familiar, as I said before, with that
report, but obviously the success of any endeavor in science
and technology depends upon the quality of the people. So, at
the end of the day, you have to find the solution to that, and
if confirmed, I will certainly make that a priority.
Chairman Levin. Take a look at some of those provisions
that we have put in place to give you some authority especially
for that purpose, to address the lack of adequate utilization
of those authorities. Please put that on your list of things to
do if you are confirmed.
Dr. Sambur. I will certainly do that.
Chairman Levin. Ms. Walker, last Friday the President
issued a directive that purported to limit congressional access
to classified information. The President has modified that
since, perhaps not technically in written form, but nonetheless
has sent very clear signals that there is no intent that he had
to restrict access to classified information by this committee
and other committees who have a need to have that information.
We cannot operate without classified information. We cannot
make the assessments that we have to make as to what weapons
systems work, which ones do not work, where our shortfalls are
in the inventory, and a hundred other things without classified
information.
Do we have your assurance that you will do everything
within your authority to ensure that information needed in our
activities as an authorizer and in our oversight role will be
provided to this committee in a timely manner?
Ms. Walker. Yes, Mr. Chairman, you do. I agree that
Congress and particularly this committee must have access to
information in order to perform essential functions. If
confirmed, I would commit to work within the procedures
established between Congress and the executive in order to make
that classified information available to you.
Chairman Levin. The last question I have is the following,
Ms. Walker. Congress relies on accurate and timely information
to carry out those oversight responsibilities. The information
usually runs through official channels, but sometimes it comes
from whistleblowers. In the past, we have seen on occasion
retaliatory action taken against whistleblowers who have come
to Members of Congress with classified information, revealing
waste, fraud, or abuse in the Department of Defense activities.
My question of you is this: do you believe that such
whistleblowers, those who bring classified information to
Members of Congress, should be protected from retaliation?
Ms. Walker. Well, that is an interesting question, Mr.
Chairman. I have not considered any specific cases, obviously,
or what was involved in any of that. Obviously,
whistleblowers--and I know that is a category that is somewhat
charged--perform an essential function many times. I was aware,
as Assistant Secretary of Energy, that there were times when
whistleblowers brought information to us in the environment,
safety and health area that was essential. They should be
protected from any retaliation for that.
When you are dealing with classified information, I am not
prepared today to speak to specific cases and what might be
involved in that. But I do agree with you. If you are
suggesting that whistleblowers often perform a valuable service
and should not be retaliated against, in general I would agree.
If they are violating specific laws or policies against
revealing classified information and under what circumstances
they bring that information forward, I cannot speak to those
cases. There may be times when those need to be reviewed on an
individual basis. But in general, when it comes to
whistleblowers, I do believe there is a service often performed
there.
Chairman Levin. Now, Members of Congress have clearance to
receive classified information. So, what would be the problem
with a whistleblower giving us classified information if we are
authorized to receive classified information?
Ms. Walker. Well, I understand--and again, my understanding
is not perfect--that not every Member of Congress receives the
same degree of classified information nor at the same level.
So, what I was speaking to was really without assuming that the
member to which that information was given was an appropriate
receiver of that information. If you are suggesting that it is
a member of this committee receiving information that is
appropriately given, then I would agree with you. In that
circumstance, it would seem retaliation would be obviously
something that is not warranted.
What I was suggesting is there may be circumstances where
certain levels of classified information might be revealed to
those who would not otherwise receive it based on the level of
the classification, and in those instances, I could not
prejudge what might be appropriate action taken by the
Department. That is all I am saying. But in general I would
agree with you about protecting whistleblowers.
Chairman Levin. Thank you.
Senator Warner.
Senator Warner. For Dr. Sambur. This committee has taken
initiatives in the past few years and again this year in
legislation--and we are very proactive on this--to encourage
the military departments to move ahead with research and
development of unmanned combat systems. Are you familiar with
those initiatives by the committee?
Dr. Sambur. I am not totally familiar with it. I am
somewhat familiar with the unmanned.
Senator Warner. Well, the military departments have made
considerable progress, including the Department of the Air
Force. It would be our hope that you likewise will see the
wisdom in moving ahead on those fronts and, in that budget
fight, get a little money for it.
Dr. Sambur. Well, I certainly share your view.
Senator Warner. Do you concur in the desirability of having
these systems?
Dr. Sambur. Absolutely. I think that has to be part of our
future. Again, if we are not doing things that make us safe for
the future, we are really not doing our job.
Chairman Levin. If I can just interrupt. Senator Warner is
being modest on this. When he was chairman of this committee,
he was and still is the leader in the so-called UAVs, and this
committee has followed that lead very strongly.
Dr. Sambur. I am aware of his leadership.
Chairman Levin. This is a big chunk of the future, and
there is a real shortfall.
Dr. Sambur. I agree with you totally.
Chairman Levin. So, I just wanted to let you know that he
speaks for the committee in this regard.
Senator Warner. I thank my chairman, but you were a full
partner in getting it done.
Now, here is an area where you and I have had some
differences.
Chairman Levin. Whoops. I think time is up here.
[Laughter.]
Senator Warner. Dr. Beckner, the United States, I think
wisely, has decided that the safety and reliability of our
nuclear weapons stockpile shall be maintained without the need
for testing and, to a certain extent, without the need for
development of a new weapon, if that would be necessary.
I personally believe that the Stockpile Stewardship program
is a laudable goal, but this committee received extensive
testimony last year in conjunction with the treaty, with which
you are familiar, and came to the conclusion that that
stockpile stewardship program, frankly, through no negligence,
no oversight, no lack of effort, but just through the ability
to break through in this new area of technology, was way behind
schedule. As a consequence, the Senate ultimately decided not
to ratify the treaty.
Now, I am not going to probe you too strongly for your
views, but I would hope that you could indicate to the
committee that you are of an open mind on this issue. At the
same time, you know better than I, there is an aging process in
all of those weapons and we have an obligation to handlers and
others, indeed the communities in our country where they are
housed, shipped, and the aircraft which from time to time carry
them. We have a tremendous responsibility to assure that these
weapons can function and function within the parameters
designed and that they are safe to handle.
Now, a concomitant situation is that a nation who, for
whatever reason might wish to challenge us in such a way that
the President and others would have to consider--the Lord
forbid--the use of them, we have to know that they would be
effective. Now, those are awesome responsibilities that fall on
your shoulders.
I am concerned about this stewardship program and its
ability to meet the goals, albeit laudatory, that were laid
down in years past. So, give it some thought.
Do you have an open mind? That is the most I am going to
ask you to say at this moment.
Dr. Beckner. No question about it. I have an open mind,
Senator. I have followed this program for a long time, and
realistically we are only in the early stages of it. We are
talking about maintaining a stockpile for decades without
further testing, if we can.
Senator Warner. That is correct.
Dr. Beckner. But we also, I think, all understand that if
the day comes when we cannot certify the performance, the
safety that stockpile, we will have to return to the President
and to Congress and seek relief.
Senator Warner. If we have to do that, better earlier than
too late because this is a dangerous world out there. We know
that so well. Things that we never could envision can happen
now, and that is a doctrine we are going to have to follow.
Give it some thought. This is one Senator who is going to
carefully monitor that, and in due course when you come before
this committee, you can expect questions which I will not press
now, but at that time, as to your judgment as to the stockpile
program and whether or not the stewardship is on target, on
schedule, and can coincide in such a way as to alleviate any
problems we have with aging.
I thank you, sir. I thank this panel.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It has been a very good hearing.
So that you and I can go to other matters, I will put my
questions in for the record.
Chairman Levin. I will put the rest of my questions in for
the record.
I want to let you know, Dr. Beckner, just to put my oar in
a bit on this last question, there is no statutory relief that
you would need. If the administration decides to test, there is
no prohibition on it other than President Bush's moratorium. If
we ever ratified the treaty, which I hope we will some day,
under the safeguards provisions, any country can withdraw and
test if it is in the national interest to do. That was one of
the reasons I was able to support that ratification, is that we
could test under the treaty's provisions if it was in our
national interest to do so.
We do not have as big a difference as might have been
indicated here because I think we both agree that if testing
became essential to assure the safety and the security of our
stockpile, that we would test. Hopefully it will not be
necessary. Hopefully that program that we have now going will
continue to give us all the assurance we need about safety and
reliability. So, I do not think we have a major difference.
By the way, I want to compliment Senator Warner again
because he really played a very critical role. He made a huge
effort to actually delay the confirmation vote on that treaty,
as I remember, and he was, as always, a very constructive and
bipartisan voice so that we could have delayed that vote to a
time when we could have had perhaps more information and had a
longer debate.
Senator Warner. This committee held a series of hearings,
and I will have to tell you, it is your peer group out there,
the directors of those labs, not the politicians, that came
forward.
Dr. Beckner. I know them all.
Senator Warner. They sat in those chairs and just said to
the Members of Congress, we are working as hard as we can,
night and day. No shortage of money is my recollection. No
shortage of scientists, but we are still struggling to achieve
the goals of that stewardship program. That was the reason that
the Senate, in my judgment, made its decision.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Warner. We thank you
all.
We stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:00 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[Prepared questions submitted to Linton F. Brooks by
Chairman Levin prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
August 31, 2001.
Hon. Carl Levin,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am pleased to submit my responses to a number
of questions which you requested in connection with my nomination to be
Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, National
Nuclear Security Administration. In accordance with your letter of
August 3, 2001, I have provided 75 copies and a computer disk.
I appreciate the opportunity to provide you my views. I look
forward to discussing these important issues with the committee and, if
confirmed, to working with you and the committee to advance the United
States' nonproliferation agenda. Thank you for your consideration.
Very respectfully,
Linton F. Brooks.
Enclosure.
______
Questions and Responses
duties
Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
the Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation?
Answer. The fundamental responsibility of the Deputy Administrator
for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation is to enhance U.S. national
security by promoting nuclear nonproliferation, reducing global danger
from weapons of mass destruction, advancing international nuclear
safeguards and eliminating inventories of surplus fissile materials
usable for nuclear weapons.
If confirmed, my most significant functions will be: to develop
DOE/NNSA policies regarding arms control and nonproliferation; to
direct research and development for treaty monitoring and for reducing
the threats from nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons; to
implement a cooperative international program to promote worldwide
nuclear safety; to lead international materials and weapons protection
programs, including those involving the Russian Federation; and to
coordinate the development of policy regarding surplus fissile
materials and manage the U.S. and Russian programs for disposition of
excess weapons plutonium.
Question. What background and experience do you possess that you
believe qualifies you to perform these duties?
Answer. I have a broad understanding of national security policy,
especially arms control and nonproliferation policy, from my service in
the State Department, Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, Office of
the Secretary of Defense, and National Security Council Staff. My
service as START negotiator and as supervisor of cooperative programs
with Russia at the Center for Naval Analyses (CNA) has made me familiar
with security issues and current political conditions in the Russian
Federation. My NSC and OSD assignments and my recent service on
advisory panels have made me familiar with the culture and capabilities
of the national laboratories. Finally, from running a bureau at ACDA
and a division at CNA, as well as from my Navy service, I am used to
leading national security professionals and shaping a comprehensive,
mission-oriented vision for a national security organization.
Question. Do you believe that there are actions you need to take to
enhance your ability to perform the duties of the Deputy Administrator
for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation?
Answer. Yes. I need to deepen my knowledge of the details of the
programs for which I will be responsible if I am confirmed. I also need
to build collegial working relationships with my counterparts in other
agencies. I have already begun both actions in preparing for
confirmation.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what duties and functions do
you expect that the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security
Administration would prescribe for you?
Answer. In addition to the duties associated with my position, the
Administrator will expect me to work with the other Deputy and
Associate Administrators through his newly established Management
Council to help with corporate functions and to help him make the NNSA
a coherent, effective, efficient and respected organization.
Question. If confirmed, how would you work with the following:
Other Deputies in the NNSA.
Answer. I expect to establish a close working relationship with my
colleagues. Formally, this will be through the Administrator's
recently-established Management Council. Informally, I will work with
both Deputy and Associate Administrators in NNSA as a routine part of
my day-to-day duties.
Question. The Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management.
Answer. Because responsibility for facilities will not, in general,
be part of my portfolio, I anticipate that my interactions with the
Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management will be relatively
limited. The one exception concerns plutonium disposition, where I
expect to work closely with the Assistant Secretary for Environmental
Management in creating the necessary infrastructure at Savannah River.
Question. Other Assistant Secretaries of the Department of Energy.
Answer. Because of the semi-autonomous nature of the National
Nuclear Security Administration, I anticipate much of my interaction
with other Assistant Secretaries will be via NNSA. Where appropriate, I
will work to establish collegial relations with other parts of the
Department of Energy.
major challenges and problems
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will
confront the Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation?
Answer. The major substantive challenge I will confront if
confirmed will be ensuring that the many nonproliferation programs for
which I will be responsible are consistent and coherent, both within
the Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation and with other U.S.
government programs. An important near term task will be helping devise
a program for plutonium disposition that meets our nonproliferation
goals and that can be supported both politically and fiscally.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with my colleagues to ensure that
I provide the necessary strategic direction to ensure a coherent
nonproliferation program. In addition, I will devote considerable
personal attention to the recently initiated review of plutonium
disposition.
Question. What do you consider to be the most serious problems in
the performance of the functions of the Deputy Administrator for
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation?
Answer. The three most serious management problems I expect to face
are: (1) maintaining an adequate and responsible budget for the various
programs under my cognizance; (2) improving coordination with other
agencies of the U.S. Government and with the national laboratories; and
(3) retaining high-performing, experienced staff while attracting
bright young professionals into government service.
Question. If confirmed, what management actions and time lines
would you establish to address these problems?
Answer. I will support the NNSA Administrator in his attempts to
establish a formal Planning, Programming, and Budgeting System within
NNSA. Such a system will aid in managing the long-term funding needs
that are inherent in many of the programs for which I will be
responsible. In addition, I will devote personal attention to building
on recent efforts to improve coordination and working relationships. I
have not yet identified specific actions I will take on recruiting and
retention.
priorities
Question. If confirmed, what broad priorities will you establish in
terms of issues which must be addressed by the Deputy Administrator for
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation?
Answer. Should I be confirmed, my broad priorities will be working
to ensure that the many nonproliferation programs for which I will be
responsible are consistent and coherent, especially with respect to
Russia, and working to improve coordination and working relations
within my office, with other agencies of the U.S. Government, and with
the national laboratories.
baker-cutler report
Question. The Baker-Cutler Task Force of the Secretary of Energy's
Advisory Board described the tasks of the Deputy Administrator for
Nonproliferation as key to meeting the largest unmet national security
threat currently facing the United States.
What is your view of the findings and recommendations of the Baker-
Cutler report?
Answer. I believe the Baker-Cutler report is generally correct,
especially in its conclusion that the problem of securing Russian
weapons and material is urgent and requires both adequate funding and a
long-term vision. If confirmed I will work toward such a vision as a
vehicle for securing adequate funding. At the same time, the Baker-
Cutler Task Force was not asked to assess overall administration fiscal
priorities. Thus I believe the recommendations for massive budget
increases should be taken as an indication of the importance of the
problem, but not as a realistic guide to budget preparation.
nuclear cities
Question. The Nuclear Cities Initiative (NCI) program has been
criticized for being ineffective, lacking clear and measurable
milestones, having weak management and changing program goals.
Do you agree with this view? If so, how would you improve the
program?
Answer. My initial review of the program suggests that some
criticisms are valid, while some are not. Rather than focus on the
past, if confirmed I plan to work to restructure the program so that it
will command support consistent with the importance of its goal of
reducing the Russian weapons complex.
Question. Do you have a view as to how you would focus the Nuclear
Cities program and the goals that you would establish for the program
to achieve?
Answer. A management review is now in progress within the
administration to determine how to restructure and refocus the Nuclear
Cities program to respond to past criticisms while retaining the
program's unique focus on transforming the former Soviet weapons
complex. If confirmed, I intend to devote immediate, personal attention
to that review. Pending its completion, I have not yet come to any firm
conclusions about how the program should be transformed.
Question. Do you support implementation of the NCI project at
Avangard?
Answer. Yes, provided the Department of Energy is able to satisfy
current Congressional concerns. As I understand it, the current DOE/
NNSA plan is to focus its efforts on the city of Sarov and the
conversion of the Avangard weapons plant. This appears to me to be a
sound strategy and I plan to support it if confirmed.
Question. What do you see as the distinguishing factors between the
NCI program and the Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention and, if
confirmed, how would you work to improve the coordination between the
two programs?
Answer. The Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention program
focuses on individual scientists, engineers, and technicians, while the
NCI program focuses on conversion of the nuclear weapons complex
itself. In my view a sound program requires both components. If
confirmed, I will give immediate attention to a management review now
under way to devise an approach to ensuring effective coordination
while preserving the good features of both programs.
Question. According to a May 2001 GAO report, 70 percent of the
funds expended for the Nuclear Cities Initiative were expended in the
United States, with the bulk of the costs utilized by the U.S. national
laboratories to implement the program. The GAO report further states
that ``officials from the Ministry of Atomic Energy told [GAO] that
they are dissatisfied with the amount of program funds that have been
spent in Russia and that if the Department [of Energy] is serious about
creating jobs for Russian weapons scientists, more funds must be spent
in Russia.''
If confirmed, how would you address the issues raised in the GAO
report?
Answer. I understand that management controls have already been put
in place to ensure that at least 51 percent of program funds for fiscal
year 2001 and 60 percent of program funds for fiscal year 2002 are
spent in Russia. If confirmed I will monitor the progress of these
improvements and take additional corrective action if the DOE is
failing to meet its goal.
Question. According to the May 2001 GAO report, the NCI and IPP
programs are ``very similar programs in Russia's nuclear cities'' that
have ``caused duplication of effort.'' Consequently, GAO recommends
that the ``Department evaluate all of the NCI projects, particularly
community development activities, and eliminate those that do not meet
the program's basic objectives of creating jobs and assisting with the
downsizing of Russia's nuclear weapons complex.'' The GAO report goes
further by recommending, ``that the Department determine whether the
NCI and IPP should be consolidated into one effort in order to achieve
potential cost savings and other efficiencies.''
If confirmed, would you support these GAO recommendations,
including the re-evaluation of NCI projects to ensure that these
projects met the program's basic objectives?
If you do not support consolidation, how would you work to
coordinate the programs, if confirmed?
Answer. A management review is now in progress within the
Administration to determine how to restructure and refocus the Nuclear
Cities program to respond to past criticisms and to improve synergy
with the Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention program, while
retaining a focus on transforming the former Soviet weapons complex. If
confirmed, I intend to devote immediate, personal attention to that
review. Pending completion of the review, I have not yet come to any
firm conclusions about how the program's management should be
transformed.
research and engineering funding
Question. The NNSA nonproliferation research and engineering budget
request for fiscal year 2002 is $40 million lower than the fiscal year
2001 appropriated amount and may be lower than what is required to meet
current requirements and to sustain key unique research capabilities.
If confirmed, how would you propose to address this issue?
Answer. I strongly support nonproliferation research and
engineering and believe additional funds are needed to address an
increasing number of technical and global proliferation challenges. I
share the committee's concern that reduced funding will result in some
technologies becoming operational later than originally scheduled and
some technology development being slowed. If confirmed I intend to give
significant attention to this area. At the same time, I recognize that
I will be required to balance these requirements against other
important programs within a constrained budget environment.
former biological weapons scientists
Question. The Department of Defense and the Department of State
(DOS) each work with former biological weapons scientists through the
Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program and the International
Security and Training Center (ISTC). The Department of Energy also
conducts similar work that is coordinated with the Departments of
Defense and State through the Interagency Working Group.
In your view, what role, if any, should DOE have in the future with
respect to scientists that were involved in the former Soviet Union
biological weapons programs?
If the NNSA were to participate in this work, would you recommend
working through existing programs in the DOD and DOS to leverage
existing programmatic management structures and to ensure the greatest
level of cooperation?
Answer. Curbing the spread of knowledge concerning biological
weapons is an important--though very difficult--U.S. policy objective.
As I understand it, the NNSA/DOE efforts in the Initiatives for
Proliferation Prevention program already include efforts to redirect
former Soviet biological weapons scientists to civilian pursuits. I
understand current DOE efforts are carefully coordinated with State and
DOD; if confirmed, I would insist that this be true for future efforts
as well. I am not yet in a position to make specific recommendations
with respect to an expanded DOE role or on specific aspects of program
management.
expanded cooperation
Question. In your view, is there an opportunity to expand the
cooperative programs between NNSA and the States of the Former Soviet
Union, other than Russia, such as Kazakhstan and Ukraine?
Answer. Almost certainly the answer is yes, subject to budget
constraints. There may be steps we can take to reduce the proliferation
threat from diversion of highly-enriched uranium, for example, or to
expand use of the Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention program to
help scientists in Ukraine or Kazakhstan redirect their efforts to
civilian pursuits. I have not, however, reached the stage of having
specific proposals to offer.
Question. If so, what threat reduction goals should such expanded
cooperative programs have?
Answer. The goals should be the same as existing programs: to
ensure the security of nuclear material against possible diversion and
to shift technical workers and scientists away from weapons work and
toward civilian pursuits.
need for management improvements
Question. If confirmed, what management initiatives would you
propose?
Answer. I have no specific initiatives to propose at this time. I
believe my most important near-term management task will be to help
ensure the smooth implementation of the October 1 NNSA reorganization.
fissile materials disposition
Question. The fiscal year 2002 budget request and the
administration's review of the nonproliferation programs have raised
concerns about the fissile materials disposition program. The near term
issue is whether the DOE will be able to transport plutonium and
plutonium residues from Rocky Flats to Savannah River.
Do you believe that there is an adequate plan in place for
disposing of plutonium and plutonium residues after they reach the
Savannah River site?
Answer. I believe the current plans are technically adequate
assuming they are properly funded. The current program has not,
however, gained the necessary policy and political support within and
outside the administration.
Question. Will you commit to give this program your full and
immediate attention if confirmed?
Answer. I am committed to ensuring a thorough review is undertaken
in order to ensure a program that will garner the necessary support. As
noted above, I plan to devote immediate, personal attention to this
area if confirmed.
export controls
Question. According to the CIA's Unclassified Report to Congress on
the Acquisition of Technology Relating to Weapons of Mass Destruction
and Advanced Conventional Munition, ``increasingly rigorous and
effective export controls and cooperation among supplier countries have
led other foreign WMD programs to look elsewhere for many controlled
dual-use goods.''
If confirmed, would you examine the role that the Office of Defense
Nuclear Nonproliferation's Export Control Program has in cooperating
with supplier states on developing rigorous export controls and examine
additional opportunities for greater cooperation with these supplier
states?
Answer. Yes.
russian cost share
Question. According to a recent National Security Council staff
review of U.S.-Russian nonproliferation programs, Russia may be capable
of assuming more of the costs of implementing these programs.
In your view, what DOE nonproliferation programs do you believe
should require greater Russian cost share?
Do you believe these programs would be more or less effective with
greater Russian cost sharing?
Answer. I believe we should constantly review all cooperative
programs to ensure adequate Russian support, both to provide wise use
of U.S. resources and to give Russia a greater stake in sustaining
these programs. I have not reached any conclusions on specific
programs. I believe it is important to recall that the United States
engages in nonproliferation efforts with Russia because it is in the
U.S. interest, not as a favor to the Russian Federation.
russia and iran
Question. In December 2000, Secretary Cohen met with then-Russian
Defense Minister Igor Sergeyev to discuss U.S. concern over Moscow's
continued arms sales and proliferation activities with Iran. While this
meeting and subsequent State Department meetings were considered
upbeat, the United States did not receive concrete assurances from
Russia that these proliferation activities would cease.
What is your view of the current level of Russian arms sales and
nuclear technology efforts with Iran?
Answer. Based on the briefings I have received to date, I believe
that there is an unacceptably high level of cooperation between Russia
and Iran in nuclear issues and that international stability and U.S.
security would be improved by reducing that cooperation.
Question. As Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation, what policy options would you propose to address
proliferation activities of Russia with Iran?
In your view, are there any DOE nonproliferation programs with
Russia that could or should be used to leverage a desired policy
outcome with respect to curbing or eliminating Russian secondary
proliferation activities?
Answer. I believe the U.S. approach to Iran must be a coordinated
one that goes beyond the responsibilities of a single department. If
confirmed, I will work with colleagues throughout government to devise
such an approach. At the same time, our programs with Russia are not
conducted as a ``favor'' to the Russia Federation, but because they are
in U.S. interest. Thus using these programs to provide policy leverage
should only be done after very careful consideration of the potential
cost to our nonproliferation objectives.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as the Deputy Administrator for
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings and
other communications of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees in a timely manner?
Answer. Yes.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Jeff Bingaman
nonproliferation policies and programs pertaining to south asia
1. Senator Bingaman. Ambassador Brooks, what capabilities does your
organization have regarding management and implementation of
nonproliferation policies and programs pertaining to South Asia?
Ambassador Brooks. The Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
(NA-20) has a regional security program that focuses on
nonproliferation challenges in several parts of the world. The Middle
East and South Asia are two of the most critical of these regions. By
hindering proliferation and addressing security in unstable regions,
the program also contributes to the U.S. effort to combat terrorism.
NA-20 actively participates in interagency deliberations on policy
toward such regions; NA-20 also plays a significant role in
implementing U.S. policy. For example, we play a role in various
international negotiations, informal dialogue with South Asian
countries, and international collaboration on the application of
technical solutions to regional security problems. In fulfilling this
mission, NNSA draws on the considerable technical and analytical skills
of the National Laboratories, particularly Sandia National
Laboratories' Cooperative Monitoring Center.
establishment of a separate regional directorate
2. Senator Bingaman. Ambassador Brooks, should your organization
establish a separate regional directorate in which nonproliferation
issues regarding South Asia and other regions of concern are addressed
and funded'?
Ambassador Brooks. Not at this time. The current organization
allows consideration of policy issues in the context of the overall
U.S. approach to nonproliferation. If, in the future, active programs
were established in South Asia, then appropriate organizational changes
could be considered.
additional funding
3. Senator Bingaman. Ambassador Brooks, has your organization
sought additional funding for nonproliferation programs as part of the
President's initiative requesting $40 billion for counterterrorism?
Has the Department of Energy reviewed your proposal and made
recommendations to the President for additional funding?
Please provide specific information for budget requests for
individual nonproliferation programs that were submitted to the
President?
Ambassador Brooks. The Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
reviewed all its programs for possible acceleration. As you are aware,
the Administration was forced to select among many potential
augmentations and chose to focus on those with an immediate, rather
than a long-term, focus. I believe it is inappropriate to provide
details of internal Administration budget deliberations.
establishment of a separate regional directorate
4. Senator Bingaman. Ambassador Brooks, in the wake of September
11, President Putin has expressed greater willingness to cooperate with
the United States than in recent years. Has that willingness manifested
itself in any specific ways with respect to the cooperative threat
reduction nonproliferation programs managed by DOE?
Ambassador Brooks. Yes, I believe President Putin's willingness to
increase cooperation with the United States following the September 11
events has manifested itself in both a greater spirit of cooperation
and also in a tangible number of new nonproliferation proposals.
Specifically, Secretary of Energy Abraham and Minister of Atomic Energy
Rumyantsev met in Vienna following the September 11 tragedy and have
had several phone conversations since then that reflect this new spirit
of cooperation. Minister Rumyantsev himself described their late
September meeting as ``very constructive and productive.'' Rumyantsev
followed that meeting with an invitation for the Secretary to meet with
him in Moscow. In addition, this new spirit of cooperation was
demonstrated by Minister Rumyantsev's offer to U.S. Ambassador Vershbow
for him to visit first-hand the ten MinAtom closed cities to directly
observe the tangible results of U.S-Russian nonproliferation
cooperation.
MinAtom has also focused its attention on developing a number of
new technical proposals to further expand U.S.-Russian cooperation. In
early October, Sandia National Laboratories received 45 new proposals
from MinAtom institutes under the U.S.-Russian Warhead Safety and
Security Program. If implemented these projects will significantly
increase the safety and security of Russian nuclear warheads and
fissile material. I also received a letter from the Vice President of
the Kurchatov Institute containing a number of new proposals
specifically designed to combat terrorism.
potential directions for improved cooperation with russia
5. Senator Bingaman. Ambassador Brooks, will you undertake to
explore potential directions for improved cooperation with the Russian
government?
Ambassador Brooks. Yes. Certainly, this will be a topic that is
discussed when Secretary Abraham and Minister Rumyantsez meet in
Moscow.
country clearance
6. Senator Bingaman. Ambassador Brooks, employees of the Department
of Energy and the National Laboratories have often experienced
significant difficulties in getting country clearance from the State
Department needed to conduct business in conjunction with DOE's
nonproliferation programs. I requested that DOE and the Department of
State initiate a high-level working group to resolve country-clearance
related problems. Has such a group been established? Has progress been
made resolving this matter?
Ambassador Brooks. The high level working group has not been
established because improvements in the process worked out by the
acting Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation and
the relevant offices in the Department of State made such a group
unnecessary. I recognize the importance of an effective country
clearance process and will be alert to recommend appropriate action,
including the establishment of a high level working group, should
problems arise in the future.
review of operations of doe moscow office
7. Senator Bingaman. Ambassador Brooks, DOE recently completed a
review of operations of the DOE office in Moscow. Would you please
summarize the findings of that review?
Ambassador Brooks. Former U.S. Ambassador to Russia, Jim Collins,
and Gen. John Gordon, Under Secretary and Administrator for Nuclear
Security, co-sponsored the review, which included interviews in both
Moscow and Washington DC of 30 key United States Government personnel
familiar with the DOE Moscow Office. The key findings of the review
were that DOE Moscow Office has competent leadership, management and
staff and that the Office performs valuable functions for DOE, the
Department of State, and the U.S. Embassy in supporting
nonproliferation and non-nuclear (oil/gas) programs in Russia. The
primary challenge identified during the strategic review was to improve
the working relationship between DOE and the Department of State in
Washington.
To address this challenge, the strategic review also included a
near-term action plan with 18 specific actions to further increase the
effectiveness of DOE Moscow Office and to improve cooperation/
coordination between DOE and State. To date, approximately 70 percent
of these actions have already been implemented which has led to a
significant improvement in coordination and cooperation between DOE and
State.
______
Question Submitted by Senator John Warner
u.s.-russia plutonium disposition program in doe/nnsa
8. Senator Warner. Ambassador Brooks, in your answer to the
advanced policy questions, you indicated that you expect to work
closely with the Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management in
creating the necessary infrastructure at Savannah River. Specifically,
what infrastructure do you have in mind and how will this support the
implementation of the U.S.-Russia Plutonium Disposition Program?
Ambassador Brooks. The Department's current plutonium disposition
strategy involves the construction and operation of three key
facilities at the Savannah River Site, i.e., Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel
Fabrication Facility, Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility and an
Immobilization Facility. These facilities will depend on interim
storage at the K Area Material Storage (KAMS), supply of vitrified high
level radioactive waste for immobilization from the Defense Waste
Processing Facility (DWPF), and possible Canyon use for plutonium
polishing--all under the purview of the Assistant Secretary for
Environmental Management. Additionally, the plutonium disposition
program will rely on Savannah River Site to provide security,
utilities, roads, analytical laboratory capabilities, etc. All of these
elements are essential to implement the existing U.S.-Russia Plutonium
Management and Disposition Agreement.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Strom Thurmond
bilateral plutonium management and disposition agreement
9. Senator Thurmond. Ambassador Brooks, Russian Atomic Energy
Agency First Deputy Valentin Ivanov recently indicated that without the
Mixed Oxide Fuel component of the Bilateral Plutonium Management and
Disposition Agreement the plan to eliminate plutonium in the United
States and, more importantly, Russia would collapse. Do you agree with
this assessment?
Ambassador Brooks. Yes. The Russians have said repeatedly over the
past 6 years they would not proceed with a bilateral plutonium
disposition agreement with the United States unless it was based
primarily on irradiating mixed oxide (MOX) fuel in nuclear reactors.
The Russians feel immobilization does not degrade the isotopics of the
weapon-grade plutonium making it relatively easy for a sophisticated
Nuclear Weapons State to reuse this material in weapons. Further, the
Russians have expressed an interest in recovering the energy value from
the plutonium they worked so hard to produce. We have been informed
that this position is not only held by Ministry of Atomic Energy but
also by the Ministry of Defense, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and is
strongly concurred in by the Office of the Prime Minister.
______
[The nomination reference of Linton F. Brooks follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
September 4, 2001.
Ordered, that the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Linton F. Brooks, of Virginia, to be Deputy Administrator for
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, National Nuclear Security
Administration. (New position)
______
[The biographical sketch of Linton F. Brooks, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Ambassador Linton F. Brooks
Ambassador Linton F. Brooks is Vice President and Assistant to the
President for Policy Analysis at the Center for Naval Analyses (CNA), a
federally funded research and development center located in Alexandria,
Virginia. As such, he is responsible for broad policy analyses of
issues of national importance.
Prior to joining CNA, Ambassador Brooks had an extensive career in
government service. During the Bush administration, he served as
Assistant Director for Strategic and Nuclear Affairs at the United
States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, and in the State Department
as Head of the United States Delegation on Nuclear and Space Talks and
Chief Strategic Arms Reductions (START) Negotiator. In this latter
capacity, he was responsible for final preparation of the START I
Treaty; which was signed by Presidents Bush and Gorbachev in Moscow on
July 31, 1991. In December 1992, he performed a similar function during
the final preparation of the January 3, 1993, START II Treaty.
Thereafter, he served as a consultant on START II ratification to the
Clinton administration.
Before becoming Head of the United States Delegation to the Nuclear
and Space Talks in April 1991, Ambassador Brooks served for 2 years as
Deputy Head of the Delegation, holding the rank of ambassador. He
joined the delegation after spending over 3 years as Director of Arms
Control on the staff of the National Security Council, where he was
responsible, among other things, for all aspects of United States
strategic arms reductions policy and nuclear testing policy during the
final third of the Reagan administration.
Ambassador Brooks' National Security Council service culminated a
30-year military career. Prior to his retirement as a Navy captain,
Ambassador Brooks served at sea in destroyers, ballistic-missile
submarines, and attack submarines; commanded the nuclear-powered attack
submarine U.S.S. Whale (SSN 638); and served in a variety of Washington
assignments relating to nuclear policy, military strategy, and arms
control.
Ambassador Brooks holds a BS in physics from Duke University, where
he was elected to Phi Beta Kappa, and an MA in government and politics
from the University of Maryland. He is a Distinguished Graduate of the
U.S. Navy War College and has published a number of prize-winning
articles on naval and nuclear strategy.
The son of a career Army officer, Ambassador Brooks was born in
Boston, Massachusetts, on August 15, 1938. He now resides in Vienna,
Virginia, with his wife, the former Barbara Julius of Lancaster,
Pennsylvania. The couple has two grown daughters, Julie and Kathryn.
______
[The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
form that details the biographical, financial and other
information of the nominee. The form executed by Linton F.
Brooks in connection with his nomination follows:]
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Room SR-228
Washington, DC 20510-6050
(202) 224-3871
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation
of your answer applies.
Part A--Biographical Information
Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.
1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
Linton Forrestall Brooks.
Nickname ``Lint'' used 1959 to date.
2. Position to which nominated:
Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, National
Nuclear Security Administration.
3. Date of nomination:
September 4, 2001.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
5. Date and place of birth:
August 15, 1938; Boston, MA.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married since 24 October 1964 to Barbara Sue (Julius) Brooks.
7. Names and ages of children:
Julie K. Brooks--32.
Katheryn L. Brooks--28.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
Rils Hoyre Skol--Oslo Norway--1952-4.
Columbia High School--Columbia, SC--1954-5 (Diploma 1955).
Duke University--Durham, NC--1955-9 (BS, Physics, 1959).
University of Maryland--College Park, MD--1970-72.
(MA, Government and Politics, 1972).
U.S. Navy War College--Newport, RI--1978-9 (Certificate, 1979).
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
June 1989--Aug 1992--U.S.Department of State--Head of Delegation on
Nuclear and Space Talks and Chief START Negotiator.
Aug 1992--Jan 1993--U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency--
Assistant Director for Strategic and Nuclear Affairs.
Jan 1993--Sept 1996--U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency--
Consultant on START II ratification (part time).
Jan 1993--June 1994--The CNA Corporation (Center for Naval
Analyses)--Distiguished Fellow (part time).
Jun 1994--Date--The CNA Corporation (Center of Naval Analyses)--
Vice President.
All employment has been in the Washington area.
10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative,
honorary or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State,
or local governments, other than those listed above.
U.S. Strategic Command Strategic Advisory Group Policy Panel (2000-
date).
As part of my duties for the Center for Naval Analyses, I regularly
advise the Navy staff in Washington.
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
Vice President, The CNA Corporation, Alexandria, VA (will resign
upon confirmation).
I serve as a consultant to TRW for the sole purpose of serving as a
member of the Sandia National Laboratories National Security Advisory
Panel. I will resign upon confirmation.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
Life member--United States Naval Institute.
Life member--Navy Submarine League.
Chase Hill Civic Association.
Executive Committee, United States Committee for the National
Laboratories (NOTE: This is a recently formed educational and advocacy
organization to support the Department of Energy's national
laboratories; I will resign upon confirmation).
13. Political affiliations and activities:
(a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or
any public office for which you have been a candidate.
None.
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5
years.
None.
(c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $100 or more for the past 5 years.
None.
14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals, and any other special
recognitions for outstanding service or achievements.
Angier B. Duke Scholar, Duke University, 1955-59.
Phi Beta Kappa and various other college honor societies.
Colbert Memorial Prize for Professional Essay, Navy War College,
1979.
Arleigh Burke Prize (professional writing) U.S. Naval Institute.
State Department Distinguished Honor Award (2).
U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency Distinguished Honor Award.
Defense Distinguished Service Medal, Legion of Merit (3), Defense
Superior Service Medal, Navy Commendation Medal.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
book
Co-editor with Arnold Kanter: U.S. Interventon Policy for the Post-
Cold War World: New Challenges and New Responses, (An American Assembly
Book), New York, W.W. Norton & Co., 1994.
book chapter
``Conflict Termination Through Maritime Leverage'' in Stephen J.
Cimbala and Keith Dunn (eds) Conflict Termination and Military
Strategy; Westview Press, 1987.
``Diplomatic Solutions to the `Problem' of Non-Strategic Nuclear
Weapons,'' (forthcoming).
monograph
Peacetime Influence Through Forward Naval Presence, CNA Occasional
Paper, Center for Naval Analyses, Alexandria, Virginia, October 1993.
articles in international security
``Naval Power and National Security; The Case for the Maritime
Strategy'' (Fall 1986).
``Nuclear SLCMs Add to Deterrence and Security'' (Winter 1988/
1989).
articles in naval war college review
``Pricing Ourselves Out of the Market: The Attack Submarine
Program'' (September-October 1979).
``An Examination of the Professional Concerns of Naval Officers as
Reflected in Their Professional Journal'' (January-February 1980).
articles in submarine review
``Strategic Planning in the Submarine Force'' (January 1985).
``Forward Submarine Operations and Strategic Stability'' (April
1993).
``Comments on Defensive Anti-Air Warfare for SSNs'' (July 1994).
``Waiting for START III'' (October 1998).
articles in the proceedings of the united states naval institute
``Tactical Nuclear Weapons: Forgotten Facet of Naval Warfare''
(January 1980).
``It's Time to Start Speaking Up'' (January 1985).
`` `New' As in Nuclear Land Attack Tomahawk'' (April 1985).
``Escalation and Naval Strategy'' (August 1985).
``The Nuclear Maritime Strategy'' (April 1987).
``Nuclear weapons at Sea'' (August 1988) (with Franklin C. Miller).
``Dropping the Baton'' (June 1989).
``Why Doesn't the Navy Make More Use of the Retired Community''
(January 1994).
``The New Nuclear Threat'' (May 1994).
comment and discussion in the proceedings of the united states naval
institute
October 1983 (Operations in a nuclear environment).
November 1984 (Anti-SSBN operations.
December 1984 (Nuclear escalation).
August 1985 (Tomahawk missiles).
Article in Undersea Warfare (official Navy publication)
``Arms Control and Submarines,'' (Spring 2001).
articles published in my official capacity and representing u.s.
government positions
``The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty: Reducing the Risk of War,''
NATO Review, Volume 39, Number 5 (October 1991).
``START: An End and a Beginning,'' Disarmament, Volume XV, Number 2
(1992).
16. Speeches: Provide the committee with two copies of any formal
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have
copies of and are on topics relevant to the position for which you have
been nominated.
No speeches given relating to nonproliferation.
17. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree,
if confirmed, to respond to requests to appear and testify before any
duly constituted committee of the Senate?
Yes.
______
[The nominee responded to the questions in Parts B-F of the
committee questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set
forth in the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to
Parts B-F are contained in the committee's executive files.]
------
Signature and Date
I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate,
and complete.
Linton F. Brooks.
Undated.
[The nomination of Linton F. Brooks was reported to the
Senate by Chairman Levin on October 15, 2001, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on October 16, 2001.]
------
[Prepared questions submitted to Marvin R. Sambur by
Chairman Levin prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
September 18, 2001.
Hon. Carl Levin,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Enclosed herewith are the answers to the advance
questions the Senate Armed Services Committee asked me to complete.
Sincerely,
Marvin R. Sambur.
Enclosure.
cc: Senator John Warner,
Ranking Member.
______
Questions and Responses
defense reforms
Question. More than a decade has passed since the enactment of the
Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and
the Special Operations reforms.
Do you support full implementation of these defense reforms?
Answer. Yes, I support full implementation of the Goldwater-Nichols
Act.
Question. What is your view of the extent to which these defense
reforms have been implemented?
Answer. I believe that the reforms outlined in the Goldwater-
Nichols Act are now part of the day-to-day business of the Department.
We have seen how the Goldwater-Nichols Act significantly enhanced the
Department's joint warfighting effectiveness. From a management
standpoint, the Goldwater-Nichols Act was an important milestone in
furthering the reform mindset within the Department, which led to
today's pursuit of acquisition excellence.
Question. What do you consider to be the most important aspects of
these defense reforms?
Answer. I believe the most important aspect of the Goldwater-
Nichols Act is the improved joint warfighting capabilities. The
Department's quick, unified response to the recent heinous terrorist
attacks shows the strength of the joint force team. Today's acquisition
excellence mindset, which had its genesis in the Goldwater-Nichols Act,
will enable the acquisition community to efficiently deliver the combat
capabilities the joint warfighters need to successfully accomplish the
full range of military missions that will be required as we wage the
war of the 21st century against terrorism.
Question. The goals of Congress in enacting these defense reforms,
as reflected in section 3 of the Goldwater-Nichols Department of
Defense Reorganization Act, can be summarized as strengthening civilian
control; improving military advice; placing clear responsibility on the
combatant commanders for the accomplishment of their missions; ensuring
the authority of the combatant commanders is commensurate with their
responsibility; increasing attention to the formulation of strategy and
to contingency planning; providing for more efficient use of defense
resources; and enhancing the effectiveness of military operations and
improving the management and administration of the Department of
Defense.
Do you agree with these goals?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Recently, there have been articles that indicate an
interest within the Department of Defense in modifying Goldwater-
Nichols in light of the changing environment and possible revisions to
the national strategy.
Do you anticipate that legislative proposals to amend Goldwater-
Nichols may be appropriate? If so, what areas do you believe it might
be appropriate to address in these proposals?
Answer. Over the past several years, I have seen the Air Force make
dramatic improvements in the way it acquires and sustains weapon
systems, and much of this progress was due to Congress passing historic
reform legislation. As a nominee for this prestigious position, I am
not aware of any current legislative efforts. If confirmed, I would
look forward to working closely with Congress and the Department to
identify the best way ahead.
duties
Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Assistant Secretary of the
Air Force for Acquisition serves as the Service Acquisition Executive
for the Air Force. It is my understanding that, if confirmed, I would
have the authority, responsibility, and accountability for acquisition
functions and programs within the Air Force. Further, it is my
understanding that the Air Force is in the process of implementing the
Space Commission's recommendations regarding the acquisition of space
systems. If confirmed, I would look forward to working closely with all
involved to ensure an orderly transition.
Question. What background and experience do you possess that you
believe qualifies you to perform these duties?
Answer. As President and Chief Executive Officer of ITT Defense, my
business career centered around the acquisition, management, and
engineering of high technology programs. I believe my experience
leading a cutting edge technology firm provides me with a strong
foundation for leading the Air Force's acquisition team.
Question. Do you believe that there are actions you need to take to
enhance your ability to perform the duties of the Assistant Secretary
of the Air Force for Acquisition?
Answer. I believe that, if I have the honor of being confirmed for
this prestigious position, I am professionally and technically prepared
to assume the duties of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for
Acquisition. If confirmed, I would look forward to being aided in my
duties by the strong leadership team that currently exists within the
Department, the Air Force, and the Acquisition staffs. If confirmed, I
would look forward to seeking advice and counsel from those who have
preceded me and other experts, and I would look forward to the
challenge of the job.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what duties and functions do
you expect that the Secretary of the Air Force would prescribe for you?
Answer. If confirmed, I would look forward to having a close
working relationship with the Secretary and the Under Secretary of the
Air Force. It is my understanding that the Under Secretary of Defense
for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology has revised the Defense
Acquisition Board process. If confirmed, I would look forward to being
part of that important body. Furthermore, if confirmed, I would look
forward to continuing the acquisition community's close working
relationship with the operational side of the Air Force team, including
the Chief of Staff of the Air Force and commanders of the major
commands. By working together as a leadership team, we would understand
each other's problems and concerns and ultimately provide airmen with
needed combat capabilities that are effective, reliable, and
affordable.
Question. If confirmed, how would you work with the following
officials:
The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and
Logistics and the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and
Technology.
Answer. If confirmed, I would look forward to having a close
working relationship with the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology and his deputies. It is my
understanding that, if confirmed, I would be charged with representing
the Air Force on all matters relating to Air Force acquisition policy
and programs.
Question. The Secretary of the Air Force.
Answer. If confirmed, I would look forward to having a close
working relationship with the Secretary and the Under Secretary of the
Air Force. It is my understanding that the Secretary of the Air Force
has made the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition
responsible for all research, development, and acquisition of weapon
systems within the service. Additionally, it is my understanding that,
if confirmed, I would serve as the Service Acquisition Executive and
Senior Procurement Official.
Question. The other Assistant Secretaries of the Air Force.
Answer. It is my understanding that the other Assistant Secretaries
have responsibilities for their respective areas: Manpower and Reserve
Affairs, Installations and Environment, Financial Management and
Comptroller, General Counsel, and Supervisor of Space Matters. If
confirmed, I would look forward to working with them on crosscutting
issues affecting our respective areas of responsibility, and would
provide the assistance of the acquisition team on matters affecting
their particular responsibilities as appropriate.
Question. The assistant secretaries for acquisition in the other
military services.
Answer. If confirmed, I would look forward to developing a sound
working relationship with the Acquisition Executives in the other
Military Departments to ensure each of us can successfully carry out
the statutory responsibilities assigned to us.
Question. The Commander in Chief, U.S. Space Command and the
commanders in chief of the space commands in the military services.
Answer. It is my understanding that the Space Commission provided
recommendations regarding acquisition of space systems. If confirmed, I
would look forward to cooperating fully with the Commander In Chief
U.S. SPACE Command and the commanders of the space commands in the
military services to ensure continued efficient administration of
matters related to acquisition of space systems for the joint
warfighting team.
major challenges and problems
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will
confront the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition?
Answer. I believe the most important challenge facing the Air Force
is ensuring our Nation's aerospace force can successfully accomplish
the myriad of missions airmen must perform within a fiscally
constrained environment. If confirmed as the Assistant Secretary of the
Air Force for Acquisition, I believe that my challenge would be to
integrate research, development, and acquisition functions in the
context of this complex equation. I believe my challenge would be to
promote an environment that encourages the acquisition team to continue
to refine Air Force processes and Air Force bureaucracies and find even
more efficient and effective ways to deliver affordable combat
capabilities to our warfighters in support of the joint team.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. I believe that these are interrelated challenges and cannot
be resolved individually. They must be addressed in the context of
improving the way the acquisition community and the government conducts
business. I know this Administration is committed to achieving
significant reform. It is my understanding that the Secretary of
Defense and the Service Secretaries have established the Senior
Executive Council and Business Initiatives Council, both of which are
reviewing the Department's processes and working hard to implement a
wide range of ``best practices.'' If confirmed, I would look forward to
reviewing current progress, and ensuring any plans that I implement
would complement the initiatives already underway.
Question. What do you consider to be the most serious problems in
the performance of the functions of the Assistant Secretary of the Air
Force for Acquisition?
Answer. At this time as the prospective Assistant Secretary of the
Air Force for Acquisition, I am not aware of any systemic problems in
the office. If confirmed and problems were to arise, I would look
forward to working closely with Congress and the Department to identify
the best way ahead.
Question. If confirmed, what management actions and timelines would
you establish to address these problems?
Answer. At this time as the prospective Assistant Secretary of the
Air Force for Acquisition, I am not aware of any systemic problems in
the office. However, if confirmed and problems were to arise, I would
do my best to solve them as expeditiously as possible to maintain the
integrity of the acquisition process.
priorities
Question. If confirmed, what broad priorities will you establish in
terms of issues which must be addressed by the Assistant Secretary of
the Air Force for Acquisition?
Answer. I believe that the set of priorities stated by the
Secretary of Defense present an excellent framework for the service. If
confirmed, I would work diligently to address these priorities as part
of the Air Force's acquisition process. Broadly speaking, I believe
this includes:
Supporting transformation--by leveraging new
technology, the acquisition team can enable the Air Force to
posture itself to face the challenges of an uncertain future.
Improving readiness--providing the warfighter with
sustainable combat capability is a crucial responsibility of
the acquisition team.
Increasing retention--the acquisition team can only be
successful if they have a skilled and motivated team supporting
them.
Supporting recapitalization--the acquisition team is
the linchpin for enabling the Air Force to provide the tools
our airmen need to fly, fight, and win.
testing
Question. What is your view of the role that realistic testing
should play in the acquisition process prior to any decision to enter
into high rate production?
Answer. Realistic testing ensures that we know the capabilities,
effectiveness, and suitability of the weapon system, and have the
opportunity to correct any deficiencies, prior to making the long-term
commitment of funds and staking the Nation's and warfighter's future on
it. If confirmed, I would seek to ensure that proper test and
evaluation continues to be an integral part of the planning for all
acquisition programs.
Question. Is there potential for saving both time and money in the
pre-production testing of major weapons systems by:
(1) Making greater use of simulation?
(2) Combining simulation with low-rate production and testing in
the field?
Answer. The synergy obtained through the use of validated models
and simulations, ground testing, and in-flight testing enables the
acquisition team to identify deficiencies and make changes to a system
early in its development. It's easier from a technical standpoint, and
more cost effective from a financial standpoint. Therefore, the more we
can learn about a system early in its development, the better we can
guide the acquisition process. If confirmed, I would seek to ensure
plans of weapon acquisition programs continue to utilize the proper
balance of using validated modeling and simulation, ground testing, and
in-flight testing to reduce cycle times while providing the best combat
capabilities to the warfighter.
streamlining the acquisition process
Question. Both Secretary Rumsfeld and Under Secretary Aldridge have
indicated that they believe that there is a compelling need to
streamline the acquisition process to reduce the fielding times for new
weapons systems and capabilities. Some would point to the testing
process as an overall area that should be scrutinized in this effort to
reduce these cycle times.
However, the increasing complexity and interaction of complex
systems would tend to argue for achieving higher confidence during
testing that these systems will work as advertised.
If you are confirmed as the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force
for Acquisition, how would you propose to achieve the appropriate
balance between the desire to reduce acquisition cycle times and the
need to perform adequate operational testing?
Answer. I believe that the Secretaries are correct. There is
definitely a need to reduce the time it takes to get combat capability
to the warfighter. If confirmed, I would look forward to working with
the acquisition and test communities to determine how greater use of
modeling and simulation can help the Air Force in evaluating weapon
systems. If confirmed, I would work diligently to ensure the
acquisition community continues to take advantage of all the tools
available to provide the best combat capabilities to the warfighters in
the shortest time possible.
Question. Do you anticipate the need for changes in legislative or
regulatory authority to achieve this balance?
Answer. Over the past several years, I have seen the Air Force make
dramatic improvements in the way it acquires and tests weapon systems,
and much of this progress was due to Congress passing historic reform
legislation. As the nominee for this prestigious position, I am not
aware of any current legislative efforts. If confirmed, I would look
forward to working closely with Congress and the Department to identify
the best way ahead.
aerospace industrial base
Question. The Department has decided to make a winner-take-all
selection for moving to the engineering and manufacturing development
phase of the Joint Strike Fighter program. This raises questions about
the future viability of the aircraft industrial base.
To what extent, if any, do you see a connection between maintaining
a healthy aerospace production base and maintaining superior
warfighting capabilities?
Answer. I believe that our national security needs require a strong
industrial base to provide technologically superior and affordable
weapon systems to the nation's warfighters. A healthy aerospace
industrial base is vital for maintaining superior combat capabilities
for our airmen now and in the future. Key to this is a competitive
defense marketplace with financially sound companies that are able to
attract outstanding technical and managerial talent, as well as
investment capital.
Question. Do you believe a change or modification to the Joint
Strike Fighter acquisition strategy will be necessary, after the
upcoming source selection, to preserve the U.S. industrial bases'
ability to design, develop, and produce tactical aircraft?
Answer. I am aware that the Joint Strike Fighter program is
currently in a source selection. However, as a nominee for this
prestigious position, I have not received any briefings on this program
and thus am not aware of the specifics of the program's plans. If
confirmed, I would seek to ensure that directors of all weapon system
acquisition programs continue to consider the effect their plans have
on the defense industrial base while providing the best combat
capabilities to the warfighter.
depots vs. contract maintenance
Question. Many defense contractors have argued that it is a waste
of money to have government depots duplicate their production capacity
in order to maintain systems after initial production. They argue that
a cradle-to-grave approach, where the production facility becomes the
maintenance facility over the life of a system, would save time and
money in weapons acquisition. Others argue that there are certain
capabilities that must be maintained in government-owned facilities to
ensure that the Services will have ready access to this capability
during a national emergency, and that the cradle-to-grave approach
would subject the Department to a potentially more costly sole-source
maintenance contract.
How do you believe that the government should decide on the
appropriate balance between these competing views of the maintenance
strategy?
Answer. I am not immersed in the particulars of this subject.
However, I believe the acquisition community must provide reliable,
sustainable combat capabilities to the warfighter. If confirmed, I
would look forward to working closely with the Air Force's logistics
team to ensure weapon system acquisition program plans continue to
consider the importance of sustainability to the warfighter.
Question. Should the Department maintain a core weapon systems
maintenance capability?
Answer. I am not immersed in the particulars of this subject.
However, I believe that all available options must be considered to
ensure the highest state of readiness for our airmen. If confirmed, I
would look forward to working closely with the Air Force's logistics
team to ensure weapon system acquisition program plans continue to
consider the importance of sustainability to the warfighter.
acquisition workforce
Question. The Department has been reducing the size of the
acquisition workforce for a number of years. Since these reductions
have taken place primarily through attrition and reductions in hiring
new employees, the average age of the workforce has been increasing.
Some have estimated that a significant percentage of the workforce may
retire in the next few years, creating a situation that could
complicate our efforts to recapitalize or transform the Department's
forces.
What are your plans to achieve the correct size in the acquisition
workforce and to support that force as potentially large numbers of
older workers retire in the next few years?
Answer. I had limited insight into the acquisition workforce issues
as President and Chief Executive Officer of ITT Defense. The
acquisition team is the linchpin for enabling the Air Force to provide
the tools our airmen need to fly, fight, and win. If confirmed, I would
look forward to working closely with the experts from the manpower and
personnel areas to determine the best way ahead on this issue.
f-22 program
Question. Over the past several years, the F-22 program has been
operating under a legislated production cost cap. This cap was based on
the Air Force's assessment of what would be required to complete the
buy of 339 aircraft. At the time, it was understood that there were
other offices, including the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the
Cost Analysis Improvement Group or CAIG that had higher estimates of F-
22 production costs.
Over the past couple of years, the Air Force has assured the
committee that various cost estimates for F-22 production were
beginning to converge, giving the committee reason to believe that F-22
production would fit within the cost gap.
This year, the Air Force estimate of production costs for the F-22
is up by roughly $2 billion. In such a circumstance, we should have
expected that this increase would have indicated some further
convergence of the cost estimates. Press reports, however, indicate
that the independent cost estimates have begun to diverge from the Air
Force estimate.
In your opinion, why are these cost estimates diverging?
Answer. I am aware that a Defense Acquisition Board was conducted
on the F-22, and the Board authorized the Air Force to proceed with Low
Rate Initial Production. I believe that this was a good decision for
the country in light of the combat capability the F-22 will bring to
the joint warfighting team when it becomes operational. However, as a
nominee for this prestigious position, I have not received any
briefings on this program and thus am not aware of the specifics of the
program's plans. If confirmed, I would look forward to working closely
with the Secretary of the Air Force to ensure all weapon acquisition
program plans, to include the F-22, continue to consider the importance
of affordability. If confirmed, I would take advantage of all available
management tools to maintain oversight of weapon system costs.
Question. What steps should the Air Force take to ensure that it
will be able to produce enough aircraft to meet the requirements for
the program within the cost cap?
Answer. As a nominee for this prestigious position, I have not
received any briefings on this program and thus am not aware of the
specifics of the program's plans. If confirmed, I would look forward to
working closely with the Secretary of the Air Force to ensure all
weapon acquisition program plans, to include the F-22, continue to
consider the importance of affordability of the weapon systems. If
confirmed, I would take advantage of all available management tools to
maintain oversight of weapon system costs.
f-22 event-based decision making
Question. The Air Force is required to manage the F-22 program on
the basis of achieving certain milestones, rather than ``graduating''
when certain time on the calendar has elapsed. There have been delays
in the testing program that will delay the start of operational testing
by up to one year from the previously planned date. Nevertheless, there
is still some risk that developmental testing may not be able to
support operational testing even on this delayed schedule.
Can you assure the committee that the Air Force will not proceed to
operational testing before the program has completed sufficient
developmental testing?
Answer. If confirmed, I would be firmly committed to ensuring the
safety and effectiveness of all weapon systems the acquisition team
provides to the warfighters. Realistic development and operational
testing ensures that we identify and fix safety and effectiveness
concerns, prior to making the long-term commitment of funds and staking
the Nation's and warfighters' future on it. If confirmed, I would look
forward to working with the acquisition and test communities to ensure
proper test and evaluation continues to be an integral part of the
planning for all acquisition programs.
unmanned air vehicles
Question. The Air Force has demonstrated a capability on the
Predator Unmanned Air Vehicle (UAV) to fire Hellfire missiles at fixed
targets, and will soon be expanding this capability to include mobile
targets. The Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle (UCAV) is scheduled for first
flight within a year. The Global Hawk High Altitude Endurance UAV is
entering production and will be collocated with the U-2 fleet at Beale
Air Force Base in California.
What is your vision for the future of UAVs and UCAVs in the Air
Force?
Answer. It is my understanding that the warfighters' determine
required combat capabilities. It is my understanding that the
acquisition team is then charged to deliver that combat capability when
needed at an affordable cost. If confirmed, I would continue the
acquisition community's close working relationship with the operational
side of the Air Force team, including the Chief of Staff of the Air
Force and commanders of the major commands. By working together as a
leadership team, we would understand each other's problems and concerns
and ultimately provide our airmen with needed combat capabilities that
are effective, reliable, and affordable.
Question. In the Fiscal Year 2001 Floyd D. Spence National Defense
Authorization Act, Congress set a goal that within 10 years one-third
of U.S. military operational deep strike capability would be unmanned.
In addition, Congress invested an additional $50 million above the
President's budget request in the Air Force Unmanned Combat Air
Vehicle.
Do you support the 10-year goal of one-third of U.S. military
operational deep strike aircraft being unmanned?
Answer. I am aware of the public law that outlined this important
goal, and am aware that there are programs within the Department geared
to attaining this objective. As a nominee for this prestigious
position, I am not aware of the specifics of the program plans.
However, if confirmed, I would look forward to working with Department
and Air Force officials to ensure the Air Force continues to support
the Department's demonstration program that is integral to achieving
that goal.
Question. In your view, is the current level of investment, the
Fiscal Year 2002 President's budget request of $60 million, sufficient
to realize this goal?
Answer. As a nominee for this prestigious position, I am not aware
of the specifics of this issue. If confirmed, I would look forward to
working with the acquisition team to ensure they continue to identify
the level of investment needed to efficiently provide needed combat
capabilities to the warfighters. I would look forward to working
closely with the Department and Congress to determine the best way to
provide the necessary resources.
acquisition process problems
Question. The committee has been concerned about schedule and cost
problems in a number of Defense Department acquisition programs.
Perhaps more troubling is that the Department seems to have been
surprised by some of these problems. Various Department officials have
testified that the implementation of earned value management systems
and integrated product teams should have provided greater visibility
into cost and schedule, but there would appear to have been some
shortcomings in that regard.
Do you believe that structural changes or policy changes are
appropriate to help avoid similar problems on current or future
programs? If so, what changes would you recommend?
Answer. As a nominee for this prestigious position, I am not aware
of any systemic problems in the office. If confirmed, I would work
diligently to ensure directors of all Air Force weapon system
acquisition programs continue to take advantage of the tools available
to manage cost, schedule, and technical performance and to provide the
best combat capability to the warfighter when needed at an affordable
cost. If confirmed and problems were to arise, I would do my best to
solve them as expeditiously as possible to maintain the integrity of
the acquisition process.
oversight of space-related programs
Question. Secretary Rumsfeld has announced that he intends to vest
oversight of space programs in the Under Secretary of the Air Force.
Do you believe that programs such as GPS receivers and satellite
communications ground terminals appropriately fit within the ``space''
portfolio of the Under Secretary?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Space Commission provided
recommendations regarding acquisition of space systems. However, as a
nominee for this prestigious position, I am not aware of the specifics
of the report of the implementation plan. If confirmed, I would look
forward to cooperating fully with the Commander in Chief, U.S. Space
Command, and the commanders of the space commands in the military
services to ensure continued efficient administration of all matters
related to acquisition of space systems for the joint warfighting team.
Question. Do you know exactly what space-related responsibilities
you will handle, if you are confirmed, and what responsibilities will
be handled by the Under Secretary?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Space Commission provided
recommendations regarding acquisition of space systems. However, as a
nominee for this prestigious position, I am not aware of the specifics
of the report or the implementation plan. If confirmed, I would look
forward to having a close working relationship with the Under Secretary
of the Air Force, and other Department leaders, in the space realm. If
confirmed, I would look forward to cooperating fully with them to
ensure continued efficient administration of all matters related to
acquisition of space systems for the joint warfighting team.
Question. If the Air Force becomes the executive agent for the DOD
for Space, how will this impact your duties?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Space Commission provided
recommendations regarding acquisition of space systems. However, as a
nominee for this prestigious position, I am not aware of the specifics
of the report or the implementation plan. If confirmed, I would look
forward to having a close working relationship with the Under Secretary
of the Air Force, and other Department leaders in the space realm. If
confirmed, I would look forward to cooperating fully with them to
ensure continued efficient administration of all matters related to
acquisition of space systems for the joint warfighting team.
Question. If the Air Force is the executive agent for DOD for
Space, how will this affect your relationship with the service
acquisition assistant secretaries and Under Secretary of Defense
Aldridge?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Space Commission provided
recommendations regarding acquisition of space systems. However, as a
nominee for this prestigious position, I am not aware of the specifics
of the report or the implementation plan. If confirmed, I would look
forward to developing a sound working relationship with Under Secretary
of Defense Aldridge and the Acquisition Executives in the other
Military Departments to ensure each of us can successfully carry out
the statutory responsibilities assigned to us. If confirmed, I would
look forward to cooperating fully with them to ensure continued
efficient administration of all matters related to acquisition of space
systems for the joint warfighting team.
science and technology investment
Question. In his June 28, 2001 testimony before this committee,
Secretary Rumsfeld stated that he has set a goal of 3 percent of the
total defense budget for the Defense Science and Technology Program.
If confirmed, would you support a similar goal for the Air Force
Science and Technology portfolio, as a percentage of the entire Air
Force budget?
Answer. I believe that a strong science and technology program is
crucial to providing future generations of airmen the combat
capabilities they will need in the future. Science and technology is
certainly an area I am most interested in. If confirmed, I would work
diligently to ensure that the acquisition community enables the Air
Force to continue to maintain it's technological dominance over any
potential adversary. If confirmed, I would look forward to working with
the leadership of the Air Force, the Department, and Congress to ensure
the Air Force continues to provide an appropriate level of resources in
the Science and Technology arena.
Question. In your view, does the current Air Force Science and
Technology portfolio adequately support the warfighter of today and the
future?
Answer. As a nominee for this prestigious position, I am not aware
of the specific technologies within the Air Force's Science and
Technology portfolio. I am certainly most interested in this arena. If
confirmed, I would work diligently to ensure that the acquisition
community enables the Air Force to continue to maintain it's
technological dominance over any potential adversary. If confirmed, I
would look forward to working with the leadership of the Air Force, the
Department, and Congress to ensure the Air Force continues to provide
an appropriate level of resources in the Science and Technology arena.
Question. If confirmed, how do you intend to facilitate
communication between the science and technology community and the
warfighter?
Answer. If confirmed, I would look forward to continuing the close
working relationship the acquisition community has with the operational
side of the Air Force team, including the Chief of Staff of the Air
Force and commanders of the major commands. By working together as a
leadership team, we would understand each other's problems and concerns
and ultimately provide the airmen with needed combat capabilities that
are effective, reliable, and affordable. If confirmed, I would work
diligently to use this understanding to ensure the Air Force Science
and Technology portfolio continues to invest in research that will
provide the needed capabilities in the future.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as the Assistant Secretary of the
Air Force for Acquisition?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings and
other communications of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Question Submitted by Senator Strom Thurmond
air force modernization
1. Senator Thurmond. Dr. Sambur, The Air Force has developed a
time-phased approach that seeks to modernize without sacrificing
readiness. Among its priorities are procuring the C-17, increasing C-5
reliability, upgrading conventional bombers and precision-guided
munitions (PGMs), and modernizing fighter and tanker fleets.
Considering the current threat environment, do you agree with this
priority for modernization?
Dr. Sambur. Certainly, the current threat environment is placing
enormous requirements on all our assets. I am confident that current
Air Force planning, programming, and procurement efforts are working
hard to correctly prioritize these requirements to support the National
Military Strategy. If confirmed, I look forward to participating in
this process.
______
[The nomination reference of Dr. Marvin R. Sambur follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
September 4, 2001.
Ordered, that the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Dr. Marvin R. Sambur, of Indiana, to be an Assistant Secretary of
the Air Force, vice Lawrence J. Delaney.
______
[The biographical sketch of Dr. Marvin R. Sambur, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Dr. Marvin R. Sambur
Marvin R. Sambur has been with ITT for nearly 25 years, where he
served in several capacities. These positions included President and
CEO of ITT Defense, President and General Manager of ITT Aerospace and
Communications, and President and General Manager of ITT Electron
Technology.
As President of ITT Defense, Dr. Sambur was responsible for the
total management of ITT's $1.5 billion Defense sector. The defense
sector included six divisions with 10,000 employees that supplied
advanced wireless communications systems, sophisticated satellite
payloads, air traffic control systems, night vision goggles, electronic
warfare systems, and advanced services to the U.S. and foreign
governments.
As President of ITT Aerospace and Communications, Dr. Sambur was
instrumental in making the division into the world leader in the
manufacture and supply of tactical radios used by the U.S. military and
allied forces, as well as the world leader in the design and production
of space borne navigation and metrological satellite payloads.
Prior to joining ITT, Dr. Sambur was with Bell Laboratories, where
he was a member of the technical staff of the Digital Signal Processing
Research Department. He holds a Bachelor of Science degree in
Electrical Engineering from City College of New York and a Master of
Science degree and a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Dr. Sambur has published numerous papers in the areas of voice
processing and digital signal processing and has been granted several
patents. In 1984, he was given the prestigious IEEE Centennial Award
for engineering management. He is a senior member of IEEE, the
Acoustical Society of America, Eta Kappa Nu, Tau Beta Pi, and Sigma Xi.
______
[The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
form that details the biographical, financial and other
information of the nominee. The form executed by Dr. Marvin R.
Sambur in connection with his nomination follows:]
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Room SR-228
Washington, DC 20510-6050
(202) 224-3871
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation
of your answer applies.
Part A--Biographical Information
Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.
1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
Marvin Robert Sambur.
2. Position to which nominated:
Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition.
3. Date of nomination:
September 4, 2001.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
5. Date and place of birth:
March 31, 1946; Brooklyn, NY.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to the former Arlene Carol Bossowick.
7. Names and ages of children:
Beth Yvonne Sambur (24 years); Ian Matthew Sambur (20 years).
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
Brooklyn Technical HS (9/59-6/63); CCNY (9/63-6/68) received BEE;
MIT (9/68-6/72) received MSEE and PhD.
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
President ITT Aerospace Technology Division (6/91-10/98 and 8/2000-
3/2001); President ITT Defense (10/98-8/2001); presently Consultant for
ITT (4/2001-present).
10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative,
honorary or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State,
or local governments, other than those listed above.
None.
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
None.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
Member IEEE.
13. Political affiliations and activities:
(a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or
any public office for which you have been a candidate.
None.
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5
years.
None.
(c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $100 or more for the past 5 years.
Paul Helmke ($100) running for U.S. Senate in Indiana.
14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals and any other special recognitions
for outstanding service or achievements.
IEEE centennial award for outstanding Engineering Management;
elected Senior member of IEEE.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
16. Speeches: Provide the committee with two copies of any formal
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have
copies of and are on topics relevant to the position for which you have
been nominated.
None.
17. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree,
if confirmed, to respond to requests to appear and testify before any
duly constituted committee of the Senate?
Yes.
______
[The nominee responded to the questions in Parts B-F of the
committee questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set
forth in the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to
Parts B-F are contained in the committee's executive files.]
------
Signature and Date
I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate,
and complete.
Dr. Marvin R. Sambur.
This 1st day of August, 2001.
[The nomination of Dr. Marvin R. Sambur was reported to the
Senate by Chairman Levin on November 8, 2001, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on November 8, 2001.]
------
[Prepared questions submitted to Dr. William Winkenwerder,
Jr. by Chairman Levin prior to the hearing with answers
supplied follow:]
October 5, 2001.
Hon. Carl Levin,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Enclosed are the answers to the advance
questions the Senate Armed Services Committee asked me to complete.
Yours truly,
Dr. William Winkenwerder, Jr.
cc: Hon. John Warner,
Ranking Member.
______
Questions and Responses
defense reforms
Question. Almost 15 years have passed since the enactment of the
Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and
the Special Operations reforms.
Do you support full implementation of these defense reforms?
Answer. Yes.
Question. What is your view of the extent to which these defense
reforms have been implemented?
Answer. Significant progress has been made, and I believe the
Department has embraced the spirit of the act.
Question. What do you consider to be the most important aspects of
these defense reforms?
Answer. Reaffirmation and clarification of civilian control, and
strengthening the role of the Commanders in Chief of the Unified
Commands.
Question. The goals of Congress in enacting these defense reforms,
as reflected in section 3 of the Goldwater-Nichols Department of
Defense Reorganization Act, can be summarized as strengthening civilian
control; improving military advice; placing clear responsibility on the
combatant commanders for the accomplishment of their missions; ensuring
the authority of the combatant commanders is commensurate with their
responsibility; increasing attention to the formulation of strategy and
to contingency planning; providing for more efficient use of defense
resources; and enhancing the effectiveness of military operations and
improving the management and administration of the Department of
Defense.
Do you agree with these goals?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Recently, there have been articles which indicate an
interest within the Department of Defense in modifying Goldwater-
Nichols in light of the changing environment and possible revisions to
the national strategy.
Do you anticipate that legislative proposals to amend Goldwater-
Nichols may be appropriate? If so, what areas do you believe it might
be appropriate to address in these proposals?
Answer. I am not familiar with any proposed amendments to
Goldwater-Nichols. I have not formed an opinion on the potential
appropriateness of any changes to the Goldwater-Nichols Act.
duties
Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs?
Answer. If confirmed, I would serve as the principal staff
assistant to the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel & Readiness
(USD(P&R)) and to the Secretary of Defense for the full range of health
policies and programs. My primary duty would be to execute the
Department's medical mission--to provide, and maintain readiness to
provide, medical services to members of the Armed Forces, ensuring
their fitness for duty and deployment. I would also be responsible for
the provision of health care to the family members of the Armed Forces,
retirees and their eligible family members, and others eligible for DOD
health benefits.
Question. What background and experience do you possess that you
believe qualifies you to perform these duties?
Answer. If confirmed, I would bring a number of skills to this
important position. I am a board-certified physician with several years
of experience in clinical practice. My clinical experience has been
complemented with fourteen years of health care management experience
that includes both private sector and public service. These positions
include experience in health care delivery, health plan management, and
with the health insurance industry. I will call on my experiences in
each of these settings if I am confirmed as Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Health Affairs.
Question. Do you believe that there are actions you need to take to
enhance your ability to perform the duties of the Assistant Secretary
of Defense for Health Affairs?
Answer. The Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary for
Personnel and Readiness have outlined their expectations for this
position, and expressed their confidence in my ability to perform this
job within the authorities already provided. If confirmed, the most
important actions that I would undertake, early in my tenure, would be
to draw on the existing pool of talented military and civilian health
care professionals in the Department of Defense and the external
military support organizations and beneficiary groups for ideas and to
clearly communicate to these organizations and individuals the
expectations that the Secretary and Under Secretary have for them. I
would also seek to strengthen relationships with government and non-
government agencies outside of the Department of Defense, to include
the Department of Health and Human Services, the Centers for Medicare
and Medicaid Services, the Centers for Disease Control, the Food and
Drug Administration, the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research,
the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the health care industry.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what duties and functions do
you expect that the Secretary of Defense would prescribe for you?
Answer. Clearly, the primary mission of ensuring the health and
fitness of our Active-Duty Forces remains preeminent. If I am
confirmed, I anticipate that the coming months will be very focused on
force health protection activities, our medical readiness
responsibilities, and medical support to potential deployments. The
Secretary of Defense expects a world-class health system for the men
and women who serve or have served our country that is defined by
superior performance, accountability and financial integrity.
Question. In carrying out your duties, how will you work with the
following:
The Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness.
The TRICARE Management Agency.
The Surgeons General of each of the Services.
The TRICARE Lead Agents.
The TRICARE Support Contractors.
The Designated Providers' Chief Executive Officers (i.e., Uniformed
Services Treatment Facility CEOs).
Beneficiary Groups.
Answer. An overarching theme that will define my relationships with
each of these important individuals or groups is close collaboration.
Continued success in defense health care will be largely defined by our
ability to work together as a team--the civilian leadership in DOD, the
Military Departments, both line and medical, TRICARE regional offices,
private sector contractors, and the beneficiary or constituent
associations which represent the people the Department of Defense
serves. I do believe that success is also achieved through the
establishment of performance expectations, supported by clear lines of
authority and accountability for these expectations.
The lines of authority and accountability between the Under
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, and the TRICARE Management
Activity are clear and direct. If confirmed, I look forward to working
with Dr. Chu and with the health care professionals within Health
Affairs and TMA. The TMA is a subordinate field activity under the
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, and responsibility
for its performance rests with this office. The buck stops here.
I would also look forward to working closely and collaboratively
with the Service Surgeons General. I would include them in our
strategic planning process, and I am looking forward to soliciting
their ideas on sustaining and improving our military medical readiness
posture. The Surgeons General and their line leadership direct the
activities of our military medical treatment facilities, where more
than half of all our medical care is delivered. Our close working
relationship will be vital to communicating and implementing a
coordinated strategy for medical readiness activities as well as health
care delivery to our other beneficiaries.
Coming from the private sector, I am also confident in the ability
of private health care contractors to complement the military health
care delivery system with high quality services. The relationship
between government and private contractors should be based on a true
partnership. Honest, open and frequent communications is the key to a
healthy working relationship with all of our contractors, TRICARE or
Designated Providers. Together with a clear definition of performance
expectations and measures, I believe that these contractual
relationships can and should grow into long-term relationships mutually
benefiting both the government and contractor.
Finally, if confirmed, I am dedicated to continuing the close
working relationship that has developed with the beneficiary
associations over the past year. I plan to communicate frequently with
these organizations, and to solicit their ideas on how we can improve
our performance. If I am confirmed, I plan to meet with the leaders of
The Military Coalition and National Military Veterans Alliance early in
my tenure and at regular, frequent intervals throughout my tenure.
major challenges and problems
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will
confront the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs?
Answer. I believe that medical readiness and force health
protection requirements represent the primary challenges for the
Assistant Secretary of Defense. Parallel challenges include the need to
improve the predictability of health care costs; manage the TRICARE
benefit and the long-term costs of the program; ensure high quality
care; and institute continuous improvement of business practices
through improved contracting and performance outcomes measurement.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, I would quickly establish 6-12 month work
plans for making achievable and measurable progress on each of the high
priority issues. I believe that the establishment of clearly defined
goals combined with the empowerment of individuals to achieve those
goals is essential to making rapid improvements in the health care
system.
Question. What do you consider to be the most serious problems in
the performance of the functions of the Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Health Affairs?
Answer. In the past several weeks, I have been fortunate to observe
activities within Health Affairs and to have spent some time with the
acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, Dr. Jarrett
Clinton. Despite staff shortages that occurred during the transition
period, he and his staff superbly implemented the new TRICARE benefits,
and provided expert advice to the Under Secretary and Secretary of
Defense on a range of force health protection and medical readiness
matters--both before and after September 11. In that regard, I want to
commend Dr. Clinton and his staff for their performance over the past
year. If confirmed, I hope to build upon these successes, increase
outreach to other government agencies and institute smart business
practices to manage the TRICARE benefits that are now in place.
Question. If confirmed, what management actions and time lines
would you establish to address these problems?
Answer. The pace of activity in the medical readiness arena is
clearly accelerated since September 11, 2001. Actions and timelines in
many areas will likely be defined by days and weeks, not months and
years. If confirmed, I will determine or review each required action
and set the deadline for implementation. In the TRICARE arena, I would
immediately undertake actions to establish time lines to monitor
performance, establish performance improvement goals where appropriate
and strengthen management controls. The contracting cycle for
activities this large require fairly significant lead times for
issuance of requests for proposals (RFPs), reviews of bidder
submissions, secondary reviews, award of contracts, and transitions
from outgoing to incoming contractors.
priorities
Question. If confirmed, what broad priorities will you establish in
terms of issues which must be addressed by the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Health Affairs?
Answer. If confirmed, the challenges I identified above would
become the priorities for action. First, ensuring our Active-Duty
Forces are healthy and prepared to deploy at any time. Second, ensuring
our military medical forces are prepared to provide quality services to
our forces anywhere in the world. Third, introducing business practices
that will ensure we deliver a world-class health care system that
serves the beneficiary by improving their health while controlling
costs for both the beneficiary and the taxpayer.
tricare
Question. TRICARE has been a managed care program in the making in
the Department of Defense for over a decade. The Department is
currently developing options for the next generation of contracts for
care provided by civilian providers.
If confirmed, what will be your commitment to the TRICARE program?
Answer. I wholeheartedly support TRICARE. In the past few years,
TRICARE has improved significantly--particularly in the areas of claims
processing and customer satisfaction. If confirmed, I will seek further
improvements in the program, and I will seek to increase
accountability, strengthen our business practices and our partnership
relationships with the private sector.
Question. Do you have any views on how a new generation of
contracts could be structured?
Answer. It is my understanding that the TRICARE Management Activity
is actively engaged in shaping the next generation of TRICARE
contracts. Most of this activity is procurement sensitive, and I have
not yet participated in detailed discussions. If confirmed, I plan to
quickly engage in the specific details and our objectives. In general,
however, I believe that contracts should be developed in a manner that
invites the greatest level of competition, and that emphasizes outcomes
rather than prescribing the processes for achieving those outcomes.
Question. Based on your experience in the private sector, what
contracting mechanisms or modifications should be considered?
Answer. In the private sector, we emphasize quality, service and
cost-effectiveness measures in our contracts, and incentives to achieve
high levels of performance.
Question. If confirmed, what will be your short-term and long-term
goals for TRICARE?
Answer. If confirmed, my short-term goals would be to implement and
monitor the new benefits introduced in fiscal year 2002. In the longer
term, I plan to pursue the Secretary's imperative for a world-class
health system that continues to improve beneficiary satisfaction,
protect our military families from excessive out-of-pocket costs and
procure new TRICARE contracts in a manner that best supports military
medical readiness and serves the interests of our beneficiaries and the
taxpayers.
Question. If confirmed, how will you capture the essence of the
partnering arrangement between the Government and the TRICARE Support
Contractors that is necessary for the successful delivery of health
care within the TRICARE Program?
Answer. If confirmed, I would further the partnering relationships
with contractors. The relationship between government and private
contractors should be based on a true partnership. Honest, open and
frequent communications, and a shared understanding of mutual
accountability are the key elements to a healthy working relationship
with all of our contractors.
Question. As members and staff of the committee visit installations
and military units around the world, it has become apparent that
TRICARE is not understood by many service members and their families.
Many senior leaders do not understand TRICARE well enough to assist
their subordinates. Some concerns about the effectiveness of the
TRICARE program are the result of misunderstandings about the program.
If confirmed, what will you do to help beneficiaries understand
their TRICARE benefits?
Answer. If confirmed, I will rely on both TMA and TRICARE
contractors to ensure beneficiaries reach ever-higher levels of
understanding of their TRICARE benefits. I would seek to use every
available means of communication--the internet, direct mail, call
centers, face-to-face briefings, media, and coordination with
beneficiary association organizations to ensure the widest possible
outreach efforts. My experience in the private sector has taught me
that beneficiaries use all of these sources for their information, and
that repetitive communications are required to fully reach the entire
population.
Question. In your opinion, what is the role of the operational
chain of command in ensuring that service members thoroughly understand
the options within TRICARE available to their families?
Answer. I support the role that the chain of command assumes for
their subordinates' welfare, to include education on the range of
benefits available to their soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines.
Fortunately, senior personnel are also TRICARE beneficiaries. In my
opinion, the most important piece of information is to know where to
direct people in order to get informed answers.
Question. If confirmed, how will you ensure the operational chain
of command fulfills that role?
Answer. If confirmed, I plan to meet early and often with senior
leaders--both officer and enlisted--and get their views on how best to
educate our active duty personnel. I am certain that this will be a
two-way street--providing Health Affairs and TMA with good ideas, and
providing the line leadership with information to take back to their
people.
Question. There continues to be concern expressed by TRICARE
beneficiaries about the adequacy and availability of health care
providers in some areas of the country. While managed care support
contracts have access standards and timeliness requirements to ensure
beneficiaries have access to appropriate providers within a reasonable
period of time, this does not always happen.
What ideas do you have about improving the number and adequacy of
providers under the TRICARE program?
Answer. I believe that having access to quality health care
providers is an essential element of a world-class health care system.
In addressing this problem, if confirmed, I would want to first
understand what the problem is. Is it: (1) a general lack of health
care providers (primary care of specialists) in a certain geographic
area, or (2) an adequate number of health care providers, but a
reluctance to participate in TRICARE? I anticipate that the answer
might vary depending on the geographic location. Similarly, the
solution would have to vary and be appropriate for the local
circumstances. I want to ensure that the quality of the health care is
not compromised to increase provider participation. Based on
information I have reviewed, I do believe that the Department of
Defense has been provided with appropriate flexibility in determining
reimbursement rates and encouraging TRICARE participation.
commitment to military retirees
Question. In your opinion, what, if any, is the commitment on
behalf of the Department of Defense and the military departments to
provide health care through the Military Health Care System to those
who have retired from the uniformed services?
Answer. In my brief review of the implementation of TRICARE for
Life, I have been impressed that the Administration has demonstrated a
clear commitment to funding and implementing this benefit. The
Department is wholly committed to providing excellent health care to
all our beneficiaries, including military retirees. Military facility
health care is finite. The entitlement to payment for civilian health
care services under TRICARE, now available to retirees over 65 as well
as under 65, provides assurance of comprehensive coverage for our
retirees even when military providers are not available.
resourcing
Question. Adequate financing of the Defense Health Program has long
been an issue. In a hearing earlier this year, Secretary Rumsfeld
acknowledged that the funding planned for fiscal year 2002 for the
Defense Health Program reflected the Department's best estimate, but he
could not be more precise.
What ideas do you have for more accurately projecting the cost of,
and appropriately resourcing, the Defense Health Program?
Answer. If confirmed, I would focus on analyzing the process by
which we develop our budget requirements and seek to understand our
total requirements. The costs of the major components of the health
care dollar are growing at different rates. We must understand these
dynamics, be able to predict them, and take actions to manage them.
This process should be helpful in improving both budget predictability
and improving our resource allocation in future years. My civilian
sector experience has focused on productivity, coordinated care
programs, and using metrics for performance improvement. I think this
focus will be very valuable in support of TRICARE.
I am pleased that the President and Secretary of Defense have set
the Department on a course to much greater stability by funding the
Defense Health Program in fiscal year 2002 at a level in which we do
not anticipate any need for a supplemental appropriation for health.
If confirmed, I will closely monitor execution during the fiscal
year not only of the Defense Health Program requirements but also
monitor the overall healthcare trends in the civilian sector and make
use of healthcare actuary experts to more accurately project cost
requirements in the future.
military health professional recruiting and retention
Question. The Department of Defense relies on a combination of
bonuses and incentives to recruit and retain health care professionals
to provide care to military members and their families. The last
legislative revision to applicable bonus amounts occurred approximately
ten years ago. Given the inherent reduction in buying power of those
programs over time, Congress, in last year's Authorization Act,
directed the Department of Defense to conduct a review and report on
the adequacy of special pays and bonuses for medical corps officers and
other health care professionals.
What are your views on the adequacy of existing bonus and pay
incentive programs?
Answer. I am still becoming familiar with the complex issues
surrounding military bonus and specialty pay. If confirmed, I look
forward to reviewing the draft reports being prepared for you that will
review the existing programs and offer suggestions for improvement. I
am committed to an overarching strategy to recruit and retain the best-
qualified health care professionals for a career in the military. It is
important to properly manage recruiting, pay, and retention programs to
ensure appropriate balance for Department missions and beneficiary
needs.
Question. If confirmed, will you undertake a close examination and
development of recommendations regarding pay incentives?
Answer. Yes, I will.
health care for veterans
Question. On May 28, 2001, the President issued an executive order
establishing a Presidential Task Force to Improve Health Care Delivery
for Our Nation's Veterans. The 15-member Task Force is comprised of
health care experts, officials familiar with Department of Veterans
Affairs and Department of Defense health care systems, and
representatives from veteran and military service organizations. The
mission of the commission is to identify ways to improve benefits and
services to those eligible for services through both agencies and to
create greater collaboration in the delivery of health care between the
two agencies.
How do you envision the Department of Defense playing a role in
this process and what opportunities do you foresee to work jointly with
the Veterans Administration?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to working in a supportive
manner with the Presidential Task Force and with the Department of
Veterans Affairs to further identify and expand joint opportunities.
The Department of Veterans Affairs has an important mission in serving
our Nation's veterans. I would work aggressively with the Department of
Veterans Affairs to ensure opportunities for sharing resources and
better business processes are not missed when both Departments and the
taxpayer stand to benefit from improved coordination of Federal
resources.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Health Affairs?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings and
other communications of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator John Warner
tricare contracting
1. Senator Warner. Dr. Winkenwerder, the Department of Defense is
moving toward new contracting approaches for purchasing health care
services to augment our military treatment facility capabilities
through the TRICARE program. What is your view of separating out
particular functions, such as pharmacy services or claims processing,
from major contracts and would you advocate a single nationwide
contract for such services?
Dr. Winkenwerder. While I believe there have been significant
improvements over the past 5 years positively impacting the health care
benefit, populations served, and contracts with private health care
firms who assist in delivering health benefits to DOD beneficiaries, I
do believe as health care delivery and financing continue to evolve and
improve, there will always be ways to improve service and satisfaction,
while reducing administrative complexity and reducing costs. With that
said, in reviewing the TRICARE contracts, I believe DOD should be
guided by these principles: improve those things that are in need of
repair, retain those things that are working well, and do everything
possible to avoid disruptive services to beneficiaries. This approach
would retain many of the most essential elements of the existing
TRICARE contracts--geographically based, risk-shared contracts, in
which the prime contractor serves as the integrator for health care
delivery in a region. At the same time, the benefits of competition in
new contracts would further improve beneficiary satisfaction, sustain
quality care, and increase the efficient management of the health
program.
Carving out of pharmacy services is consistent with industry
practice. It is a practice I would support for TRICARE. I have doubts
that a single worldwide contract for claims processing would be
effective for the Department of Defense, but I would further examine
the concept before making a final decision.
2. Senator Warner. Dr. Winkenwerder, are there other areas that you
feel would lend themselves to a separate procurement action?
Dr. Winkenwerder. A further possibility could be to consider a
separate marketing contractor to design and produce all TRICARE
marketing materials. This would present a ``one face'' approach, thus
eliminating program description discrepancies that are possible with a
multi-contracted system.
tricare consolidated pharmacy benefit
3. Senator Warner. Dr. Winkenwerder, Congress has had a long
standing interest in the efficiency of the DOD pharmacy programs and in
fact directed the Secretary of Defense to develop and implement a plan
that would redesign the pharmacy programs and would incorporate best
business practices of the private sector.
Do you believe that the current concept of operations for the
consolidated pharmacy benefit is consistent with the direction Congress
has provided on this matter?
Dr. Winkenwerder. While I have not been briefed in detail on the
program, yet, it is my view that consolidating the pharmacy benefit is
critical to providing the management structure and contracted services
needed to fully achieve these goals. I would continue to solicit
industry input and to review best business practices for incorporation
into DOD programs where applicable and when consistent with
congressional and executive direction.
4. Senator Warner. Dr. Winkenwerder, how would you improve the
consolidated pharmacy benefit to ensure that it conforms to the stated
objectives of both the Secretary of Defense and Congress?
Dr. Winkenwerder. I recognize the importance of this program to the
Department of Defense and its beneficiaries. I would seek to
continuously improve the program and to ensure that it represents both
best practices in industry and meets the needs of all Department of
Defense beneficiaries. I would want the program to be efficient and
effective while being a model for the Nation.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Strom Thurmond
role in domestic cbrn incidents
5. Senator Thurmond. Dr. Winkenwerder, Department of Defense
personnel have had extensive training on the treatment of chemical,
biological, radiological or nuclear injuries. However, these resources
have to focus on the needs of the Armed Forces.
What role do you anticipate military medical personnel will have in
responding to a domestic chemical, biological, or nuclear incident?
Dr. Winkenwerder. I understand the DOD medical community has
extensive knowledge, training, and research experience with chemical,
biological, and nuclear threats. I believe DOD would provide that
expertise to support the responsible civil authorities in a domestic
incident, as long as it did not compromise the primary military
mission.
______
[The nomination reference of Dr. William Winkenwerder, Jr.
follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
September 21, 2001.
Ordered, that the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Dr. William Winkenwerder, Jr., of Massachusetts, to be an Assistant
Secretary of Defense, vice Sue Bailey.
______
[The biographical sketch of Dr. William Winkenwerder, Jr.,
which was transmitted to the committee at the time the
nomination was referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Dr. William Winkenwerder, Jr.
Since October 1998, Dr. William Winkenwerder, Jr., has been with
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts, first as Executive Vice
President for Health Care Services, and most recently, as Vice Chairman
in the Office of the CEO. In these positions, he has been responsible
for all business and clinical operations and activities for health
providers (hospitals, physicians, pharmaceuticals, labs, etc.) and an
annual medical expense budget of more than $3.0 billion.
Prior to joining Blue Cross and Blue Shield, he was with Emory
University from May 1996 to September 1998, first as Vice President for
Emory Health Care then as Associate Vice President for Health Affairs.
With Emory University, Dr. Winkenwerder was responsible for managing
and developing a group practice of over 100 physicians affiliated with
the university at the Robert Woodruff Health Sciences Center. From
April 1992 to December 1995, he was Vice President and Chief Medical
Officer for Southern Operations with Prudential Healthcare, responsible
for health care management supporting 15 local managed care plans and
affiliated medical group practices, providing care for 1.5 million
employees in five southeastern states.
From August 1988 to March 1992, Dr. Winkenwerder was Director of
Quality Assurance and Associate Medical Director for the Southeast
Permanente Medical Group of Kaiser Permanente. As a member of the
senior management team, he was responsible for quality assurance,
credentialing, utilization, cost management, and clinical information
systems in a start-up HMO. From April 1987 to August 1998, he was with
the Health Care Financing Administration of the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services as Special Assistant to the Administrator,
responsible for policy coordination and development of medical payment
issues in Medicare and Medicaid.
Dr. Winkenwerder is a 1976 graduate of Davidson College. He
received his MD from the University of North Carolina School of
Medicine in 1981, and an MBA from the Wharton School at the University
of Pennsylvania in 1986. He is currently on the Board of Directors for
the American Association of Health Plans and the Federal Employees
Program of the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. He is a member of a
number of professional associations, including the American Medical
Association, the American College of Physicians--American Society of
Internal Medicine, and the American College of Physician Executives.
Dr. Winkenwerder has published writings on health policy in the New
England Journal of Medicine and the Journal of the American Medical
Association.
______
[The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
form that details the biographical, financial and other
information of the nominee. The form executed by Dr. William
Winkenwerder, Jr., in connection with his nomination follows:]
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Room SR-228
Washington, DC 20510-6050
(202) 224-3871
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation
of your answer applies.
Part A--Biographical Information
Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.
1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
William Winkenwerder, Jr., M.D.
2. Position to which nominated:
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs.
3. Date of nomination:
September 21, 2001.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
5. Date and place of birth:
April 27, 1954; Asheville, NC.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Mary Pride Winkenwerder; Mary Pride Schuler (maiden
name).
7. Names and ages of children:
William (Will) Winkenwerder III--9 years old.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
Davidson College (1972-1976), B.S. 1976.
University of North Carolina School of Medicine (1977-1981), M.D.
1981.
University of Pennsylvania The Wharton School (1984-1986), M.B.A.
1986.
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Inc., Boston, MA.
Executive Vice President, Health Care Services Vice Chairman, Office of
CEO--1998-2001.
Emory University, Atlanta, GA. Associate Vice President for Health
Affairs and Vice President, Emory Health Care--1996-1998.
Prudential Healthcare, Atlanta, GA. Vice President, Chief Medical
Officer for Southern Operations--1992-1995.
Kaiser Permanente, Atlanta, GA. Associate Medical Director--1988-
1992.
10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative,
honorary or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State,
or local governments, other than those listed above.
Employee--Health Care Financing Administration, U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Special Assistant to the Administrator--
1987-1988.
Member--State of Florida Commission on Autologous Bone Marrow
Transplantation--1993.
Consultant Advisor--State of Georgia Governor's Task Force on
Health Care Reform--1993.
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
Care Science, Inc., Member, Board of Directors--1997 to present.
Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Officer--Senior Vice
President--2000 to 2001.
American Association of Health Plans, Member, Board of Directors--
1999 to 2001.
Center for Studying Health System Change, Member, Board of
Advisors--1999 to present.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
13. Political affiliations and activities:
(a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or
any public office for which you have been a candidate.
None.
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5
years.
National Republican Party--Member.
Georgia Republican Party--Member.
(c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $100 or more for the past 5 years.
Republican National Committee, March 1998--$35.
Republican National Committee, April 2000--$50.
North Carolina Republican Party Victory 2000, October 2000--$1,000.
Republican National Committee, July 2001--$50.
14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals, and any other special
recognitions for outstanding service or achievements.
Athletic Scholarship (football), Davidson College--1972-1976.
Foreign Fellowship Award, UNC School of Medicine--1981.
Henry Wise Fellow Finalist--1983.
Wharton Washington Fellowship, University of Pennsylvania--1986.
Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation Fellowship, University of
Pennsylvania--1984-1986.
Administrator's Citation, Health Care Financing Administration--
1988.
White House Fellows Finalist--1991.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
16. Speeches: Provide the committee with two copies of any formal
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have
copies of and are on topics relevant to the position for which you have
been nominated.
Two presentations, one was an actual speech from March 1999, while
the second from May 2001 was a slide presentation.
17. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree,
if confirmed, to respond to requests to appear and testify before any
duly constituted committee of the Senate?
Yes.
______
[The nominee responded to the questions in Parts B-F of the
committee questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set
forth in the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to
Parts B-F are contained in the committee's executive files.]
------
Signature and Date
I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate,
and complete.
Dr. William Winkenwerder, Jr.
This 9th day of July, 2001.
[The nomination of Dr. William Winkenwerder, Jr. was
reported to the Senate by Chairman Levin on October 15, 2001,
with the recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The
nomination was confirmed by the Senate on October 16, 2001.]
------
[Prepared questions submitted to Dr. Everet H. Beckner by
Chairman Levin prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
Questions and Responses
duties
Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
the Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs?
Answer. The fundamental responsibility of the Deputy Administrator
for Defense Programs (DADP) is to enhance the U.S. national security by
assuring the safety, security and reliability of the existing nuclear
stockpile and by maintaining the capability to design, develop,
analyze, produce and test (if required) nuclear weapons now and in the
future. In the broadest sense, the DADP must work with the
administration and Congress to maintain and strengthen the nuclear
weapons complex, consisting of its labs, plants and, most importantly,
its people. He/she also must maintain successful interfaces and working
relations with two especially important customers, the military end
users and the regulators.
Question. What background and experience do you possess that you
believe qualifies you to perform these duties?
Answer. My scientific training is as a nuclear physicist. My career
has advanced from research, to management of research, to management of
development and manufacturing programs in an orderly fashion over the
past 35 years. I have now been directly associated with the nuclear
weapons program for over 20 years, with the last 15 years spent in
senior management positions in both the U.S. and U.K. nuclear weapons
programs. In that regard, I was Vice President for Weapons at Sandia
National Laboratories in the late 1980's during the development of
several of the weapons systems which are now mainstays of the
stockpile. I was then Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Defense
Programs at the Department of Energy from 1990 through 1995, the period
when the Stockpile Stewardship concept had to be turned into a workable
program to replace underground testing. More recently, I have been
Deputy Chief Executive at the U.K. Atomic Weapons Establishment, which
has the responsibility for design, development, production and
maintenance of the U.K. nuclear weapons program.
Question. Do you believe that there are actions you need to take to
enhance your ability to perform the duties of the Deputy Administrator
for Defense Programs?
Answer. Yes. I need to build strong relationships with my
counterparts in other agencies, particularly the DOD and the Defense
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, as well as with Members of Congress
and key staffers who I will need to work with effectively to assure the
success of this element of the NNSA program.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what duties and functions do
you expect that the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security
Administration would prescribe for you?
Answer. In addition to the duties associated with my position, the
Administrator will expect me to work with the other Deputy and
Associate Administrators through his newly established Management
Council to enhance the efficiency and respect of the organization.
Question. If confirmed, how would you work with the following:
Other deputies in the NNSA.
Answer. If confirmed, I see several important interactions
requiring my attention with the Deputy Administrator for Nuclear
Nonproliferation and the Assistant Administrators. In the case of the
Deputy Administrator for Nuclear Nonproliferation, there are important
synergies between the Nuclear Weapons programs and those of Nuclear
Nonproliferation which we need to cause to occur more effectively and
efficiently, to the benefit of both programs. Much of DP and NN work is
common to the three principal DP laboratories, Los Alamos, Lawrence
Livermore and Sandia National Laboratories and effective coordination
of programs at Headquarters level can make for smoother operations at
the labs, in terms of both manpower and facilities utilization.
Technical ideas and innovation can also be shared between the programs
so that we do not develop things twice for slightly different reasons.
In the case of the interactions with the Assistant Administrators (AA),
the interactions with the AA for Facilities and Operations will be
crucial to the NNSA thrust for more efficiency in operations, for
reductions in layers of oversight, and for proper stewardship of the
critical facilities at both the labs and the plants.
Question. The Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management.
Answer. If confirmed, interactions with the Assistant Secretary for
Environmental Management will be primarily in assuring a smooth
transition of old and unused buildings and land at DP sites to an
agreed, funded plan for decommissioning, decontamination and
restoration of land.
Question. Other Assistant Secretaries of the Department of Energy.
Answer. If confirmed, interactions with other Assistant Secretaries
will certainly occur on technical matters involving utilization of
special facilities and capabilities at other DOE laboratories, in peer
reviews of DP programs, in sharing of special capabilities at NNSA
laboratories, and in development of DP staff through assignments (both
short-term and long-term) into other areas of relevant DOE work as a
part of their career development programs.
major challenges and problems
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will
confront the Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs?
Answer. The major challenges that will confront the Deputy
Administrator for Defense Programs will be in the installation of the
new management strategies of NNSA, and in maintaining program focus so
that planned goals and milestones are the right ones and are achieved
on time and on budget. There is a general view that NNSA presently has
too many overlapping functions and assigned personnel at the
Headquarters and Field levels, leading to reduced efficiency in the
labs and plants. The Administrator has committed to Congress to
establish clear roles and responsibilities in all the NNSA activities,
and, if confirmed, there will be a major role for me in making the new
operational strategy work. The program planning and management tasks
are critically tied to knowing what to do, when to do it, and to making
clear assignments for the work. That planning function will be centered
at Headquarters, with execution in the Field. There appears to be a
major challenge in clarifying roles and responsibilities for both the
planning function and the execution function, with far too much overlap
in responsibilities (either assigned or assumed) at the present.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review the planning activity to
establish the validity and priority of present program plans, and to
search for better ways for the research programs to address stockpile
problems and find the most cost-effective solutions. In some cases,
that will be to do nothing, if our collective judgement assures us that
leaving a weapon system alone is better and safer than embarking on a
modification and remanufacture program. Another payoff from a thorough
planning activity is to optimize task loading of both the plants and
the labs. It appears that DP is presently confronted with plans which
will stretch or exceed several of the plant capacities unless better
overall solutions are found. In some cases, DP will need support from
the DOD and the services, to help deal with the reality that every
weapon system cannot be the top priority. Finally, through proper
planning, DP must bring some order and control to the requirements for
future R&D and production construction projects.
Question. What do you consider to be the most serious problems in
the performance of the functions of the Deputy Administrator for
Defense Programs?
Answer. The most serious management problems in the performance of
the functions of the Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs are
those of establishing a better understanding of roles and
responsibilities between Headquarters and Field and getting them to
work together. This originates from a program plan which is too
detailed at Headquarters level and which encourages the labs and plants
to spend too much time staking out program territory and too little
time accepting responsibility for producing results which they know to
be the right thing to do.
Question. If confirmed, what management actions and time lines
would you establish to address these problems?
Answer. If confirmed, I will lead the planning effort and the
effort to establish proper roles and responsibilities such that within
the first year we will have substantive results in the form of a new
program planning strategy, probably some changes in the top-level
program plan, and a new working relationship between the Headquarters,
Field Offices, labs and plants, in terms of roles and responsibilities
for program planning and execution. In its simplest form, the
Headquarters will be responsible for the master plan, reconciled with
the budget, and the field offices will be responsible for contracting
for the execution of that plan and for oversight of the execution of
work in the labs and plants.
priorities
Question. If confirmed, what broad priorities would you establish
in terms of issues which must be addressed by the Deputy Administrator
for Defense Programs?
Answer. If confirmed, the priorities which I would establish in
terms of issues which must be addressed would center around planning
and program execution against customer expectations. This means that DP
must work with its customers first to establish the proper
expectations, and then with the Administration and Congress to obtain
funding to deliver against those expectations. The critical next step
is to establish program plans and work authorizations to deliver those
program requirements, with the final step being oversight and tracking
of progress against program goals in the work conducted by the labs and
plants.
relationships
Question. Please describe your understanding of the relationship of
the Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs with the following
Officials:
The Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration.
The Secretary of Energy.
The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology.
The Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Chemical and
Biological Matters.
The Commander in Chief of the Strategic Command.
The Deputy Administrator for Nonproliferation.
Associate Administrator for Facilities and Operations.
Associate Administrator for Management and Administration.
Answer. My understanding of the relationship of the Deputy
Administrator for Defense Programs with other Officials is as follows:
The Administrator. I report directly to the Administrator,
assisting him in developing overall NNSA policy and plans, and in
assuring that the DP labs and plants deliver against the agreed plans.
The Secretary of Energy. I also report to the Secretary, through
the NNSA Administrator.
The Under Secretary of Defense Acquisition and Technology. In
addition to his other duties within the Department of Defense, the
Under Secretary is also the Chairman of the Nuclear Weapons Council
(NWC). The NWC was established by Congress as the joint DOD/DOE
organization responsible for the safety, security, reliability, and
control of the U.S. nuclear stockpile. The Administrator of the
National Nuclear Security Administration is the DOE member of the NWC.
My role as Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs will be to support
the Council and ensure that important issues requiring NWC attention
are brought to the Council through our representative.
The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Chemical and
Biological Matters. In addition to his other duties within the
Department of Defense, the Assistant Secretary for Nuclear, Chemical
and Biological Matters acts as the Executive Secretariat for the
Nuclear Weapons Council and Chairs the subordinate committee to the
NWC, known as the Standing and Safety Committee. This committee reviews
issues and makes recommendations to the Nuclear Weapons Council. I
expect to work closely with this committee to ensure important issues
and sound recommendations are brought to the attention of the NWC.
The Commander in Chief of the Strategic Command. This is the
central customer at the DOD for the work of the National Nuclear
Security Administration. The CINCSTRATCOM is also charged with
rendering his judgment annually on the certification of the U.S.
stockpile along with the Nuclear Weapons Council, and the Directors of
the three Nuclear Weapons Laboratories. I expect that there will be
numerous interactions with the CINCSTRATCOM regarding military
requirements, and other discussions to address issues that may arise in
our nuclear weapons stockpile.
The Deputy Administrator for Nonproliferation. This was answered in
question A on page 2.
Associate Administrator for Facilities and Operations. This is the
office which will be the steward for the Administrator of all NNSA
facilities, in terms of operational readiness, compliance oversight of
regulatory matters, and establishing priorities to satisfy future
requirements. It will be important that the DADP and the AA for
Facilities and Operations work smoothly together to optimize
operational efficiency and readiness, to assure compliance of
operations, and to acquire future facilities to upgrade the complex in
a timely and cost-effective manner.
The Associate Administrator for Management and Administration
(M&A). This is the NNSA office with responsibility for future years
planning and for budget control in the current year. The Planning
Programming Budgeting and Evaluation (PPBE) Process is being installed
by the AA for M&A, and Defense Programs will be using that system in
its planning activities, as well as in its current year budget control
activities.
Question. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has
proposed legislation regarding the contractor National Laboratory
Directors and contractor Weapons Plant managers and to whom they
report. This legislation, if enacted, would eliminate the hierarchical
reporting requirement of these officials to the Deputy Administrator
for Defense Program and instead allow these same officials to report
directly to the Administrator of the NNSA.
If this legislation is enacted in the Fiscal Year 2002 National
Defense Authorization Bill, will the National Laboratory Directors and
Weapons Plant Managers have any residual reporting requirements to the
Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs?
Answer. This question and the one which follows are central to the
Administrator's plan to clarify roles and responsibilities in the NNSA.
If the reference legislation is enacted, the contractual connection
between the labs and the plants will be directly through the
contracting officers to the Administrator. At the same time, progress
in program activities will flow upwards from the labs and plants
through the field offices and into the Headquarters of Defense
Programs. These relationships will be different depending on the time
frame under consideration. The primary DP Headquarters concerns will be
with formulation and specification of planning and budget requirements,
and for that the labs and plants (in some cases the lab directors and
plant managers themselves) will provide both technical and financial
input. Similarly, when DP is working with Congress on budget and
program input, information for this will often be provided by the DP
labs and plants. For ongoing work at the labs and plants, only on
extraordinary occasions would it be necessary to have direct
communication from the lab directors or plant managers. So, you might
say that, while the lab directors and plant managers report directly to
the Administrator, the programs from their institutions normally report
into DP Headquarters.
Question. If this legislation is enacted, what steps would you
anticipate the NNSA would take to ensure there is no confusion about to
whom NNSA officials, National Laboratory Directors, Weapons Plant
Managers, and other relevant officials and contractors would report?
Answer. The steps taken by NNSA to ensure there is no confusion
about the reporting chain for NNSA officials, lab directors, plant
managers and other relevant officials and contractors will be a high
priority management task for all of NNSA in the coming year. The most
important tool for guiding all DP elements in developing these new
processes and driving the necessary change will be the DP planning
processes, both long term and short term, and the PPBE process that
requires the output from these plans. This will establish the reporting
processes within the program planning and execution structure.
stockpile stewardship program
Question. One of the purposes of the Stockpile Stewardship Program
is to identify potential problems with nuclear weapons, fix the item
before it rises to a problem, and then ensure that the fix is adequate
and has not introduced a new problem. As a result, the weapons are
being scrutinized more closely than in the past and with better
science-based capabilities. In addition, greater scrutiny is being
given to matters that were not well understood in the past. What to do
with this new level of knowledge is also presenting a challenge.
In your view, how do you balance newly discovered issues that have
existed from manufacture and changes that have occurred since
manufacture?
Answer. The criteria for balancing newly discovered issues from
those that have occurred since manufacture is more properly a matter of
deciding the priority of all stockpile issues. A starting premise for
nuclear weapons is, indeed, that generally the best thing to do is
leave them in their ``as built'' condition until there is clear
evidence that something needs to be fixed.
Question. Should life extension programs improve systems or
maintain them?
Answer. As to the question of whether life extension programs
should improve systems or maintain them, it is again important first to
assess the contemplated action within the context of the entire
stockpile and the present-day military requirements. Only then can we
expect to make decisions as to what needs to be improved and what needs
only to be maintained.
Question. With budget challenges, what is the best way for
determining how to make these tradeoffs?
Answer. As to the relationship of budget challenges to these
aforementioned considerations, the answer is clear. The decisions must
be based on cost-benefit criteria in every case.
plutonium pits
Question. One of the most significant challenges facing the Office
of Defense Programs is regaining the capability to manufacture and
certify a pit.
Have you had an opportunity to review the current plan to certify a
pit?
If so, do you believe that the approach is correct?
If you have not had the opportunity to review the current plan,
would you please do so and inform the committee as soon as possible
after your confirmation, if confirmed, of your view on the plan and
report your findings to the committee?
Answer. I have not had an opportunity to receive a detailed review
of the current LANL plan to certify a pit. If confirmed, I will inform
the committee of my views as soon as possible after my confirmation,
given the importance of reestablishing this important national security
capability.
Question. The Foster Panel Report, also known as the Fiscal Year
2000 Report to Congress of the Panel to Assess the Reliability, Safety,
and Security of the United States Nuclear Stockpile, found that it
could take 15 years from the point of developing a conceptual design
for a pit production facility until the final construction of the
facility is completed. If it is determined through the science-based
Stockpile Stewardship Program that one or more of our existing pit
designs is no longer reliable, and therefore is not certifiable, our
nuclear stockpile would, in effect, be unilaterally downsized below a
level which could maintain a strong nuclear deterrence.
What progress has NNSA made towards a conceptual design for a pit
production facility?
How confident are you that NNSA will be able to successfully
deliver a new pit production facility, if required, within the next 10
to 15 years?
What is the requirement, both in production capacity and schedule,
that a new facility would meet?
Answer. While I have not been briefed in detail on a modern pit
facility, there are several issues that must be addressed before
proceeding with this costly, new facility. First, the Administration
must complete the Nuclear Posture Review, which will tell us the size
of the stockpile that we will need to support in the future. Second,
studies on pit life need to be completed. Third, contingency
requirements need better definition. With these facts in hand, we will
be able to properly size and design a modern pit facility to meet the
needs of the stockpile into the 21st century.
nuclear testing
Question. In your view, will the United States need to resume
underground nuclear testing in the foreseeable future in order to
ensure the reliability, safety, and security of the United States
strategic nuclear forces?
Answer. I believe the President has recently reported on this
subject to Congress. At this time, I know of no reason to change the
views expressed in that report.
Question. The Foster Panel Report also reported DOE's view that it
would take 24-36 months to conduct an underground nuclear test, if so
directed by the President.
Do you agree with the Foster Panel that it would take 24-36 months
to conduct a test?
In your view, should NNSA reduce the time it would take to perform
an underground nuclear test to less than 24 months?
What type of test would be required that would have to be conducted
in less than 24 months?
Answer. These questions on the report of the Foster Panel are
similar to those on the Pit Production Facility. Given the importance
of this issue, I need to be extensively briefed by the DP staff before
I would be comfortable providing an answer.
I will say this, however, that neither testing nor any other
element of the DP weapons programs should be analyzed in isolation. In
each and every case, since availability of resources is always central
to the question of what gets done and what does not, a thorough cost-
benefit analysis must be done of all the program priorities in order to
make such decisions. I recognize that such analyses are always fraught
with uncertainties, but decisions based on the best available
information will always be my preferred approach.
maintenance of the stockpile
Question. Are you confident in our ability to identify and fix
potential problems in all weapons expected to be included in the
enduring stockpile?
Answer. I am confident that with the continued support of the
Administration and Congress the highly skilled men and women of the
weapons complex will be able to ensure the continued safety, security
and reliability of the U.S. nuclear deterrent.
Question. What do you believe to be our biggest challenges in
maintaining the nuclear weapons expected to be in the enduring
stockpile?
Answer. The biggest challenges in maintaining the nuclear weapons
expected to be in the enduring stockpile will be one of confidence in
the answers, in the absence of full scale test data. In the final
analysis, when confidence is low, it will be necessary to take
immediate action, either in the form of manufacturing a more
predictable solution, if possible, withdrawing the weapon from the
stockpile, or recommending a return to testing to solve the problem.
Question. What specific criteria should the NNSA apply to the new
facilities and infrastructure initiative to ensure the maintenance and
repair backlogs are eliminated using the most efficient and least
expensive plan?
Answer. The criteria for NNSA to apply to the new facilities and
infrastructure initiative is that which I have put forward previously
the most cost-effective solution, in light of an analysis of the entire
set of problems requiring attention. The ``cost'' part of the analysis
can generally be made using ``more or less'' standard engineering
techniques. The ``effective'' part of the analysis requires
participation by both NNSA and its customers, since there will be
priorities to be weighed which are outside the decision-making space of
NNSA.
Question. How can the NNSA avoid these types of maintenance and
repair backlogs in the future?
Answer. NNSA can avoid these types of maintenance and repair
backlogs in the future by maintaining a thorough long-range program
plan which Congress can support, by getting input from its customers on
their priorities so that not everything has to be done immediately, and
by making hard choices which almost certainly will not please all the
people all the time.
Question. Is the NNSA taking such action to avoid backlogs?
Answer. Under the NNSA Administrator's reorganization, the
responsibility for facilities and infrastructure has been assigned to
the Assistant Administrator for Facilities and Operations (AAFO). If
confirmed as Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs, my deputies and
I will work with the AAFO to ensure the existing backlog is worked off
and that plans are in place to avoid future backlogs.
limited life components
Question. How confident are you in the Department of Energy's
ability to manufacture limited life components for the enduring
stockpile?
Answer. My confidence in the NNSA's ability to manufacture limited
life components for the enduring stockpile is quite high, with the
exception of the requirements for radiation hardness which are in place
for certain components. To date, I believe such problems have been
solved to the satisfaction of the labs and the services. However,
trade-offs may have to be made in the future in which the hardness
specifications of existing military requirements have to be weighed
against the cost of obtaining high-confidence solutions.
project and construction management
Question. DOE and the NNSA have made significant efforts to improve
their construction and project management. One element of these
improvements is strict oversight and formalized reviews of the various
programs.
If you are confirmed, will you keep these activities in place?
Answer. Yes, although I will want to be comfortable with the
details of the oversight and reviews.
Question. NASA faces significant challenges to modernize its
facilities and reduce the overall square footage of the facilities, and
reduce its maintenance expenses.
Will you maintain the requirement that any new construction must
have as part of the project the funds to tear down the old facilities
that are being replaced or otherwise ensure a reduction in the size of
facilities at a particular site?
Answer. I am not at this time familiar with the requirement that
any new construction must have funds to tear down the old facilities or
otherwise ensure reduction in the size of the facilities. It sounds
reasonable, but I would want to understand the full scope of that
requirement before committing to it.
advanced supercomputing initiative
Question. Do you support moving to a 100 teraops computer as the
next computer purchased or would you advocate an interim computer or
computers? If you support the interim approach, what capacity should
these interim machines have in your view and when would you see a need
for 100 teraops or beyond?
Answer. I understand that the laboratories currently have 3 Teraop
machines at Sandia and LANL and a 12 Teraop machine at Lawrence. I
further understand that a 30 Teraop machine is scheduled for
installation at Los Alamos. The ASCI program, as it is currently
structured, is scheduled to accept a 100 Teraops machine in 2005. I
have not been briefed in detail by the program office on the sequence
of steps to achieve 100 Teraops.
national ignition facility
Question. The funds for the National Ignition Facility (NIF) were
budgeted to accommodate annual budget projections and developed to
finish the project as quickly and as cheaply as possible.
Would you support restructuring the NIF budget to reduce the
overall cost of the project and complete the project sooner than the
current schedule would allow?
Answer. I have not yet received detailed briefings which would
allow me to answer this question with confidence. My personal view is
that the answer is no, based on a personal philosophy that to do
something right is generally preferable to doing it quickest.
Question. In your view, will the scientific information sought from
the NIF have enough value to justify its cost as part of the Stockpile
Stewardship Program if the NIF does not reach ignition?
Answer. I believe that decision has already been made. It is my
understanding that the project is well past the point where such
analyses and decisions should be made. On the assumption that the
project will be even moderately successful, my personal views are that
stopping the project at this late date would be imprudent if not
downright foolish. Obviously, ignition is an important goal of the
project. Based on my present understanding of the physics of the
processes and the program expectations, I know of no evidence to
suggest that ignition is unachievable on NIF. That said, I am fully
aware that this goal has been before us for a long, long time, and that
a community of nay-sayers is crowding around the arena just waiting for
the first evidence of trouble.
Question. In your view, if the NIF fails to reach ignition, does
that preclude us from being able to certify a nuclear weapon, without
underground testing in the distant future?
Answer. At this time, I know of no weapon certification problem
which is uniquely dependent on ``ignition conditions in NIF for
solution. The ignition environment in NIF is indisputably an important
environment for obtaining understanding will assist us in continuing to
certify weapons, in the absence of full scale testing. The further we
look into the future, the more important this capability becomes, for a
variety of reasons.
Question. In your opinion, could the National Ignition Facility
meet its goal of ignition with a reduced number of lasers below the
192-laser design?
Answer. I am not adequately informed at this time to provide an
opinion on the importance of 192 laser beams in meeting the ignition
goal. I do believe that the more power and energy available, the higher
the probability of success.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as the Deputy Administrator for
Defense Programs?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings and
other communications of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees in a timely manner?
Answer. Yes.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Strom Thurmond
pit production complex
1. Senator Thurmond. Dr. Beckner, earlier this year, the Panel to
Assess the Reliability, Safety, and Security of the United States
Nuclear Stockpile issued its report and testified before this
committee. The principle recommendation this year, as it was last year,
is to restore missing pit production capabilities and refurbish the pit
production complex.
Do you agree with this assessment and would you support the
beginning immediately to start conceptual planning and design of a
large pit production facility?
Dr. Beckner. As long as the United States retains a nuclear
deterrent, we must have the capability to produce all the components of
a nuclear weapon. The Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) is working
diligently to restore a limited pit manufacturing capability for the
United States. To date, LANL has produced 11 developmental pits and is
on schedule to have a certifiable pit by 2003. The NNSA and LANL are
also working diligently to reduce the time needed to deliver a
certified pit to the stockpile from 2009.
Before committing tax dollars for construction of a new and costly
modern plutonium manufacturing facility several issues must be
addressed. First, the administration must complete the Nuclear Posture
Review, which will determine the size and composition of the nuclear
weapons stockpile that we will be responsible for supporting. Second,
results from ongoing studies of pit life times must be considered.
Third, contingency requirements on production capacity needs better
definition.
While the aforementioned studies are ongoing, the NNSA has taken
steps, consistent with Congressional direction, to prepare the analysis
needed to support a decision on a modern pit facility. Defense Programs
plans to request Critical Decision Zero (CD-0) from Administrator
Gordon and the Deputy Secretary of Energy in the second quarter of
fiscal year 2002 which will formally initiate conceptual design and the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance process. The fiscal
year 2002 Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill will allow
the NNSA to begin the NEPA work, technology development, and facility
conceptual design activities.
2. Senator Thurmond. Dr. Beckner, this committee has long been
concerned with the massive quantities of weapons grade nuclear
materials left over in the former Soviet Union after the Cold War. In
1993 the committee created the Office of Fissile Materials Disposition
at the Department of Energy and we were also deeply engaged in the 18
months of arduous negotiations that resulted in the Plutonium
Management and Disposition Agreement of September 2000. Unfortunately,
there are some officials in the administration who opposed the program
as it is currently structured.
Do you support the Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement
of September 2000?
Dr. Beckner. Yes. I am committed to implementing the Plutonium
Management and Disposition Agreement signed by the United States and
Russia in September 2000. This agreement provides for the disposition
of 68 metric tons of weapon-grade plutonium-34 metric tons in each
country.
3. Senator Thurmond. Dr. Beckner, what actions should we take to
get this important national security program back on track?
Dr. Beckner. The administration is reviewing United States'
nonproliferation assistance to Russia including the Department of
Energy's plutonium disposition program. As part of this effort, the
Department is leading an interagency review of options to make the
current plutonium disposition program more cost effective and
sustainable. We will complete this review as soon as possible and make
a final decision in time for the fiscal year 2003 budget submission to
Congress.
______
[The nomination reference of Dr. Everet H. Beckner
follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
September 25, 2001.
Ordered, that the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Dr. Everet H. Beckner, of New Mexico, to be Deputy Administrator
for Defense Programs, National Nuclear Security Administration, vice
Madelyn R. Creedon, resigned.
______
[The biographical sketch of Dr. Everet H. Beckner, which
was transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Dr. Everet H. Beckner
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
[The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
form that details the biographical, financial and other
information of the nominee. The form executed by Dr. Everet
Beckner in connection with his nomination follows:]
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Room SR-228
Washington, DC 20510-6050
(202) 224-3871
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation
of your answer applies.
Part A--Biographical Information
Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.
1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
Everet Hess Beckner.
2. Position to which nominated:
Deputy Administrator, Defense Programs.
3. Date of nomination:
September 25, 2001.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
5. Date and place of birth:
February 24, 1935; Clayton, New Mexico.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Mary Caroline Allen Beckner.
7. Names and ages of children:
Gregory Mitchell Beckner, 42.
Lee Elizabeth Beckner Strouse, deceased.
Matthew Hess Beckner, 30.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
Clayton, NM High School, 1948-52.
Baylor University, 1952-56, B.S. 1956.
Rice University, 1957-61, M.A. 1959, Ph.D. 1961.
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM--Vice President,
Defense Programs, 1986-1990.
U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.--Principal Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Defense Programs, 1991-1995.
Lockheed Martin Corporation, Bethesda, MD and Aldermaston, U.K.,
Vice President: Tech Ops: 1996-2000. Vice President and Deputy Chief
Executive, U.K. Atomic Weapons Establishment: 2000-2001.
10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative,
honorary or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State,
or local governments, other than those listed above.
New Mexico Governor's Advisory Group on Economic Development.
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
Director, AWE plc. I resigned this position on August 31, 2001.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
Fellow: American Physical Society.
Member: American Institute for the Advancement of Science.
13. Political affiliations and activities:
(a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or
any public office for which you have been a candidate.
None.
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5
years.
Member--Republican Party.
(c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $100 or more for the past 5 years.
Republican Party--$100.
14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals, and any other special
recognitions for outstanding service or achievements.
Fellow--American Physical Society.
Performance Award--USDOE.
Performance Award--Lockheed Martin.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
All are more than 15 years ago. Physics research articles on plasma
physics, nuclear physics, intense electronic beam physics:
approximately 50.
16. Speeches: Provide the committee with two copies of any formal
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have
copies of and are on topics relevant to the position for which you have
been nominated.
None.
17. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree,
if confirmed, to respond to requests to appear and testify before any
duly constituted committee of the Senate?
Yes.
______
[The nominee responded to the questions in Parts B-F of the
committee questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set
forth in the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to
Parts B-F are contained in the committee's executive files.]
------
Signature and Date
I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate,
and complete.
Everet H. Beckner.
This 1st day of October, 2001.
[The nomination of Dr. Everet Beckner was reported to the
Senate by Chairman Levin on December 18, 2001, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on January 25, 2002.]
------
[Prepared questions submitted to Mary L. Walker by Chairman
Levin prior to the hearing with answers supplied follow:]
October 5, 2001.
Hon. Carl Levin,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Enclosed herewith are the answers to the advance
questions the Senate Armed Services Committee asked me to complete.
Sincerely,
Mary Walker.
Enclosure.
cc: Senator John Warner,
Ranking Member.
______
Questions and Responses
defense reforms
Question. More than a decade has passed since the enactment of the
Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and
the Special Operations reforms.
Do you support full implementation of these defense reforms?
Answer. Yes.
Question. What is your view of the extent to which these defense
reforms have been implemented?
Answer. I am unaware of any specific provisions of the act that
have not been implemented. If confirmed, I will take all steps
necessary to assist the Department of the Air Force in continued
implementation and compliance.
Question. What do you consider to be the most important aspects of
these defense reforms?
Answer. The legislation clarified the roles and relationships among
the combatant commanders, the services, the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, and the National Command Authorities. As such, the
reforms have enhanced joint operational planning and execution,
enhanced effective civilian control, and increased efficiencies within
the services.
Question. The goals of Congress in enacting these defense reforms,
as reflected in Section 3 of the Goldwater-Nichols Department of
Defense Reorganization Act, can be summarized as strengthening civilian
control, improving military advice; placing clear responsibility on the
combatant commanders for the accomplishment of their missions; ensuring
the authority of the combatant commanders is commensurate with their
responsibility; increasing attention to the formulation of strategy and
to contingency planning; providing for more efficient use of defense
resources; and enhancing the effectiveness of military operations and
improving the management and administration of the Department of
Defense.
Do you agree with these goals?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Recently, there have been articles, which indicate an
interest within the Department of Defense in modifying Goldwater-
Nichols in light of the changing environment and possible revisions to
the national strategy.
Do you anticipate that legislative proposal to amend Goldwater-
Nichols may be appropriate? If so, what areas do you believe it might
be appropriate to address in these proposals?
Answer. I am not currently aware of any Department of Defense
sponsored legislative proposals to amend the Goldwater-Nichols Act. If
confirmed, I will be in a better position to carefully review and
evaluate possible changes in light of the overall objectives of the
act.
duties
Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
the General Counsel of the Department of the Air Force?
Answer. The General Counsel is the chief legal officer of the
Department of the Air Force. As such, the legal opinions issued by the
General Counsel are the controlling legal opinions within the
Department. The General Counsel provides legal advice and guidance to
the Secretary, the Under Secretary, the Assistant Secretaries, their
staffs, and other offices within the Office of the Secretary, as well
as to the Chief of Staff and the rest of the Air Staff. The General
Counsel also provides legal services throughout the entire Department
in a variety of disciplines including fiscal law, ethics, contract law,
environmental law, international law, intellectual property law, real
property law, personnel law, labor law, and litigation. The General
Counsel also serves as the Designated Agency Ethics Official, the
Suspending and Debarring Official for the Department of the Air Force,
and exercises oversight of intelligence and other sensitive activities
and investigations.
Question. What background and experience do you possess that you
believe qualifies you to perform these duties?
Answer. I have practiced law for more than 20 years specializing in
environmental and land use law and litigation, including interpretation
and negotiation of government regulations. I have also worked on other
matters, including business litigation, real estate, mergers and
acquisitions and labor (Title VII) matters.
In the course of serving the Reagan Administration at the
Departments of Justice and Interior, I supervised in excess of 100
government lawyers and worked closely with Defense Department lawyers
on major cases affecting government lands. I am comfortable advising
and briefing senior officials on legal issues and enjoy working as a
part of a team, cultivating the talents in the career staff who serve
so faithfully. I have also served on several international delegations
and on an international commission. As Assistant Secretary for
Environment, Safety & Health of the Department of Energy, I was
responsible for the safety oversight of the nuclear weapons program,
and in this capacity, worked closely with the nuclear Navy on radiation
standards applicable to the Navy Department.
In private practice, I have advised CEOs, businesses and local
governments of their obligations under law and the options they have in
order to creatively accomplish their goals. I understand the tough
decisions that must sometimes be made when competing interests are
involved. I believe this experience has equipped me to serve the
Department of the Air Force and my country in this role.
Question. Do you believe that there are actions you need to take to
enhance your ability to perform the duties of the General Counsel of
the Department of the Air Force?
Answer. I believe I have the necessary legal training, experience
and leadership abilities to be the General Counsel. If confirmed, I
will benefit from the extraordinary talent, expertise and experience of
the civilian and military lawyers in the Department as I broaden my
understanding of the issues the Air Force faces every day.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what duties and functions do
you expect that Secretary Roche would prescribe for you?
Answer. If confirmed, I anticipate Secretary Roche will expect me
to provide timely, accurate, and candid legal advice and counsel,
ensuring compliance with the law and the protection of the legal
prerogatives of the Department. I expect the duties and functions of
the office will cover the wide range of legal issues and
responsibilities prescribed under the appropriate Secretary of the Air
Force Orders. Additionally, I anticipate the Secretary would expect me
to manage the General Counsel's Office efficiently and effectively, to
foster an atmosphere of professionalism and responsiveness regarding
all legal matters and services, and to continue the close and highly
effective professional relationship between the Office of the General
Counsel and the Judge Advocate General and his staff as well as the
legal staffs of other government agencies with whom we work.
Question. In carrying out your duties, how will you work with the
Judge Advocate General of the Air Force?
Answer. If confirmed, I will maintain a close professional
relationship between the Office of the General Counsel and the Judge
Advocate General Department. Full consultation and coordination of
matters of mutual import and interest would characterize that
relationship. It is imperative that the two offices work well together
to provide the highest quality of legal support to the Department of
the Air Force.
Question. How are the legal responsibilities of the Department of
the Air Force allocated between the General Counsel and the Judge
Advocate General?
Answer. Secretarial Orders delineate the responsibilities of the
General Counsel and the Judge Advocate General. Those Orders reflect
the extensive coordination between lawyers serving in those offices.
The Judge Advocate General is the senior uniformed legal officer of the
Department of the Air Force. Among his responsibilities is the
administration of military justice throughout the Air Force and
ensuring effective field legal support to commanders as well as to the
Chief of Staff and the Secretary of the Air Force consistent with the
Secretarial Orders.
As the Chief Legal Officer of the Department, the General Counsel
is responsible for oversight and direction of legal matters within the
Air Force, for furnishing legal advice and assistance to the Office of
the Secretary of the Air Force, for providing legal advice and
assistance to the Air Staff consistent with the Secretarial Orders, and
for performing other such functions as the Secretary may direct. The
Office of the Air Force General Counsel and the Judge Advocate General
Department have maintained a close and effective working relationship,
which I will strive to maintain if confirmed.
Question. In carrying out your duties, how will you work with the
General Counsel of the Department of Defense?
Answer. The General Counsel of the Department of Defense is the
Chief Legal Officer and final legal authority for the Department of
Defense, including the Department of the Air Force. If confirmed, I
expect to interact with Mr. Haynes' office on matters of mutual
interest or concern. Should our interpretation of the law differ, I
will defer to the DOD General Counsel's opinion after advising him of
my independent professional opinion. I anticipate frequent interaction
with the DOD General Counsel. I believe a professional relationship
based on information exchange and consultation will benefit the entire
Department.
major challenges and problems
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will
confront the General Counsel of the Department of the Air Force?
Answer. While it is difficult to anticipate specific legal
questions, I think it is crucial that the legal prerogatives of the
Department of the Air Force be protected as the Nation evaluates and
builds the most appropriate air and space strategy for a changing and
complex national security environment. Legal issues are certain to be
involved in that process. Additionally, legal guidance will be
necessary as the Air Force addresses retention issues. Third, the
General Counsel must be prepared to assist in efforts to improve
acquisition processes and organizational structures in order to enhance
innovation and effectiveness.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, I plan on working closely with the Secretary,
with the Chief of Staff, and with the talented and dedicated attorneys
of the Department to candidly evaluate the challenges and to ensure
responsive and accurate legal services to address these challenges.
Question. What do you consider to be the most serious problems in
the performance of the functions of the General Counsel of the
Department of the Air Force?
Answer. I am not aware of any serious problems.
Question. What management actions and time lines would you
establish to address these problems?
Answer. If confirmed, I will make sure that any problems identified
in the performance of the General Counsel functions will be addressed
as expeditiously as possible and through appropriate channels.
Question. Do you believe the Department of the Air Force has the
legal resources necessary to carry out the missions that may be
required of it in wartime? If not, what is needed?
Answer. I believe legal ``readiness'' is a vital component of
mission readiness. The Department of the Air Force requires the highest
quality of legal support. I am currently unaware of any deficiencies in
legal resources that would prevent the Air Force from carrying out its
wartime missions. Having said that, legal readiness, like mission
readiness, requires constant vigilance. Recruiting, training, and
retaining motivated professionals must always be a priority.
priorities
Question. What broad priorities will you establish in terms of
issues, which must be addressed by the General Counsel of the
Department of the Air Force?
Answer. If confirmed, my foremost priority will be to provide the
Department timely, accurate, and candid legal advice, ensuring
compliance with the law and the protection of the legal prerogatives of
the United States Air Force. It is imperative that the Air Force has
the legal support necessary to build the very best air and space
strategy and forces possible.
recruiting and retention issues
Question. How do you assess your ability to hire and retain top
quality civilian attorneys and provide sufficient opportunity for
advancement?
Answer. I am hopeful that the Air Force will maintain the ability
in the future to obtain and retain the highest quality civilian
attorneys both in the General Counsel's Office and the Judge Advocate
General's Department. If confirmed, I want to make service as a
civilian attorney in the Air Force as attractive and professionally
rewarding as I possibly can.
Question. In your view, does the Department of the Air Force have a
sufficient number of Air Force judge advocates on active duty to
perform the missions assigned to the Judge Advocate General's Corps?
Answer. I believe that the Department of the Air Force must have
sufficient military lawyers to meet the needs of the Air Force. If
confirmed, I will work closely with the Judge Advocate General of the
Air Force to ensure that there are a sufficient number of judge
advocates to perform the missions assigned to the Judge Advocate
General.
Question. In your view, what incentives to successful recruiting
and retention of judge advocates need to be implemented or established?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the Judge Advocate General
of the Air Force to ensure that there are sufficient incentives to
assure successful recruiting and retention of judge advocates. Some of
those incentives that I would expect to examine would include student
loan deferral for military service and continuation pay, as well as
other competitive pay and benefit issues.
military justice matters
Question. Since Article 6 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice
gives primary jurisdiction over military justice to the Judge Advocates
General, how do you see your functions in this area with regard to the
Judge Advocate General of the Air Force?
Answer. Article 6 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice states
``the Judge Advocate General or senior members of his staff shall make
frequent inspection in the field in supervision of the administration
of military justice.'' I recognize that the Judge Advocate General has
special expertise in the area of military justice and statutory duties
regarding its administration. As the Chief Legal Official in the
Department of the Air Force, I would provide the Secretary legal advice
in this area as he desires and I would consult closely with the Judge
Advocate General on military justice matters of mutual interest if
confirmed.
Question. In your view, how should the General Counsel approach
military justice matters--both in terms of specific cases and general
policy issues to provide useful advice without generating problems of
unlawful command influence?
Answer. I believe the General Counsel has an obligation to help
safeguard the fairness, independence, and credibility of the
Department's disciplinary procedures. That duty includes the
responsibility to advance policies necessary for the maintenance of
good order and discipline. In doing so, the General Counsel must avoid
any action that may inappropriately affect or appear to inappropriately
affect the outcome of any particular case. The General Counsel must
help ensure the military justice system, its judicial officers,
commanders and convening authorities ultimately responsible for
disciplinary action are free to exercise their personal discretion
within the bounds of the law.
Question. In recent years, there have been a number of cases in
which military members have been accused of adultery. Concerns have
been raised about the consistency with which these cases have been
handled.
What do you see as the role of the General Counsel of the
Department of the Air Force in ensuring the Uniform Code of Military
Justice is enforced in a fair and consistent manner?
Answer. I view the role of the General Counsel in this area as
working closely with the Judge Advocate General, and I will commit to
do so in order to appropriately ensure consistency, fairness and
credibility of the military justice system.
Question. Do you see a need for any changes in either the law or
its implementation in this area?
Answer. I am not aware of the need for any changes at this time. If
confirmed, I would consult fully with the Judge Advocate General on
this matter and carefully consider recommendations from the Joint
Services Committee on Military Justice as well as the General Counsels
of other Departments.
Question. It has been suggested that the twin legal staffs of the
military departments--uniformed personnel, headed by the Judge
Advocates General, and civilian personnel, headed by the General
Counsels--need to be unified or rationalized in the interests of
economy and clarity.
What are your views on this matter?
Answer. I am not aware of any suggestions to fundamentally change
the organization of, or relationship between, the General Counsel's
office and the Judge Advocate Generals Department. Under Title 10 of
the United States Code, the General Counsel is the Chief Legal Officer
of the Department and provides oversight, guidance and direction for
legal matters throughout the Air Force. The Judge Advocate General is
the senior uniformed lawyer in the Air Force and, in addition to some
specific responsibilities with regard to the Uniform Code of Military
Justice, performs duties as prescribed by the Secretary, as does the
General Counsel. The duties and responsibilities of the respective
offices, which I understand to be complimentary rather than
duplicative, are set out in Secretary of the Air Force Orders.
The staffs of the Office of the General Counsel and the Judge
Advocate General's Department are not exclusively civilian and
exclusively military. Civilian and military lawyers work for the
General Counsel. Likewise, civilian and military lawyers work in the
Judge Advocate General's Department. If confirmed, I look forward to
working with the Judge Advocate General to develop further efficiencies
in providing the highest quality legal advice and services throughout
the Air Force.
Question. The complexity of criminal prosecutions involving
espionage, national security violations, and other crimes in which
capital punishment may be awarded has raised questions about the
experience and qualifications of military attorneys to prosecute and
defend such cases.
If confirmed, will you assure the committee that you will examine
the capabilities of the Air Force to competently litigate such cases
and ensure that the Department of the Air Force is fully prepared to
investigate and prosecute national security and capital punishment
cases in an appropriate manner?
Answer. Yes.
role in military personnel policy matters
Question. What role, if any, should the General Counsel play in
military personnel policy and individual cases, including cases before
the service boards for the correction of military records?
Answer. I believe the General Counsel's appropriate role in this
area is to assist the Secretary of the Air Force, the Assistant
Secretary of the Air Force (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) and other
senior Department of the Air Force leaders to ensure that the
Department's military personnel policies are formulated and applied
uniformly, fairly, and in accordance with applicable laws and
regulations. If I become aware of individual cases in which military
personnel policies were not fairly and lawfully applied, I will take
appropriate action to ensure that the case is properly resolved. If
confirmed, I will coordinate with the Assistant Secretary of the Air
Force (Manpower and Reserve Affairs), who exercises overall supervision
for the Department of the Air Force Military Review Boards Agency, to
ensure that the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records
receives the Air Force legal community's full support. I understand
that the Office of the General Counsel provides legal advice for the
resolution of cases considered by the Secretary and his designees. I am
also informed the Office of the General Counsel participates in the
resolution of significant legal issues affecting the Air Force Board
for the Correction of Military Records. If confirmed, I would expect to
continue this involvement.
whistleblower protection
Question. Section 1034, Title 10, United States Code, prohibits
taking retaliatory personnel action against a member of the Armed
Forces as reprisal for making a protected communication. By definition,
protected communications include communications to certain individuals
and organizations outside of the chain of command. We continue to see a
lack of understanding in the senior military leadership of the policy
that it is appropriate and necessary to protect service members who
report misconduct to appropriate authorities outside of the chain of
command.
Do you support prohibiting retaliatory personnel actions for making
protected communications?
Answer. Yes.
Question. If confirmed, what actions will you take to ensure that
senior military leaders understand the need to protect service members
who report misconduct to appropriate authorities within or outside the
chain of command?
Answer. I believe that the military member's right to report
perceived misconduct is sacrosanct. If confirmed, I will review the
steps the Department has taken and is taking to inform Air Force
members of their rights and responsibilities under the act. If
additional measures are required, I will work with the Judge Advocate
General to implement appropriate training and reporting procedures.
legal ethics
Question. In your opinion, who is the client of the General Counsel
of the Department of the Air Force?
Answer. The client of the General Counsel is the Department of the
Air Force. While the Department acts through its authorized officials,
if a conflict arises between the interest of the Department and the
interests of an official, the General Counsel's duty is to the
Department.
Question. What is your understanding of the action a Department of
Defense attorney should take if the attorney becomes aware of improper
activities by a Department of Defense official who has sought the
attorney's legal advice and the official is unwilling to follow the
attorney's advice?
Answer. The attorney should immediately bring the matter to the
attention of the attorney's supervisor and, if not satisfactorily
resolved, to higher level supervisory lawyers or authorities in the
chain of supervision or command.
Question. In your view, do the laws, regulations and guidelines
that establish the rules of professional responsibility for attorneys
in the Department of Defense provide adequate guidance?
Answer. Yes. I am informed all DOD lawyers are members of a Bar and
are therefore subject to the rules of professional responsibility of
their particular jurisdiction. Lawyers engaged in litigation must also
comply with the rules of the court in which they appear. All military
and civilian lawyers in the Judge Advocate General's Department of the
Air Force must comply with the Air Force Rules of Professional
Responsibility and the Air Force Standards for the Administration of
Criminal Justice. Additionally, I'm informed JAG Department attorneys
may request an ethics opinion from the office of The Judge Advocate
General's Ethics (Professional Responsibility) Advisor in the Legal
Assistance Division.
role in the officer promotion and confirmation process
Question. In your view, what is the role of the General Counsel of
the Department of the Air Force in ensuring the integrity of the
officer promotion process?
Answer. I am informed that the General Counsel's Office provides
legal advice on officer promotion procedures and the processing of
selection board reports. This includes review of the Secretary's
Memorandum of Instructions to each selection board and of each
selection board report. In addition, the General Counsel, acting for
the Secretary, reviews reports of substantiated unfavorable information
concerning senior officers to determine whether that information should
be made available to selection boards. The Air Force Office of the
General Counsel takes an active role to ensure that promotions are made
in full compliance with law and Department of Defense guidance. If
confirmed, it would be my intention, subject to the Secretary's
direction, to continue this level of legal oversight of the officer
promotion process, in close cooperation and coordination with the
uniformed Air Force legal and personnel communities.
Question. What is the role of the General Counsel of the Department
of the Air Force in reviewing and providing potentially adverse
information pertaining to a nomination to the Senate Armed Services
Committee?
Answer. The current Air Force practice, which I would expect to
continue if confirmed, is for the General Counsel to review each
selection board report, and each Departmental communication to the
committee, the President, or the Secretary of Defense, concerning
nominations, for consistency and compliance with law and regulation.
This review is particularly important in cases of nominees against whom
there have been findings of misconduct or improprieties, to ensure that
the Air Force meets its obligations of full and meaningful disclosure.
In addition, if confirmed, I would expect to continue the present
practice of the General Counsel reviewing each Lieutenant General and
General nominees' financial disclosure reports and related financial
information to ensure there are no conflicts of interest.
litigation involving the department of defense
Question. What is your understanding of the appropriate role of the
Article III courts in the review of military activities?
Answer. I understand both the Constitution and the Supreme Court
provide that the principle authority to control the military rests with
Congress and the President. I also understand a long line of court
cases have held that many internal military decisions are not subject
to judicial review, and that Article III courts are generally ill-
suited for defining or limiting the power of the executive and
legislative branches as to military matters. In those categories of
cases in which judicial review of military activities is appropriate,
the courts should give substantial deference to the decisions of
Congress and the President.
Question. In your opinion, what is the relationship between the
Department of Defense and the Department of Justice with respect to
litigation involving the Department of Defense?
Answer. According to Title 28, United States Code, section 516, the
Justice Department has the responsibility to represent the Air Force in
all litigation matters other than courts martial. Consistent with the
statute, Department of Air Force lawyers work with Justice Department
attorneys performing key roles to help advance the Department's legal
interests. For example Air Force attorneys review pleadings,
participate in discovery, assist in developing litigation strategy, and
in some cases become a part of the trial team. As a former Justice
Department attorney, I look forward to sustaining a superb relationship
between the two Departments, if confirmed.
Question. Is the present arrangement satisfactory, or does the
Department need more independence to conduct its own litigation?
Answer. I am not currently aware of any problems in the present
arrangement, or of the need for greater independence for the
Department. If confirmed, I will make inquiry on this issue and take
steps to ensure the Department exercises appropriate independence.
court of appeals decision
Question. On January 4, 2000, the United States Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit decided the case of National
Center for Manufacturing Sciences v. Department of Defense, 199 F. 3d
507 (D.C. Cir. 2000). The court concluded that ``Because of the
existence of 10 U.S.C. Section 114, it is clear that any monies
appropriated for NCMS by Congress for research must be authorized
before they can be appropriated and distributed''; and ``Because 10
U.S.C. Section 114(a)(2) requires authorization of these funds before
they become available, appropriation alone is insufficient.''
What is your view of the court's decision in this case and its
implications regarding the obligation of funds that are appropriated,
but not authorized?
Answer. As I understand it, the case did not squarely address the
issue of whether Department of Defense appropriations must be
authorized before they can be obligated or expended. The court and the
parties both viewed the funds at issue as authorized by Congress, and
so this was merely a collateral matter in a case that concerned whether
funds earmarked for NCMS in fiscal year 1994 had been effectively
rescinded by a later act of Congress. If confirmed, I will work closely
with the Defense Committees if similar issues arise.
environmental issues
Question. The military departments have endeavored to resolve
environmental encroachment issues while fulfilling essential readiness
requirements, however, these efforts have often resulted in diminished,
less realistic training. Based on testimony provided by the services at
the Readiness Subcommittee hearing on March 20, 2001, it appears that
the time is ripe for the development and implementation of a
comprehensive strategy that addresses the individual and the cumulative
effects of environmental encroachment. In the current threat
environment, it is critical that such a strategy ensure the
preservation of quality military training. Such efforts will require
sound legal advice and recommendations.
If confirmed as the Air Force General Counsel, how would you
propose to facilitate and contribute to the development and
implementation of a comprehensive strategy intended to address
readiness concerns related to environmental encroachment issues?
Answer. National defense is our primary mission, and that mission
can accommodate wise natural resource stewardship. Maintaining
continued access to ranges and airspace is absolutely critical to
readiness. If confirmed, I will have the opportunity to apply over 20
years of experience in the environmental law field to this important
national issue. I will assist the Department in balancing test and
training requirements with responsible stewardship. Strong
relationships with the U.S. Department of Interior, its state
counterparts and other interested parties are of great importance.
Effective communication will serve to both provide access to critical
airspace and ranges and ensure that others understand that realistic
training is necessary for our Nation's security.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as the General Counsel of the
Department of the Air Force?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings and
other communications of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Question Submitted by Senator Strom Thurmond
attracting quality people
1. Senator Thurmond. Ms. Walker, a key issue facing the Department
of Defense is recruiting and retaining quality people to manage and
carry out the functions of the Department.
What will be your approach to ensuring that the Office of the Air
Force General Counsel has the quality people to ensure the Secretary
and the Department has the best and brightest lawyers and employees?
Ms. Walker. If confirmed, I will work diligently to ensure
continued successful recruiting and retention of outstanding attorneys,
paraprofessionals and support personnel for the Office of the Air Force
General Counsel. Further, I would work to ensure we have the right
number of people and depth of expertise to provide the high quality
legal support the Department requires. I support the use of intern
programs as a way of developing entry-level candidates. Additionally,
while we may never expect to compete with private sector salaries, it
is essential that we fund and utilize fully the authorities we have
currently to repay student loans, offer recruiting and retention
incentives, and enhance training opportunities. If confirmed, I want to
make service as a civilian attorney in the Air Force as attractive and
professionally rewarding as I possibly can. I would seek to assure that
our attorneys and support personnel have many opportunities to
participate in career development activities, including but not limited
to formal Continuing Legal Education (CLE) programs, job skill
seminars, and conferences. I am informed some steps have already been
taken to initiate a formal career-broadening program to enhance the
attorneys' experience and better prepare them for promotion, including
exchanges with other offices. These are the types of initiatives I
would support as we look for ways to secure and retain the ``best and
the brightest'' for the Department.
______
[The nomination reference of Mary L. Walker follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
September 25, 2001.
Ordered, that the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Mary L. Walker, of California, to be General Counsel of the
Department of the Air Force, vice Jeh Charles Johnson.
______
[The biographical sketch of Mary L. Walker, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Mary L. Walker
Mary Walker is a lawyer from California and former partner with
Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison LLP, a national law firm based in San
Francisco. She specializes in land use and environmental law and
litigation and has represented a diverse range of clients including
those in oil, shipbuilding, transportation, manufacturing, high
technology, biotechnology, fisheries, food, land development, and
municipal government.
She has served on the boards of several nonprofit organizations,
including BIOCOM/San Diego, Floresta, Inc., Global Involvement Through
Education, and the Endowment for Community Leadership. She is a
frequent author of opinion pieces on environmental regulation, energy
policy, and nuclear power and waste.
In the 1980s, Ms. Walker served the Federal Government in several
positions, including Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety &
Health of the Department of Energy, Deputy Solicitor of the Department
of Interior, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the Land &
Natural Resources Division of the Department of Justice, and U.S.
Commissioner for the Inter American Tropical Tuna Commission.
Ms. Walker has an undergraduate degree in Biological Sciences/
Ecology from the University of California at Berkeley, and a law degree
from Boston University Law School.
______
[The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
form that details the biographical, financial and other
information of the nominee. The form executed by Mary Walker in
connection with her nomination follows:]
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Room SR-228
Washington, DC 20510-6050
(202) 224-3871
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation
of your answer applies.
Part A--Biographical Information
Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.
1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
Mary L. Walker.
Mary Walker Lilly (1988/1989).
2. Position to which nominated:
General Counsel, U.S. Air Force.
3. Date of nomination:
September 25, 2001.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
5. Date and place of birth:
December 1, 1948; Dayton, OH.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Single.
7. Names and ages of children:
Winston Samuel Walker, age 12.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
Glendale High School, Diploma 6/66.
UC Irvine, 9/66-6/68.
UC Berkeley, B.S. Biology/Ecology 6/70.
Boston University Law School 9/70-6/72, JD 6/73.
UCLA Law School (Visiting third year student) 9/72-6/73.
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
1991-1994--partner
Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps LLP San Diego, CA.
Specialized in environmental and land use law and litigation for
diverse clients including landowners, manufacturers, biotechnology and
other businesses.
Defended Federal and state enforcement actions, counseled clients
on compliance with laws and regulations, performed due diligence in
mergers and acquisitions, designed and supervised environmental audits,
and brought cost recovery actions under Federal and state Superfund
laws for clean up of contaminated sites.
1994-7/2001--partner
Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison LLP San Diego, CA.
Specialized in environmental law and litigation for diverse clients
including oil, shipyards, fisheries, high technology, biotechnology,
pharmaceuticals and small businesses. This has included litigation
(both defense and plaintiff work) and counseling concerning air, water,
waste, natural resource and consumer warning laws and regulations, as
well as due diligence, negotiations and drafting of merger and
acquisition agreements. Representation of biotechnology industry has
included advocacy in favor of changes to laws and regulations at the
state and local level.
10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative,
honorary or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State,
or local governments, other than those listed above.
federal government
1988-1995--U.S. Commissioner, Inter American Tropical Tuna
Commission (IATTC).
1985-1988--Assistant Secretary, Environment, Safety & Health U.S.
Department of Energy.
1984-1985--Deputy Solicitor, U.S. Department of Interior.
1982-1984--Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Land &
Natural Resources Division.
local government
2000-3/2001--Board Member, Public Facilities Financing Authority
City of San Diego (Mayoral appointment).
1989--7/2001--Special Environmental Counsel for various southern
California municipal. In recent years, this has been limited to Federal
Superfund related actions.
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
As a partner: Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison LLP.
As a director/officer: BIOCOM San Diego (Director and Co-Chair,
Environmental Committee). Endowment for Community Leadership
(Director). Professional Women's Fellowship (Director and Past
President).
As an advisor: Floresta (Advisory Board). Global Involvement
Through Education (advisory Board). UCSD Environmental Management Board
(has not met in recent years).
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
California Bar Association.
San Diego Bar Association.
The Federalist Society.
Lawyers for Bush Cheney.
The Heritage Foundation.
BIOCOM San Diego (Board member, Co-Chair Environmental Committee).
Industrial Environmental Association.
Professional Women's Fellowship of San Diego (past President).
Solana Beach Presbyterian Church.
13. Political affiliations and activities:
(a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or
any public office for which you have been a candidate.
None.
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5
years.
Member, Lawyers for Bush/Cheney.
Volunteer, San Diego County Republican Party (volunteer assistance
to Bush/Cheney campaign).
(c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $100 or more for the past 5 years.
figures approximate
$1,000.00 George W. Bush.
$500.00 Republican Congressional Caucus.
$500.00 Congressman Duke Cunningham.
$500.00 Congressman Brian Bilbray.
$150.00 Mayor Susan Golding.
14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals, and any other special
recognitions for outstanding service or achievements.
College/Law School Scholarships.
Secretary's Gold Medal, U.S. Department of Energy, 1987.
Outstanding Young Women of America, 1984.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
16. Speeches: Provide the committee with two copies of any formal
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have
copies of and are on topics relevant to the position for which you have
been nominated.
I have moderated panels on biotechnology environmental issues for
the Industrial Environmental Association's annual conference for the
past several years. I had no formal remarks. In addition, I have
moderated other panels at environmental seminars. When I speak on
environmental regulatory topics, such as the Clean Water Act,
California's Proposition 65, emergency planning, environmental audits,
Federal Environmental enforcement, the Federal and State hazardous
waste laws, and an overview of Federal environmental laws, I typically
speak from handwritten notes or overhead slides and have no prepared
text. The only time I have worked from prepared texts was when I was in
full time positions with the Federal Government (1982-1988).
17. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree,
if confirmed, to respond to requests to appear and testify before any
duly constituted committee of the Senate?
Yes.
______
[The nominee responded to the questions in Parts B-F of the
committee questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set
forth in the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to
Parts B-F are contained in the committee's executive files.]
------
Signature and Date
I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate,
and complete.
Mary Walker.
This 28th day of September, 2001.
[The nomination of Mary L. Walker was reported to the
Senate by Chairman Levin on November 8, 2001, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on November 8, 2001.]
NOMINATIONS OF JOSEPH E. SCHMITZ TO BE INSPECTOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE; AND SANDRA L. PACK TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY FOR
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND COMPTROLLER
----------
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2001
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:32 p.m. in room
SC-5, The Capitol, Senator Carl Levin (chairman) presiding.
Committee members present: Senators Levin, Lieberman, Reed,
Carnahan, Warner, Allard, and Sessions.
Committee staff members present: David L. Lyles, staff
director; and Christine E. Cowart, chief clerk.
Majority staff members present: Peter K. Levine, General
Counsel; and Michael J. McCord, Professional Staff Member.
Minority staff members present: Romie L. Brownlee,
Republican staff director; Judith A. Ansley, deputy staff
director for the minority; Ambrose R. Hock, professional staff
member; Scott W. Stucky, minority counsel; and Richard F.
Walsh, minority counsel.
Staff assistants present: Gabriella Eisen and Thomas C.
Moore.
Committee members' assistants present: Menda S. Fife,
assistant to Senator Kennedy; Erik Raven, assistant to Senator
Byrd; Frederick M. Downey, assistant to Senator Lieberman;
Andrew Vanlandingham, assistant to Senator Cleland; Elizabeth
King, assistant to Senator Reed; William K. Sutey, assistant to
Senator Bill Nelson; Eric Pierce, assistant to Senator Ben
Nelson; Neal Orringer, assistant to Senator Carnahan; Margaret
Hemenway, assistant to Senator Smith; John A. Bonsell,
assistant to Senator Inhofe; George M. Bernier III, assistant
to Senator Santorum; Douglas Flanders, assistant to Senator
Allard; James P. Dohoney, Jr., assistant to Senator Hutchinson;
Arch Galloway II, assistant to Senator Sessions; and Derek
Maurer, assistant to Senator Bunning.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN, CHAIRMAN
Chairman Levin. The committee meets today to consider the
nominations of two individuals to senior positions in the
Department of Defense, Joseph Schmitz to be Inspector General
for the Department, and Sandra Pack to be Assistant Secretary
of the Army for Financial Management and Comptroller.
I would like to welcome you both and your families to the
Armed Services Committee. In a moment, I am going to ask you to
introduce those family members that might be with you. Before I
do that, though, let me make a statement about our schedule for
the rest of the week. On Thursday morning at 10 a.m. we hope to
have a conference meeting with the House, and that meeting will
involve the General Provisions Panel which Senator Warner and I
chair. We do not have a room for that meeting yet, so keep in
touch with your staffs about that.
Also on Thursday morning, the Emerging Threats and
Capabilities Subcommittee is planning a hearing with Senator
Sam Nunn and former Deputy Secretary of Defense John Hamre on
the recent Dark Winter exercise involving a simulated
bioterrorist event. That hearing is currently scheduled for 10
a.m. in Russell 222. That assumes, of course, that the Russell
Building is open on Thursday afternoon.
At 2:30 p.m., the full committee will hold a hearing with
DOD officials on the Department's role in homeland security. We
are currently scheduled to hold this hearing in Hart 216, which
we may have to change. In fact, I think we should get a backup
just in case we do have to change.
On Friday morning at 10 a.m. we hope to have a meeting of
the full conference with the House outside conferees. We do not
have a room for that meeting yet, either. Scheduling is
obviously a huge challenge under the current circumstances, and
we will make every effort to keep all members of the committee
informed about the committee schedule as promptly as we can.
Senator Warner. Mr. Chairman, on that point would you
instruct the staff to disseminate the facts you have just given
to all members as soon as possible?
Chairman Levin. We will. Thank you for that suggestion.
Mr. Schmitz is a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, a 27-
year Navy veteran of the Active and Reserve Force. He served as
a Special Assistant for Attorney General Edwin Meese. A lawyer
and a captain in the Naval Reserves, he most recently served as
Deputy Senior Inspector for the Naval Reserve Intelligence
Program. If confirmed as the Inspector General, Mr. Schmitz
will be responsible for conducting independent and objective
audits and investigations of defense programs and impartial
investigations of the allegations of misconduct by senior
officers and civilian Department employees.
Ms. Pack is a certified public accountant who has served as
a financial consultant to several presidential campaigns. Her
private sector experience includes serving as Director for
Planning and Operations for the digital technology firm of
Spectrum Holobyte, and 12 years with Ernst & Young, including
Director of Microcomputer Consulting and Accounting Services.
If confirmed as the Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Financial Management and Comptroller, Ms. Pack will be
responsible for assuring the effective management, integrity,
and accuracy of the Army's financial management systems.
Let me turn now to Senator Warner, and then I will ask the
standard questions of our nominees and ask them to introduce
their family members.
Senator Warner.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN WARNER
Senator Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I asked that you
arrange this hearing this afternoon because I think it is very
important for this committee to be as active as we have been,
and we have been active during the course of these
unpredictable and somewhat uncertain times here in the Senate.
I thank you for making the arrangements to have the hearing
this afternoon. These nominees are urgently needed by the
Department. I have been contacted by a number of members of the
Department on behalf of both of these distinguished nominees.
You have covered their curriculum vitae.
I then would put in my statement for the record. My
statement in every respect parallels the chairman's in
endorsing these two candidates. I welcome you, and I thank you
for your offer to serve the country, and that of your
respective families, because families play a vital role in the
lives of persons who undertake long hours and arduous
challenges in the Department of Defense.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Senator Warner follows:]
Prepared Statement by Senator John Warner
Thank you, Senator Levin.
I also extend a warm welcome to the nominees and their families.
These are vitally important positions to which Mr. Schmitz and Ms. Pack
have been nominated. I compliment them both on their desire and
willingness to serve in these extraordinarily challenging times.
Mr. Schmitz has an impressive record of accomplishment in military
service, in the legal community, and in academia. After graduating from
the U.S. Naval Academy in 1978, Mr. Schmitz forged a 27-year naval
career in the Active and Reserve Forces, achieving the rank of captain.
Since 1999, he served as Deputy Senior Inspector for the Naval Reserve
Intelligence Program with responsibility for command inspections and
audits, investigation, and intelligence oversight in this key area. He
has also been a highly successful private practitioner in Washington,
DC, specializing in administrative and constitutional law and
international trade. In addition, he has served as an Adjunct Professor
of Law at the Georgetown University Law Center.
Ms. Pack is a certified public accountant with a distinguished
record of achievement in the private sector. She worked for the firm of
Ernst & Young for 12 years providing consulting and accounting services
to small businesses in a broad range of industries. In recent years,
she has served in financial management capacities in connection with
the election campaigns of President Bush and Senator Bob Dole.
I support the nominations of both individuals and look forward to
their testimony this morning.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Warner.
Today's nominees have both responded to the committee's
prehearing policy questions and to our standard questionnaire.
Without objection, responses will be made a part of the record.
The committee has also received the required paperwork on
each of the nominees, and we will be reviewing their paperwork
to make sure it is in accordance with the committee's
requirements. There are several standard questions that we ask
every nominee who comes before this committee. In your response
to advance policy questions, you agree to appear as a witness
before congressional committees when called, and to ensure that
briefings, testimony, and other communications are provided to
Congress. You have already done that. Now my questions: Have
you adhered to applicable laws and regulations governing
conflict of interest? Mr. Schmitz.
Mr. Schmitz. Yes, I have.
Chairman Levin. Ms. Pack.
Ms. Pack. Yes, sir, I have.
Chairman Levin. Have you assumed any duties or undertaken
any actions which would appear to presume the outcome of the
confirmation process? Ms. Pack.
Ms. Pack. No, sir.
Chairman Levin. Mr. Schmitz.
Mr. Schmitz. No, sir.
Chairman Levin. Will you ensure the Department complies
with deadlines established for requested communications,
including prepared testimony and questions for the record in
hearings? Mr. Schmitz.
Mr. Schmitz. Yes, I will.
Chairman Levin. Ms. Pack.
Ms. Pack. Yes, sir.
Chairman Levin. Will you cooperate in providing witnesses
and briefers in response to congressional requests? Ms. Pack.
Ms. Pack. Yes.
Mr. Schmitz. Yes, I will.
Chairman Levin. Will those witnesses be protected from
reprisal for their testimony?
Mr. Schmitz. Yes, they will.
Ms. Pack. Yes, sir.
Chairman Levin. Let me now ask both of you for any opening
remarks that you have, hopefully brief, but before you do that,
would you introduce your families to us? Mr. Schmitz.
Mr. Schmitz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My wife, Mollie, is
here with me today; my mother, Mary Schmitz, is here; and six
of my eight children could make it here today, Patrick, Thomas,
Corporal Nicholas Schmitz, USMC, Katherine, Miss Mollie, and
Matthias; my sister, Elizabeth, is there with three of her
children; and then my cousin, Jennifer, who works for the
Judiciary Committee, is here.
Chairman Levin. We welcome them all. Are the two missing
kids AWOL?
Mr. Schmitz. The oldest is a senior at Maryland, and he has
a midterm at 3:30 p.m. today--he would have been here this
morning--and the number two son is a year abroad in Europe.
Chairman Levin. Well, tell them we miss them.
Senator Warner. Mr. Schmitz, don't you have a brother also
in Government service who has had a distinguished career?
Mr. Schmitz. My older brother John was George Bush's Deputy
Counsel at the White House for 7 years. He is also in Europe on
business.
Senator Warner. I have met him in years past, a very
distinguished gentleman.
Chairman Levin. Ms. Pack, you are a little bit overwhelmed,
probably, numerically.
Ms. Pack. That is quite all right. I would like to
introduce my husband, Randall.
Chairman Levin. We very much welcome all of you, and thank
you for your willingness to be supportive of the spouses who
are called to public service. Those of us who serve on this
committee understand the important role of spouses, and we very
much appreciate and cherish that. It is absolutely essential to
the well-being of this country that we have families, not just
spouses but families as well as spouses, who will join their
father or mother, brother, sister, what-have-you, to serve this
country.
Now, we will have brief opening statements, and we will put
your full statement, if you have a longer one, in the record.
Mr. Schmitz.
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH E. SCHMITZ, NOMINEE TO BE INSPECTOR
GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Mr. Schmitz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no statement
for the record, but with your permission I would like to make a
few brief remarks.
Chairman Levin, Senator Warner, members of the committee,
it is an honor to appear this afternoon before you as President
Bush's nominee to be the Inspector General of the Department of
Defense. I would like to thank President Bush for nominating
me, and I would like to thank Secretary Rumsfeld for his
continuing confidence and support.
I would also like to thank this committee for all it has
done over the years, especially over the last 6 weeks, for the
men and women of the Armed Forces. If confirmed, I look forward
to working very closely with this committee to meet the many
and recently exacerbated challenges we face as a Nation.
As stated in my written responses to your advance policy
questions, if I am confirmed, I hope to address the following
three broad priorities within the Office of Inspector General,
Department of Defense: first and foremost, integrity; second,
efficiency; and third, an enthusiastic commitment to the core
principles underlying our Constitution, including the rule of
law, the various checks and balances, and the ultimate
accountability of all public officials to the people of the
United States.
Finally, I would like to thank Almighty God for the
multitude of blessings he continues to bestow upon this Nation,
and upon me personally. Speaking of which I would like to thank
publicly my wife of 23 years, Mollie, who you just met, and my
eight children for their enduring love and inspiration, and now
for their willingness to support me as I undertake this new
challenge. Of course I would like to thank my other many family
members and friends who have supported me along the way.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you.
Ms. Pack.
STATEMENT OF SANDRA L. PACK, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY
OF THE ARMY FOR FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND COMPTROLLER
Ms. Pack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of
the committee. It is a great privilege to appear before this
committee as the nominee for Assistant Secretary of the Army
for Financial Management and Comptroller. I am profoundly
grateful to the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the
Secretary of the Army for the trust and confidence that they
have placed in me.
I pledge that, should I be confirmed, I will dedicate
myself to ensuring that their trust and your trust will not be
misplaced. I pledge to be a faithful steward to the citizens of
this great Nation, that I will discharge my duties to the best
of my ability.
I am a certified public accountant. I have worked my entire
professional career in the private sector, 12 of those years in
public accounting. I believe strongly in the principles of
sound financial management. I understand the need for the
principles and practices espoused by my profession, such as
strong internal controls, segregation of duties, planning,
budgeting, and reliable accounting and financial reporting
systems. These principles enable sound management and resource
decisions.
While I will be serving in a new environment with the U.S.
Army, I believe that my technical training and my previous work
experience will provide the foundation needed for this
challenge. I look forward to learning about the Army and
determining how the principles with which I am familiar may be
applied.
Mr. Chairman, should I be confirmed, I look forward to a
strong working relationship with you and with this committee. I
will be pleased to answer any questions at this time. Thank
you.
Chairman Levin. Thank you very much, Ms. Pack. We will have
a 6-minute round, and we will follow the early bird rule,
alternating between sides.
Mr. Schmitz, I know that you are aware of the fact that the
letter that you wrote to the Washington Times in 1992, during
the presidential campaigns, has been something which has
troubled me a great deal. That letter was captioned, ``Security
Risk in the White House?'' This was printed in the Times:
``Bill Clinton practically confessed to being a security risk
during the Vietnam War in his December 3, 1969, letter to
Colonel Eugene Holmes. Since then, he has never recanted,
notwithstanding a direct invitation to do so in the final
presidential debate. Colonel Holmes has released an affidavit
stating, among other things, that the December 3, 1969 letter
alone would have restricted Bill Clinton from ever qualifying
to be an officer in the United States military.'' Then you
wrote: ``Now the same Bill Clinton wants to be commander in
chief, but he won't even talk about his organizing antiwar
activities in England and then traveling to Moscow at the
height of the Vietnam War. The KGB apparently knows more about
the shady side of Bill Clinton than the American people ever
will. The American people deserve better.''
Now, that was signed with your rank in the Reserves, which
is the issue here. It is not the views, whatever one thinks of
those, but the fact that you signed it as a Lieutenant
Commander in the U.S. Navy Reserve.
First of all, did you believe that he was a security risk
when you wrote that?
Mr. Schmitz. No, sir.
Chairman Levin. Do you believe that it was appropriate to
sign the letter as Lieutenant Commander in the Naval Reserve?
Mr. Schmitz. I just want to clarify one thing, the way that
I signed it and the way that it was published are different,
and the distinction is that the way I actually signed it
followed the letter of the law. I certainly acknowledge that
the way it looks raises issues, and I would like to address
those to clarify why I did what I did, and how I did it.
First of all, that was 9 years ago, Mr. Chairman. I was a
young associate in a law firm and a Lieutenant Commander in the
Naval Reserves. I have done a lot of professional growing since
then, and I would not write the same letter today.
Second, I would like to say the letter was merely a venting
exercise. It was not a reflection of my judgment at the time,
and it is certainly not a reflection of my judgment today.
I had watched the nationally televised debate during which
Candidate Clinton had been asked about his activities in Moscow
during the height of the Vietnam War. I was hoping that the
candidate would have answered the questions, but he did not. I
decided to vent my frustration in a letter to the editor, a
writing activity which my law firm generally encouraged, so I
wrote a letter on private stationery and faxed it to the
newspaper editor from my law firm. It was clearly my own
opinion, and it was not intended to be a reflection on the
Naval Reserves.
Finally, one of the most important leadership lessons I
have learned over the years has been that leaders need to be
able to admit when they have made a mistake, especially when
they are under public scrutiny. In the case of this one letter
to the editor, Mr. Chairman, 9 years ago, I should not have
used my Naval Reserve rank, even though I followed the rules to
the T.
The way the newspaper published my letter and highlighted
my military rank obviously raises issues. I regretted it at the
time, and I regret it today. I learned a very good lesson, for
which I am now a better man, and more importantly I will be a
much better Inspector General for having learned that lesson,
if I am confirmed.
Chairman Levin. Were you with the same law firm then as you
are now?
Mr. Schmitz. No, sir.
Chairman Levin. Was it the firm you were with then that
encouraged you to write the letter?
Mr. Schmitz. Paul, Hastings, Jonofsky, and Walker, and if
you look at the cover sheet, it was the code that they give to
associates to encourage them to spend time writing letters like
this.
Chairman Levin. Was there anyone else that encouraged you
to write this, other than the law firm?
Mr. Schmitz. The law firm did not encourage me to write
this specific letter. Let me just clarify that. This was a
weekend venting exercise. That is all it was.
Chairman Levin. But in general they encouraged people to
write letters?
Mr. Schmitz. Yes, sir.
Chairman Levin. Was there anyone else who encouraged you to
write either letters in general, or this letter, other than the
law firm?
Mr. Schmitz. My mentor in the law firm, basically all of my
supervisors.
Chairman Levin. I said, other than the law firm, was there
anyone else that encouraged you to write letters, or this
letter?
Mr. Schmitz. Not that I recall.
Chairman Levin. In your response to the committee's
questionnaire, you indicated your desire to remain a member of
the board of U.S. English, Inc., which is an advocacy group
that seeks to ensure that the official business of the United
States and the 50 States is conducted only in English. Even for
positions that do not require the independence and objectivity
of the Inspector General, the committee insists that nominees
resign from outside positions. That I think you now understand,
and you are going to resign from that board, but my question is
a little different than that.
This is an organization that believes that no Government
business should be done in any language other than English,
which presumably means they do not believe that ballots should
be in any other language, or referenda on ballots should be in
Spanish, or that driver's license applications should be in
Spanish. Many States have such applications and ballots.
Why would you think it would be appropriate for you, as
Inspector General, to remain on the board of an advocacy group
that obviously takes positions which would be very much
anathema to at least some members of the military, who would
very much support a ballot being in Spanish, for instance, or a
driver's license application being in Spanish?
We have a lot of military members, for instance, who speak
Spanish. I am not characterizing them, or generalizing. I am
not saying that all people who speak Spanish believe that there
ought to be driver's license applications or ballot referendum
items that are bilingual. I am not suggesting that, but clearly
there is a significant number of people that speak a foreign
language that believe that. They are in the military, like
anywhere else in this country, and yet you thought it would be
appropriate for you to remain on that board.
Now, putting aside the fact that you cannot, under our
rules, and that you are not going to be on that board, why
would you think it would even be appropriate to stay on that
board if we allowed you to do so?
Mr. Schmitz. That is a good question, Mr. Chairman. The
first thing I would like to clarify is that the way you
characterized the mission and purpose of the organization is a
common misconception. There is a group that advocates English
only. This is not the English-only group. This is the official
English group. In fact, the founder of this group was a former
U.S. Senator by the name of Sam Hayakawa, who himself was an
immigrant. The current chairman of the group is an immigrant
from South America whose native tongue is Spanish. There is
nothing anti-Spanish or anti-immigrant about this group. It is
often confused, however, with the English-only group, and that
is what I would like to address right now.
In fact, when I went through the Army Inspector General's
School I had the occasion of studying a lot of Army
regulations, and I was not surprised, but I was pleased to find
that in 1999 the U.S. Army promulgated its command policy in
which it states that English is the operational language of the
United States Army, and then it goes on and says that we all
have to speak English to communicate, but commanders should not
deny people the opportunity to speak their native tongues. That
is essentially the position that U.S. English takes. It is the
exact same position that the U.S. Army took in 1999 under its
official command policy.
I have been working with U.S. English for 2 years. It is a
tremendous challenge, frankly, to dispel the misconception and
the misinformation that U.S. English is up against, and I
requested to stay a member of that board, and I requested to
stay a member of a couple of other boards that I thought would
be appropriate. I am pleased to dispel the misperception about
U.S. English here, and I have already agreed to withdraw from
the board of U.S. English.
[The information referred to follows:]
Army Command Policy (Personnel-General), Army Regulation 600-20, 15
July 1999
SECTION 4-13. ARMY LANGUAGE POLICY
English is the operational language of the Army. Soldiers
must maintain sufficient proficiency in English to perform
their military duties. Their operational communications must be
understood by everyone who has an official need to know their
content, and therefore, must normally be English. However,
commanders may not require soldiers to use English unless such
use is clearly necessary and proper for the performance of
military functions. Accordingly, commanders may not require the
use of English for personal communications which are unrelated
to military functions.
Chairman Levin. I am going to put in the record here the
web site material that U.S. English, Inc. has on its web site,
which shows driver's license exam languages in the States.
Presumably the only reason they would put that on their web
site is that they have a problem with it.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Levin. Why else would they put driver's license
exams on their web site unless they had a problem with them?
For instance, California has many different languages for
license exams. My home State of Michigan has 20 different
languages for applications for driver's licenses, starting with
Arabic and Spanish, Chinese and English, Finnish, and French.
Why are all of those facts put on the web site if it is only
what you say it is?
Mr. Schmitz. You could also find on the web site the fact
that there are 350-plus references in the United States Code
and in the Code of Federal Regulations requiring English
language. It is just a practical issue. If you want to succeed
in the United States, you ought to learn English. It does not
say you should not keep your mother tongue.
The driver's license exam came up in a U.S. English trial
in January, and it is often raised as an issue, as why
shouldn't people be able to drive, and U.S. English's position
is just a practical issue: we want to encourage people to learn
English. That is the simple point. It is the same reason the
U.S. Army has the policy, sir.
Chairman Levin. Thank you.
Senator Warner.
Senator Warner. Ms. Pack, traditionally financial managers
have focused on looking at waste, fraud, and Government abuse
operations. Recently greater emphasis has been placed on
overseeing the financial aspects of regular operations of the
military departments.
If confirmed, where do you anticipate you will focus your
attention in overseeing the financial operations of the
Department of the Army? What do you envision will be your
greatest challenge in combatting the waste, fraud, and abuse
that exists to some degree in all military departments, as it
does throughout government and indeed the private sector? Every
new administration, to their credit, initiates their own means
to try and limit it. I think our distinguished President and
Secretary of Defense and his team are doing their very best,
and you are going to join that team. I hope you will apply your
efforts on this, because every dollar that is lost is a dollar
that is deprived of the men and women in uniform in our Armed
Forces.
Ms. Pack. Senator, I share your concern on that. I am not
certain at this point where the challenges will lie, exactly,
or what systems or approaches I might devise to correct this,
but I am eager to do my part in this, and I will make this a
priority, should I be confirmed.
Senator Warner. In your previous distinguished record of
achievements in the private sector I expect you have had some
experience in trying to do that, have you not?
Ms. Pack. Absolutely, sir.
Senator Warner. Based on that experience, hopefully you can
bring it to bear on the problems that are extant in the
Department of the Army.
Ms. Pack. I commit to bringing all of my experience to bear
where needed, sir.
Senator Warner. Thank you very much.
Mr. Schmitz, in the answers you provided to the committee
to the advance policy questions you acknowledge confidence in
the integrity of the Office of Inspector General. That office
was shaken earlier this year by findings that falsified
information had been included by DODIG employees in an agency
peer review process of previously completed investigations. Are
you familiar with that?
Mr. Schmitz. I am familiar with the allegations, yes, sir.
Senator Warner. What steps will you take, if confirmed, to
restore the integrity of the Office of Inspector General?
Mr. Schmitz. Senator Warner, I am not familiar with all of
the facts underlying those allegations.
Senator Warner. I would not expect you to be.
Mr. Schmitz. The first thing I would want to do, if
confirmed, is to review exactly what has been done to ascertain
what the facts are. I have read in the paper, and I understand
that at least three of those individuals against whom the
allegations were made have since resigned. I understand that
there are another dozen or so that might have been implicated,
so I would want to really do a thorough internal review to find
out what the facts were, and then I would have to gauge how to
move forward from there. I have indicated in my advance policy
questions that would be a top priority, if I am confirmed, to
get to the bottom of it.
Senator Warner. I find that response very satisfactory, and
I commend you for that approach, because I am concerned about
it, and we on this committee are also.
Now, back to you, Ms. Pack. This is surprising, but it was
brought out by a distinguished member of our committee in a
hearing with the Secretary of Defense when he appeared before
us sometime ago with regard to his qualifications to be
Secretary of Defense, and his objectives. Our distinguished
senior colleague, the President Pro Tempore of the Senate,
Robert C. Byrd, asked a question about unaccounted funds that
still have not been accounted for in the Department of Defense.
Now, the Department of the Army, like various other DOD
organizations, has been unable to adequately account for
financial expenditures and transactions in several key areas.
This is very troublesome to Congress as well as the public,
and it is my hope that you will do your best to bring your
expertise to address this issue. I wonder if you have had an
opportunity to determine whether or not the problem of
unaccounted funds expenditures can be attributed to obsolete or
nonexistent financial accounting systems in the Department of
the Army?
Ms. Pack. Senator, I have been receiving briefings from the
Army, and my information is limited at this point, but it is my
understanding that the underlying systems are a big factor in
this problem. I am not prepared to express an opinion on this
at this point, but this is something that definitely would be a
priority, and something that definitely needs to be corrected.
In addition, I would say that Secretary White has expressed to
me his concern about this, and that this is a priority for him
as well.
Senator Warner. It is extremely important that you direct
your immediate attention to trying to resolve that problem. My
time is up. I will return for a second round.
Senator Reed [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Warner.
Senator Lieberman.
Senator Lieberman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Pack, Mr.
Schmitz, thank you for your willingness to serve.
Let us pick up, Ms. Pack, on what Senator Warner was
talking about. I was struck by the questions that Senator Byrd
asked the Secretary as well, and it seems to me one of the main
reasons that the Department has been unable to account for all
funds. In fact, since the enactment of the Chief Financial
Officer's Act which comes out of the Senate Governmental
Affairs Committee, which I serve on and am privileged to chair,
the Department has not produced a clean financial statement. As
you would know from your prior experience, part of the problem
is that the systems are antiquated and they do not talk to each
other, and that problem is further compounded by the hundreds
of so-called feeder systems within the Department which provide
critical inputs. I appreciate your intention to focus in on
this, and I hope you will feel free to return to us if you find
that you do not have the necessary authority, particularly to
address problems within those feeder systems that will affect
your capacity to financially manage the Army so that it is up
to the standards that I am sure you achieved in private
practice.
I do have one question about a very different point. As you
probably know, Congress and the administrations have always
insisted on full funding of Department of Defense weapons
systems, which means we put the full cost of a system in the
budget at the time we decide to buy it, even though the costs
are going to be incurred over a period of several years.
I wonder if you have had enough time to look at a matter
like this to offer an opinion as to whether you think it might
be feasible to go over to some sort of incremental system of
funding procurement of new weapons systems.
Ms. Pack. Senator, there are various methods of budgeting,
and there are tradeoffs with each of these, and I would say
that this is something that is important, and that needs to be
explored. How it will be applied within this context I really
could not say without more information, but it is something
that I would certainly want to review, and I would definitely
feel comfortable in reappearing or reporting back if I find
that the resources are not adequate to do the job, should I be
confirmed.
Senator Lieberman. Fine. I hope you will feel that the
lines of communication are open.
Interestingly the Inspectors General also come under my
other committee, Mr. Schmitz, and so I have a real interest in
them. I am proud of the work that they do, and I wanted to ask
you generally for this Department, which is so large, what
kinds of priorities would you bring to the position of
Inspector General of the Department of Defense?
Mr. Schmitz. Senator Lieberman, I addressed the priorities
in my response. I would be glad to elaborate.
Senator Lieberman. Why don't you talk about it a little
bit.
Mr. Schmitz. I would summarize real quickly. First and
foremost, I believe we need to address generally the issue of
integrity. In the scandal that Senator Warner mentioned, I
sense there is a cloud over the office, and it goes to basic
integrity. We need to address that, and we need to find out
what caused this lapse, and we need to figure out how to avoid
these types of lapses in the future.
The second is efficiency. The Inspector Generals are all
about waste, fraud, and abuse. We want to try to avoid those
inefficiencies.
Third is a priority that I have used in a leadership
capacity over the years; it is reinforcing the facts that we
take oaths to support the Constitution, we are officers of the
Government, we are ultimately accountable to the people of the
United States, and it is both a privilege and an obligation. I
think it is useful to continuously remind our officials of that
sacred obligation.
Senator Lieberman. I appreciate your answer, obviously. I
hope you will be relentless in pursuing your work. We are going
to be faced with some real pressure to meet the needs of our
military in the years ahead. To the extent you are able to
advise us about efficiencies of achieving savings that we can
apply more productively, we would welcome them.
My time is up, but I do want to note for the record my
pleasure at seeing in your background that you once clerked for
Hon. James L. Buckley, a distinguished citizen of the State of
Connecticut, and a member of a great Connecticut family that
had some small part to play in the fact that I am sitting in
this seat. A brother of the judge's whose name I will not
mention here formed a group called Buck PAC in my first
election, which was composed by his own description. This was
Bill Buckley, open for membership to anyone in Connecticut
named Buckley. [Laughter.]
Thanks, Mr. Schmitz.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Lieberman.
Senator Allard.
Senator Allard. Mr. Chairman, thank you. First of all I
want to compliment you and the chairman of the Armed Services
Committee for moving ahead with both of these confirmations,
because these are important positions. These are positions that
will put together facts and information that we need to know if
we are going to be able to do our job, and so I am pleased you
decided to move ahead.
It is these kinds of fundamental positions that I think we
need to fill just as quickly as we possibly can, because it
means we are going to have more accountability, and I would
like to thank you, Mr. Schmitz and Ms. Pack, for being willing
to serve in these positions. Because of their importance, I
think to Congress at times they do get controversial, and I
would ask you, Mr. Schmitz, have you ever heard of the
Government Performance and Results Act?
Mr. Schmitz. Senator, I have not.
Senator Allard. This is one of the things that Congress has
implemented and begun to apply to the agencies, and I would ask
that you become familiar with it, because what we do is, we
encourage the agencies to set measurable goals and objectives
and to then report back to Congress. It seems to me that
perhaps some of the issues you talked about in answering the
questions here would help you in managing the Inspector
General's Office. You are the eyes and ears of Congress, the
U.S. House of Representatives as well as the Senate. We do
depend a lot on information that you provide us, and many of us
here feel that is an important management tool.
Then I would also ask Ms. Pack if she would share with us
if she is familiar with the Government Performance and Results
Act, and how she might apply that in her responsibilities.
Ms. Pack. Senator, I have been briefed on this a little
bit, and it strikes me that this could be characterized as
sound business practices, which is one of the priorities that
Secretary White testified that he would be interested in
achieving. I am not sure exactly how I would apply it here, but
I can tell you that I do believe in establishing performance
standards and then measuring performance against those
standards.
Senator Allard. I would speak to both of you. What we are
trying to do in the Government Performance and Results Act is
put in measurable ways and your being an accountant, you know
how to do that. There is the financial side and then there is
the management side of how you do an audit and how you have
accountability on that. The agencies have been rather reluctant
to comply with this law, and there are very few that actually
do. I think it is important as a Member of Congress, and I
continue to push this. So you will probably hear from me from
time to time to push these provisions because I think they are
good common sense things.
Lots of business managers utilize them. Companies and the
agencies just simply have been reluctant to try and apply it,
and like you mentioned in your comment, just good, common
business sense, and again I would hope that both of you take a
good look at those provisions and do what you can to get it to
apply to your agencies and encourage more widespread use of
that throughout the military.
Again, there are really some special problems with that and
how it applies. The military is going to require a lot of
beyond-the-box thinking to get it to apply, but I think it can
be made to apply, and I think for those of us who are strong
supporters of the Defense Department and what your goals and
objectives are, I would think it is one of the things that
helps keep you out of trouble and makes it easier for us to do
our job on your behalf. I see my time has expired. Thank you.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Senator Allard.
Senator Carnahan.
Senator Carnahan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to
welcome our distinguished panel here today, and apologize
somewhat for our temporary meeting space here, although there
may be some benefit because the discomfort of the metal chairs
may shorten the length of the questions.
The next Inspector General will assume this post at a very
pivotal time in our history. He will have to assess the
Pentagon during a time when we will be promoting a war on
terrorism. What do you believe will be the most challenging
issues that face the next Inspector General?
Mr. Schmitz. Senator, the Inspector General will have to
face many of these same huge challenges the entire Department
is facing in terms of transforming the United States Armed
Forces into an organization that can combat enemies like
terrorism, and that is a big transformation. That is not
business as usual, and it requires thinking out-of-the-box, and
it requires thoughtfulness and working together with this
committee and with the leadership in the Pentagon to make sure
we do it right.
Senator Carnahan. As the next Inspector General, you would
be responsible for promoting economy and efficiency within the
Department as far as programs and operations go. The Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics
greatly relies on the Inspector General's reports to make
important acquisition decisions. Would you please describe your
commitment to promoting acquisition reform, and what do you
envision the Inspector General's role to be in supporting such
initiatives?
Mr. Schmitz. Senator, I am aware of acquisition reform that
is ongoing, and I have met with the Under Secretary. I frankly
have not had a chance to get into the details of exactly what
reform involves, but I certainly understand and am committed to
the mission of the Inspector General's Office to promote
efficiency in the Department, so I just have not had a chance
to get into the interstices of the reform yet.
Senator Carnahan. One final question. In the event of an
Inspector General investigation into alleged impropriety, I
certainly believe that impartiality is very important. Would
you discuss your commitment to such objectivity, especially in
the cases that involve conflicting testimonies between victims
and those that are accused of specific abuses?
Mr. Schmitz. I have been practicing law for 15 years, and I
am used to dealing with conflicting testimony. I often have to
gather facts, and I have to make my own judgments. That is part
of what a practicing attorney does on a day-to-day basis. I
have a lot of experience in that, and frankly the good
attorneys are the ones that are best at making the judgments,
of weighing the conflicting evidence and coming up with the
best strategy and moving forward with a case.
I would anticipate utilizing my experience in that regard,
and I am certainly committed to objectivity, and to what the
Army likes to call the dogged pursuit of the truth.
Senator Carnahan. Very good. Thank you very much.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Carnahan.
Mr. Schmitz, when I was listening to your response to
Senator Levin about the letter to the Washington Times, a
question occurred to me. How did the Washington Times determine
that you were a Lieutenant in the Navy Reserve?
Mr. Schmitz. Senator, I was a lieutenant commander at the
time, and when I signed the letter I indicated underneath my
typed name LCDR, USNR-R, and the R is what is required under
the letter of the law to indicate that you are not on active
duty. That is why I mentioned I was following the letter of the
law. You are allowed to use your Reserve title. You just have
to make it clear that you are not representing the opinion of
the Naval Reserve.
Senator Reed. You deliberately chose to identify yourself
as a naval officer. You could have easily identified yourself
as a lawyer, as a member of the firm, in a number of ways.
Mr. Schmitz. That is the lesson I learned, Senator.
Senator Reed. What lesson?
Mr. Schmitz. Mea culpa. That is the lesson I learned. I
would not use my title like that again. Even though I am
permitted under the ethics regulations, I would not do it
again.
Senator Reed. So we can assume that if a lieutenant
commander in the Naval Reserve wrote a letter disparaging
President Bush, or an elected official of the United States,
your conclusion would be that was inappropriate conduct for a
naval officer, Reserve or active?
Mr. Schmitz. I would advise such a lieutenant commander not
to do it, based on my own personal experience.
Senator Reed. One of the difficult tasks of your proposed
job, is, you have to do contradictory things. You have to have
a rapport with the Secretary of Defense so that he trusts you
as an advisor, but you also have to seek out information and
investigate conditions which might be very embarrassing to the
Department of Defense. I think you understand that, because you
have experience. You have been trained.
You also have to have, as you suggested in your opening
testimony, an image of integrity, commitment to the service not
deflected by partisanship or personal motives, one that
everyone in the Department of Defense, from the Secretary down
to E-1, would feel confident to come and confide in you, and
one of the aspects that Senator Levin talked about was your
participation in this English only movement.
Now, I do not think we have to go over parsing what it does
and what it does not represent, but it might suggest to many
members in the military who are legitimately concerned about
their status because their first language is not English, that
you are not as sensitive to their concerns, or more sensitive
to other concerns. That is something you are going to have to
deal with as you go forward.
But once again, I think--and I am eliciting an affirmative
response--that you see this tension of having the ear of the
Secretary but also seeking out information is one that will
challenge you a great deal. Can you comment on that?
Mr. Schmitz. Yes, Senator. I have been serving in the
functional equivalent of an inspector general position for the
last 2 years. Actually, my term just ended at the end of
September. It is called the Deputy Senior Inspector only
because in the Navy we do not have inspectors general going
down that low, but on a number of occasions I have had to look
into issues and report to the commander bad news. That comes
with the territory. I am used to doing that. It is a difficult
job to do sometimes, but that comes with the territory and I am
prepared to do that.
Senator Reed. Fine. Ms. Pack, you have an excellent
financial and accounting management record extending over many
years, but by your own admission, you know very little about
the United States Army, which is an interesting world unto
itself sometimes. What are you doing to rapidly get you up to
speed to understand not only the jargon but the systems there?
Ms. Pack. Senator, thank you for asking that question. The
Army has plans for getting me up to speed, and I have already
been receiving briefings, and will continue to, should I be
confirmed. That also includes taking trips to installations and
visiting soldiers, and I assure you I will do everything I can
to get myself educated as quickly as possible. It is important
to me in doing any job to understand what the people are facing
in performing their jobs and their duties, so this obviously
will be a priority, and it will be something that I will
continue throughout the job, should I be confirmed.
Senator Reed. Thank you. Again, another point, I think, and
it is obvious but I will make it anyway and that is, your
experience of the last several years has been somewhat partisan
in nature, with your involvement in active electoral politics,
which is your right--in fact, one would argue, duty of a
citizen.
You are going into a different world in which, particularly
at this time where we are engaged in an all-out war against
terrorists, where nonpartisan operation is the key, and I think
you understand that.
Ms. Pack. Absolutely, Senator.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much.
Senator Warner.
Senator Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Schmitz, a question on the technicalities of this
Reserve situation. Were you in a drill status, drawing pay at
the time you wrote the letter, or an inactive status?
Mr. Schmitz. Inactive status.
Senator Warner. I am quite familiar with that. I think that
technical standpoint clarifies any question as to the legality
of what you did.
Mr. Schmitz. It was not my drill weekend. I was on my free
time.
Senator Warner. You were not then, drawing drill pay
intermittently, were you?
Mr. Schmitz. No. I was assigned to a unit at the time.
Senator Warner. So you were drawing drill pay?
Mr. Schmitz. Yes, but I was not on my drill weekend.
Senator Warner. But you were not in an inactive status. In
other words, I served 12 years in the Reserves, many years ago.
I was largely in an inactive status, subject to recall.
Mr. Schmitz. I was what they call Selected Reserves.
Senator Warner. An interesting question by our colleague,
Senator Lieberman. He is the chairman of the committee that has
overall jurisdiction and oversight on the Inspectors General,
and it is interesting, the statute establishing the Department
of Defense Inspector General is unique in that it provides
somewhat less independence to the Department of Defense
Inspector General as compared to the statutory independence of
other executive department Inspectors General.
I remember when this committee wrote the statute, some of
the reasons for it, but in any event, in your opinion does the
Department of Defense Inspector General possess the necessary
statutory authority to carry out what is expected of an
Inspector General, and would you like to take that question for
the record? I would accept that response, because it is rather
complicated.
Mr. Schmitz. It is a very complicated question, Senator,
and I have been shown a binder about 4 inches thick about the
debate over the distinction that you just mentioned.
Senator Warner. I would ask that you commit to this
committee that in the course of your duties, if you feel that
the current statute is inadequate to fulfill the
responsibilities of an Inspector General, that you would be
forthcoming to the committee with a recommendation.
Mr. Schmitz. I can so commit.
[The information referred to follows:]
It would be premature for me to offer at this time any
recommendations on statutory changes to the authorities of the Office
of the Inspector General that might be necessary. If confirmed, I will
commit to a thorough review of current statutes and will be forthcoming
with this committee on any changes that I may recommend.
Senator Warner. Now lastly, Mr. Schmitz, and I say this
with a sense of humility, but I have been on this committee 23
years, and I spent 5 years in the Department, so that begins to
add up to a little bit of experience, and I have been involved
in hundreds of nomination proceedings while in the Department.
I have heard testimony from a great many nominees and have
known the quality of each of them to serve in the Navy
Department. I full well recognize, having lived the life myself
for nearly three-quarters of a century, that as you go through
life you have friends, enemies, family, and other persons with
whom you have some degree of association whose conduct does not
meet the standards that we in our society expect of people.
There is in the public domain some information about persons
with whom you have had some association.
I have examined that, and it is my conclusion that those
particular cases have no relevance, in my judgment, to the
nomination that comes before us in our advise and consent role.
But we have a fiduciary duty not only to the members of the
committee who may not be present here, but all 100 Senators. I
would simply say that I am available to discuss with any Member
of the United States Senate such questions as they may have
about the material that is in the public domain, and that I
will again express my opinion to them that it has no relevance
to your nomination.
Mr. Schmitz. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Warner. I just wanted to make that statement for
the record.
By the way, I intend to support this nomination.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Warner.
Senator Sessions.
Senator Sessions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for proceeding with this hearing, and I am sorry
that unavoidable matters have kept me in another area of the
Capitol. I would make a few remarks, and I suspect you are
ready to conclude the hearing, to express my appreciation for
both of these individuals, who are giving of themselves to
serve their country.
I think it is exceedingly important, one of the hardest
things we have to do around here is getting good information,
good, honest data from which to make decisions. You would think
it would be easy. I find it very difficult. People can
misinterpret even good data, so it is a double problem there.
As a Federal prosecutor for a number of years, Mr. Schmitz,
I would say to you that I hope you will remember and teach your
agents that they serve the public, that they should feel no
pressure or thought that they might embarrass the Department of
Defense. If there is a problem it really ought to be aired. If
somebody has done something illegal, it should be referred for
prosecution, and I think sometimes that is not always done.
Most Inspectors General are really aggressive and try to do
a good job, but sometimes matters that are criminal ought to be
referred for criminal prosecution and not kept in-house. I know
that is a delicate decision that you will have to make many
times, whether the cases are worthy of prosecution, as opposed
to just disciplinary action, or closing the books on them.
Mr. Chairman, I would say how much I appreciate your moving
this. I believe it will be important to have these nominees
confirmed and on board, and get the Defense Department humming,
and I look forward to working with both of them.
Thank you.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Sessions.
There are no further questions. Thank you very much, Mr.
Schmitz and Ms. Pack. The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:28 p.m., the committee adjourned.]
[Prepared questions submitted to Joseph E. Schmitz by
Chairman Levin prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
July 19, 2001.
The Hon. Carl Levin,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Enclosed are the answers to the advance
questions the Senate Armed Services Committee asked me to complete.
Sincerely,
Joseph E. Schmitz.
cc:
The Hon. John W. Warner,
Ranking Minority Member.
______
Questions and Responses
defense reforms
Question. More than a decade has passed since the enactment of the
Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and
the Special Operations reforms.
Do you support full implementation of these defense reforms?
Answer. Yes, I support the implementation of these reforms. It is
my understanding that the focus on ``jointness'' outlined in the
Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 has significantly enhanced the
readiness and warfighting capabilities of the U.S. armed forces.
Question. What is your view of the extent to which these defense
reforms have been implemented?
Answer. It is my understanding that these reforms have
fundamentally changed the way the Department of Defense works by
strengthening civilian control of DOD, improving military advice given
to the President and Secretary of Defense, and advancing the ability of
the Department to carry out its fundamental mission--protecting
America's security and furthering its vital interests.
Question. What do you consider to be the most important aspects of
these defense reforms?
Answer. The most important aspects of these defense reforms, as I
understand them, are the clear responsibility and authority given the
Combatant Commanders for mission accomplishment, and the increased
attention to formulation of strategy and contingency planning.
Question. The goals of Congress in enacting these defense reforms,
as reflected in section 3 of the Goldwater-Nichols Department of
Defense Reorganization Act, can be summarized as strengthening civilian
control; improving military advice; placing clear responsibility in the
combatant commanders for the accomplishment of their missions; ensuring
the authority of the combatant commanders is commensurate with their
responsibility; increasing attention to the formulation of strategy and
to contingency planning; providing for more efficient use of defense
resources; and enhancing the effectiveness of military operations and
improving the management and administration of the Department of
Defense.
Do you agree with these goals?
Answer. Yes, I support the goals of Congress in enacting the
Goldwater-Nichols legislation.
Question. Recently, there have been articles, which indicate an
interest within the Department of Defense in modifying Goldwater-
Nichols in light of the changing environment and possible revisions to
the national strategy.
Do you anticipate that legislative proposals to amend Goldwater-
Nichols may be appropriate? If so, what areas do you believe it might
be appropriate to address in these proposals?
Answer. I have not had the opportunity to review any proposed
amendments to Goldwater-Nichols. I anticipate that the Department would
consult closely with Congress, especially with this committee, before
any modifications are suggested.
duties
Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
the Inspector General of the Department of Defense?
Answer. The duties and functions of the Inspector General of the
Department of Defense are specified in the Inspector General Act of
1978, as amended. It is my understanding that the Inspector General
conducts and supervises audits and investigations of all aspects of
Defense operations, and provides leadership, coordination, and policy
for activities designed to promote sound management and combat fraud
and abuse. I believe that the DOD Inspector General bears an obligation
to keep both the Secretary of Defense and Congress fully and currently
informed on significant problems in Defense programs, the need for
corrective action, and the status of such action.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what duties and functions do
you expect that the Secretary of Defense would prescribe for you?
Answer. If I am confirmed, I expect that the Secretary of Defense
will prescribe for me the full extent of the duties set forth in
Section 8 of the Inspector General Act. In this regard, I look forward
to the opportunity to serve as ``the principal adviser to the Secretary
of Defense for matters relating to the prevention and detection of
waste, fraud, and abuse within the programs and operations of the
Department.''
Question. Section 2 of the Inspector General Act states that the
purpose of that Act is to create ``independent and objective units'' to
conduct and supervise audits and investigations, and for other
purposes.
Are you committed to maintaining the independence of the Inspector
General as set forth in the Inspector General statute?
Answer. I am fully committed to maintaining, if confirmed, the
independence of the Inspector General as set forth in the Inspector
General Act. I believe that individuals who conduct audits and
investigations bear a heavy responsibility to maintain the highest
standards of integrity, credibility, and fairness. To meet those
standards, every audit and investigation must be independent, unbiased,
and free from outside interference. Having relied on those principles
throughout my careers as a naval officer and as an attorney, I am
confident that, if confirmed, I will maintain the kind of independence
called for by the statute.
Question. Section 3 of the Inspector General Act provides that the
head of the agency (e.g., the Secretary of Defense) may not ``prevent
or prohibit the Inspector General from initiating, carrying out, or
completing any audit or investigation, or from issuing any subpoena
during the course of any audit or investigation,'' subject to limited
exceptions.
What is your view of the relationship between the Inspector General
and the Secretary with regard to audits and investigations, in view of
the independence provided by Section 3?
Answer. If confirmed, I would attempt to establish a strong and
constructive working relationship with the Secretary and other senior
officials without in any way compromising the independence and
integrity of audits and investigations conducted by the Office of the
Inspector General.
Question. Sections 4 and 8 of the Inspector General Act set forth a
number of duties for the Inspector General, beyond the conduct of
audits and investigations.
What is your view of the relationship between the Inspector General
and the Secretary with regard to these issues?
Answer. If confirmed, I will strive to provide sound advice and
assistance to management in improving departmental efficiency and
performance and preventing fraud, waste, and abuse.
To be effective and productive, I believe that the relationship
between the Inspector General and the Secretary must be based on
respect, confidence, and trust. Obviously, those must be earned--in the
case of the Inspector General, by a consistent track record of
credibility, professionalism, and fairness in audits, inspections, and
investigations. If confirmed, I would strive to maintain those
standards in the Office of the Inspector General and to develop the
kind of solid working relationship with the Department's senior
management that the statute envisions.
Question. Section 3 of the Inspector General Act provides for the
Inspector General to have a demonstrated ability in accounting,
financial analysis, law, management analysis, public administration, or
investigations.
What background and experience do you possess that you believe
qualifies you to perform the duties of the Inspector General?
Answer. The following information documents my qualifications and
experience for this position:
(1) Experience relevant to the position of Inspector General of the
Department of Defense:
(a) 27 years of naval service (4 years at Naval Academy, 5 years
active duty as surface warfare officer, and 18 years as a reservist),
most recently as Deputy Senior Inspector, a.k.a. ``Inspector General,''
for the Naval Reserve Intelligence Program (since October 1999),
responsible for Command Inspections/Audits, Investigations, and
Intelligence Oversight of more than 4,000 naval reservists nationwide:
Acknowledged as one of only two Intelligence Oversight
internet experts within the Department of Defense at the
Secretary's first-ever National Intelligence Oversight
Conference in October 2000;
Prepared a pocket edition of the Declaration of
Independence and Constitution for the Naval Inspector General,
with an introduction and excerpts from laws underlying the
various constraints on governmental abuses of power within the
Navy, especially those within the responsibility of the
Inspector General: the laws against waste, fraud, abuse, Posse
Comitatus Act, and Intelligence Oversight;
Executive Officer of the Naval Criminal Investigative
Service (NCIS) Headquarters Reserve Unit (October 1997-
September 1999); Unit awarded the prestigious ``O'Connell
Award'' for being the best overall large unit in the entire
Naval Reserve Intelligence Program for fiscal year 1998;
Executive Officer of Office of Naval Intelligence
Counter-narcotic Reserve Unit (October 1995-September 1997);
author of ONI's first-ever comprehensive analysis of legal and
practical restrictions imposed by the Constitution, the Posse
Comitatus Act, and Intelligence Oversight laws, on the
utilization of naval reservist in support of local law
enforcement efforts under the auspices of the High Intensity
Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) program (work product still
utilized as training ``bible'' for Department of Defense
counter-narcotic reservists mobilizing to support local law
enforcement efforts);
Project supervisor and co-author of the Defense HUMINT
Service's ``Intelligence Law Handbook'' (DIA Doc. # CC-0000-
181-95, September 1995), prepared by team of five reservist
during annual active duty in DIA's Office of the General
Counsel (still cited as DIA's authority on Intelligence Law);
Joint Service Commendation Medal; Navy and Marine
Corps Commendation Medal (twice); Joint Service Achievement
Medal; Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal; Navy
Expeditionary Medal; National Service Medal (twice); Military
Outstanding Volunteer Service Medal; Naval Reserve Medal; Navy
Expert Rifle Medal; Navy Expert Pistol Medal;
Bundeswehrleistungsabzeichen (German Armed Forces Achievement
Award); Deutsches Sportabzeichen (German Sport Award).
(b) Partner in major international law firm, with 14 years
experience in complex litigation, including constitutional appellate
litigation, whistleblower representation, and challenges to illegal
actions by high-level government officials.
(c) Adjunct Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center
(since 1995); developed and taught advanced Constitutional Law
seminar--focusing on constraints on governmental abuses of power.
(d) Special Assistant to the Attorney General of United States, the
Honorable Edwin Meese III (1987).
(e) Law Clerk to the Honorable James L. Buckley, Circuit Judge,
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
(1986-1987); analyzed and briefed complex cases for Federal judge.
(2) Testimony/Publications Relevant to Duties of Inspector General
of Department of Defense:
(a) Testified as a constitutional expert before the:
U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee at its Constitutional
Subcommittee Hearing on a Proposed Constitutional Amendment to
Prohibit Retroactive Taxation (August 4, 1994);
U.S. Senate Governmental Affairs Committee at its
Hearing on a Proposed Statutory Ban on Retroactive Taxation
(December 7, 1995); and
U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee at its Constitutional
Subcommittee Hearing on a Proposed Constitutional Amendment to
Prohibit Retroactive Taxation (April 15, 1996).
(b) Various published articles addressing issues of national
security and accountability, including ``Selling to Moscow Without
Selling Out America,'' The Wall Street Journal (Dec. 1989); and
``Coping With the New Russian Nuclear Threat: A Legal Alternative to
Environmental Extortion,'' Georgetown International Environmental Law
Review (1993).
Question. Do you believe that there are any steps that you need to
take to enhance your expertise to perform these duties?
Answer. I believe that I have the requisite expertise to perform
the duties of the Inspector General. If confirmed, I will of course
undertake extensive briefings and reviews of ongoing Inspector General
projects and activities.
Question. Based on your background and experience, are there any
changes that you would recommend with respect to the organization or
responsibilities of the Inspector General?
Answer. At this point it would be premature for me to recommend
organizational changes without first having had the opportunity to
become thoroughly familiar with the activities and operations of the
Office of the Inspector General.
Question. Please describe your understanding of both the formal and
informal relationships between the Inspector General and each of the
following: the Comptroller General; the General Counsel for the
Department of Defense; the Defense Contract Audit Agency; the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics; the
Defense Acquisition Regulatory Council; the Director of Operational
Test and Evaluation; the Inspectors General of the Military
Departments; the Inspectors General of the Defense Agencies; the
Criminal Investigative Organizations of the Military Departments; the
General Counsels and Judge Advocates General of the Military Services;
the Audit Agencies of the Military Departments; the General Counsels,
and Judge Advocates General of the Military Services.
Answer. It is my belief that the Inspector General must work
closely with the Comptroller General to ensure that Department of
Defense audit activities are coordinated with those of the General
Accounting Office (GAO) to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort.
Towards that end, the Inspector General and the Comptroller General
exchange work plans, coordinate each new audit between the two
organizations, provide audit results to each other, and share audit
follow-up status information. It is my understanding that, under long-
standing DOD procedures, the Inspector General is the central DOD focal
point for processing all GAO project announcements and reports
requiring DOD comments.
In addition, I understand that it is incumbent upon the DODIG, as
specified in the Inspector General Act of 1978, to comply with
standards established by the Comptroller General of the United States
for audits of Federal establishments, organizations, programs,
activities, and functions; that the DODIG must take appropriate steps
to assure that any work performed by non-Federal auditors complies with
the standards established by the Comptroller General; and that the
DODIG must develop policy, evaluate program performance, and monitor
actions taken by all components of the Department in response to
contract audits, internal audits, internal review reports, and audits
conducted by the Comptroller General of the United States.
It is my understanding that the Inspector General and General
Counsel work closely together on matters related to proposed
legislation and regulations, audit findings that raise legal issues,
and departmental policies on subjects ranging from ethics to
contracting procedures. I also understand that the Inspector General
receives direct legal support from a Deputy General Counsel in the
Office of the DOD General Counsel under the terms of a memorandum of
understanding that is intended to safeguard the independence of the
Deputy General Counsel. If confirmed, I will have an opportunity to
observe whether any impediments to the Inspector General's independence
actually exist and whether any changes to the current arrangement might
be necessary.
It is my understanding that the Inspector General has the
responsibility to provide policy direction and to conduct, supervise,
and coordinate audits regarding departmental programs and operations.
Given the scope of that authority, there is apparently frequent
interaction between the Office of the Inspector General and the Defense
Contract Audit Agency (DCAA), which is the largest DOD audit
organization.
I also understand that, while DCAA reports to the Under Secretary
of Defense (Comptroller), it operates under audit policies established
by the Inspector General. As such, the Director of the DCAA, along with
other Department Audit Chiefs, meets regularly with the Inspector
General to discuss and coordinate audit activities. I understand that a
significant portion of the Inspector General's audit oversight efforts
is focused on the DCAA, and DCAA provides a significant amount of audit
support to DODInspector General procurement fraud investigations.
It is my understanding that the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics is responsible for a very large
segment of departmental operations and, as such, is a major recipient
and user of services and reports provided by the Office of the
Inspector General.
The Under Secretary's involvement would appear to be especially
valuable to the Inspector General in audit planning efforts,
particularly in the acquisition area. If confirmed, I will ensure that
the Inspector General's audit and investigative coverage supports DOD
acquisition and logistics reform efforts.
It is my understanding that the Defense Acquisition Regulatory
Council formally requests comments from the Inspector General on all
proposed rules. I also understand that the Inspector General has
traditionally put considerable emphasis on review of those proposals.
If confirmed, I would anticipate continuing that emphasis.
It is my understanding that the Director of Operational Test and
Evaluation frequently requests audit coverage and is a principal user
of many reports issued by the Office of the Inspector General. If
confirmed, I would continue to support these cooperative efforts.
Pursuant to the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, the
Inspector General of the Department of Defense has a duty to ``give
particular regard to the activities of the internal audit, inspection,
and investigative units of the military departments with a view toward
avoiding duplication and insuring effective coordination and
cooperation,'' (Sec. 8(c)(9)), but the service secretaries retain
operational control over all departmental audit and criminal
investigative elements. Although it may seem that there would be
extensively overlapping responsibilities between the Department of
Defense Inspector General and the Military Department Inspectors
General, I believe that there are distinct differences in their roles.
The Military Department Inspectors General reportedly focus much more
on force morale, welfare, and readiness issues. Their inspection
programs are shaped by the priorities of their Services. It is my
understanding that the Department of Defense Inspector General
exchanges audit and inspection plans with the other Inspectors General
to avoid duplication, and that the Department of Defense Inspector
General occasionally leads joint reviews.
I also understand that Department of Defense directives governing
other activities in which the Military Department Inspectors General
participate also confer upon the DOD Inspector General both policy and
oversight roles with respect to those activities. These include the
Department of Defense Hotline, whistleblower reprisal investigations,
and investigations against senior officials.
If confirmed, I plan to meet personally with the Military
Department Inspectors General regularly to ensure that cooperation is
optimized.
It is my understanding that the Inspectors General of the Defense
Agencies report to their respective agency heads. However, in areas
such as inspections, audits, and the operations of hotlines, they come
under the policymaking authority of the Department of Defense Inspector
General. I believe that their audit activities are more analogous to
Defense Inspector General audits than to Military Department Inspector
General inspections. Therefore there are more formal arrangements for
joint audit planning, especially for the intelligence agencies. If
confirmed, I will seek to provide leadership within this portion of the
oversight community, too.
Statutorily, the Inspector General has the authority to initiate,
conduct, and supervise criminal investigations relating to any and all
programs and operations of the Department of Defense. Moreover, the
Inspector General is statutorily authorized to develop policy, monitor
and evaluate program performance, and provide guidance regarding all
criminal investigative programs within the Department. In short, it is
my understanding that the Inspector General directly interacts with the
military criminal investigative organizations (MCIOs) in two broad
areas: the conduct of criminal investigations in which there may be
joint interest and the exercise of the Inspector General's policy and
oversight role with regard to operations of the MCIOs. There appear to
be many criminal investigations that impact primarily on the
jurisdiction of a local commander and that are conducted by the
appropriate MCIO or post military or security policy agency, while the
Inspector General would be more heavily involved in investigations that
affect major departmental programs or affect more than one military
service. However, I believe that there are many criminal
investigations, particularly in the fraud area, where there is joint
interest and/or activity by both the Inspector General and the MCIOs
and where close coordination of effort is required. If confirmed, I
would work to maximize such cooperation.
Statutorily, the Inspector General has the responsibility to
provide policy direction and to conduct, supervise, and coordinate
audits relating to DOD programs and operations. Obviously, under that
authority, the Inspector General would have occasion to work closely
with the military audit agencies.
It is my understanding that the heads of the military audit
organizations have been meeting at least quarterly with the DOD Deputy
Inspector General to discuss ongoing issues, plans, and ways to better
assist Department management. There are also several joint audit-
planning groups that have been created to improve and coordinate
planning. I believe that the auditors from the Office of the Inspector
General and the military organizations frequently assist each other on
specific projects, particularly those involving audits required by the
Chief Financial Officers Act. If confirmed, I would continue the
emphasis on close coordination and joint efforts. In addition, I would
ensure that Defense audit policies provide a good foundation for top
quality audit support to the Department.
It is my understanding that while there is no formal relationship
between the Inspector General and the Military Department General
Counsels and Judge Advocates General, on an informal level good working
relationships have evolved on a case-by-case basis where there is some
mutual interest. Moreover, I understand that attorneys assigned to the
Office of the Inspector General occasionally seek assistance from these
offices when an audit or investigation raises issues with which they
may have some particular expertise.
major challenges and problems
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will
confront the Inspector General of the Department of Defense?
Answer. I believe that the new Inspector General of the Department
of Defense will need to confront immediately a number of challenges.
First and foremost, I am aware of the serious allegations that more
than a dozen employees in the office of the Inspector General of the
Department of Defense participated in or were aware of the destruction
of internal work papers related to an audit and the preparation and
backdating of a new set of work papers in an effort to improve the
office's performance in an external peer review. If confirmed, I will
ensure that these allegations were fully investigated and will do
whatever it takes as expeditiously as possible to restore full
confidence in the integrity, reliability, and credibility of the Office
of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense.
In addition, the Inspector General of the Department of Defense
will need to confront the same major challenges facing both the
Secretary of Defense and congressional leadership vis-a-vis
transforming our Armed Forces to meet emerging 21st century threats,
including recruitment and retention of the most qualified personnel,
sound management of existing technical assets, and intelligent
utilization of new technology. The entire Department of Defense is
still transitioning into the post-Cold War era, where national security
demands are different, information technology is driving management
processes, and both the force structure and infrastructure need further
adjustments. With hundreds of reform initiatives already under way and
others likely, there is a compelling need for objective feedback to
senior management on how well reforms are working and whether
performance reporting is reliable. In addition, high risk areas like
information system acquisition have received relatively little audit
coverage during the 1990s, and there is a compelling need to strengthen
protections against computer crime, health care fraud, and similar
threats. I believe that the Inspector General must make very thoughtful
allocations of limited resources among the many conflicting priorities,
requirements, and requests that confront the office during this
challenging period of transformation.
Finally, I feel that the Inspector General must be seen as both a
guardian of enduring core values and an agent of reform, not a defender
of overly complex and outmoded rules and processes.
Above all, I strongly believe that the Inspector General must be
perceived as being completely independent, candid, and fair.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. Assuming I am confirmed, I would first endeavor to assess
the extent and scope of the aforementioned allegations involving the
external peer review. In this regard, I understand that another outside
peer review has already been commissioned to identify deficiencies. I
hope that this ongoing process will assist in the overall damage
assessment. If confirmed, once I feel confident that any and all
lingering problems have been accurately assessed, I will take whatever
action is necessary to promptly remedy the deficiencies.
Regarding the broader challenges mentioned above, if confirmed, I
anticipate working closely with both the Secretary of Defense and with
the congressional leadership to ensure that the various policy
recommendations that result from the ongoing Department of Defense
reviews are implemented in a manner that is consistent with the letter
and spirit of the policies and proscriptions underlying the Inspector
General Act of 1978, as amended, including effective coordination and
cooperation among the military departments.
Question. What do you consider to be the most serious problems in
the performance of the functions of the Inspector General of the
Department of Defense?
Answer. If confirmed, I will need carefully to review the functions
and past performances of the Inspector General and the Office of the
Inspector General in the Department of Defense. As noted above, I am
aware of serious allegations regarding an external peer review. As
mentioned above, if confirmed, I will ensure that these allegations
were fully investigated.
Question. If confirmed, what management actions and time lines
would you establish to address these problems?
Answer. See my answer to question 3B above. Until I am able
thoroughly to assess the problems, of course, I cannot establish a plan
of action and time lines to address the problems. As mentioned above,
if confirmed, once I feel confident that the problems have been
thoroughly and accurately assessed, I will take whatever action is
necessary promptly to remedy the deficiencies.
Question. What broad priorities will you establish in terms of
issues, which must be addressed by the Inspector General?
Answer. If confirmed, I will endeavor to establish and address the
following three broad priorities: (1) integrity; (2) efficiency; and
(3) enthusiastic commitment to the core principles underlying our
Constitution, foremost of which are the Rule of Law, various
constraints on governmental abuses of power, including effective checks
and balances, and ultimate accountability of public officials to ``the
People of the United States.''
senior officer investigations
Question. The Office of Inspector General plays a key role in the
investigation of allegations of misconduct by senior officers and
civilian employees of the Department of Defense. The Senate Armed
Services Committee has a particular interest in investigations
concerning officers who are subject to Senate confirmation, and relies
upon the Office of Inspector General to ensure that these
investigations are accurate and complete.
If confirmed, what steps will you take to ensure that these
investigations are conducted in a fair and impartial manner, and that
complete and accurate information is provided to this committee in a
timely manner?
Answer. If confirmed, I will continue to emphasize the Inspector
General role of ensuring that allegations of misconduct involving
senior DOD officials are properly addressed. Senior DOD officials are
understandably held to the highest standards of conduct. Alleged
violations of law or regulation must be investigated aggressively,
competently, and impartially.
I believe that vigilant oversight of senior official investigations
conducted by the Service Inspectors General, coupled with continual
improvement in our own investigative capability, are the keys to
maintaining excellence and credibility in this area. If confirmed, I
will reemphasize the requirement that all allegations involving senior
officials be reported to the DODIG within 5 days as required, and that
a review of the nature of the allegations is conducted to ensure that
the Service Inspector General possess the necessary independence to
conduct an impartial inquiry. I will not hesitate to assume
investigative jurisdiction where appropriate--particularly in cases
where the subject of the allegations is a political appointee, where
the subject outranks the Service Inspector General, or where
allegations cross Service lines.
Question. If confirmed, what standard would you apply to
allegations of misconduct against nominees for senior civilian and
military positions requiring the advice and consent of the Senate in
deciding whether and when to inform the committee of any such
allegations?
Answer. If confirmed, I would anticipate continuing what I
understand to be the current policy of reporting allegations of
misconduct involving senior officials if those allegations are being
addressed by an open investigation or inquiry. I would not anticipate
reporting every allegation that the Office of the Inspector General of
the Department of Defense might receive. I believe that the integrity
of the nomination process and fairness to all concerned demands that we
conduct a preliminary review of any incoming complaint against a
nominated official to determine whether that complaint warrants
investigation. Such a preliminary review would determine whether the
allegation is credible, whether the alleged conduct violated an
established standard, and whether the complaint provides sufficient
information to enable a focused inquiry.
If confirmed, I will insist that such a preliminary review be
completed expeditiously. If the preliminary review cannot be rapidly
concluded, an investigation would be opened and the allegations would
be reported to the committee.
My understanding is that the DODIG receives numerous allegations
and complaints through a variety of sources, but that only a small
percent of those allegations warrant investigation. I also understand
that last year nearly 12,000 contacts were made with the DOD Hotline,
but that only 2,000 of those contacts resulted in any type of
investigative work.
Question. Do you believe that the current allocation of
responsibilities between the Department of Defense Inspector General
and the military departments is appropriate to ensure fair and
impartial investigations?
Answer. I am unaware of any problems with the current allocation of
responsibilities.
authorities of the inspector general's office
Question. In recent years, the Office of Inspector General has
sought increased authority to issue subpoenas, carry weapons, and make
arrests.
Do you believe that the authorities of the Office of Inspector
General are adequate in these areas, or would you recommend further
changes in law?
Answer. It is my understanding that the current staff of the Office
of the Inspector General considers the recently augmented authority to
be adequate. I am not aware of any need for further changes in the law
at this time. If confirmed, I will notify the Department and Congress
if anything comes to my attention that would warrant legislative
action.
activities of the inspector general's office
Question. In recent years, representatives of the Inspector
General's Office have participated on integrated process teams and
other cross-cutting groups established to address deficiencies and
problem areas in the Department.
What role do you believe the Office of Inspector General should
play in advising the Secretary and other officials in the Department on
management issues such as acquisition policy and financial management
policy?
Answer. I believe it makes good sense for the Department to avail
itself of advice from the Office of the Inspector General throughout
the cycle of devising policy, planning for implementation of that
policy, deciding what performance measures will be used, analyzing
feedback on implementation status, addressing impediments to
implementation, evaluating results, and adjusting policies if
necessary.
Question. Are you concerned that the participation of
representatives of the Office of Inspector General in efforts of this
kind could undermine the independence of the office?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Office of the Inspector
General has participated in numerous task forces, IPTs, and similar
groups without a significant question ever being raised concerning its
role and independence. If confirmed, I would make sure that I was
informed of these activities and that appropriate controls were in
place.
Question. Do you believe that it would be appropriate for the
Inspector General to conduct an audit or evaluation of a program which
representatives of the Inspector General's office helped to design?
Answer. It is my understanding that the advice provided by
representatives of the Inspector General generally relates to
management controls and performance measures, both of which should be
subject to periodic audit verification. As long as the Inspector
General personnel do not have a vested interest in specific program
outcomes, I see little reason for concern in their testing controls and
validating performance reporting. As a practical matter, I further
understand that it would be extremely rare for the same individuals to
be involved in formulating controls and reporting procedures and then
subsequently auditing them. If there were ever any appearance of a
conflict of interest, however, I would ensure that different personnel
were assigned to the audits.
Question. The performance of mandatory statutory duties, such as
the performance of financial audits, has consumed a growing share of
the resources of the Inspector General's office, crowding out other
important audit priorities.
What is your view of the relative priority of financial audits, and
the resources that should be devoted to such audits?
Answer. Under the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990, the
Inspector General of the Department of Defense has statutory
responsibilities to audit the financial statements of the Department of
Defense ``in accordance with applicable generally accepted government
auditing standards.'' 31 U.S.C. Sec. 3521(e). It is my understanding
that, throughout the last decade, this requirement has resulted in
about 30 percent of the Inspector General audit effort and a very large
military department audit effort being devoted to a rather frustrating
attempt to validate the Department's badly flawed year end statements.
If confirmed, I will continuously review the priorities and resource
allocation within the Defense audit program to maintain the best
possible balance between the various competing requirements.
Question. Do you believe that resources currently directed to the
audit of financial statements that are often described as unreliable
would better be directed to other objectives?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Office of the Inspector
General has been shifting resources from audits of financial statements
to audits of the projects to improve the automated systems that compile
financial reports. If confirmed, I would ensure that this trend
continues.
Question. Do you see any need for legislative changes to give the
Inspector General greater flexibility to target audit resources?
Answer. No. At the present time, I am unaware of any need for
legislative changes on audit flexibility.
Question. Over the last 10 years, the Inspector General has gone
from having one auditor for every $500 million on contract by the
Department of Defense to one auditor for every billion dollars on
contract.
Do you believe that the Inspector General has resources it needs to
conduct effective oversight over the Department's acquisition programs?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Office of the Inspector
General has characterized internal audit coverage in the acquisition
area as inadequate. If confirmed, I would review the adequacy of
auditing in acquisition and other management areas.
integrity of the inspector general's office
Question. In the mid-1990s, the Office of Inspector General found
it necessary to require the taping and transcribing of all interviews
conducted during internal investigations by the Defense Criminal
Investigative Service (DCIS) after a former DCIS official was shown to
have falsified interviews in two separate investigations. Earlier this
year, an internal review by the Office of Inspector General verified
that more than a dozen employees in the office participated in or were
aware of the destruction of internal work papers related to an audit
and the preparation and backdating of a new set of work papers in an
effort to improve the office's performance in an external peer review.
Do you believe that these events have undermined confidence in the
integrity of the Office of Inspector General?
Answer. See my answer to question #3 above.
Question. What steps would you take, if confirmed, to restore
confidence in the integrity of the Office of Inspector General?
Answer. See my answer to question #3 above.
legal advice for the dod inspector general
Question. Under the DOD Inspector General's Organization and
Functions Guide (Inspector General Guide 5105.1), the Deputy General
Counsel (Inspector General) is a subordinate of the DOD General
Counsel, but provides ``independent and objective legal advice and
counsel to the DOD Inspector General on all matters that relate to the
programs, duties, functions, or responsibilities of the Inspector
General.''
What is your opinion about the DODIG's reliance on the DOD General
Counsel for legal advice and counsel? Do you believe that it adversely
affects independence of the Inspector General?
Answer. Please see my answer to question 2I regarding the
relationships between the Inspector General and the DOD General
Counsel.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as the Inspector General of the
Department of Defense?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings, and
other communications of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes.
______
[The nomination reference of Joseph E. Schmitz follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
September 4, 2001.
Ordered, that the following nomination be referred sequentially to
the Committee on Armed Services, and if and when reported, be further
referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs for not to exceed 20
days pursuant to an order of the Senate of January 5, 2001:
Joseph E. Schmitz, of Maryland, to be Inspector General, Department
of Defense, vice Eleanor Hill.
______
[The biographical sketch of Joseph E. Schmitz, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Joseph E. Schmitz
Joseph E. Schmitz is currently a partner with the firm of Patton
Boggs LLP. Since 1987, he has been engaged in an aviation regulatory,
international trade, legislative, administrative law, and
constitutional appellate litigation practice. He has represented a wide
array of clients located throughout the world, including commercial
airlines and leasing companies, aircraft and automobile manufacturers
and trade associations, shippers, and government entities.
Mr. Schmitz' law practice encompasses regulatory and enforcement
matters in the Department of Transportation, the Federal Aviation
Administration, and other federal regulatory arenas. He has also
represented a variety of foreign and domestic entities involved in the
emerging economies of Central and Eastern Europe, and individual
claimants in federal agency personnel proceedings.
His 1989 article in the Wall Street Journal, ``Selling to Moscow
Without Selling Out America,'' reviewed regulatory hurdles associated
with the first-ever licensing of commercially leased Boeing aircraft to
a Warsaw Pact country. Mr. Schmitz has also published numerous
articles, presented lectures, and testified as a constitutional expert
before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, the
U.S. Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, and the full U.S. Senate
Judiciary Committee. He is an Adjunct Professor of Law at the
Georgetown University Law Center, where he developed and has taught a
seminar in advanced Constitutional Law.
Mr. Schmitz has had a long and distinguished 27-year career as both
an active duty and reserve naval officer. During his active naval
career, he served as an engineering division officer on board a gas
turbine powered U.S. destroyer, as the Navigator of a German destroyer
(as a participant in the Personnel Exchange Program), and as a Ship
Superintendent in the Long Beach Naval Shipyard. Mr. Schmitz has also
participated in exchange programs with the British Royal Navy and with
the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force; and served as Liaison Officer
with the Colombian and Mexican Navies during extended port calls. He
still maintains German and limited Spanish language proficiency.
Currently a Captain in the Naval Reserves, he is the Deputy Senior
Inspector for the Naval Reserve Intelligence Program, responsible for
Command Inspections/Audits, Investigations, and Intelligence Oversight
of more than 4,000 Naval Reservists nationwide (a position he has held
since October 1999).
He graduated with distinction from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1978,
and received his J.D. degree from Stanford University in 1986. Mr.
Schmitz serves on the Steering Committee of the Washington Lawyers
Chapter of the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies,
and is a Young Leader Alumnus of the American Council on Germany. In
1999, he was invested into the Sovereign Military Order of Malta.
______
[The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
form that details the biographical, financial, and other
information of the nominee. The form executed by Joseph E.
Schmitz in connection with his nomination follows:]
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Room SR-228
Washington, DC 20510-6050
(202) 224-3871
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation
of your answer applies.
Part A--Biographical Information
Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.
1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
Joseph E. Schmitz.
2. Position to which nominated:
Inspector General of the Department of Defense.
3. Date of nomination:
September 4, 2001.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
5. Date and place of birth:
August 28, 1956; Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Mollie Esther Davis of Tustin, California.
7. Names and ages of children:
Philip, 22; Joseph, 20; Nicholas, 18; Thomas, 17; Mollie, 13;
Patrick, 11; Katherine, 9; and Matthias, 4.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
High School Diploma, Georgetown Preparatory School (1974); Bachelor
of Science, with Distinction, United States Naval Academy (1978);
Doctor of Jurisprudence, Stanford Law School (1986).
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
Partner, PATTON BOGGS LLP (1996-present); Partner, BESOZZI, GAVIN,
CRAVEN & SCHMITZ (1995-1996); Associate of Counsel, PAUL, HASTINGS,
JANOFSKY & WALKER (1987-1995); Adjunct Professor of Law at Georgetown
University Law Center (since 1995).
10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative,
honorary, or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State,
or local governments, other than those listed above.
Special Assistant to the Attorney General of the United States, the
Honorable Edwin Meese III (1987); Law Clerk to the Honorable James L.
Buckley, Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit (1986-1987).
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
PATTON BOGGS LLP, partner; U.S. English, Inc., director; Global
Security Net, Inc., director; Metrodream.com, Inc., director; Angelic
Foundation, director and officer; Millennium Technology Group LLC,
director.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
Member of the Bars of the District of Columbia (since 1989),
Maryland (since 1995), and Pennsylvania (since 1988; currently
inactive) (also admitted to practice law before: the Supreme Court of
the United States; the United States Courts of Appeal for the District
of Columbia, First, Third, Fifth, Sixth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits;
the United States District Courts for the District of Columbia and
Maryland; and the United States Court of International Trade); U.S.
Naval Academy Alumni Association (1976-present); Federalist Society for
Law and Public Policy Studies (1984 to present); Steering Committee of
the Washington Lawyers Chapter (1987 to present); Knights of Columbus
(1988-present); Church of the Little Flower Parish Council (1989-1994),
Chairman (1993-1994); Kenwood Golf and Country Club (1993-present);
Sovereign Military Order of the Temple of Jerusalem (1996-present);
Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of St. John of Jerusalem, of
Rhodes, and of Malta (1999 to present); Reserve Officers Association
(2000-present).
13. Political affiliations and activities:
(a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or
any public office for which you have been a candidate.
None.
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5
years.
None.
(c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $100 or more for the past 5 years.
Orrin Hatch Campaign ($500; 2000); David McIntosh ($500 est.); 1996
& 2000 (est.)).
14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals, and any other special
recognitions for outstanding service or achievements.
Joint Service Commendation Medal; Navy and Marine Corps
Commendation Medal (twice); Joint Service Achievement Medal; Navy and
Marine Corps Achievement Medal; Navy Expeditionary Medal; National
Service Medal (twice); Military Outstanding Volunteer Service Medal;
Naval Reserve Medal; Navy Expert Rifle Medal; Navy Expert Pistol Medal;
Bundeswehrleistungsabzeichen (German Armed Forces Achievement Award);
Deutsches Sportabzeichen (German Sport Award).
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
Legal Backgrounder, ``Are Federal Consumption Tax Proposals
Constitutional?'' Washington Legal Foundation (``WLF'') (April 2,
1999); Article, ``When the Commander in Chief Misleads, Who Follows? Or
What Do We Tell the Troops Now, Commander?'' Congressional Record--
Extension of Remarks (October 9, 1998); Article, ``The Forgotten
Preamble: Introduction to the Bill of Rights Gives More Meaning to the
Tenth Amendment,'' FYI (American Legislative Exchange Council: April
1996); ``Intelligence Law Handbook'' (Defense HUMINT Service, September
1995); Presentation for Washington Legal Foundation Media Briefing--
1994-1995 Supreme Court Term (June 27, 1995); Legal Opinion Letter,
``States' Power to Regulate Health Care Should Not Be Overlooked,'' 4
WLF 5 (March 11, 1994); Op-Ed, ``If Taxes Can Be Retroactive to 1993,
Why Not to 1990?'' Los Angeles Times (Feb. 28, 1994); Legal
Backgrounder, ``Quo Vadis (Wither Goest Thou) Taxation: In Futuro or Ex
Post Facto?'' 8 WLF 32 (Sept. 10, 1993); Article, ``Coping With the New
Russian Nuclear Threat: A Legal Alternative to Environmental
Extortion,'' Georgetown International Environmental Law Review (1993);
Article, ``Are Retroactive Tax Increases Constitutional?'' 139 Cong.
Rec. E1985 (daily ed. Aug. 4, 1993); Legal Backgrounder, ``Federal Sin
Tax Proposals: What's the Federal Government Doing Regulating Health
Care Anyway?'' 8 WLF 25 (July 23, 1993); OP-ED, ``Way to End Abortion
Dilemma?: 10th Amendment Is Abortion Sleeper,'' National Law Journal
(March 15, 1993); Article, ``East Meets West,'' Naval Institute
Proceedings (1992); Article, ``Damn the Congressional Torpedoes: 1977
and 1978 Recapture the GI Bill,'' Shipmate (October 1991); ``Drive to
Repeal Abortion Law Will Say Much About Our Societal Conscience,''
Catholic Standard (April 25, 1991); Op-Ed, ``Selling to Moscow Without
Selling Out America,'' The Wall Street Journal (December 1989); Special
Supplement, ``Federalism: Reconciling a `Human Life' and `States'
Rights' Approach to the Legal Protection of the Unborn,'' Human Life
Review (Spring 1989); Mandate for Leadership (Heritage Foundation
1988).
16. Speeches: Provide the committee with two copies of any formal
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have
copies of and are on topics relevant to the position for which you have
been nominated.
Testified as a constitutional expert before: the U.S. Senate
Judiciary Committee at its Constitutional Subcommittee Hearing on a
Proposed Constitutional Amendment to Prohibit Retroactive Taxation
(August 4, 1994); the U.S. Senate Governmental Affairs Committee at its
Hearing on a Proposed Statutory Ban on Retroactive Taxation (December
7, 1995); and the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee at its Constitutional
Subcommittee Hearing on a Proposed Constitutional Amendment to Prohibit
Retroactive Taxation (April 15, 1996).
17. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree,
if confirmed, to respond to requests to appear and testify before any
duly constituted committee of the Senate?
Yes.
______
[The nominee responded to the questions in Parts B-F of the
committee questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set
forth in the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to
Parts B-F are contained in the committee's executive files.]
------
Signature and Date
I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate,
and complete.
Joseph E. Schmitz.
This 20th day of June, 2001.
[The nomination of Joseph E. Schmitz was reported to the
Senate by Chairman Levin on December 20, 2001, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was then referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs. The
Committee on Governmental Affairs was discharged from further
consideration of this nomination on February 11, 2002, and the
nomination was placed on the Executive Calendar. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on March 21, 2002.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to Sandra L. Pack by Chairman
Levin prior to the hearing with answers supplied follow:]
October 18, 2001.
The Hon. Carl Levin,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I enclose the answers to the advance questions
asked of me by the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Sincerely,
Sandra L. Pack.
cc:
The Hon. John W. Warner,
Ranking Minority Member.
______
Questions and Responses
defense reforms
Question. Almost 15 years have passed since the enactment of the
Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and
the Special Operations reforms.
Do you support full implementation of these defense reforms?
Answer. Yes, I fully support the enactment and objectives of the
Goldwater-Nichols Act and Special Operations reforms.
Question. What is your view of the extent to which these defense
reforms have been implemented?
Answer. It appears that these reforms have resulted in significant
improvements by defining the roles and responsibilities of the
Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and
the Service Secretaries. As a result, operational effectiveness has
been improved. I do believe it is important to continue to evaluate and
improve as we transform the Army.
Question. What do you consider to be the most important aspects of
these defense reforms?
Answer. I believe that the key result was the strengthening of the
effectiveness of military operations, which was accomplished by
strengthening civilian control and better defining responsibilities.
Question. The goals of Congress in enacting these defense reforms,
as reflected in section 3 of the Goldwater-Nichols Department of
Defense Reorganization Act, can be summarized as strengthening civilian
control; improving military advice; placing clear responsibility on the
combatant commanders for the accomplishment of their missions; ensuring
the authority of the combatant commanders is commensurate with their
responsibility; increasing attention to the formulation of strategy and
to contingency planning; providing for more efficient use of defense
resources; and enhancing the effectiveness of military operations and
improving the management and administration of the Department of
Defense.
Do you agree with these goals?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Recently, there have been articles, which indicate an
interest within the Department of Defense in modifying Goldwater-
Nichols in light of the changing environment and possible revisions to
the national strategy.
Do you anticipate that legislative proposals to amend Goldwater-
Nichols may be appropriate? If so, what areas do you believe it might
be appropriate to address in these proposals?
Answer. I am not aware of any current proposals to amend Goldwater-
Nichols. It is too early for me to comment about any proposals without
additional evaluation and insight.
duties
Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Financial Management?
Answer. If confirmed, I will be responsible for advising the
Secretary of the Army on financial matters and directing all
Comptroller and Financial Management functions and activities of the
Department of the Army.
Question. What background and experience do you possess that you
believe qualifies you to perform these duties?
Answer. I believe my background qualifies me to serve as Assistant
Secretary of the Army (Financial Management and Comptroller). I have
significant experience in financial management, to include
certification as a public accountant, experience in private industry,
and service as the Treasury Director of multiple presidential
campaigns. If confirmed, I believe I would bring a solid foundation of
experience and leadership and that I will be able to advise the
Secretary of the Army and other Army leaders effectively on financial
management matters.
Question. Do you believe that there are actions you need to take to
enhance your ability to perform the duties of the Assistant Secretary
of the Army for Financial Management?
Answer. Absolutely. Although I have a depth of knowledge in
financial management and I am an experienced manager and leader, I am
always looking to improve my skills and understanding. Once confirmed,
I will need to gain a better understanding of many of the internal
issues, structures, and processes of the Army and the Department of
Defense. I look forward to learning about soldiers and how to acquire
and manage resources to support them.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what duties and functions do
you expect that the Secretary of the Army would prescribe for you?
Answer. If confirmed, I will be responsible to the Secretary of the
Army for all financial management issues of the Department of the Army,
in accordance with 10 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 3014(c) and 3016(b)(4).
Question. In carrying out your duties, how will you work with the
Secretary of the Army, the Under Secretary of the Army, the Under
Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), and the Assistant Secretaries of
the Navy and the Air Force for Financial Management?
Answer. If confirmed, I would be part of a senior leadership and
management team that works with a common direction and unity of purpose
within the Army as well as across the Services and the Department of
Defense.
major challenges and problems
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will
confront the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Financial Management?
Answer. I am not fully aware of all the challenges. However, any
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Financial Management will be
challenged to improve financial management systems and processes, to
include finance, accounting, budget, and feeder systems, to provide
accurate, reliable, and timely financial information. We must develop
consistent and executable budgets that support the priorities of the
Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Army, under the guidance
and direction of the President.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Under Secretary
of Defense (Comptroller) and our sister services, and the Army
leadership team to achieve a unified approach to addressing challenges.
I will make every effort to ensure that sufficient resources and
financial management information are available to successfully address
issues.
Question. What do you consider to be the most serious problems in
the performance of the functions of the Assistant Secretary of the Army
for Financial Management?
Answer. I am not aware of specific problems. However, I believe we
need to provide reliable, accurate, and timely financial information to
the Secretary of the Army and the Chief of Staff of the Army to enable
them to allocate resources to properly train, man, and equip the Army.
Question. If confirmed, what management actions and time lines
would you establish to address these problems?
Answer. If confirmed, I will evaluate the specific issues and work
with the Army Staff and Secretariat as well as DOD to establish
timelines as appropriate.
priorities
Question. If confirmed, what broad priorities would you establish
in terms of issues, which must be addressed by the Assistant Secretary
of the Army for Financial Management?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with Secretary White to
define priorities, which I am sure will include improving the planning,
programming, budgeting, and execution process. Another priority will be
to modernize financial management systems and processes.
civilian and military roles in the army budget process
Question. What is your understanding of the division of
responsibility between the Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Financial Management and the senior military officer responsible for
budget matters in the Army's Financial Management and Comptroller
office (the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Army Budget) in
making program and budget decisions including the preparation of the
Army Program Objective Memorandum, the annual budget submission, and
the Future Years Defense Program?
Answer. My understanding stems from 10 U.S.C. Sec. 3014(c). As
written, the Secretary of the Army has overall responsibility for
financial management and comptroller functions. If confirmed as the
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Financial Management and Comptroller),
I will have responsibility for all budget matters within the Department
of the Army. The senior military officer who serves as the Deputy
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Army Budget will serve under my
direct supervision and will be responsible to me for the formulation,
justification, and execution of the Army budget. Additionally, if
confirmed, I will have formal oversight responsibility for the
Secretary for all financial aspects of the Program Objective Memorandum
preparation and the Army portions of the annual President's budget
submission, along with all the entries in the Future Years Defense
Program (FYDP).
financial management and accountability
Question. DOD's financial management deficiencies have been the
subject of many audit reports over the past 10 or more years. Despite
numerous strategies and initiatives the Department and its components
are undertaking to correct these deficiencies, problems with financial
data continue.
What do you consider to be the top financial management issues to
be addressed by the Department of the Army over the next 5 years?
Answer. I believe that the Department of the Army must improve
financial management systems--budgetary and accounting--and processes
so that the Army leadership has timely and reliable data on which to
make business decisions regarding the allocation of resources near term
and in the program years. This includes ensuring that the functional
proponents' systems (e.g., property, logistics, real estate, personnel,
environmental) are fully interfaced, and their data integrated, to
present a complete resource picture for decision-makers.
Question. If confirmed, how do you plan to provide the needed
leadership and commitment necessary to ensure results and improve
financial management in the Army?
Answer. If confirmed, I intend to make the improvement of financial
management in the Department of the Army, particularly in terms of the
quality and timeliness of financial information, one of my priorities.
I will work closely with Army leaders for their involvement and
commitment to improve our financial management practices.
Question. What are the most important performance measurements you
would use, if confirmed, to evaluate changes in the Army's financial
operations to determine if its plans and initiatives are being
implemented as intended and the anticipated results are being achieved?
Answer. If confirmed, I will enlist the support of the leadership
of Department of the Army to establish logical, useful, and relevant
performance measures. Efforts should be designed to achieve necessary
auditing conditions, as well as provide accurate, reliable, and timely
information for decision makers.
compliance with chief financial officers act
Question. The Chief Financial Officers Act requires the annual
preparation and audit of financial statements for federal agencies.
However, the DOD Inspector General and GAO's financial audit results
have continually pointed out serious internal control weaknesses
concerning hundreds of billions of dollars of material and equipment,
as well as billions of dollars of errors in the Department's financial
records.
In your view, is the Army capable of meeting the requirements
imposed by the Chief Financial Officers Act? If not, please describe
the actions you think are necessary to bring the Army into compliance
and the extent to which such actions are the responsibility of the
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Financial Management or other
officials in the Department of the Army or the Department of Defense.
Answer. I understand the Army is not currently able to meet the
requirements of the Chief Financial Officers Act. If confirmed, I will
work with the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) to ensure
adequate funding and the right leadership emphasis and involvement.
standardization within the department of defense
Question. Many of the financial management initiatives currently
underway within the Department of Defense are centrally controlled by
the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and most observers believe that
financial management and comptroller practices should be standardized
throughout the Department of Defense to the maximum extent possible.
What role do you feel the military departments should have in the
decision-making process when DOD-wide financial management decisions
are made? What are your views on standardizing financial management
systems (including hardware and software) and financial management
practices across the Department of Defense?
Answer. I believe standardization promotes efficiencies. It is my
understanding that the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) has the
lead with extensive Service involvement for achieving Department-wide
solutions to financial management challenges. If confirmed, I will
actively participate in and fully support this process.
Question. Are there areas where you believe the Army needs to
maintain unique financial management systems?
Answer. I am not sufficiently acquainted with the Army's current
systems, however, if confirmed, this is an area I will evaluate.
responsibility for accuracy of financial data
Question. When the Department of Defense, through the Under
Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) or the Defense Finance and
Accounting Service, prepares financial or budget information for
submission to the Office of Management and Budget or Congress, who is
ultimately responsible for the accuracy of information concerning the
Army?
Answer. If confirmed, I will be ultimately responsible for the
accuracy of the data, with considerable support from the Defense
Finance and Accounting Service, as well as the Army's functional
proponents, who often initiate and develop the Army's financial data.
financial management training
Question. In response to the Defense Acquisition Workforce
Improvement Act of 1991, DOD has taken action directed at improving the
professionalism of its acquisition workforce. This was brought about as
a result of the need to better ensure that DOD's acquisition workforce
was well versed in the rapidly changing technical skills needed to keep
abreast of acquisition trends. A key part of the effort to upgrade the
professionalism (technical currency) of DOD's acquisition workforce was
the requirement that each acquisition official receive a minimum of 80
hours of continuous learning every 2 years. While DOD has stated that
there should be a comparable goal for financial management personnel,
DOD has not made such training a requirement because of uncertainties
over whether necessary funding would be available.
What are your views on the merits of establishing a requirement
that all Army financial management personnel receive a minimum of 80
hours of training every 2 years?
Answer. I am a strong supporter of continuing education and
maintaining a high level of technical and professional proficiency and
currency.
Question. If confirmed, what actions would you take to ensure that
the Army's financial management personnel keep abreast of emerging
technologies and developments in financial management?
Answer. If confirmed, I will make part of my strategic plan hiring,
training, mentoring, and retaining a professional and skilled financial
management workforce that is encouraged and rewarded for the pursuit of
excellence and currency in financial management technologies and
practices. I will work closely with the Under Secretary of Defense
(Comptroller) and the Secretary of the Army to accomplish this goal.
planning, programming, and budgeting system (ppbs)
Question. Recently, a commission which included a number of former
Defense officials and former Comptroller General Charles Bowsher stated
that the Department's Planning, Programming, and Budgeting System
(PPBS) is no longer functioning effectively. The Quadrennial Defense
Review stated that the Department of Defense plans to study a redesign
of the PPBS process.
What are your views on the PPBS process? Are there any changes that
you would recommend?
Answer. As specified by Army General Order, the Assistant Secretary
for Financial Management and Comptroller is responsible for overall
management of the PPBS system. If confirmed, I will personally
participate in any PPBS reviews, to achieve the desired outcomes that
include streamlining the process, improving the quality of PPBS
products, and strengthening analytical reviews so that we budget in the
same manner that we execute.
government performance and results act (gpra)
Question. If confirmed as the Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Financial Management, what would your responsibilities be with respect
to the requirements of the GPRA to set specific performance goals and
measure progress toward meeting them?
Answer. Both the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of Defense
have stated they believe the Department should operate more like a
business. To do so requires the establishment of performance-based
measures and metrics. If confirmed, I will support this effort.
Question. What additional steps can the Army take to fulfill the
goals of the GPRA to link budget inputs to measurable performance
outputs?
Answer. If confirmed, it is my intent to support the development of
meaningful performance metrics and integrate them into the budgeting
and decision making process.
incremental funding
Question. In your view, what are the likely benefits or advantages
of incremental funding of major weapons systems?
What are the likely costs or disadvantages of such funding?
How do you weigh these competing costs and benefits, and what
approach do you believe the Army should take toward incremental funding
of major weapons systems?
Answer. It is my understanding there are several approaches for
funding major weapons systems. There is incremental funding and full
funding. There is the use of single-year and multi-year contracts. If
confirmed, I will evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of each and
make the appropriate recommendations to the Secretary of the Army.
savings from competition
Question. The Army and the other military departments have
substantially increased the number of public-private competitions in
recent years in order to achieve greater efficiency and effectiveness
while reducing costs. Studies have shown that the military departments
save money regardless of which side wins the competition.
Do you believe that decisions on whether to outsource work
currently performed by government civilians should be made through
public-private competition?
Answer. I understand that the public-private competitions have been
successful in generating savings and efficiencies. If confirmed, I will
work with the Department of Defense and the Department of the Army
staff to evaluate the effectiveness of public-private competitions.
Question. What steps should the Army undertake to measure the
actual savings achieved after such competitions?
Answer. I believe independent cost evaluations are important both
prior and subsequent to the competition. The Army should measure
savings and also cost estimates for future competitions.
Question. What are your views on the practice of including
``funding wedges'' in the budget that anticipate savings from public-
private competition or other efficiencies prior to those savings
actually being achieved?
Answer. Funding wedges can be harmful if decisions are delayed, not
implemented, or the predicted savings do not materialize. That is why
it is important to establish sound policy controls and accurate cost
estimates to predict outcomes.
working capital funds
Question. Are there any changes you would recommend in the policies
governing working capital funds in the Department of the Army?
Answer. I am not currently familiar enough with the Army Working
Capital Fund to recommend any policy changes. Based on my understanding
of revolving or working capital funds, the Army Working Capital Fund
would be an integral part of the Army financial management systems, and
important in providing accurate, timely, and reliable financial
information.
Question. Do you believe the scope of activities funded through
working capital funds should be increased or decreased?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review the scope of activities and
propose any changes to the scope of activities if warranted.
oversight of special access programs
Question. If confirmed as the Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Financial Management, will you be responsible for the financial
management of special access programs in the Army?
Answer. If confirmed, I understand I will have responsibility for
the financial management of all special access programs in the Army.
Question. Are you satisfied with the oversight standards for the
financial management of special access programs? Are these standards as
stringent as those for other programs?
Answer. I understand the oversight standards for the financial
management of special access programs are as stringent as those for
other programs, but I am not yet fully aware of these standards and how
they are enforced. If confirmed, I will ensure such standards are
carefully and fully applied to these important programs.
Question. Does the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army
for Financial Management have sufficient cleared personnel and
authority to review special access programs?
Answer. I have seen that the Office of the Assistant Secretary of
the Army (Financial Management and Comptroller) has an office dedicated
to the financial management of Army special access programs. However, I
am not currently aware of the numbers or sufficiency of the cleared
personnel. If confirmed, I will ensure that there are a sufficient
number of trained personnel with appropriate clearances to guarantee
appropriate financial oversight.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as the Assistant Secretary of the
Army for Financial Management?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings, and
other communications of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes.
______
[The nomination reference of Sandra L. Pack follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
October 10, 2001.
Ordered, that the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Sandra L. Pack, of Maryland, to be an Assistant Secretary of the
Army, vice Helen Thomas McCoy.
______
[The biographical sketch of Sandra L. Pack, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Sandra L. Pack
Sandra Pack, nominated by the President to be Assistant Secretary
of the Army for Financial Management, is a certified public accountant.
Since 1996, she has been a financial consultant to a number of
political committees. In March 1999, Ms. Pack became Director of
Treasury for the President's campaign and devised and managed the
budgeting, accounting, and financial planning systems for the primary
and general campaigns, including ensuring that the campaigns complied
with federal election laws. Since the election, Ms. Pack has managed
the campaign's post-election FEC audit. Ms. Pack also served as
Director of Treasury for Senator Phil Gramm's presidential campaign
from 1995 to 1997, and Deputy Director of Treasury for Senator Bob
Dole's presidential campaign in 1996.
In the private sector, Ms. Pack was Director for Planning and
Operations for the MicroProse Division of Spectrum Holobyte, Inc., in
Hunt Valley, Maryland, from 1994 to 1995, where she restructured
functions affecting finance, planning, accounting, operations,
information systems, and facilities maintenance. She was employed for
12 years by Ernst & Young, where she provided innovative and value-
added consulting and accounting services to owner-managed businesses in
a broad range of industries. While employed at Ernst & Young, she
served as Director for Microcomputer Consulting and Accounting Services
in Atlanta, Georgia, from 1982 to 1987, and Director for Small Business
Consulting and Accounting Services in Baltimore, Maryland, from 1987 to
1994.
Ms. Pack was awarded the degree of Bachelor of Arts in Business
from the Notre Dame College of Maryland in Baltimore, where she
graduated Summa Cum Laude, and received the Nancy Schloss Award for
being the outstanding business student in her class. The Atlanta
Chamber of Commerce has also recognized Ms. Pack by naming her to its
Women of Achievement.
Ms. Pack's husband, Randall, received a naval commission in 1961,
served on a destroyer in the Cuban Missile Blockade, and as head of the
Engineering Department on two nuclear submarines. He has advanced
degrees in Nuclear Engineering and Computer Science, and recently
retired as Chief Engineer, Information Technologies, from RWD
Technologies, Inc. of Columbia, Maryland.
Ms. Pack's daughter, Amelia Humphries, 34, resides in Atlanta, GA,
and is employed by J. Walter Thompson, an advertising and
communications company.
______
[The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
form that details the biographical, financial, and other
information of the nominee. The form executed by Sandra L. Pack
in connection with her nomination follows:]
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Room SR-228
Washington, DC 20510-6050
(202) 224-3871
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation
of your answer applies.
Part A--Biographical Information
Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.
1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
Sandra L. Pack.
2. Position to which nominated:
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Financial Management and
Comptroller.
3. Date of nomination:
October 10, 2001.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
5. Date and place of birth:
September 22, 1948; Denver, CO.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Randall Pack.
7. Names and ages of children:
Amelia Anne Humphries; 34.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
Notre Dame College of Maryland--BA Business, August 1990.
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
Please refer to enclosed resume.
10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative,
honorary or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State,
or local governments, other than those listed above.
None.
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
Major clients of Sandra L. Pack, CPA, LLC over the past 5 years:
Bush for President, Inc.--Chairman: Donald Evans (1999); Dole for
President, Inc. (1996-1997); Gramm for President, Inc. (1996-1997);
American Dream Political Action Committee--Chairman: Henry Bonilla
(1997-present); Cardinal Health, Inc. Political Action Committee (1998-
1999); Republican Leadership Council, Inc.--Chairman: Lewis M.
Eisenberg (1997-present); Foundation for Responsible Government, Inc.--
Chairman: Lewis M. Eisenberg (1997-present); Kasich 2000--Kasich
Presidential Exploratory Committee (1999); Pioneer PAC--Kasich
Leadership PAC (1998-1999).
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
The Maryland State Board of Accountancy since 1991; the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants since 1991; the Summit County
Historical Society since 1997; Bill's Ranch Neighborhood Association,
Frisco, CO, since 1997; Frisco Historical Society since 1997.
Volunteer work: Defenders of Miner's Creek, Frisco, CO--501(c)(3)
organization--since 1997.
13. Political affiliations and activities: Republican.
14. List all offices with a political party which you have held or
any public office for which you have been a candidate.
None.
15. List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5
years.
Bush-Cheney 2000, Inc.--Director of Treasury; Bush for President,
Inc.--Director of Treasury; Kasich 2000, Inc--Consultant; Dole for
President, Inc.--Deputy Director of Treasury; Gramm for President,
Inc.--Director of Treasury.
16. Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $100 or more for the past 5 years.
Bush for President, Inc.--$1,000; Friends of Phil Gramm--$1,000;
National Republican Senatorial Committee--$110.
17. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals, and any other special
recognitions for outstanding service or achievements.
Graduated Summa cum Laude and received the Nancy Schloss Award for
Outstanding Business Student Notre Dame College.
18. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
None.
19. Speeches: Provide the committee with two copies of any formal
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have
copies of and are on topics relevant to the position for which you have
been nominated.
None.
20. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree,
if confirmed, to respond to requests to appear and testify before any
duly constituted committee of the Senate?
Yes.
______
[The nominee responded to the questions in Parts B-F of the
committee questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set
forth in the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to
Parts B-F are contained in the committee's executive files.]
------
Signature and Date
I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate,
and complete.
Sandra L. Park.
This 12th day of October, 2001.
[The nomination of Sandra L. Pack was reported to the
Senate by Chairman Levin on November 8, 2001, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on November 8, 2001.]
NOMINATIONS OF R.L. BROWNLEE TO BE UNDER SECRETARY OF THE ARMY; DR.
DALE KLEIN TO BE ASSISTANT TO THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR NUCLEAR AND
CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAMS; AND PETER B. TEETS TO BE
UNDER SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE
----------
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2001
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:35 a.m. in room
SR-222, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator Carl Levin
(chairman) presiding.
Committee members present: Senators Levin, Reed, Akaka,
Bill Nelson, Bingaman, Warner, Thurmond, Inhofe, Allard,
Sessions, and Bunning.
Committee staff member present: David S. Lyles, staff
director.
Majority staff members present: Daniel J. Cox, Jr.,
professional staff member; Madelyn R. Creedon, counsel; Richard
D. DeBobes, counsel; Evelyn N. Farkas, professional staff
member; Creighton Greene, professional staff member; and Peter
K. Levine, general counsel.
Minority staff members present: Charles W. Alsup,
professional staff member; Judith A. Ansley, deputy staff
director for the minority; L. David Cherington, minority
counsel; Edward H. Edens IV, professional staff member; William
C. Greenwalt, professional staff member; Gary M. Hall,
professional staff member; Mary Alice A. Hayward, professional
staff member; George W. Lauffer, professional staff member;
Patricia L. Lewis, professional staff member; Thomas L.
MacKenzie, professional staff member; Ann M. Mittermeyer,
minority counsel; Suzanne K.L. Ross, research assistant; Joseph
T. Sixeas, professional staff member; Cord A. Sterling,
professional staff member; Scott W. Stucky, minority counsel;
and Richard F. Walsh, minority counsel.
Staff assistants present: Dara R. Alpert, Gabriella Eisen,
and Daniel K. Goldsmith.
Committee members' assistants present: Menda S. Fife,
assistant to Senator Kennedy; William Bonvillian, assistant to
Senator Lieberman; Elizabeth King, assistant to Senator Reed;
Davelyn Noelani Kalipi, assistant to Senator Akaka; William K.
Sutey, assistant to Senator Bill Nelson; Neal Orringer,
assistant to Senator Carnahan; George M. Bernier III, assistant
to Senator Santorum; Robert Alan McCurry, assistant to Senator
Roberts; Douglas Flanders, assistant to Senator Allard; James
P. Dohoney, Jr., assistant to Senator Hutchinson; and Derek
Maurer, assistant to Senator Bunning.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN, CHAIRMAN
Chairman Levin. Good morning, everybody. The committee
meets today to consider the nominations of three individuals
for senior positions in the Department of Defense: our own Les
Brownlee to be Under Secretary of the Army; Dr. Dale Klein to
be Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and
Chemical and Biological Defense Programs; and Peter Teets to be
Under Secretary of the Air Force. On behalf of the entire
committee, I want to welcome each of you and your families. We
have a tradition of asking nominees to introduce family members
who are present, and we will ask each of them, as they open
with their opening statement, to do that for all of us.
We want to thank the family members who are here today for
the sacrifices that they will be asked to make. These nominees
simply cannot serve in their positions without the support of
family and friends, so we want to thank families for their
service to this Nation as well.
This is a special day for this committee. One of our own
staff members has been nominated to a senior position in the
executive branch. Les Brownlee has been nominated by the
President to serve as Under Secretary of the Army, and it is no
surprise to any member of this committee. He has served with
distinction on Senator Warner's staff, on the staff of the
committee for the past 18 years. He has been Staff Director
under two chairmen for 4 years, including Senator Thurmond, who
is now joining us and who was distinguished chairman of this
committee, and then Senator Warner.
Prior to joining the committee staff, Les Brownlee had a
distinguished career in the Army. He served two terms in
Vietnam. He won the Silver Star with Oak Leaf Cluster, the
Bronze Star with two Oak Leaf Clusters, and the Purple Heart.
From the first day that Les served on this committee's
staff until this moment, Les has always been guided by what he
thought was in the best interests of the Nation's security, the
best interest of the men and women of the Armed Forces, and in
the best interests of this committee. Every member of this
committee has benefitted from Les' judgment and advice over the
years. We are all proud of what he has done for this committee
and what he will do in his new position for the Army that he
loves so much.
You may have noted that I am presuming the outcome of this
nomination process. Les is not allowed to do that, and I know
he follows the rules and will not so presume, but I think it is
safe to say that each member of this committee is very proud of
what you have done, of the fact that you have now been given
this nomination. We are delighted that the President has seen
fit to nominate you.
Dr. Klein, the second of our nominees, is the vice
chancellor for special engineering programs and professor of
mechanical engineering at the University of Texas. He has
served at the University of Texas for 25 years. He is chairman
and executive director of the Amarillo National Research
Center, and has served on several Department of Energy
committees, including the Nuclear Energy Research Advisory
Committee. If confirmed as the Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Defense Programs, Dr.
Klein would be the principal advisor to the Secretary of
Defense for all matters concerning the formulation of policy
and plans for nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.
I am going to take the liberty of the chair, however, to
interrupt this procedure, because I want Senator Warner to have
a very special moment here in introducing Les, and then perhaps
to rejoin me while I comment on the other two nominees. I also
know that Senator Thurmond is only able to stay with us for
just a moment.
Senator Warner. May I suggest Senator Thurmond follow you?
Chairman Levin. I would call first on Senator Thurmond to
make comments, then I would like to call on Senator Warner to
make his special introduction. Then perhaps Senator Warner can
come and rejoin me as we make the other introductions.
Senator Thurmond.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR STROM THURMOND
Senator Thurmond. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, today is a special day for the Armed Services
Committee. We are considering the nomination of Les Brownlee,
the committee's Republican Staff Director, to be the Under
Secretary of the Army.
In his more than 14 years on the Armed Services Committee
staff he has become an institution. I am especially pleased
with his nomination, since Les served as the Staff Director
during my tenure as the chairman of the Armed Services
Committee. I know that he is a professional in every aspect,
and that he will have a lasting impact on the Army, as he has
had on this committee. The committee will miss his expertise,
and I understand the committee staff will miss the candy dish
he kept in his office.
Les, the committee's loss will be our soldiers' gain. We
wish you success, and hope you will never forget your roots
here on the Armed Services Committee.
Dr. Klein and Mr. Teets, the fact that I spoke at length on
Mr. Brownlee's nomination does not in any way diminish the
importance of your nominations to the important positions for
which you are being considered. In my judgment, President Bush
has selected two highly qualified and professional individuals
to fill the positions as assistant to the Secretary of Defense
for Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Defense Programs, and
Under Secretary of the Air Force. I support your nominations,
and wish you success as you become members of the Department of
Defense's team that does such a superb job in providing for the
security of our Nation.
Mr. Chairman, I would also like to extend my
congratulations to the nominees' family members who are here
today. They deserve credit for the success of their loved ones
and will have an important supporting role as each nominee
takes on the challenges of their new positions.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you very much, Senator Thurmond. I
know how significant your words and your presence are to each
of our nominees, and particularly to Les Brownlee.
Now I am going to call upon Senator Warner for his special
introduction.
Senator Warner.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN WARNER
Senator Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee. I very much appreciate this opportunity. I must tell
you that today is a very moving day for me. Mr. Chairman, you
and I have been privileged to serve on this committee for 23
years. There are days we shall never forget, and this is one
for me.
Thirty two years ago I sat right where I am sitting now
before this committee to take on a job which by title is the
same that you will take. However, I came up through a political
system. Colonel Brownlee came up purely on the basis of merit
and achievement, his record of service in uniform far more
distinguished than mine, his record of knowledge about the
Department of the Army more distinguished. Little did I know
that I would stay 5 years, 4 months in those positions, and I
hope you can do the same, if you can live that long.
[Laughter.]
It is a tough job, but I look back on it, Mr. Chairman,
with all due respect to the United States Senate, as perhaps
the most exciting and challenging chapter of my life. A war was
raging in Vietnam, where you, Colonel Brownlee, were a young
soldier. I was a civilian at that time. We had a mission to
fulfill, and history will record how well each of us did. A war
is now raging, perhaps not of proportions to that in Vietnam,
but no less serious as it regards the credibility of the United
States of America and the cause of freedom. I know of no more
qualified individual that our President could find to take on
this job than Les Brownlee.
Those of us who are privileged to serve here in the Senate
have the opportunity to recommend to Presidents individuals to
take these positions. I was privileged to recommend Les, and I
think several other members of this committee joined--I know
you did, Mr. Chairman--in making that recommendation. I think
each one of us in our hearts knows that this man is more than
eminently qualified, and that he will leave this room to be
confirmed by the Senate and take on these awesome
responsibilities.
I reflect on other staff members on both sides of the aisle
now in this room and those who have gone before, who likewise
have served this committee and served it admirably, and have
gone on to presidential appointments and fulfill those
positions with great distinction. It is a credit to the system
that we have here in the Senate that we are fortunate to get
the services of eminently qualified people to serve on our
staffs, people who could earn more, have a better lifestyle
beyond the halls of the Senate, but who, like ourselves, share
the heavy responsibilities and other burdens of the Senate to
do a job in public service.
That is Les Brownlee. He and I have had a very close,
personal relationship. We have traveled the world together on
behalf of this committee. There are times when we have
vigorously disagreed on subjects, at which time we would go
into my office. We have a little ritual, he takes off his
colonel's insignia and I take off the U.S. Senate insignia, and
we have at it. Oftentimes Judy Ansley, who will succeed him,
has to arbitrate. Nevertheless, we have had a marvelous
relationship in which he has given me the unvarnished truth and
advice, and that he will give the Secretary of the Army, the
Secretary of Defense, and indeed, the President.
So we wish him well, and guess what, Colonel Brownlee, you
are on your own.
I should say a word about his family, who is here, but I
will leave that to Les.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Warner, for that
extraordinarily moving introduction. I know how meaningful
those words are to Les Brownlee, as they are to each one of
us--a very emotional moment, I know for you, Les. In
recommending you, Senator Warner is making a major contribution
again to this Nation, because we will lose you. His words again
have rung true for all of us.
There is only one condition. I usually do not condition my
support for nominees, because I do not like to link things that
are unrelated. There is one condition, however, that my support
really depends on, and that is that you leave that candy jar
here. [Laughter.]
I will introduce the third nominee, then I am going to call
on Senator Hutchison for her introduction. This is a little
disjointed, Senator Hutchison. You will forgive us for this.
Peter Teets served as president and chief operating officer
of Lockheed Martin Corporation from 1997 to 1999. He previously
served as president and chief operating officer of the Lockheed
Martin's Information and Services Sector, and prior to their
merger, as president of Martin Marietta Space Group, where he
had served for more than two decades. If confirmed as the Under
Secretary of the Air Force Mr. Teets would, in effect, be the
chief operating officer for the Air Force.
Let me see if Senator Warner has any further opening
statement and then I will ask that Senator Kennedy's statement
be inserted for the record after his remarks.
Senator Warner. I will put my statement in the record along
with the statements of Senator Smith and Senator Santorum. We
have a number of things to get done here in a relatively short
period of time.
[The prepared statements of Senators Kennedy, Warner,
Smith, and Santorum follow:]
Prepared Statement by Senator Edward M. Kennedy
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a privilege to join in welcoming Les
Brownlee, Dale Klein, and Peter Teets to the committee as we consider
their nominations to key positions within the Department of Defense.
I commend each of the nominees before us today, but I want to add a
special word about Les Brownlee, the nominee for Under Secretary of the
Army. The committee knows him very well, and he has been invaluable to
all of us during his long service on the committee staff and as
Committee Staff Director. His dedication to our men and women in
uniform is well-known to members of the committee. In fact, it was Les
who worked so effectively to establish the Soldier/Marine Enhancement
Program, which helped to equip our servicemen and women with the most
modern and versatile clothing available. We know he'll do an equally
outstanding job as Under Secretary of the Army.
All of these nominees will have important duties and
responsibilities in the Department of Defense. They will be in charge
of many policies affecting the men and women of the Armed Forces, and
play key parts in strengthening our national defense to meet current
and future threats at home and abroad.
In addition to the ongoing war on terrorism, there are many other
important issues facing today's service men and women, including pay,
benefits, housing and retention. Especially at this difficult time, we
need to do all we can to see that these needs are fully and fairly met.
Our personnel continue to be our number one defense resource. I'm sure
that these nominees will work effectively to meet their needs, and to
carry out their operational responsibilities as part of the Nation's
defense.
Again, I welcome our nominees, and I look forward to their
testimony.
______
Prepared Statement by Senator John Warner
Thank you, Senator Levin.
I join you in extending a warm welcome to our distinguished
nominees and their families. I thank you all for your willingness to
serve at this challenging and demanding time in our Nation's history.
Mr. Chairman, this is a very special occasion for me as I am
privileged to finally ``introduce'' my adviser and friend of many
years, Les Brownlee, to this committee.
Les Brownlee can only be described as a tower of strength,
dedication, and expertise within the Committee on Armed Services. After
a highly distinguished career in the Army from 1962 to 1984, including
two combat tours in Vietnam, Les joined my staff on December 30, 1983,
as my National Security Advisor. He moved to the staff of the committee
in January 1987, and, since that time has rendered extraordinary
service to the committee, to the Senators who have had the privilege to
serve on the committee, and to the United States Senate.
It is indeed a privilege for this committee to have such a valued
member of our staff recognized with this high honor. I have worked with
this fine man for 18 years now. His dedication to country is surpassed
by none. We will miss his wise counsel, but wish him all the best as he
returns to the Army--his first home.
Mr. Teets is a highly accomplished former president and chief
operating officer of Lockheed Martin Corporation. He began his career
in 1963 with Martin Marietta as an engineer in flight control analysis.
In 1985, he was named President of Martin Marietta Denver Aerospace,
which became Martin Marietta Astronautics Group in 1987. He was
appointed president and chief operating officer of Lockheed Martin in
July 1997. Thank you for your willingness to serve in this new
capacity.
Dr. Klein has had a distinguished career in academia and
government. Since 1977, he has been a professor of Mechanical
Engineering for Nuclear Programs at the University of Texas at Austin.
He has served in a variety of leadership capacities at the University,
including Vice Chancellor for Special Engineering Programs and
Associate Dean for Research and Administration in the College of
Engineering. Dr. Klein has also been an active member of several
Department of Energy national committees including the Nuclear Energy
Research Advisory Committee and has received numerous honors for his
scholarly and public service pursuits.
I welcome all of you.
______
Prepared Statement by Senator Bob Smith
Mr. Chairman, I am happy to take part in the confirmation hearing
of these three fine nominees. I am especially pleased that one of our
own is among the nominees.
I have had the pleasure of working with Les since my arrival in the
Senate--the better part of 11 years. I have seen Les progress from a
SASC professional staff member to Staff Director for Senator Warner. I
am glad to see years of hard work and dedication rewarded in this way.
As a former Army officer and Vietnam veteran, Les brings a world of
experience to the Office of the Secretary of the Army. Such experience
and leadership is crucial to our Armed Forces and our country in the
war against terrorism. Mr. Chairman, let me say that I have no doubt
that Les will be an asset to the Army, and I will not need to ask him
any questions as I have the utmost confidence in his capabilities, his
loyalty, and his integrity.
I also wanted to comment on the Space Commission, which Mr. Teets
and I have had the chance to discuss during his courtesy call in my
office. I started the Space Commission because I believe space is
critical to our future national security. We need to transform our
military by leveraging the capabilities that space offers. The events
of September 11 reinforce my perceptions.
Global coverage from satellites will help us track down the
terrorists. I wish we could augment that coverage by reactivating an
unparalleled and magnificent platform, the SR71 ``Blackbird''--we have
UAV's falling out of the sky in Afghanistan and an obvious problem with
reconnaissance asset shortages.
An aerospace plane (if we had one) could have deployed sensors in
the theater in hours not weeks, pinning down the terrorists and their
Taliban hosts.
I firmly believe the country that controls space will prevail in
times of war. DOD must have management and organization committed to
space. I supported the findings of the Space Commission, and I was
optimistic the findings would be implemented quickly given (1) the
support of the administration and (2) the Commission Chairman Mr.
Rumsfeld being confirmed as Secretary of Defense.
I am disappointed the changes are taking so long and that the
recommendations are not being fully implemented. Most of all, I am
disappointed that despite all the talk about military transformation,
the Air Force is not a good steward of space, rather it continues to
favor old legacy aircraft programs.
The Air Force is not delivering our current capabilities, they are
not looking ahead to new opportunities, and they are not being
visionary.
(1) Our warfighters are demanding advanced protected satellite
communications sooner, but the Air Force is slipping the schedule.
(2) We have an opportunity to deploy a space-based radar that looks
deep inside our enemies borders to track their movements, but the Air
Force is foregoing that capability in favor of a limited airborne
solution.
(3) We have invested millions in reusable launch X-vehicles, but
the Air Force decided to drop the programs even though it didn't have a
better way to develop the capability.
Mr. Teets, I see a lot of problems in the Air Force regarding space
management and stewardship of space--I see you as part of the solution!
If confirmed, I will support your efforts to deliver the first-rate
national security space capabilities this Nation needs.
I hope the Secretary of Defense quickly delegates you the broad
space-leadership authorities you need to do the job.
______
Prepared Statement by Senator Rick Santorum
Chairman Levin and Senator Warner, thank you for scheduling this
hearing. President Bush and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld have
indicated that our Nation's military needs to transform to meet 21st
century threats. This means the President and the Secretary will need
top-quality individuals in the Pentagon to realize this goal. I think
that today's nominees are well qualified to assist in this important
transformation process and to make an immediate contribution to our
National defense.
Mr. Chairman and Senator Warner, let me first single out Les
Brownlee, the President's nominee to be the next Under Secretary of the
Army, for the fine work he has performed for this committee and for his
tireless efforts to support our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines.
Les has been a consummate professional in the performance of his
responsibilities for this committee. Les has shepherded the difficult
annual defense authorization process for many years and has never
forgotten the true beneficiaries of the committee's work--our great
Nation and the men and women who defend our freedoms. The work of this
committee has traditionally been a bipartisan effort. It is staff like
Les Brownlee who hold the committee to this tradition.
Many of the challenges facing today's nominees cannot be solved
overnight or, I suspect, in the near future. Many of the problems
facing the military will require hard choices, choices that have either
been deferred or poorly handled. As Les knows from his service on this
committee, I have serious reservations about how the Department of the
Army is budgeting to support this transformation effort. For example,
the latest reports on the Army's 2003-2007 program objective memorandum
(POM) indicate significant funding shortfalls. It has been reported
that the Army will terminate 19 programs--and restructure another 12--
due to this funding shortfall.
Reports are that the Department of the Army--despite receiving
nearly $60 billion more in funding through 2007 than previously
expected--will have approximately $115 billion more in unpaid bills
through the POM. These unpaid bills will impact the service's attempt
to modernize its Legacy Force, meet near-term requirements, and
aggressively support the science and technology investment needed to
field an Objective Force. As Les knows, I have serious reservations
about the Army's expensive Interim Force acquisition strategy and how
this force will relate to the Objective Force. That being said, I am
glad to see that the President has nominated Les for this important
position as the Department of the Army will need to make critical
decisions in the near future. I am hopeful that Les Brownlee will play
a strong role in the efforts to grapple with these problems.
With respect to Mr. Teets, I am glad that the President has
nominated a candidate who brings a wealth of experience from the
private sector to this important position. I am also concerned with the
costs of our tactical aviation programs and the overall affordability
of simultaneously purchasing the Navy's F/A-18E/F, the Air Force's F-
22, and the multi-service F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. These expensive,
short-range aircraft don't address one of the biggest problems facing
our military, the denial of access to a theater of conflict or war. I
hope that Mr. Teets will keep an open mind to exploring the
capabilities that unmanned platforms may offer our combatant
commanders. I also hope that Mr. Teets will look long and hard at the
issue of Low-Density/High-Demand assets. Too many times we have heard
that our forces today lack the proper levels of platforms or assets to
effectively prosecute a military campaign. As is true with the Army, it
is unlikely that these problems or issues facing the Air Force can be
solved immediately. However, your ability to focus on these issues will
be immensely important.
Dr. Klein, as the Executive Director of the Amarillo National
Research Center, brings a knowledge of policy issues that will greatly
help him address many of the emerging threats that are facing the
United States. Dr. Klein's expertise in nuclear activities--
particularly radioactive waste disposal, thermal analysis of nuclear
shipping containers, and nuclear weapon dismantlement--will be a
tremendous benefit to the Bush administration. In addition, his
knowledge of ongoing United States-Russian efforts to safeguard and
secure weapons-grade nuclear material will be a tremendous asset to the
position for which he has been nominated.
Again, thank you for scheduling this hearing and I look forward to
supporting these nominees.
Chairman Levin. Senator Hutchison, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF HON. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS
Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to say
that this is, I know, a moving time for the Armed Services
Committee, and as a former member of this committee who served
personally with Les, I can understand what a great loss it is.
I sympathize with all of the people who have mixed emotions
about whether he can do more here or more there, but he has
made a decision, and we are going to stick with it.
I want to talk a moment about Les, because he is a native
Texan. I want to add to what has been said about his later
career by Senator Warner and Senator Levin. He is an Odessa
boy. His father was actually a legend in West Texas, because he
was known as the one person who could handle the most dangerous
explosives in the oilfields. If you had a real problem you
called Les' father. So Les decided to take the safer job in the
infantry in Vietnam. [Laughter.]
Of course his record in Vietnam is known to all, and what a
hero he really was, a highly decorated veteran.
I want to say that this is a man who has given his life to
public service. We have a Texas saying for his nomination, and
that is, it's a done deal. I cannot imagine anyone not
supporting him. It will be a great comfort to all of us to know
that he is over in the Pentagon, working in the Department of
the Army as the number two there, under the Secretary, bringing
his expertise in the field at a very important time in our
country, and so I certainly support Les.
I also am here to introduce Dr. Klein. Dr. Dale Klein has
been a friend of mine for a long time. He is one of the great
intellectuals and original thinkers in our country, and on
nuclear issues especially. His nomination to be Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological
Defense Programs is most appropriate, as we are facing the
issues of this war on terrorism.
As reports of Al Qaeda's attempts to obtain weapons of mass
destruction proliferate, the need to fill this key position
grows exponentially with each passing day. Dr. Klein's wealth
of knowledge and experience more than qualify him for this
position.
The University of Texas has had a long association with the
United States Army, doing some major innovative research for
the U.S. Army. Dale Klein has been very much a part of that.
Not only is he a renowned expert in nuclear issues, he has been
elevated at UT as vice chancellor for special engineering
programs in the UT system, as well as serving as a professor in
the Department of Mechanical Engineering's nuclear program
since 1977. He has all of the background to be the advisor to
tell us how we can deal with the potential of nuclear,
biological, or chemical warfare by these terrorist networks,
which we are now exploring.
He is a distinguished fellow of the American Society of
Mechanical Engineers and the American Nuclear Society, so I
cannot think of a better person who could bring expertise and
creative thinking than Dr. Dale Klein. I worked with him very
closely in his position with the Amarillo National Research
Center, which does the research on plutonium and nuclear
weapons dismantlement, so I know that he has the range of
experience needed to stop proliferation. He can advise us on
what we can do to strengthen our own nuclear arsenal and make
sure that what we keep is viable and efficient, so that if we
ever got in a worst case scenario, that we would have that
weapon ready to go.
So it is with great pleasure that I support the nomination
of my friend. I know from personal experience that he will do a
great job, and I thank him for taking this job and adding
another phase in his public service.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Warner. Senator, we thank you. That was an
excellent statement and, having interviewed Dr. Klein in some
depth, I certainly wish to associate myself with your remarks.
Senator Hutchison. The President has certainly upgraded the
expertise with Les Brownlee and Dr. Dale Klein, who are the two
I know, and I am very pleased that you are holding this hearing
so that we can expedite their nomination. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Senator Hutchison, thank you so much for
coming by. I know how much it means to our nominees to hear
those words. Thank you.
Senator Warner. Mr. Chairman, could I say a word on behalf
of Mr. Teets? I had an opportunity to visit with him, and I
would like to say a few words. He came up through what I regard
as the old aristocracy that there was at one time in the
aerospace defense business. He served under some of the
toughest taskmasters, Tom Pownell, with whom I was associated
for 40 years, and Norm Augustine. If you can survive their
tests and be seated here today before us, you have some real
mettle, mister, and your qualifications earn you the position
of Under Secretary.
As I commented a few minutes ago, after Senate confirmation
of your nomination, I think you will find this position one of
the most challenging chapters of your career.
Senator Allard. Mr. Chairman, may I add just a few comments
to the Ranking Republican, Senator Warner?
Chairman Levin. Senator Allard.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD
Senator Allard. Mr. Teets is a graduate of the University
of Colorado and a Colorado native. As Senator Warner mentioned,
he does bring to his responsibilities a great deal of
experience on the private side and in the industrial sector he
is intimately familiar with those systems. With his
responsibilities towards the NRO I think we could not have come
up with a better nominee, and so I just wanted to throw my two
bits in and talk a little bit about Mr. Teets and the expertise
he is bringing to this position. Mr. Chairman, I offer my
prepared statement for the record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Allard follows:]
Prepared Statement by Senator Wayne Allard
Thank you Mr. Chairman,
I want to thank each of you for coming here today and for your
willingness to accept a tremendous amount of responsibility at one of
the most important and challenging periods in our country's history. I
am confident that all of you are up to the task and will serve this
Nation well. I want to thank you in advance for the work you are about
to embark on, as I am sure that you will all be successful.
Dr. Klein, Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Defense Programs have
been of great interest to me and this committee for some time. So much
so, Senator Warner and Senator Levin formed the Emerging Threats and
Capabilities Subcommittee to address issues related to these programs.
The recent events have proven that to be a wise decision. You are
taking on this responsibility at a time of renewed interest in the
American public. While this may provide you some challenges, it will
provide you some opportunities as well.
Also, I am very interested in the Chemical Demilitarization
Program, specifically at the Pueblo Depot. I am very concerned about
the pace and safety of the destruction and cleanup of the chemical
weapons stored at the site. DOD has yet to select a technology to
destroy the weapons and I would encourage you to use your new position
to move the process forward in selecting the safest and most effective
technology. I wish you luck in your efforts.
Mr. Teets, it will certainly be beneficial to the Pentagon to have
another Colorado native and Colorado University graduate serving. Your
knowledge and background in running a successful business will serve
you and this Nation well. Additionally, your expertise in the
capabilities of the space industry will become more and more important
in the years ahead. I am very pleased to have someone with your
credentials as the Under Secretary of the Air Force. Good luck.
Mr. Brownlee, it has been a great pleasure working with you on this
committee. The work that you have done here has been absolutely
outstanding. You are a proven performer, not only on this committee,
but for many years as a soldier and as an Army leader. I have no doubt
that, once again, you will serve the Army and this Nation proud and
with great distinction in your new role. Your leadership and steady
hand will be missed by every member on this committee and I wish you
great success and I look forward to working with you.
Chairman Levin. Senator Allard, thank you very much. The
record will be kept open for any other opening statements that
anyone might want to place in the record.
Senator Nelson.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR BILL NELSON
Senator Nelson. Mr. Chairman, I want to say that as a new
member of this committee I have been so impressed with the
professionalism of this committee. Clearly that reflects the
leadership which is the two of you, but it also reflects the
leadership of the staff directors, so it is a pleasure for me
to be here to help this process along.
I also want to say that I second, Senator Warner, your
comments about Mr. Teets. In my former life I was involved with
those two individuals you talked about, Tom Pownell and Norm
Augustine, and they were good, hard-driving taskmasters, and
anyone that can survive that has done a good job.
Chairman Levin. Senator Sessions.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JEFF SESSIONS
Senator Sessions. Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my
appreciation for these three nominees and their willingness to
serve our country. They have great backgrounds and integrity,
and I think will do an outstanding job for our country.
I think particularly I have to note, Colonel Brownlee, how
much I have enjoyed working with you on this committee. It has
been a pleasure. As a new member, your wisdom and insight were
very helpful to me. I know you have a comprehensive
understanding of America's defense structure both as a combat-
decorated veteran, as a person who served in defense before and
now, with so many years on this committee. I cannot think of a
person who could bring more to the job than you.
The main thing that you have brought to this committee is a
sense of integrity and confidence among all the staff and all
the Senators. It has been a unifying and beneficial atmosphere
that you helped create, and I appreciate that. I think all of
us do, and I am honored, pleased, and thrilled that the
President has given you this great honor, and I know you will
do a great job.
Mr. Chairman, I would offer a statement and some questions
for the record.
[The statement of Senator Sessions follows:]
Prepared Statement by Senator Jeff Sessions
Mr. Chairman I want to thank you for calling this hearing to
consider these nominations for the positions of Under Secretaries of
the Army and Air Force, and Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for
Nuclear and Chemical and Biological Defense Programs. Senator Warner,
this must be a bitter-sweet moment for you. You may be losing an
outstanding staff director, but the Army will gain an outstanding Under
Secretary.
These are indeed important positions. Mr. Teets, I look forward to
hearing from you your vision for the Air Force and the aircraft it
needs, especially in light of our combat operations over Afghanistan
where forward basing rights seem to be at a premium.
Mr. Klein, the position of Assistant to the Secretary of Defense
for Nuclear and Chemical and Biological Defense Programs has taken on
an importance that few could have imagined prior to the cowardly use of
anthrax as a weapon of terror. We have seen these terrorists would not
hesitate from using these weapons of mass destruction. I look forward
to hearing from you what the course ahead is to protect our service
members and our Nation as a whole from these despicable acts.
Finally, Colonel Brownlee, as it has already been said by others,
the President could not have picked a finer person to be the next Under
Secretary of the Army. From your heroism on the fields of combat in
Vietnam, through your outstanding experience as Military Executive to
the former Under Secretary of the Army, James Ambrose, and your superb
leadership of the Armed Services Committee staff, to your education in
Alabama with a Masters Degree of Business Administration from the
Auburn University you have the record to prove you will superbly fill
the role of Under Secretary of the Army.
I also want to take this moment to thank you for 3 years of superb
support you and your staff has provided to me since I have become a
member of the Armed Services Committee. While we may not have always
agreed, I always appreciated your well thought-out advice. I know
Secretary White, the Army and the United States will also benefit from
your advice and superb work.
Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Sessions.
Senator Akaka.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL K. AKAKA
Senator Akaka. Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity
to add my welcome to the nominees this morning, and in
particular Mr. Les Brownlee along with other members of this
committee. I really enjoyed working with him as staff director
here for this committee over the years, and I look forward to
continuing to work with you, Les, upon your confirmation as
Under Secretary of the Army. I want to also welcome Dr. Klein
and Mr. Teets this morning. I have reviewed your questions and
biographies, and I want to associate my remarks with my
colleagues here this morning. You are all well-qualified to
serve in the important positions which you have been nominated
for, and I want to wish all of you well.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you very much, Senator Akaka.
Senator Inhofe.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JAMES M. INHOFE
Senator Inhofe. Mr. Chairman, since everyone has spoken I
did not want my silence to be misinterpreted as a lack of
support. [Laughter.]
Let me say, Mr. Teets, I also went to the University of
Colorado 10 years before you did, and we could probably share a
few stories about that. I think it is sometimes not emphasized
how significant it is to get people in positions like you are
going to be in and have this tremendous background in the
private sector. You would bring a different perspective, and I
am sure that will serve very well. Dr. Klein, I enjoyed our
visit very much, and I am looking forward to working with you.
Les, I am not articulate enough to say anything different
than has already been said about you, so let me just echo every
wonderful thing that has been said on your behalf.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Senator Bunning.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JIM BUNNING
Senator Bunning. Since everyone is getting to say something
in their opening statement, as the junior member of the
committee I am going to use just about a minute or 2.
Senator Warner. You take all the time you want, Senator.
Senator Bunning. Thank you very much. I want to welcome you
and your families to this hearing, because I know how important
this day is to each and every one of you. Les, I would like to
also thank you for your long and meritorious service to this
committee and the country. Things will be a little harder here
because of your leaving, but maybe you can take them across the
river and make them easier.
You all have great challenges ahead of you in normal times.
These positions are nominations that entail significant
responsibility. During war they hold even more significance. I
have confidence you will all carry these burdens out as no one
else can do. We are counting on you to do that, because, Dr.
Klein, I know that we have some problems in Kentucky in
relationship to the job that you are assuming.
I wish each and every one of you Godspeed. You are going to
need it.
Thank you.
Chairman Levin. There seems to be a strong consensus to
want to see you leave, Les. [Laughter.]
We will now ask each of the nominees a series of questions.
You have already responded to our prehearing policy questions,
our standard questionnaire. These responses will be made a part
of the record. The paperwork on each of the nominees has also
been received. That paperwork will be reviewed to make sure it
is in accordance with the committee's requirements.
There are several standard questions we ask every nominee
who comes before this committee. Before I ask you those
questions, I will simply note that in your response to the
advance policy questions you agreed to appear as a witness
before congressional committees when called, and you have
agreed to ensure that briefings, testimony, and other
communications are provided to Congress.
Now I will ask you the following questions. Have you
adhered to applicable laws and regulations governing conflict
of interest? Dr. Klein.
Dr. Klein. Yes.
Mr. Brownlee. Yes, sir.
Mr. Teets. Yes, sir.
Chairman Levin. Have you assumed any duties or undertaken
any actions which would appear to presume the outcome of the
confirmation process? Dr. Klein.
Dr. Klein. No, sir.
Mr. Brownlee. No, sir.
Mr. Teets. No, sir.
Chairman Levin. Will you ensure the Department complies
with deadlines established for requested communications,
including prepared testimony and questions for the record in
hearings? Dr. Klein.
Dr. Klein. Yes, sir.
Mr. Brownlee. Yes, sir, I will.
Mr. Teets. Yes, sir.
Chairman Levin. Will you cooperate in providing witnesses
and briefers in response to congressional requests? Dr. Klein.
Dr. Klein. Yes, sir.
Mr. Brownlee. Yes, sir, I will.
Mr. Teets. Yes, sir.
Chairman Levin. Will those witnesses be protected from
reprisal for their testimony?
Dr. Klein. Yes, sir.
Mr. Brownlee. Yes, sir, they will.
Mr. Teets. Yes, sir.
Chairman Levin. Let me now ask each of you to give us any
opening statements you might have, and to also introduce any
family members or friends you might have here.
Dr. Klein.
STATEMENT OF DR. DALE KLEIN, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT TO THE
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR NUCLEAR AND CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL
DEFENSE PROGRAMS
Dr. Klein. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. My name
is Dale Klein. I have no statement for the record, but with
your permission I would like to make a few opening remarks.
Mr. Chairman, Senator Warner, members of the committee, it
is an honor to appear before you today as President Bush's
nominee to the Office of Assistant to the Secretary for Defense
for Nuclear and Chemical and Biological Programs. I would like
to thank the President and Secretary Rumsfeld for their
confidence and support. Further, I would like to thank Senator
Hutchison for her kind words of introduction. Last, I would
like to thank Mr. Peter Aldrich for his support of my
nomination.
I especially thank this committee for their support of the
men and women in all of the Armed Services. If confirmed, I
will work with this committee to address the many challenges
that together we will overcome.
I grew up on a small farm near Tipton, Missouri. I attended
the University of Missouri-Columbia, where I studied mechanical
engineering. I earned a Ph.D. with a specialization in nuclear
engineering. For my professional life I have been associated
with the University of Texas at Austin as professor of
mechanical engineering in our nuclear and radiation and
engineering program. I have worked extensively with the Pantex
plant near Amarillo, Texas, where hands-on nuclear assembly and
disassembly take place.
As associate dean for research, I have supervised a variety
of research units, including those in chemical and biological
research areas. I have traveled to Russia a number of times,
and have worked with Russian nuclear engineers to secure their
nuclear materials. Currently, as Senator Hutchison indicated, I
served as vice chancellor of special engineering programs for
the University of Texas systems.
If confirmed, I will have a number of key responsibilities.
If confirmed, I will work closely with the National Nuclear
Security Administration to ensure that our nuclear weapons
stockpile is safe, secure, and reliable. I will oversee
effective chemical and biological defense programs. I will work
to counter the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction,
and I will oversee the safe and secure demilitarization of our
aging chemical weapons stockpile.
I will not be able to do this alone. My wife, Becky, is one
of three commissioners of the Texas Public Utility Commission,
and is a Major in the Air Force Reserves. Unfortunately, due to
her responsibilities she is not able to be with us today. Along
with her support, I am certain I will need the support of many
other dedicated public servants and the support of this
committee. I pledge to you to do my best efforts to address the
many challenges we face in winning the war on terrorism and
assuring homeland security.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Dr. Klein.
Mr. Brownlee.
STATEMENT OF R.L. BROWNLEE, NOMINEE TO BE UNDER SECRETARY OF
THE ARMY
Mr. Brownlee. Sir, with your permission I will introduce
the members of my family here. My son John, who came up from
Roanoke, my daughter, Tracy and her husband, Clay, and their
daughter Kyla, who is 2\1/2\ going on 10. [Laughter.]
Chairman Levin. Is she the one you have a picture of in
your office?
Mr. Brownlee. Yes, sir. There are actually two of them,
John's wife Lee Ann, and his daughter, Thompson, who is 1\1/2\,
could not be here this morning. Lee Ann is the anchor for the
evening news in Roanoke for Channel 10, and they are in a
ratings period and so she could not get away. [Laughter.]
Chairman Levin. That is why Senator Warner carries Roanoke.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Brownlee. When we get the 2\1/2\ year old together with
the 1\1/2\ year old, it is sort of like mixing nitric acid with
glycerine.
Senator Warner. Mr. Chairman, Les is too modest, and his
son likewise. His son has just been appointed by President Bush
as United States Attorney for the Western District of Virginia.
He had a distinguished career in the Army himself and earned
his position through merit.
Chairman Levin. Thank you. Les.
Mr. Brownlee. Mr. Chairman, I do not have a written
statement. I have a few remarks I would like to make, if I can
get through them before this committee.
Mr. Chairman, Senator Warner, Senator Thurmond and other
members of the committee and Senator Hutchison, I cannot thank
you enough for the kind words you have said about me. I feel
very undeserving, but I just cannot thank you enough for what
you have said. It is indeed an honor for me to appear before
this committee for the purpose of this hearing. I have to say
that as I reviewed the qualifications of these two very
distinguished gentlemen sitting on each side of me, I was
reminded of something John Hamre once said. He said he felt
like a mule who had been entered in the Kentucky Derby.
[Laughter.]
I am deeply honored, Mr. Chairman, to have been nominated
by President Bush for this important position at this crucial
period in our history. I would also like to thank Secretary
Rumsfeld, Secretary White, and other members of this committee
who recommended my nomination to the President. I pledge that
if I am confirmed I will do my utmost to be worthy of their and
your confidence.
I would like to express my sincere appreciation to Senator
Warner for giving me my first opportunity to work in the United
States Senate as his military legislative assistant almost 18
years ago, and later for appointment me to this committee's
staff, and to Senator Thurmond, who made me staff director for
this committee, and to Senator Warner for allowing me to
continue in that capacity when he became chairman. I will be
eternally grateful for the opportunities you have so graciously
provided me and mainly for your trust and confidence.
I would also like to take this opportunity to thank all the
members of this committee for your understanding, your
kindness, your patience, and your trust. It is through the
conscientious and diligent manner that you carry on the
critically important work of this committee in the bipartisan
manner you do that will ensure its continuing relevance and
effectiveness.
I want to thank also my colleagues on the staff, both past
and present, who serve here on this wonderful committee. Mr.
Chairman, I know that you and the members of the committee are
well aware of their professionalism, their dedication, and
their standards of excellence. Over the years, they have become
a second family to me. I want to thank them for their tireless
efforts and their loyalty and support of the vital work of this
committee. Time does not permit me to thank each of them
personally by name. I will do that before I leave,
individually.
Mr. Chairman, I would also like to thank the members of my
family, my daughter Tracy, who has excelled in everything she
has ever done and continues to do so after putting her own
professional career on hold to be a full-time mom to Kyla, and
to my son John, who all the members of our family were thrilled
to watch last Friday as he took the oath of office as the
United States Attorney for the Western District of the
Commonwealth of Virginia.
Mr. Chairman, if I am confirmed I will be returning to the
Army I have loved and in which I proudly served for 22 years.
In fact, since my last assignment in the Army was as the
military executive officer to the Under Secretary of the Army,
Hon. James Ambrose, if confirmed, I would be returning possibly
to the same suite of offices I departed almost 18 years ago.
Our Nation is now in peril, Mr. Chairman, and the dangers
are not just on the war front, but on the home front as well.
Our Armed Forces have never failed this Nation, and under the
leadership of President Bush, and with the guidance and support
of this committee, they will not fail in this endeavor.
Mr. Chairman, while I am deeply honored and anxious to
assume the duties of the position for which I have been
nominated, if I am confirmed, leaving the United States Senate
and this committee I have loved and revered, and my fellow
staff members, will be difficult. I have never failed to
appreciate the privilege of walking onto the floor of the
United States Senate, nor the importance of being asked for my
views and recommendations by members of this committee and this
body.
I plan some day to thrill my grandchildren with the stories
of my heroes, many of whom are sitting here today. While there
were times when, like others, I may have become temporarily
frustrated or impatient, I have never grown tired of the
important work that is done here. I have a host of memories
which I will carry with me for the rest of my life, of being
present at meetings with the highest officials in our
Government to witness discussions of the most important
national security issues of our day, and fact-finding trips to
far-flung battlefields, from Panama to the Persian Gulf,
Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo, and of 18 separate
committee markups, floor actions, and conferences.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much the committee's
consideration of my nomination. If confirmed, I assure you that
my first loyalty and consideration in all matters concerning
the Army will be first and foremost to the individual soldier.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to your questions.
Chairman Levin. Thank you so much, Les. Your statement is
truly a beautiful one.
Mr. Teets.
STATEMENT OF PETER B. TEETS, NOMINEE TO BE UNDER SECRETARY OF
THE AIR FORCE
Mr. Teets. Mr. Chairman, good morning, and with your
permission I would like to introduce the members of my family
that are with us today, my wife Vivian, and our youngest son,
Chris.
Mr. Chairman, I have no statement for the record, but with
your permission I would like to make a few brief opening
remarks.
Chairman Levin. Please.
Mr. Teets. Mr. Chairman, Senator Warner, members of the
committee, it is indeed an honor to appear before you this
morning as the President's nominee for Under Secretary of the
Air Force. I would like to thank President Bush for nominating
me for this position. Also, I thank Secretary of the Air Force
James Roche for making possible this opportunity to serve, and
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and Director of Central
Intelligence George Tenet for their support.
In addition, Senator Warner, I would like to thank you,
Senator Allard, and Senator Inhofe for your kind introductory
remarks earlier today.
I have spent over 35 years working in the space and defense
world, all of that time in the industrial side. Over the course
of that time, I have had the great pleasure of working closely
with many talented and dedicated people in the defense and
intelligence community. If confirmed, I very much look forward
to being able to now do some meaningful and important public
service work to support Secretary Roche as his Under Secretary,
and also to provide leadership for our vital national security
space activities.
Mr. Chairman, if I am confirmed, I will be pleased and
honored to work with you and this committee to meet the many
challenges that lie in front of us.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Levin. Thank you very much.
Senator Warner.
Senator Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I advised the
chairman, I am due to open a conference on veterans, on World
War I to Vietnam and all U.S. conflicts, so I would simply like
to make a statement to each nominee and perhaps solicit a short
response.
First to you, Colonel Brownlee, again to personalize my
knowledge of the positions which you and Mr. Teets are going to
take, when the chairman read off the decorations that you won
in Vietnam it conjured up the memories of my visits to those
battlefields, fire bases, and aid stations.
When I was in the position of Under Secretary, collectively
in the Pentagon we made some misjudgments. I see today in this
conflict we are engaged in thus far, I do not think there have
been any misjudgments, but there could come such a time. I just
hope that knowing you as I do, that you have the courage to
come forward to your superiors and indeed to the Congress of
the United States and tell the story from the standpoint of
that young person in uniform, wherever he or she may be, and
the risks they are taking.
This is a difficult challenge our President has had to
face. There is no alternative to what he has done in this
conflict, and you have that challenge as well. You and I have
struggled with various parts of the proposed reorganization of
the Army many times. I respect Secretary White, but you bring a
corporate knowledge of that to the Army Secretary, and I think
you have to give it some very strong leadership, and do it
quickly.
I hope that you will commit to come before this Congress,
because we know you and we trust you and we respect you, not
that we do not have similar feelings for the other members of
the Secretariats and the Military Departments. Our President
and Secretary Rumsfeld are to be commended for searching far
and wide for the talent they have put together in these
Secretariats, talent which was unmatched, I think, in previous
years.
So I just hope that you will make that commitment, because
we lost the support of Congress during Vietnam, we lost the
American public. In the end I am not so sure that we did not do
a disservice to those of you who were in uniform.
You are in a position, Colonel, to see that that does not
happen again. Do we understand each other?
Mr. Brownlee. We do, sir.
Senator Warner. Now, Dr. Klein, you are going to take over
a portfolio that is extremely important. I am going to bring
out one matter which you and I discussed at length, and that is
that we are engaged by virtue of the first President Bush in
not testing our stockpile to determine its credibility. I am
not suggesting we deviate at this time from that decision, but
as you continue to monitor how this program to replace testing
is developed, you have to come and tell us it is on schedule,
it is funded or underfunded, because we have to move forward as
quickly as possible to determine if that program is going to
work. If it does not, then the President and Congress are faced
with the decision to return to live testing once again in order
to maintain the credibility of that stockpile.
Now, that is not a popular decision, but with the
proliferation taking place in this world, we have no
alternative but to assure absolutely the credibility of that
stockpile and its safety. Most particularly to those who have
to handle those weapons, and the communities that fortunately
to this date in our country are willing to have them in the
proximity of where people live.
We understand each other on that, do we not, that you will
be forthcoming?
Dr. Klein. Yes, sir. If confirmed, we will certainly be
addressing the safety, security, and the reliability of those.
Senator Warner. To monitor that program?
Dr. Klein. Yes, sir.
Senator Warner. Now, Mr. Teets, I presume you will take
over the major responsibility for the procurement systems of
your Military Department. Some of the advantages of being Under
Secretary, you do not have to deal with the press as much as
the Secretary, you do not have to deal with Congress, and you
do not have to travel as much as the Secretary. You can get on
with the work of the Department.
This Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is unlike anything in the
history of the annals of our procurement in this country. It is
three services, the Air Force, the Navy, and the Marine Corps,
and you have to be an ombudsman to maintain a political
balance. Believe me, there are politics in that system over
there, and you know it. You have seen it from a distance in
your distinguished career.
This committee was of the opinion that that contract ought
to be dual-sourced, but that decision was overridden by the
Appropriations Committee. Am I not correct in that, Mr.
Brownlee?
Mr. Brownlee. Yes, sir.
Senator Warner. Anyway, I accept it. It is over. It is
behind us. But the magnitude of this contract is absolutely
awesome. It is almost like we are at a roulette table and we
put all of our money on one spot, and you have to make it work.
If it does not work early on, or there are some problems, you
must come before Congress.
Mr. Teets. Yes, sir, I do appreciate your comments, and I
can assure you that I do understand the size, the magnitude,
the importance of the joint strike fighter program, and if
confirmed I would be very pleased to take a strong involvement
in the program.
Senator Warner. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, members
of the committee.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Warner.
Les, let me start with you. You have answered some
questions on transformation. Give us your thoughts on
prioritizing the requirements of the Army between the Legacy
Force, the Interim Force, and the Objective Force as to how you
are going to balance that. How do you see it unfolding? What
are your thoughts generally on that?
Mr. Brownlee. Well, as you well know, Senator, the Legacy
Force is a force that is in place that has to be prepared to go
to war today. Then, of course, there is the Interim Brigade
Combat Teams (IBCTs) which make up the Interim Force, and the
Army is beginning, I believe, to field those vehicles now. I
would have to check the details of that.
Then, of course, there is the Interim Objective Force which
is in the future somewhere, on which there are some science and
technology moneys being extended now.
As I look at the question of prioritizing among these, I am
reminded of a very old division commander who wisely stated
once that there are no priorities among essentials. I think all
three of these are essential, Senator, and the trick here is to
balance the allocation of resources so that we can, in fact,
proceed with all three in an appropriate way.
Chairman Levin. You have been intimately involved in the
discussions about the Interim Brigade Combat Team force
structure.
Mr. Brownlee. Yes, sir.
Chairman Levin. As to how we are going to evaluate whether
or not that structure closes a presumed gap that is going to
exist in capabilities that a medium weight force is intended to
fill, what are your thoughts about that particular process?
Mr. Brownlee. Yes, sir. My view of this, Senator, as most
of the members of the committee know, is that the Army found
itself in a situation where they had the best heavy force in
the world which was difficult to deploy. They had a much
lighter force which was more easily deployed but did not seem
to meet the requirements for lethality and mobility that they
needed. They then identified this gap in between, which these
IBCTs, or interim brigades, should fill, and they are in the
process now of putting those together.
It is my feeling, Senator, that at some point in time to be
determined by the Army, or whenever it is appropriate, there
should be a full operational evaluation of this unit, not just
the equipment, but this unit. It is my understanding the Army
intends to do that.
Chairman Levin. Dr. Klein, you have made reference to the
stockpile stewardship program both in response to Senator
Warner and also in response to advanced questions, and you
indicated, I believe, that you support the stockpile
stewardship program, is that generally correct?
Dr. Klein. Yes, sir, Senator.
Chairman Levin. What are your plans to ensure that that
program is, number one, closely coordinated, and number two, in
fact is working and viable? You have seen this up close, and so
we will be relying on you to give us either assurance that it
is working, or in the event that you are no longer able to give
us the assurance, that our nuclear stockpile is secure and
reliable, that you would then notify us of that. Please give us
more detail about how you plan to accomplish that.
Dr. Klein. Well, Senator, if confirmed, as you would
expect, the safety, security, and reliability of our nuclear
weapons stockpile is extremely important. I expect to, if
confirmed, work through the Nuclear Weapons Council.
There is a program in place where the laboratory directors
certify the adequacy of the stockpile. If confirmed, my office
will be very active in discussions with the laboratory
directors through the National Nuclear Security Agency. We will
have monthly meetings with the Nuclear Weapons Council to make
sure that people are informed, and as issues are addressed,
they will be consulted with the experts in the field, and if
there are any issues that indicate that these weapons are not
meeting their requirements, we will certainly inform this
committee as well as others, and address those appropriately.
Chairman Levin. You indicated you had been to Russia a
number of times, so you are obviously familiar with our
cooperative threat reduction program. I have a two-part
question: first, give us your thoughts about that cooperative
threat reduction program. Is it an important program? Should we
fully fund it?
Second, are there additional opportunities to do
cooperative research with Russia through that program with
nuclear scientists and engineers in Russian nuclear weapons
complexes?
Dr. Klein. Mr. Chairman, as you indicated, I have been to
Russia several times, and I have always come away impressed
with the diligence that our country has in our scientists, our
procedures, and our practices. The cooperative threat reduction
program is extremely important. I think evidences of September
11 have demonstrated that issues can hit us here in our own
country.
Weapons of mass destruction are very serious. We need to
work with Russia to make sure that the scientists are not
really releasing information to those that would do us harm,
and I believe the cooperative threat reduction is a valuable
program and we should maintain it to the extent that we can.
Chairman Levin. On the bioterrorism front, what role do you
think the Department of Defense should play in planning and
carrying out a response to a bioterrorist threat in the United
States?
Dr. Klein. Senator, if confirmed as the Assistant to the
Secretary for Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Defense
Programs, I would certainly provide whatever resources I could
to respond to events. It is my understanding that the
Department of Defense is in a support role, and would not
necessarily be the first responders, but we certainly have
technologies, equipment, and training that would be beneficial
to address any event that might occur.
Chairman Levin. There is a huge role for both coordination
and providing assistance in that area from the Department of
Defense. I hope that is going to be at the top of your list of
tasks when you are confirmed.
Dr. Klein. Yes, sir.
Chairman Levin. My time is up.
Senator Inhofe.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, Mr. Teets, you have quite an undertaking
there, and a variety of things to be involved in. In addition
to the concentration on space, I would like to ask you
something concerning our depots. We have for quite a number of
years, as you well know, being on the other side, wanted to
maintain a core capability in our depots. We went through a
couple of base realignment and closure (BRAC) rounds where we
dropped our air logistics centers (ALCs), for example, from
three down to two, which are operating now. They have the surge
capacity, but they are operating at a full capacity today.
However, a lot of them are operating with World War II
equipment, and I would like to ask you what your feeling is as
to the role of our depots currently and for the future.
Mr. Teets. Thank you, Senator Inhofe. I am familiar with
the air logistics centers from work that I did several years
ago. I did have an opportunity recently in a luncheon
conversation with Secretary Roche to talk in general about the
subject, and I know he believes strongly in maintaining the
core capability of those three existing ALCs. As it relates to
the subject of modernization and update he has a strong belief
that there is a need to have some public-private partnership to
allow modernization to take place in a cost-effective way and
in a meaningful way.
I can tell you that I am in 100-percent agreement with
Secretary Roche on that subject.
Senator Inhofe. I appreciate that, and I am going to ask
you to try, as you look at that change, and keeping in mind
that most of our modern platforms are maintained in the private
sector, that there is a reason for core capability. Perhaps you
would be in the ideal situation to be able to look at various
creative ways that we can leverage private sector funds with
our depots and still protect that depot capability, and that is
what I would like to be working with you personally on.
Mr. Teets. If confirmed, I would be pleased to do that,
Senator.
Senator Inhofe. Great. Thank you very much.
Les, one thing you are not capable of--I have heard all
these good things--and that is, giving short answers.
[Laughter.]
Let me ask you to try to do that.
We hear a lot about competition, and you are going to have
to be faced with some of the problems that are contentious
right now. I know I have been trying to get pulse fast neutron
analysis (PFNA) technology used as opposed to just this
straight x-ray, and I think now, after September 11, we are
going to be able to successfully do that. However, we have not
been able to get that competition, and we have tried since
1994, when I arrived from the House to the Senate.
But we also hear about the Star Streak versus the Stinger.
I do not have a dog in this fight, but I am tired of hearing
reasons why we have to have competition, and yet the excuses
why we do not. I understand the back pressure problems that are
posed, but I understand that has also been addressed.
Do you have any thoughts about that competition?
Mr. Brownlee. Yes, sir. I do not know all the details of
what has happened recently, but I have been advised that there
are some overpressure problems with firing the Star Streak in
an air-to-air role, and I believe the Army needs to work out
those problems for safety reasons.
Senator Inhofe. I think the Apache, that they have worked
out a way to reduce that back pressure by about 80 percent, and
I know this is ongoing, but I would like to make a challenge to
you that we either do or do not have this competition, and quit
talking about it. I know we can work through that well
together.
Mr. Brownlee. Senator, I promise that I will look into it
and get back to you.
Senator Inhofe. The other thing that, in terms of
competition, I am interested in, I had occasion to go to Fort
Lewis, as you recall, and in fact you and I talked about that
trip, the competition that is out there with the M-113 track
vehicle.
I had my own competition. I did it, and I sat in the back
of that thing that has been around for 40 years, and then got
into the more modern vehicle and recognized that there are ways
of putting a track on that wheeled vehicle, the Interim Armored
Vehicle (IAV). Senator Warner was talking about the joint
strike fighter. The Marine Corps is different than the other.
There is a way of adapting a vehicle.
I take a differing view of the rest of the committee on
demanding that we have some $28 million worth of side-by-side
testing and competition in that, because when you ride in both
of them it is like competing a horse with a Jeep. They are
apples and oranges.
I would like to have you use your expertise that you have
had on this committee to get us off this high spot, and if we
can use the $28 million more effectively to buy a larger number
of these, perhaps do this.
Do you have any thoughts on that particular competition?
Mr. Brownlee. Sir, I have certainly been involved in those
debates. I have discussed that both with members of this
committee and with people in the Army. I certainly believe that
the Army needs to have the full knowledge of the operational
combat capabilities of the vehicles within its own inventory
that at least appear to meet those requirements.
I also believe that if the Army can provide that
information to the committee in a timely and satisfactory way,
without conducting a test, then the committee could reconsider
that.
Senator Inhofe. I have no doubt in my mind that you have
ridden in the 113.
Mr. Brownlee. Yes, sir. I commanded battalions with them.
Senator Inhofe. Have you ridden in the IAV?
Mr. Brownlee. Yes, sir.
Senator Inhofe. Lastly, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask
Dr. Klein, if you were to say there are three most important
nuclear issues today, what would those three be?
Dr. Klein. Well, Senator, I think the most important issue
that needs to be addressed in our nuclear weapons stockpile is
our aging stockpile. Those devices have been around for quite
sometime, and as Senator Levin indicated there is a stockpile
stewardship program, so the first priority I would say is
addressing the aging stockpile.
The second issue I have been concerned with a number of
times is the retraining of the young people today, certainly in
nuclear fields. Being in education, we have not seen a lot of
young people enter that profession. We certainly need to make
sure that the Department of Defense has a program to replace
retiring individuals in the technical fields.
Then lastly, I would say the important thing is budget
prioritization.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you very much.
Chairman Levin. Thank you. Senator Bunning is next on the
early bird basis.
Senator Bunning. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Klein, I would like to explore with you the problems at
Bluegrass Army Depot. Your duties, if confirmed, will include
ensuring the safety and secure demilitarization of our chemical
weapons stockpile. Because of the chemical weapons located at
the Bluegrass Depot in Kentucky, this is an area that I am
particularly concerned with.
So far, the Army has done a poor job convincing the
population near the depot that incineration is the safest way
to destroy these weapons. Congress has mandated that a review
of alternative technologies be conducted to ensure that the
safest method be used to destroy these chemical weapons. This
review, which is ongoing, must be completed before a decision
about how to destroy these weapons is made for the Bluegrass
facility. Will you commit to taking a very hard look at the
current demilitarization program to ensure that it is safe and
effective?
Dr. Klein. Senator, if confirmed, I will absolutely give
you that promise.
Senator Bunning. Will you ensure that both the letter and
the spirit of the requirement for alternative technology review
are fulfilled before any decision about how to destroy the
chemical weapons at Bluegrass is made?
Dr. Klein. Yes, sir.
Senator Bunning. Will you ensure that the concerns of the
citizens around the depot are dealt with before the chemical
demilitarization begins?
Dr. Klein. Yes, sir.
Senator Bunning. Will you commit to working closely with my
staff and with Senator McConnell's staff to ensure that these
concerns are addressed?
Dr. Klein. Yes, sir.
Senator Bunning. Les, I am going to ask you something that
has been batted around around here for a while.
As a result of the September 11 attack there have been some
calls, including right here in our committee, to review posse
comitatus, the law restricting the use of the military for
performing law enforcement functions. Do you believe that we
should change that law, and if so, how?
Mr. Brownlee. Senator Bunning, I am not sure if it needs to
be changed or not, but I certainly believe it needs to be
reviewed in light of the current situation you described. There
has been some correspondence already between this committee and
the Secretary of Defense relative to that. My understanding is
that the President does have authority to use active military
forces under some circumstances, but there may be other
circumstances where we need to move to modify that law, and I
certainly believe it should be reviewed in that context.
Senator Bunning. I assure you that there are present
circumstances that military personnel in the 101st Airborne are
being used as military police in Kosovo, because I just visited
there. It is not much fun seeing some of the most highly
skilled soldiers being used as military police, so I think it
needs to be reviewed, and I hope that your tenure, if
confirmed, will give it a good look.
Mr. Brownlee. Yes, sir.
Senator Bunning. Given the demonstrated capability of
someone to conduct an anthrax attack against us, do you believe
we should accelerate the National Guard's deployment of the
weapons of mass destruction civil support teams?
Mr. Brownlee. Senator Bunning, as you might know, I am a
very strong supporter of those teams. That whole thought
originated within this committee, and this committee has
strongly supported it. I certainly believe that they should be
equipped, trained, and maintained properly, and in the context
of doing that, if we can accelerate to a number that can give
nationwide coverage, not necessarily one in each State, but
nationwide coverage, then I believe we should proceed in that
direction.
Senator Bunning. Thank you. I have a question for Mr.
Teets. Yesterday's Washington Times reported that the Air Force
was resisting the transfer of munitions kits to the Navy for
attacks on Afghanistan. Today's Inside the Pentagon stated that
the Times report was completely wrong, and that the Air Force
arranged for this transfer nearly 2 weeks ago.
Whatever the correct answer, will you commit to working
with the other services to ensure that our mission gets
accomplished without damaging interservice rivalries?
Mr. Teets. If confirmed, I will be very pleased to do that,
yes, sir.
Senator Bunning. So far, in our war against the terrorists
and their sponsors, most of the air attacks have been made by
Navy carrier-based strike aircraft and Air Force long-range
bombers. Air Force strike aircraft have not yet played a large
role in this fight because of the lack of land base close
enough to the fight.
Some have claimed the lesson of this is that we should
reduce our reliance on Air Force strike aircraft. In past
conflicts, some claimed that the lessons of that conflict were
that we should rely more heavily on Air Force strike aircraft.
Would you agree that the true lesson is that every conflict has
different requirements and that the United States needs to
maintain balanced capability, air, naval, and ground forces
able to fight and win across the complete spectrum of a
conflict?
Mr. Teets. I would certainly agree with that statement,
yes, sir.
Senator Bunning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Bunning.
Senator Allard.
Senator Allard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a full
statement that I would like to have put in the record, and
during the introductory remarks I did not make that full
statement. I wanted to recognize Mr. Teets at that time, but I
also want to recognize all three members of this panel.
It has been a pleasure to work with you, Mr. Brownlee. I
look forward to working with all three of you, not only because
you are involved in issues and areas that are important to our
country, but also important to the State of Colorado. My staff
and I will be visiting with you on a fairly routine basis, as
well as through the subcommittee assignments that I have here
on this committee. Along with Senator Warner I would appreciate
your honest and forthright comments as we move forward.
Dr. Klein, one observation I have made with respect to your
position is that it has been vacant for 3 years. This is a
position where I think there needs to be some strong
leadership, particularly in the cleanup of the chemical
demilitarization programs, I think that is really important. We
have some priorities in Colorado, just like Senator Bunning
does in Kentucky, and I would ask that you do everything that
you can to expedite the decision process.
I think both of us feel we need to move forward with the
decisionmaking process just for the sanity of the local
communities, and so that we can move on with the other business
facing this country. I have questions that I am going to direct
mainly to you, Mr. Teets, because of your responsibilities. One
of those that I wanted to direct to you is my view of the
National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) as a result of having
served on the NRO commission. That is that they have evolved
from a very advanced thinking group that was pushing technology
right out front, to one more of a maintenance and sort of a
marginal replacement organization.
One of the things that came out in our discussion on that
commission was that they need to become more revolutionary in
their technology thinking and carry on with that highly
classified heritage that was in the fifties, sixties, and
seventies. I would like to know what kind of thoughts you have
about the organization divesting itself from the care, feeding,
and incremental upgrade assistance, and how you think that may
fit into a cutting edge model.
Mr. Teets. Thank you, Senator Allard. I have had the good
fortune of working closely with the NRO for well over 30 years
now, and it would be my observation that they have been leaders
indeed in developing new technology, and have made some
wonderful breakthroughs in the mission areas that they pursue.
I also want to mention that I have read the report put out
by the NRO commission and appreciate it. I think an excellent
job was done in that review.
I would say that as time has progressed there have become a
number of systems that require continual maintenance and
operation activity that perhaps seem to have detracted from
some of these scientific breakthrough technology developments
that the NRO has formerly done. I am not 100 percent current
with all the things that are going on within the NRO right now,
but if confirmed, I can assure you that I will get on board in
a very rapid way and would be more than pleased to come back to
you with my personal assessment of that subject.
Senator Allard. I think there is a question out there as to
whether they should divest themselves of the routine management
stuff so they have more personnel and time to devote to the
high technology.
Mr. Teets. I think it is a very valid question that
deserves a solid answer. I would also say that one of the
recommendations that came out of the National Security Space
Commission dealt with the idea that there should be some best
practices commingling between NRO and the Air Force and other
service-based programs.
The Space Commission implementation memorandum that came
out from Secretary Rumsfeld's office on October 18 was a very
strong first step towards putting in place mechanisms to really
use best practices across our national security space programs.
Senator Allard. Another area I want to discuss with you is
the area of commercial imagery. I have been an advocate of the
use of more commercial imagery. I think that we have some
routine needs out there that really do not need to be used by
some of our more highly technical secret parts of our
information-gathering, and the Director of the NRO, as well as
the Director of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA),
have both sought to develop greater reliance on commercial
imagery in the last year, but it just has not been funded in
the budget request.
In your view, what important role can commercial imagery
play in the future, as we seek to modernize and revitalize the
imagery intelligence system?
Mr. Teets. Senator Allard, I am familiar with commercial
imaging systems to the extent that I was very much aware of
Space Imaging, Inc., and the activity they had with their
Iconos satellite, and I think it does provide high quality 1-
meter resolution kinds of imaging.
In my opinion, I think that there are ways for the
intelligence community to make use of that, and again, I have
not had recent or up-to-date discussions with people at NIMA or
in the NRO on this subject and would want to seek first from
them their understanding on this subject. If confirmed I would
be happy to do that early on and get back to you on that as
well.
Senator Allard. Actually, the commercial imaging is going
down to a 1/2 meter now.
Mr. Teets. To some extent, that almost generates a concern
perhaps, a concern over control of the product. You are
working, I think, a very good question and, as I say, if
confirmed, I would be happy to look into all aspects of
commercial imaging and its relationship to the NRO and get back
to you with solid answers.
Senator Allard. I was interested in that on the
Intelligence Committee and in my role on the Subcommittee on
Strategic here at the Committee on Armed Services.
Finally, we have both airborne and spaceborne
reconnaissance efforts, and it appears to me that at times some
of these functions overlap, although I think we are getting
better at coordinating and feeding them off one another, and in
your view, can and should we improve this integration and
coordination between space and air-based reconnaissance, or do
you think we are in pretty good shape?
Mr. Teets. I think historically we have not done a good job
on that subject, but I think it has been improving over time.
However, I would say that it is such a vitally important item
that it is an item that we ought to continue to drive hard on
and once again I would say that, if confirmed, that is a
subject that I would want to attack with some vigor.
Senator Allard. I guess we had the same problem there. It
is like the joint strike fighter. We designed that so it can be
universally used and cut down on maintenance cost and
operational cost, and supplies and parts, but in some ways we
find the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force all in the space
program, and I think we need to work more closely with each one
of those services. They each have their specific needs, and
they are pretty specific to each one of those, but I think we
need to seek for more continued cooperation between those so we
can avoid as much duplication as we possibly can in that area.
Mr. Teets. Yes, sir, I agree with that.
Senator Allard. Dr. Klein, we have the NNSA, the national
security laboratories. I am curious to know what thoughts you
may have on the role of our laboratories in our fight against
terrorism, and what we can do to secure their own boundaries so
that we do not have incursions into those laboratories.
Dr. Klein. Senator, if confirmed, I certainly would like to
meet with General Gordon and review the security programs they
have in place, and NNSA is getting established. They have been
about a year-and-a-half in operation.
I have been impressed with the technical capabilities of a
lot of the laboratories. They have a lot of very well-known
experts in the field, but I do know that there have been some
security concerns in the laboratories. They also have a wide
body of expertise, and so I would want to meet with General
Gordon as soon as reasonable, if confirmed, to talk about how
the labs can be better utilized.
Senator Allard. Mr. Chairman, my time has expired. Thank
you.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Allard.
Mr. Teets, a couple of questions for you, and then I will
be done.
The Space Commission recommended that the Defense
Department improve the career path for space professionals in
the military services, and they viewed this as necessary for
having the requisite Government cadre of professionals that
would be needed to deal with the various challenges that are
going to be faced. Do you have any specific proposals as to how
the Air Force could improve the career path for its cadre of
space professionals?
Mr. Teets. Mr. Chairman, I have read through the Commission
on National Security report, and I agree that that was an item
that they addressed with some energy. I do not have specific
proposals that I would propose to you right now, but I would
heartily underscore the idea that that is an important
consideration, and it is one that is growing in importance as
time goes on.
It will be important not only for Air Force officers but
Army and Navy officers, others who use space to have a
professional capability here, and of course that expands over
into the intelligence community as well.
I would be very pleased, if confirmed, to have a hard look
with those organizations to see what programs they have in
place right now, and what additional programs we could bring
online that would assist in that item.
Chairman Levin. What are, in your judgment, the highest
modernization priorities facing the Air Force today?
Mr. Teets. I would have to say, on the subject of
modernization, I am not an expert. However, I do know that the
average age of aircraft in the United States Air Force is
surprisingly large and growing. As a matter of fact, I
understand that there is a proposal now that the Air Force
really needs on the order of 170 new aircraft procured each
year for the next 10 or so years in order to start to have a
meaningful reduction in that trend.
I again think that modernization is an important subject to
be addressed, and if confirmed I would be pleased to conduct a
special review on that subject and get back to you on it.
Chairman Levin. Thank you. Just the other day we were told
that there is a proposal that we would, I believe, do another
reengineering program on the B-52, which will keep it going for
an additional, and maybe Les can help me out on this, 20 or 25
years longer.
This is the proposal from the Air Force, that we extend the
life of the B-52 further, which means that 10 years or 20 years
from now, or 30 or 40 years, someone is going to be sitting
here and saying, do you realize the B-52 is now 80 years old?
Yet that is what the Air Force is asking us to do, so that
little footnote in history ought to be, that is right, but that
is what the request was 30 years ago. Now we are talking in
2030.
I just for the record want to state when your nominations
were received, because our staff has been working very hard on
these nominations, as they have on all nominations that come to
the committee. I think it is important to give reassurance to
our colleagues who are not on the committee that we speedily
reviewed these nominations.
Dr. Klein, your nomination was received on October 18, and
Mr. Brownlee and Mr. Teets, your nominations were received on
October 30. Since those nominations were received, we need to
do paperwork and questions have to be sent out and answered,
your financial reports have to be reviewed, and I just want to
thank our staff in particular for the speed with which they
take on these nominations.
One of our colleagues the other day was making a point on a
different committee that some of these take an awful long time
to get here, and I guess in the case of yours, Dr. Klein, as
Senator Bunning was saying, I think he made reference to the
point of how long this position has been unfilled.
Senator Bunning. That was Senator Allard's point. It has
been 3 years.
Chairman Levin. It is not unfilled as a result of this
committee being slow in its response. I want to give the public
that assurance, because we do move quickly. There are some
nominations, obviously, where we have questions that need to be
answered, but we try to move quickly.
Do you have any further questions, Senator Bunning?
Senator Bunning. No.
Chairman Levin. We want to thank you all. Again, we thank
your families for the contributions that they have made to your
careers and will be making further to your careers, and we will
stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:05 a.m., the committee adjourned.]
[Prepared questions submitted to R.L. Brownlee by Chairman
Levin prior to the hearing with answers supplied follow:]
November 6, 2001
The Hon. Carl Levin,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Enclosed herewith are the answers to the advance
questions the Senate Armed Services Committee asked me to complete.
Sincerely,
R.L. Brownlee.
Enclosures
cc:
The Honorable John Warner,
Ranking Member.
______
Questions and Responses
defense reforms
Question. Almost 15 years have passed since the enactment of the
Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and
the Special Operations reforms.
Do you support full implementation of these defense reforms?
Answer. Yes, I fully support the Department of Defense
Reorganization Act of 1986 and related Special Operations initiatives
for defense reform.
Question. What is your view of the extent to which these defense
reforms have been implemented?
Answer. In my opinion, these defense reforms have been implemented
and have achieved desired results. Having said that, I believe it is
important, and consistent with the intent of the reform legislation,
that the Army continues to assess and modify its operations and
internal procedures to meet the challenges of a dynamic security
environment.
Question. What do you consider to be the most important aspects of
these defense reforms?
Answer. The most important aspects of these reforms in my view were
strengthening civilian control; streamlining the operational chain of
command, improving the military advice provided to the National Command
Authorities, clarifying authority for combatant commanders, enhancing
the effectiveness of military operations, and improving the efficiency
in the use of defense resources.
Question. The goals of Congress in enacting these defense reforms,
as reflected in section 3 of the Goldwater-Nichols Department of
Defense Reorganization Act, can be summarized as strengthening civilian
control; improving military advice; placing clear responsibility on the
combatant commanders for the accomplishment of their missions; ensuring
the authority of the combatant commanders is commensurate with their
responsibility; increasing attention to the formulation of strategy and
to contingency planning; providing for more efficient use of defense
resources; and enhancing the effectiveness of military operations and
improving the management and administration of the Department of
Defense.
Do you agree with these goals?
Answer. Yes, I fully support the congressional goals reflected in
the Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and other related
defense reform legislation.
Question. Recently, there have been articles which indicate an
interest within the Department of Defense in modifying Goldwater-
Nichols in light of the changing environment and possible revisions to
the National strategy.
Do you anticipate that legislative proposals to amend Goldwater-
Nichols may be appropriate? If so, what areas do you believe it might
be appropriate to address in these proposals?
Answer. I am not aware of any current proposals to amend Goldwater-
Nichols. I do believe that both Congress and the Department of Defense
should recommend changes as new situations dictate.
duties
Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
the Under Secretary of the Army?
Answer. Section 3015 of Title 10, United States Code, provides that
the Under Secretary of the Army performs such duties and exercises such
powers as the Secretary of the Army may prescribe.
Question. What background and experience do you possess that you
believe qualifies you to perform these duties?
Answer. Twenty two years as an Army officer and almost 18 years on
Senate staff.
Question. Do you believe that there are actions you need to take to
enhance your ability to perform the duties of the Under Secretary of
the Army?
Answer. I need to better learn the current challenges facing the
Army--from the Army's point of view.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what duties and functions do
you expect that the Secretary of the Army would prescribe for you?
Answer. If confirmed, I will serve as the principal advisor and
deputy to the Secretary of the Army and will support him in the general
management of the Department in the fulfillment of his Title 10, United
States Code, responsibilities. I envision that the Secretary will also
prescribe specific duties to me that will support his efforts to ensure
that the Department of the Army is efficiently administered in
accordance with the policies promulgated by the Office of the Secretary
of Defense.
Question. In carrying out your duties, how will you work with the
following officials:
1. The Secretary of the Army.
2. The Chief of Staff of the Army.
3. The Assistant Secretaries of the Army.
Answer. If confirmed, I will establish and maintain appropriate,
professional relationships with the Secretary of the Army, the Chief of
Staff of the Army, and each of the Assistant Secretaries and the
General Counsel. I prefer direct and open communication with these
officials and an environment of cooperative teamwork within the
Secretariat and with the Army Staff.
major challenges and problems
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will
confront the Under Secretary of the Army?
Answer. I agree with the Secretary of the Army that the greatest
challenge the Army faces is change. The challenges the Army faces are
similar to those of the other services as we collectively readjust our
organizations to the threats our country faces. The Army must manage
and maintain the momentum of changes that will assure our Army's
preeminence in the 21st century to deter threats and defend our
national security interest and do it within the joint community.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Secretary of the
Army, the Assistant Secretaries, the Office of the Secretary of
Defense, and Congress to ensure the Army meets America's future
security needs. This includes attracting, training, and retaining
America's best and brightest, while providing for their quality of life
and well-being. The Army must maintain balance in allocating its
resources to remain ready to fight today's battles while transforming
itself to address future conflict.
Question. What do you consider to be the most serious problems in
the performance of the functions of the Under Secretary of the Army?
Answer. If confirmed, I would evaluate the specific roles and
functions within the Office of the Under Secretary of the Army as
assigned by the Secretary of the Army. It is premature for me to
identify potential problems at this time.
Question. If confirmed, what management actions and time lines
would you establish to address these problems?
Answer. If confirmed, after evaluating the specific roles and
functions within the office of the Under Secretary as assigned by the
Secretary of the Army, I would recommend appropriate, timely actions to
address any such problems.
priorities
Question. If confirmed, what broad priorities would you establish
in terms of issues which must be addressed by the Under Secretary of
the Army?
Answer. If I am confirmed, my priorities will, of course, be in
accordance with the specific roles and functions as assigned by the
Secretary of the Army. However, my priorities would begin with
attracting, training, and retaining America's best and brightest young
men and women, while providing quality of life and well-being for them
and their families. Another priority would be to achieve balance in the
allocation of the Army's resources to ensure current readiness while
addressing the essential needs of the future. I believe it is also
important to review the Army's acquisition process, and the planning,
programming, budgeting, and execution process, along with financial
management systems and processes.
headquarters reorganization
Question. The Army is undertaking an effort to reorganize its
headquarters by consolidating functions of the Secretariat and the Army
Staff.
In your view, how would the proposed reorganization be
accomplished, and what are the expected manpower savings to be realized
from that action?
If confirmed, how would you, with a consolidated staff, balance the
prerogatives of civilian control with the prerequisite of a clearly
delineated military chain of command? More specifically, what role
would the Army Chief of Staff perform if subordinate assistant chiefs
of staff serve as military deputies to civilian assistant secretaries?
Answer. I have not been briefed on the specifics of the Army's
proposed reorganization. I am committed to the principle of civilian
control of the military services. I support the roles of the Secretary
of the Army, the Chief of Staff, and other civilian officials and
military officers of the Army, as prescribed and intended by applicable
law.
national guard divisions
Question. In your view, what effect have the results of the most
recent Quadrennial Defense Review had on the mission of the eight
National Guard divisions of the strategic Reserve?
Answer. The QDR confirmed the need for the Army to retain a robust
force in depth. All eight ARNG divisions would, I believe, retain a
warfighting capability and increase the Army's global responsiveness.
Question. With the increasing role and responsibilities of the Army
National Guard in homeland defense, what mission and force structure
changes do you anticipate for the Army National Guard? More
specifically, in your view, should the strategic Reserve divisions be
restructured for a homeland defense mission?
Answer. The scope of the Homeland Defense mission continues to
develop. The National Guard has formed unique structure such as the
Weapons-of-Mass-Destruction Civil Support Teams (CSTs). The Homeland
Defense mission may require adjustments to existing structure such as
CSTs, aviation, and military police units. In my view, restructuring of
the strategic Reserve divisions for Homeland Defense should be examined
in light of their other missions.
transformation
Question. The Army has embarked on a campaign to transform itself
to better combat the expected threats of the new century.
In your view, does the Army have sufficient resources to carry out
its transformation? If not, what is the magnitude of the shortfall?
Answer. The Army, along with the other military services, has
unfunded requirements, the magnitude of which are known to the
committee. If confirmed, I will work to ensure adequate resources are
requested by the Army and allocated to accomplish the transformation of
the Army as well as its other essential missions.
Question. In the absence of any substantial increases in the Army
budget, how would you recommend, if confirmed, to the Secretaries of
the Army and Defense that the Army meet its current and future
readiness and transformation requirements?
Answer. The Army must strive to achieve an appropriate balance in
allocating its resources to ensure current readiness while transforming
and modernizing itself to address future conflict.
Question. The transformation of the Army will be strongly dependent
on technological advancements made by science and technology programs
both inside and outside of the Army.
In your view, has the Army sufficiently funded S&T programs needed
to develop new systems including chemical and biological sensors,
unmanned ground vehicles, computer network defense, and others?
Answer. I believe that the Army has appropriately funded within
available resources its S&T program to focus on achieving the Army's
transformation to the Objective Force.
Question. If confirmed, would you be in favor of setting a target
percentage of Army Total Obligation Authority for Army S&T programs?
Answer. I support the Department of Defense's guidelines that have
a goal of budgeting S&T as 3 percent of the overall DOD budget by 2007.
The Army should continue to maintain robust funding for S&T to achieve
its Objective Force capabilities.
Question. To date, Army leaders have not clearly delineated the
relative priorities of the requirements to develop the Objective Force,
field six Interim Brigade Combat Teams (IBCTs), and recapitalize and
selectively modernize the existing ``legacy'' forces. If confirmed, how
would you prioritize those requirements?
Answer. In my view, each of these requirements is essential. If
confirmed, I will assist the Secretary of the Army in achieving an
appropriate balance among these essential priorities.
Question. In your view, how should recapitalization and
modernization of the legacy forces be accomplished?
Answer. In my opinion, the Army must continue to inform Congress of
the Army's needs and leverage its existing resources to recapitalize
and modernize its essential legacy forces primarily through upgrades
and overhauls of these existing systems while moving to the Objective
Force. Depots and industry partners should be adequately resourced to
support recapitalization and modernization programs.
Question. In your view, what is the appropriate role of
experimentation in developing the Objective Force?
Answer. I believe experimentation is an essential element that is
embedded throughout the overall plan to transform the Army. The process
of experimentation helps the Army understand the future warfighting
environment and examine a wide range of operational concepts and
emerging technologies. As the Army continues the development of the
Objective Force, both joint and Army experimentation provide valuable
insights into the capabilities the joint force will need to support our
national defense.
Question. In your view, does the Army have a sufficiently robust
experimentation plan, and do the Interim Brigade Combat Teams have a
role to play in that regard?
Answer. I have not been briefed on the specifics of the Army's
experimentation plan. I believe that lessons learned and insights from
fielding of IBCTs as well as joint and Army experiments should enhance
the further development of IBCTs and the Objective Force.
Question. If confirmed, what specifically would you recommend to
the Secretary of the Army regarding the path to the Objective Force?
Answer. In my view, the Army should continue to pursue the
essential levels of maturity of key technologies in support of the
Objective Force.
Question. In your view, does the Army have a capabilities gap which
the Interim Brigade Combat Teams are designed to fill? If so, will
fielding six IBCTs sufficiently close that gap? Is there an alternate
solution that you would recommend to the Secretary of the Army, if
confirmed, particularly in light of the severe Army funding
constraints?
Answer. The Army has asserted that the IBCTs will fill the gap for
a medium weight force. I believe that at an appropriate time, the Army
should conduct an operational evaluation of the proposed IBCT force
structure to determine whether it adequately closes that gap. I also
believe that alternative solutions that might meet the Army's
requirements at reduced costs should be thoroughly examined.
Question. The Army has described the Interim Brigade Combat Teams
as full spectrum capable, but optimized for peacekeeping.
In your view, are the IBCTs capable of full spectrum combat? If
confirmed, would you recommend a comprehensive operational evaluation
of the capabilities of the IBCTs in full spectrum combat?
Answer. I believe that a comprehensive operational evaluation of
the IBCT should be conducted at an appropriate time to be determined by
the Army. Such an evaluation should measure the combat capabilities of
the IBCT.
Question. In the Fiscal Year 2001 National Defense Authorization
Act, Congress mandated a side-by-side operational and cost comparison
of an Interim Brigade Combat Team unit equipped with the Army's choice
of interim combat vehicle, and a unit similarly configured and trained,
but equipped with the medium armored vehicle currently in the
inventory.
In your view, would such a comparison provide worthwhile
information for future decisions?
Given the current war on terrorism, would you recommend, if
confirmed, that the Army conduct the side-by-side comparison as
currently planned, or seek congressional relief from the requirement?
Answer. I believe that the Army should have full knowledge
regarding the relative operational combat capabilities and costs of
alternative combat vehicles that meet the Army's requirements for such
vehicles. I believe it is important and worthwhile for the Army to have
this information for current and future decisions. If the Army can
provide satisfactory and timely information that Congress requires
without conducting a side-by-side test, then a test might not be
necessary. The requirement was enacted before September 11. If the Army
concludes that the test would have a significant, negative impact on
its preparations and operations for the current war on terrorism, I
believe Congress should reconsider the testing requirement.
defense laboratories
Question. The Army is currently participating in a number of
congressionally-mandated pilot programs to reform and revitalize the
defense laboratory and test and evaluation enterprise. A number of
these programs, including those intended for implementation at the
Aberdeen Test Center, have been delayed due to legal and regulatory
hurdles.
If confirmed, what actions would you propose to remove those
barriers?
Answer. I realize that the defense laboratory and test and
evaluation centers face many challenges. I understand that Congress has
authorized several pilot programs to help reform and revitalize them.
If confirmed, I will work with the Army leadership to ensure compliance
with congressional mandates in this area.
chemical and biological defenses
Question. Army science and technology programs fund some of the
world's most advanced research on chemical and biological defense and
medical technologies. The various technologies that result from these
efforts are often delayed by Government (FDA and EPA) regulatory
processes and therefore delayed in being transitioned to warfighters.
If confirmed, would you support streamlining the regulatory
processes for highly critical technologies?
Answer. While I believe that essential testing and evaluation must
be accomplished to ensure the health and safety of our soldiers,
unnecessary procedures that impede timely fielding of advanced
technologies--especially chemical and biological defense technologies--
should be thoroughly examined and streamlined where possible.
Question. If confirmed, what actions, if any, would you propose to
have the Army assist its successful contractors through the FDA and EPA
approval process?
Answer. I don't feel adequately informed to provide an answer to
this question. If confirmed, I will be happy to look into this matter
and respond to the committee if it requests.
transfer of ballistic missile defense programs to the army
Question. The Ballistic Missile Defense Organization has proposed
transferring the MEADS and PAC-3 programs to the Army, starting in
fiscal year 2002. Although PAC-3 is a mature program, now heading into
its final phase of operational testing, the MEADS program is just now
emerging from initial concept definition. MEADS is not scheduled for
deployment until the end of this decade, or beyond.
What is your view of the proposed transfer of these programs to the
Army? What are the advantages and disadvantages of such a transfer?
In your view, is the Army prepared to support and fund these two
programs to completion?
Answer. I understand PAC-3 is a mature technology and transferring
it to the Army who will operate the system makes sense. On the other
hand, MEADS is still in development, although it leverages some
existing PAC-3 technology. Therefore, in my view, MEADS should remain
with BMDO until more fully developed. In my view, while the Army might
be prepared to support these programs, funding would be difficult
within their current budget.
weapons of mass destruction, civil support teams
Question. In its September 2001 report on combating terrorism,
which was mandated by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2001, the General Accounting Office asserted that the Weapons of
Mass Destruction--Civil Support Teams (WMD-CSTs) ``continue to
experience problems with readiness doctrine and roles, and deployment
that undermine their usefulness in an actual terrorist incident.''
In your view, is it necessary to maintain the WMD-CSTs? If so, what
should be done to bring all of the teams up to a high, uniform standard
of readiness?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I would support the Secretary of the
Army in ensuring that the teams are properly manned, equipped, trained,
and prepared to accomplish their assigned mission.
Question. In your view, is there a requirement for additional WMD-
CSTs, and should the Department consider augmenting the teams to
include such capabilities as decontamination?
Answer. It is my understanding that several studies concluded that
more CSTs would be required to ensure timely, full coverage across the
Nation. Because of the events on and after September 11, I believe the
Department of Defense should consider adding new teams. I understand
the Army National Guard and Army Reserve have been provided
decontamination equipment sets that could be utilized to support a mass
casualty decontamination requirement. The Department should seriously
consider whether this capability is sufficient to meet the potential
need.
Question. In your view, should the active duty Army develop WMD-
CST-like capabilities?
Answer. I believe the active Army should continue its focus on its
warfighting mission. The Reserve components are best suited to work
with our domestic state, and local first responder communities.
army installations force protection
Question. A September 2001 GAO report on installation
antiterrorism/force protection criticized the lack of standards and
assessments across all the military services.
In your view, what measures should the Army take, together with the
other services, to improve installation preparedness against terrorist
attacks?
Answer. I believe the Army should define its requirements and
standardize its force protection capabilities across its installations
and facilities both at home as well as abroad, subject to the standards
and requirements by unified commanders in their areas of
responsibility. These efforts should be coordinated with other
services, DOD, and, where appropriate, local authorities.
Question. In your view, what are the greatest vulnerabilities that
Army installations face in preventing terrorist attacks and in
responding to them, and how would you, if confirmed, propose addressing
those weaknesses?
Answer. I have not studied this in sufficient detail to provide an
adequate response, but I intend to become familiar with all aspects of
the vulnerabilities of the Army's installations and how to address
them. I will be happy to provide a response to the committee, if
confirmed, if the committee desires.
encroachment
Question. On November 27, 2000, the Senior Readiness Oversight
Council identified several ``encroachment'' problems confronting the
Department of Defense including protection of endangered species,
unexploded ordnance and other constituents, commercial demand for
bandwidth and frequency, sustainability of the maritime environment,
demand for use of airspace, protection of air quality, abatement of
airborne noise, and growth of urban areas. At a March 20, 2001, hearing
before the Readiness and Management Support Subcommittee,
representatives of the military services expressed concern that this
encroachment was hindering their legal responsibility under Title 10,
United States Code, to train the forces.
If confirmed, what actions would you propose to address these
problems?
Answer. In my opinion these problems threaten the ability of our
military forces to train adequately for combat. If confirmed, I would
work with OSD, other services, and Congress to address these problems.
ac-rc relationships
Question. During the past decade, relations between the Regular
Army leadership and the Reserve components, particularly the Army
National Guard, have not always been harmonious.
In your opinion, has the total Army leadership dealt adequately
with this problem? If not, what steps would you recommend?
Answer. I believe the Army leadership is addressing these concerns
and the Reserve components, as an essential part of our total force,
will be a high priority for me.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as the Under Secretary of the
Army?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings and
other communications of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Akaka
encroachment
1. Senator Akaka. I am interested in your thoughts regarding
encroachment. I reviewed your response to the advance questions and
noted your commitment to work with Office of the Secretary of Defense
(OSD), the other services, and Congress to address problems of
encroachment. How do you plan to address encroachment issues as the
Under Secretary of the Army?
Mr. Brownlee. The Army faces significant challenges in the area of
encroachment as it relates to training and ranges, all generally
resulting from environmental, social, and economic influences. Impacts
include, but are not limited to, restrictions on available testing and
training locations; restrictions on available times and duration for
testing and training; reduced effectiveness of testing and training
activities; and restrictions on weapons systems, equipment, and
munitions used during testing and training. The Army is working with
the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the other Services to
address these challenging issues.
We would ask Congress to support the Army's effort to ensure that
encroachment does not prevent effective training in the following ways:
(1.) Support and resource implementation of the Army's Sustainable
Range Program (SRP). SRP is the foundation for sustaining live training
and the environment on our ranges. Although final funding levels have
not been established, we ask Congress to support this important
program.
(2.) Support and foster cooperation among regulators and the
military, emphasizing the need to balance military readiness concerns
and environmental regulation. We believe there are ways to balance the
needs of the military with the needs of the environment. It would be
helpful if Congress would encourage regulatory agencies to work with
DOD to develop compliance methods that support both regulatory and
military objectives.
(3.) Undertake legislative initiatives to clarify statutory
requirements that apply to military operations. As currently written,
several statutes contain broad discretionary enforcement thresholds
that are based on the assessment of the regulatory authority as to
whether a given condition presents a potential risk or imminent hazard
to human health or a particular natural resource. While the Army is not
seeking to avoid our responsibilities to the American people, or
seeking relief from compliance with environmental statutes, the lack of
consistent and measurable standards limits the Army's ability to plan,
program, and budget for compliance requirements. It would be premature
to discuss specific proposals, but we look forward to working with
other Federal agencies and Congress.
The encroachment of commercial interest into portions of the radio
spectrum used by the Army is also a serious issue. The growth of
commercial wireless services is an important factor in our country's
economic well being, but this growth must be balanced with the
necessity of providing for our Nation's defense.
The National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2000 directed
that DOD shall not surrender spectrum of which it is a primary user
until comparable replacement spectrum is made available. This language
should be an effective tool in ensuring the Army's access to the
spectrum it requires. Additionally, we will work with DOD to identify
impacts to Army operations. DOD is currently leading an effort that
includes Army participation to address potential impacts that would
result from loss of access to spectrum for commercial wireless systems.
corrosion prevention and control program
2. Senator Akaka. The Department of Defense is spending a
significant amount of money because of corrosion--current estimates are
about $20 billion per year. The Readiness Subcommittee has begun to
address this issue with the goal of being proactive in order to help
minimize the drain on scarce operations and maintenance (O&M)
resources. There is a need to address corrosion issues not just through
maintenance and repair, but also in the acquisition process in order to
decrease total life cycle costs. What will you do, as the Under
Secretary of the Army, to assist the Army in addressing this issue?
Mr. Brownlee. In 1997, the Army chartered a Corrosion Prevention
and Control (CPC) program to address common Army and DOD corrosion
issues. This program was developed to resolve Army Materiel Command
commodity requirements, address field and depot level maintenance
issues, and support new weapon system acquisition. The Army CPC program
consists of science and technology (S&T) and Operations and Maintenance
Army (OMA) functions. As part of the Army's effort, a working group was
established to integrate requirements and guide the Army in identifying
and executing high-value solutions. We have since identified tactical
vehicles and rotor craft as high-value targets.
A recent example of the impact of our efforts on the Army
acquisition program is with the Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles,
which responded to our work group recommendations and upgraded 39
components. This increased the projected service lives up to seven
times that of the original equipment manufacturer products. The
ultimate value of the Army's CPC S&T effort is to develop more durable
material that costs less to maintain.
The CPC OMA program's focus is on establishing corrosion service
centers and updating Army policy to influence the procurement process.
The Army is planning to build corrosion service centers of excellence
that protect airframes, ammunition, tactical vehicles, and ground
support equipment. We have approved five CPC products and techniques
for application on tactical vehicles, material handling, and
construction equipment. We need additional candidates for CPC testing
on missiles, aviation, and weaponry.
In addition, the Army provided input to DOD that addresses
corrosion resistant designs. The Army is currently revising policy on
the CPC program. To date, both functions of the program remain
unfunded, but have received supplemental funding for S&T and from
reprogramming to resource urgent OMA requirements. However, these
additional funds are not sufficient to support a coordinated Army
approach to corrosion. Current efforts are high-value, ad hoc
solutions. To raise visibility of this program, the Army established an
Office of the Secretary of Defense program element entitled ``Army
Corrosion Prevention and Control Program''--an OMA funding line. The
Army is currently working to establish a research, development,
testing, and evaluation (RDT&E) funding line for corrosion to support
S&T efforts. OMA and RDT&E funding is required to ensure this mission's
success.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Rick Santorum
interim armored vehicle side-by-side test
3. Senator Santorum. In the Fiscal Year 2001 National Defense
Authorization Act, Congress mandated a side-by-side operational and
cost comparison of an Interim Brigade Combat Team (IBCT) unit equipped
with the Army's choice of interim combat vehicle, and a unit similarly
configured and trained, but equipped with the medium armored vehicle
currently in the inventory. Senator Lieberman and I worked closely with
General Shinseki and General Keane in establishing this requirement.
Since the bill became law, Army leadership has repeatedly asked for
relief from this requirement.
In your answers to advance policy questions, you stated that ``the
Army should have full knowledge regarding the relative operational
capabilities and costs of alternative combat vehicles that meet Army
requirements for such vehicle,'' that ``it is important and worthwhile
for the Army to have this information for current and future
decision,'' but that ``if the Army can provide satisfactory and timely
information that Congress requires without conducting a side-by-side
test, then a test might not be necessary.''
In your capacity as Republican staff director, did you believe that
the Army provided such satisfactory and timely information?
Mr. Brownlee. As the Republican staff director and a member of the
Senate staff, I have enjoyed many years of personal and professional
relationships with the Army. I believe the Army always does their best
to provide valuable information as quickly as possible. While I am sure
the Army believed they were being totally responsive to Congress in
this regard, I believe that we can do a better job of communicating on
this specific issue. If confirmed, I will work with the Army and
Congress to provide the information Congress has requested. If such
information is available and can be provided to Congress without
conducting a side by side test, then Congress might consider relieving
the Army of conducting the side by side test.
4. Senator Santorum. If not, what should the Army do, and what do
you believe should be satisfactory to Congress to make the test
unnecessary?
Mr. Brownlee. The light armored vehicle (LAV)-based IBCT force is
the best value decision for the Army's needs. The Army collected and
reviewed information on the M113A3 measured against the operational
requirements document (ORD) for the interim armored vehicle (IAV) to
provide insights that a side-by-side test would likely yield. The
analysis of the M113 variant-based proposal and current Army inventory
showed that this platform falls far short of IAV ORD requirements. The
LAV variant-based design will fully meet our key performance parameters
as determined by the Army during source selection, validated by GAO,
and reinforced by the findings of analysis conducted by the Army
Material Systems Analysis Activity.
In addition, the Army has committed to a robust test program for
the LAV variant-based IBCT that far exceeds the operational and
technical testing required by the side-by-side comparison. Our
comprehensive test and evaluation strategy will validate the
effectiveness, suitability, and survivability of the IAV through
technical, ballistic and non-ballistic survivability, and operational
testing. The Army will conduct a production verification test, a live-
fire test, and an initial operational test, and report the results to
obtain a full rate production decision in December 2003. Further, the
Army will conduct a thorough operational evaluation of the unit before
employment.
5. Senator Santorum. Do you believe that such a test would have a
significant, negative impact on the Army's preparations and operations
for the current war on terrorism?
Mr. Brownlee. The side-by-side test could cost the Army up to $28
million and, perhaps more importantly, distract the Army's management
attention at this critical time. Needless to say, the Army would prefer
to spend its scarce resources and efforts in other ways, especially
now, during this crucial period for our Nation.
6. Senator Santorum. Today, Senator Inhofe criticized the cost to
the Army of conducting this side-by-side test. What are the potential
costs to the Army if a new platform is procured that is the same or
only marginally better than the platforms that the Army has already
purchased and that are in its inventory?
Mr. Brownlee. The Army awarded the IAV contract based on a best-
value determination, selecting the proposal determined to be the best
overall considering five evaluation areas: schedule, performance,
supportability, cost, and management. The best value award addressed
the Army's need to procure, field, and support a force of safe,
reliable, supportable, and effective systems. Based on the selection
criteria, the Army selected the LAV-based proposal over all other
systems, including the M113 variant proposal.
The winning LAV proposal was significantly superior to all other
competitor proposals in the performance and supportability areas. These
advantages were deemed so significant as to outweigh any schedule and
cost advantages of the M113 variant.
army acquisition strategy
7. Senator Santorum. The Army only has enough resources to
modernize its Counterattack Corps and selected XVIII Airborne corps
units. How might this expensive acquisition strategy undermine the
Army's attempts to modernize its Legacy Force and invest in its
Objective Force?
Mr. Brownlee. The Army has made hard decisions to adapt to new
priorities by allocating resources and canceling and modifying
programs. The current investment in the Legacy Force, a selected
modernization and recapitalization program targeting 17 critical
systems, is essential for the combat readiness of the counterattack
force. Parallel to this effort is the investment in the Interim Force,
an absolute necessity to meet strategic gaps in capability, and the
Objective Force.
While the Legacy Force sustains the Army's non-negotiable contract
with America to fight and win the Nation's wars, the Interim Force
provides critical strategic responsiveness for the near- and mid-term
while the Army transforms to the Objective Force. The Interim Force,
rapidly deployable, sustainable, and lethal expands the National
Command Authority's options when dealing with uncertain threats around
the world. The risk assumed by limited recapitalization and
modernization of the Legacy Force is mitigated by the Interim Force
capability and considerable investment in the Objective Force
development to ensure technologies are matured sufficiently to meet
aggressive timelines. Erosion in any of the three paths will impact
overall transformation. Severely curtailing Legacy Force
recapitalization will significantly impact combat readiness and make
sustainment of those systems more expensive before they are retired.
The balanced approach to transformation sustains combat readiness,
fills capability gaps, and assures future combat dominance.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Jeff Sessions
patriot advance capability (pac)-3
8. Senator Sessions. Mr. Brownlee, I agree with your analysis that
PAC-3, a mature technology, should be transferred to the Army, and that
MEADS, a new system, should remain with the Ballistic Missile Defense
Organization.
However, do you agree that if the Army does receive the PAC-3, that
it is critical to the success of this system that no less than eight
battalions of PAC-3s be funded for and fielded by the Army?
Mr. Brownlee. The Army requires ten PAC-3 Active Component (AC)
Patriot battalions and the Southwest Asia pre-positioned assets be
funded and fielded. The PAC-3 system provides the CINCs the best
capability available and is a significant enhancement to the fielded
PAC-2 system.
Total Army Analysis (TAA) 07, the Army's method to determine force
structure requirements, validated the requirement for 14 Patriot
battalions consisting of ten AC, two Army National Guard (ARNG), and
two battalions that are unresourced. The results of a recent TAA 09
General Officer Steering Committee confirmed that the Army's
requirement has increased from 14 to 15 Patriot battalions (three corps
brigades (two battalions per corps for a total of six battalions); two
theater brigades (three battalions per brigade for a total of six
battalions); and three battalions for homeland security).
Currently, there are 12 Patriot battalions in the Army (ten AC
battalions, two ARNG battalions) and one pre-positioned Southwest Asia
battalion set. Of the 12 Army Patriot battalions, only seven AC
battalions are currently funded for PAC-3 upgrades. The PAC-3 program
is funded to upgrade seven AC battalions and the Southwest Asia Patriot
pre-positioned assets. Additionally, the program must be funded to
procure the required 2,200 PAC-3 missiles to meet the Army's
acquisition objective versus the 1,130 for which the program is
currently funded.
In June 2001, the PAC-3 program was transferred from the Ballistic
Missile Defense Organization to the Army with $2.7 billion in funding.
The transfer provided upgrades for seven PAC-3 battalions and 1,130
PAC-3 missiles. The Army still has requirements to upgrade an
additional three PAC-3 battalions and an additional 1,070 PAC-3
missiles to reach the Army's acquisition objective.
______
[The nomination reference of R.L. Brownlee follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
October 30, 2001.
Ordered, that the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
R.L. Brownlee, of Virginia, to be Under Secretary of the Army, vice
Gregory Robert Dahlberg, resigned.
______
[The biographical sketch of R.L. Brownlee, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Les Brownlee
Les Brownlee has served on the Republican staff of the
Senate Armed Services Committee since January 1987 under both
Senator Strom Thurmond (R-SC) and Senator John Warner (R-VA).
Prior to assuming this position, he was National Security
Advisor to Senator John Warner for 3 years.
In March 1996, Brownlee was designated staff director of
the Senate Committee on Armed Services by then-Chairman,
Senator Strom Thurmond (R-SC). In January 1999, he was
designated staff director for then-Chairman, Senator John
Warner, serving through the recent change in control of the
Senate. Brownlee continues to serve as the Republican staff
director for Senator John Warner (R-VA), the current Ranking
Member.
From 1987 to 1996, he was the principal Senate Armed
Services Committee professional staff member responsible for
Army and Marine Corps programs, Special Operations Forces and
Drug Interdiction policy and support. In addition, as deputy
staff director, he was deeply involved in policies and programs
relating to ballistic missile defense, strategic deterrence,
and naval strategy, shipbuilding and weapons programs.
Brownlee is a retired Army Colonel and was commissioned as
a Lieutenant of Infantry from ROTC at the University of Wyoming
in 1962. Airborne-qualified and a Distinguished Honor Graduate
of the U.S. Army Ranger Course, he is also an Honor Graduate of
the Infantry Officer Advanced Course, the Command and General
Staff College, and a graduate of the U.S. Army War College. In
addition, he holds a Masters Degree of Business Administration
from the University of Alabama.
He served two tours in Vietnam and, during the last 2\1/2\
years of a 4\1/2\ year tour in the Pentagon, was Military
Executive to the Under Secretary of the Army, James Ambrose,
before retiring in 1984. His decorations include the Silver
Star with Oak Leaf Cluster, the Bronze Star with two Oak Leaf
Clusters, and the Purple Heart.
------
[The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
form that details the biographical, financial, and other
information of the nominee. The form executed by R.L. Brownlee
in connection with his nomination follows:]
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Room SR-228
Washington, DC 20510-6050
(202) 224-3871
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation
of your answer applies.
Part A--Biographical Information
Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.
1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
Romie Leslie Brownlee (Les).
2. Position to which nominated:
Under Secretary of the Army.
3. Date of nomination:
October 30, 2001.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
5. Date and place of birth:
July 11, 1939; Pampa, Texas.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Divorced.
7. Names and ages of children:
Tracy Ann (Brownlee) Carney, 38; John L. Brownlee, 36.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received and date degree granted.
Odessa Senior High School (Odessa, TX); 1954-1957; High School
Diploma.
University of Wyoming (Laramie, WY); 1957-1962; BS.
University of Alabama (Tuscaloosa, AL); 1967-1969; MBA.
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
United States Army; Army Officer; 1962-1984.
Office of U.S. Senator John Warner; National Security Legislative
Assistant; 1984-1987, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510.
U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services; Professional Staff Member,
Deputy Staff Director, Staff Director; 1987 to present.
10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative,
honorary or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State,
or local governments, other than those listed above.
None.
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
None.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
None.
13. Political affiliations and activities:
(a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or
any public office for which you have been a candidate.
None.
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5
years.
None.
(c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $100 or more for the past 5 years.
03/00--Bush for President--$250.
10/00--RNC Victory 2000--$250.
10/00--RNC Presidential Trust--$500.
14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals, and any other special
recognitions for outstanding service or achievements.
Military Awards:
Silver Star, 2 awards.
Bronze Star, 3 awards.
Purple Heart.
Legion of Merit.
Air Medal w/``V''device, 5 awards.
Meritorious Service Medal, 2 awards.
Army commendation w/``V'' device, 2 awards.
Combat Infantryman's Badge.
Ranger Tab (Distinguished Honor Graduate).
Senior Parachutist's Wings.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
None.
16. Speeches: Provide the committee with two copies of any formal
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have
copies of and are on topics relevant to the position for which you have
been nominated.
I have not given formal speeches.
17. Commitment to Testify Before Senate committees: Do you agree,
if confirmed, to respond to requests to appear and testify before any
duly constituted committee of the Senate?
Yes.
______
[The nominee responded to the questions in Parts B-F of the
committee questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set
forth in the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to
Parts B-F are contained in the committee's executive files.]
------
Signature and Date
I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate,
and complete.
Romie L. Brownlee.
This 1st day of November, 2001.
[The nomination of R.L. Brownlee was reported to the Senate
by Senator Warner on November 8, 2001, with the recommendation
that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination was confirmed
by the Senate on November 8, 2001.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to Dr. Dale Klein by Chairman
Levin prior to the hearing with answers supplied follow:]
November 6, 2001.
The Hon. Carl Levin,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Enclosed are the answers to the advance
questions the Senate Armed Services Committee asked me to complete.
Yours truly,
Dale Klein.
cc:
The Honorable John Warner,
Ranking Member.
______
Questions and Responses
defense reforms
Question. Almost 15 years have passed since the enactment of the
Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and
the Special Operations reforms.
Do you support full implementation of these defense reforms?
Answer. If confirmed, I will fully support the intent of the
reforms and will advocate policies that will facilitate accomplishment
of joint operations, streamline acquisition management and oversight,
and enhance the Department's ability to respond to our 21st century
national security challenges.
Question. What is your view of the extent to which these defense
reforms have been implemented?
Answer. I think the Department has done a creditable job in
implementing defense reforms. However, without periodic policy reviews,
these reforms can lose their effectiveness. It is my understanding that
periodic reviews will be conducted to address the evolving security
environment.
Question. What do you consider to be the most important aspects of
these defense reforms?
Answer. I would consider each of the goals noted below to be an
important aspect of these defense reforms. Prime among these is the
concept of strengthening civilian control.
Question. The goals of Congress in enacting these defense reforms,
as reflected in section 3 of the Goldwater-Nichols Department of
Defense Reorganization Act, can be summarized as strengthening civilian
control; improving military advice; placing clear responsibility on the
combatant commanders for the accomplishment of their missions; ensuring
the authority of the combatant commanders is commensurate with their
responsibility; increasing attention to the formulation of strategy and
to contingency planning; providing for more efficient use of defense
resources; and enhancing the effectiveness of military operations and
improving the management and administration of the Department of
Defense.
Do you agree with these goals?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Recently, there have been articles which indicate an
interest within the Department of Defense in modifying Goldwater-
Nichols in light of the changing environment and possible revisions to
the National strategy.
Do you anticipate that legislative proposals to amend Goldwater-
Nichols may be appropriate?
Answer. If confirmed, I would consult with the Secretary of Defense
and Congress on any changes that might be appropriate.
Question. If so, what areas do you believe it might be appropriate
to address in these proposals?
Answer. It is premature to offer any thoughts on the question at
this time.
duties
Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical and
Biological Defense Programs (ATSD(NCB))?
Answer. It is my understanding that my primary duty, if confirmed,
is to work with the National Nuclear Security Administration to take
care of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile. My duties also include
countering the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the
oversight of effective chemical and biological defense programs.
Finally, but equally important, it seems clear that my duties also
include the oversight of the safe and secure demilitarization of our
chemical weapons stockpile.
Question. What background and experience do you possess that you
believe qualifies you to perform these duties?
Answer. Since 1977, I have been a professor in the Department of
Mechanical Engineering, Nuclear and Radiation Engineering Program at
the University of Texas at Austin. I have been the Vice-Chancellor for
Special Engineering Programs at the University of Texas System since
1998. I also serve as the Chairman and Executive Director of the
Amarillo National Research Center for Plutonium (ANRC), during which
time I have overseen more than $45 million in funding for plutonium
research and nuclear weapon dismantlement issues. I have collaborated
very closely with researchers at Pantex and the National laboratories
to address stockpile stewardship issues. In addition, I previously
served as Associate Dean of Research in the University of Texas College
of Engineering, where I had twenty-two research units reporting to me,
with several in the chemical and biological areas.
Question. Do you believe that there are actions you need to take to
enhance your ability to perform the duties of the Assistant to the
Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Defense
Programs?
Answer. As you are well aware, the office has been vacant for 3
years. If confirmed, my first task will be to staff my office. Then I
need to listen to the subject matter experts and the people in the
field to perform my duties as I outlined above.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what duties and functions do
you expect that the Secretary of Defense would prescribe for you?
Answer. I expect to be prescribed responsibilities for maintaining
the nuclear stockpile, addressing counterproliferation and chemical and
biological defense, and working chemical demilitarization.
Question. In carrying out your duties, how will you work with the
Secretary of Defense, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition
and Technology, the Secretaries of the Military Services, the Defense
Threat Reduction Agency, and the Administrator and Deputy
Administrators of the National Nuclear Security Administration?
Answer. If confirmed, I intend to work as a team with Secretary
Rumsfeld, Under Secretary Aldridge, the Secretaries of the Military
Departments, and Director Younger. I will also, if confirmed, work
closely with General Gordon and the Deputy Administrators of the
National Nuclear Security Administration through the Nuclear Weapons
Council. Then, working with others in DOD and Congress, I will
recommend whatever changes might need to be made.
major challenges and problems
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will
confront the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear,
Chemical and Biological Defense Programs?
Answer. I see five major challenges that will confront me, if
confirmed. These include maintaining the safety, security and the
reliability of our aging nuclear weapons stockpile, countering the
continued proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, meeting the
challenges of chemical and biological defense, ensuring the safe and
secure demilitarization of our Nation's chemical weapons, and ensuring
that DOD is able to support the Nation's focus on Homeland Defense.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, I will listen to subject matter experts,
Members of Congress, and the leadership of the Department of Defense,
and I will assess existing programs to ensure they adequately address
our national security needs.
Question. What do you consider to be the most serious problems in
the performance of the functions of the Assistant to the Secretary of
Defense for Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Defense Programs?
Answer. Since the position of the ATSD(NCB) has been vacant since
1998, staff and resources will be important, as will fostering a sense
of teamwork with other offices and organizations.
Question. If confirmed, what management actions and time lines
would you establish to address these problems?
Answer. While I am not prepared to discuss specifics at this time,
if confirmed, I will take actions to establish management priorities
and timelines to address these problems.
priorities
Question. If confirmed, what broad priorities would you establish
in terms of issues which must be addressed by the Assistant to the
Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Defense
Programs?
Answer. If confirmed, I think the broad priorities would be (1)
sustainment of the nuclear weapons stockpile to ensure it remains safe,
secure and reliable; (2) countering weapons of mass destruction; (3)
implementing effective chemical and biological defense programs; (4)
ensuring the safe and secure demilitarization of our chemical weapons;
and (5) coordinating our actions with all homeland security activities.
reporting chain
Question. What is your understanding of who you would report to, if
confirmed, within the Department of Defense?
Answer. If confirmed, it is my understanding that I will report to
Mr. Pete Aldridge, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology & Logistics.
Question. Section 142 of Title 10 of the United States Code
requires that the ATSD ``advise the Secretary on nuclear energy,
nuclear weapons, and chemical and biological defense.'' The
responsibilities for chemical and biological defense were added to the
ATSD in 1996. The position was originally created to ensure that the
ATSD had direct access to the Secretary of Defense to ensure that any
matters implicating the safety, security or reliability of the nuclear
weapons stockpile were immediately provided to the Secretary.
Will the position of ATSD continue to have unfettered access to the
Secretary for matters pertaining to the safety, security, and
reliability of nuclear weapons?
Answer. Yes.
organizational structure of the office of the assistant to the
secretary
Question. What is the organizational structure of the office of the
ATSD?
Answer. Currently the office consists of the ATSD and three
deputies: one for Nuclear Matters; one for Counterproliferation and
Chemical and Biological Matters; and one for Nuclear Treaty Programs.
Question. Will the offices and responsibilities that previously
reported to the ATSD the last time the position was filled by an
individual appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate be
restored to the office?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Will the director of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency
report to the ATSD?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Will the office responsible for nuclear matters that
previously reported to the ATSD and currently reports to the Director
of Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E) be returned to the ATSD?
What role, if any, will the Director of Defense Research and
Engineering have in nuclear matters?
Answer. Yes.
If confirmed, I will coordinate with the DDR&E on nuclear issues as
appropriate.
duties and responsibilities
Question. Section 179 of Title 10 of the United States Code
designates the ATSD as the Executive Director of the Nuclear Weapons
Council. The chairman of the Nuclear Weapons Council is the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology.
Will the ATSD have direct responsibility, authority, direction, and
control of all the assets, resources, and people needed to fulfill the
responsibilities of Executive Director of the Nuclear Weapons Council?
Answer. Yes.
Question. If confirmed as ATSD, would you propose that the Nuclear
Weapons Council resume its monthly meetings, or would you propose a
different meeting schedule?
Answer. If confirmed, I will continue to schedule monthly meetings.
Question. If confirmed as ATSD, would you ensure that the Nuclear
Weapons Council carries out it statutorily mandated duties?
Answer. Yes.
nuclear posture review
Question. If confirmed, would you participate in the nuclear
posture review?
Answer. Yes.
nuclear weapons testing
Question. Do you believe that there is a technical reason to resume
nuclear weapons testing at the present time?
Answer. At the present time, I have no indication that a nuclear
weapons test is needed.
Question. Do you believe we should develop a new weapon design in
an effort to make sure our experienced designers are maintaining their
skills and have the opportunity to transfer their expertise to the new
generation of nuclear weapon designers?
Answer. Until I've had a chance to review this issue in detail, I
must defer an answer at this time.
stockpile stewardship program
Question. Do you support the National Nuclear Security
Administration Stockpile Stewardship Program?
Answer. Yes.
Question. If through our science-based Stockpile Stewardship
Program, the Secretary of Energy and Secretary of Defense are unable to
certify the safety, security and reliability of our nuclear stockpile,
would you support the resumption of underground nuclear testing?
Answer. If the Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of Defense
reach the point where they are unable to certify the safety, security
and reliability of the nuclear stockpile, I would assume that, if
confirmed, I would have been a key contributor to that decision. If the
President supports this decision and determines that the need for
nuclear testing is in the supreme national interest of the United
States, if confirmed, I too would support the resumption of underground
nuclear testing.
cooperative threat reduction programs (nunn-lugar programs)
Question. Do you support the Cooperative Threat Reduction Programs?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you support the effort of the United States to assist
Russia with the destruction of chemical weapons?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you believe that there are any additional activities
that you would propose be undertaken by the Cooperative Threat
Reduction program in the areas of nuclear weapons or materials,
chemical munitions or chemical weapons technologies; or biological
technologies?
Answer. While there may be additional activities that could be
proposed, I would need to wait to confer with subject matter experts
before making a determination.
Question. Would you support joint research programs between Russia
and the United States in the areas of chemical or biological weapons
defense?
Answer. Again, I would need to wait to confer with subject matter
experts before making a determination.
chemical and biological defense research
Question. There are currently a number of ongoing research and
development programs to support chemical and biological defense
requirements spread across the various services and agencies.
If confirmed, would you support the consolidation of those programs
into one office? What are the advantages or disadvantages of this
consolidated management approach?
Answer. In order to better manage the joint chemical and biological
defense program, it is my understanding that Under Secretary Aldridge
has organized a task force to address some of the management
deficiencies in the program. If confirmed, I would need to see the
report from the task force before I made any determinations.
Question. Congress has worked to greatly increase the funding of
research in the life sciences and biomedical sciences, especially at
the National Institutes of Health.
If confirmed, how would you work to leverage these investments to
meet the needs of the Department of Defense in therapeutics, vaccines,
decontamination agents, and other technologies? How are the research
and development programs of DOD and NIH currently coordinated? In your
view, how should this coordination be improved?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Department of Defense
currently has a collaborative research effort with NIH in the
development of the next generation anthrax vaccine. Collaborative
efforts with NIH are leveraged on a case-by-case basis.
Question. As the Department moves to improve its capability to meet
chemical and biological threats, there will be an increasing dependence
on the commercial sector, in both research and production.
In your view, what steps can Congress take to improve DOD's ability
to leverage the technical talent, production capabilities, and research
capabilities of the private sector? In your view, what steps could DOD
take to encourage new private sector participation in the development
of technologies of interest to the military?
Answer. I believe that the current program has taken advantage of
considerable technical talent, research and production capabilities of
a number of commercial companies who have developed and are producing
improved chemical and biological defense equipment. If confirmed, I
will place a high priority on advocating sufficient resources and on
further enhancing lines of communication with industry, universities,
and others.
Question. A number of promising medical and CB decontamination
technologies that have been developed with DOD's investments are now
involved in an extended and costly Federal regulatory process.
If confirmed, how would you work to speed this regulatory process
for critical defense technologies? What actions, if any, would you
propose to assist successful contractors in getting their technologies
approved for use by the military?
Answer. The Department of Defense will continue to coordinate
efforts with the FDA to facilitate industry compliance with regulations
and to ensure that safe and effective medical products are developed in
a timely manner. At this point, I cannot comment specifically on
appropriate changes that could streamline the regulatory process until
I've had the opportunity to fully examine the issue.
role of the deputy assistant to the secretary
Question. In the absence of an Assistant to the Secretary, there
has been a Deputy Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Chemical
and Biological Defense matters.
If you are confirmed to the position of ATSD, what would be the
role and functions of the current position of the Deputy Assistant for
Chem-Bio Defense?
Answer. It is my understanding that the current role and functions
of the position are to provide day-to-day oversight for all
counterproliferation and chemical-biological defense programs,
consequence management, chemical demilitarization, assembled chemical
weapons assessment, and chemical and biological weapons treaty
implementation. If confirmed, I would review these roles and functions.
Question. Would the Deputy Assistant report to the ATSD?
Answer. Yes.
Question. What will be the relationship between the Deputy
Assistant and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics?
Answer. If I am confirmed, the Deputy Assistant will report through
me to the Under Secretary.
role of the assistant to the secretary on chemical and biological
defense matters
Question. If you are confirmed, what would you expect your roles
and responsibilities to be on chemical and biological defense matters?
Answer. If confirmed, my responsibilities will be to address
countering the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. I also
expect, if confirmed, to oversee effective chemical and biological
defense programs. Finally, but equally important, I intend to oversee
the safe and secure demilitarization of our chemical weapons stockpile.
Question. If confirmed, would you review the chemical and
biological defense program and make any needed recommendations to
Congress for improving the program?
Answer. In order to better manage the joint chemical and biological
defense program, Mr. Aldridge has organized a task force to address
some of the management deficiencies in the program. If confirmed, I
would need to see the report from the task force before I made any
determinations. The task force is required to report to Mr. Aldridge
early next year.
Question. The Department of Defense plays a significant role in the
area of research, development and acquisition of vaccines, medical
therapy products, and decontamination technologies for chemical and
biological defense, among other things.
If confirmed, would you work with other Federal agencies to review
the regulatory and approval process for vaccines, medicines and
decontamination technologies to improve the process and the timeliness
of product approval?
Answer. Yes.
counterproliferation program review committee (cprc)
Question. The Assistant to the Secretary of Defense (NCB) is
mandated in statute to ``serve as the executive secretary'' to the
Counterproliferation Program Review Committee.
If confirmed as the ATSD, would you fulfill this statutory
responsibility?
Answer. Yes.
Question. If confirmed, what would be your roles and
responsibilities relative to the Counterproliferation Program Review
Committee?
Answer. If confirmed, my responsibilities would be to ensure that
the CPRC adequately coordinates the efforts of the Department of
Defense with the Department of Energy and the intelligence community in
countering proliferation, and paramilitary and terrorist threats.
Question. If confirmed, what priorities would you establish for the
CPRC?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review the responsibilities of the
CPRC and establish appropriate priorities.
chemical and biological defense
Question. Will the ATSD (NCB) have oversight of the safety and
security of biological and chemical agents in stock at DOD training,
R&D, and production facilities?
Answer. Yes.
Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to guarantee the
safety and security of these agents?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the military services to
guarantee the safety and security of these agents.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to
appear before this committee and other appropriate committees of
Congress?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as the Assistant to the Secretary
of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Defense Programs?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings, and
other communications of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd
gao study of the chemical and biological defense program
1. Senator Byrd. Dr. Klein, at my request, the General Accounting
Office conducted a study of the Chemical and Biological Defense
Program. As I am sure you know, this program develops the gas masks and
other protective equipment that our troops need to survive an attack
using a weapon of mass destruction.
The conclusions of the report are very alarming. If the program
were working well, it would start by looking at all types of chemical
and biological weapons that are being developed by countries like Iraq,
Iran, North Korea, and others. Our intelligence agencies have a pretty
good idea of what kinds of research these countries are carrying out,
and some of those programs are pretty advanced. The program would then
take these threats and develop the equipment necessary to protect our
soldiers from them. But that is not the case.
Instead, the Pentagon seems to be buying whatever equipment some
contractor might offer to it, without regard for whether it actually
works any better than what we had 10 years ago. I understand that the
program developed a protective suit for the Navy that begins to
disintegrate if it is exposed to salt water!
This is a serious problem. It calls into doubt the safety of our
troops at the same time that our country is dealing with a bio-
terrorist attack on our homeland.
Have you seen or been briefed on this report?
Dr. Klein. At the time of my confirmation hearing, I was unaware of
the specifics of this Government Accounting Office (GAO) report.
However, I intend to become familiar with this and other GAO and
Department of Defense Inspector General (DODIG) reports, their findings
and recommendations, particularly those that contain acquisition
implications for the Department. I do expect that these programs will
be operated in both a safe and cost-effective manner.
2. Senator Byrd. What do you believe are the main challenges facing
the Chemical and Biological Defense Program?
Dr. Klein. The Chemical and Biological Defense Program consists of
all Department of Defense (DOD) research, development, and acquisition
(RDA) efforts that develop and procure systems designed to provide U.S.
forces with the ability to operate effectively in the presence of
chemical and biological agents. The plans and accomplishments of the
Chemical and Biological Defense Program are detailed in an annual
report and performance plan submitted to Congress. Technical challenges
within the science and technology base are also detailed in the Joint
Warfighting Science and Technology Plan.
Joint and service unique RDA efforts are structured to support the
framework of the three mission areas of CB defense: contamination
avoidance (detection, identification, warning and reporting, and
reconnaissance), protection (individual, collective, and medical) and
decontamination. The current CB program supports warfighters in all
services. It focuses on force protection for all the services in all
environments. The programs affect all joint warfighting capabilities,
while providing an integrated system of systems throughout the battle
space. It is essential to view all chemical and biological defense
programs as an integrated system, with each mission area important to
joint force survival. Our forces need the full spectrum of defensive
equipment to survive, fight, and win in contaminated environments. One
of the major challenges of the program is ensuring that adequate
capabilities in all mission areas are developed and fielded to protect
the entire force. For example, capabilities for detection and warning
must be supplemented by protection systems, medical therapeutics and
vaccines, and decontamination capabilities in order for our forces to
sustain operations effectively.
A related challenge is ensuring that defensive capabilities protect
against the full spectrum of chemical and biological threats. Not only
must we protect against classical chemical and biological agents, such
as nerve agents and mustard agents, anthrax, plague, and others, but we
must also protect against these agents in combination and in various
states (liquid, aerosols, and vapors). Additionally, we must protect
against emerging threats, including fourth generation chemical agents
and potentially genetically modified biological agents.
Another challenge that is being addressed is the integration of
defensive capabilities with the strategy to counter the proliferation
of weapons of mass destruction. We are working to ensure defensive
capabilities and strategies complement capabilities and plans for
deterrence, nonproliferation initiatives such as the Chemical Weapons
Convention and the Biological Weapons Convention, counterforce
capabilities to destroy adversaries' chemical and biological weapons
capabilities, and combating terrorism initiatives to prevent and limit
the effects of terrorist attacks using chemical or biological weapons.
DOD is addressing some of the challenges to institutionalize
acquisition efforts for capabilities to manage consequences of a
terrorist attack. This includes efforts to ensure the units such as the
Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams (WMD-CSTs) and the
Chemical Biological Incident Response Force (CBIRF) are adequately
equipped to respond to terrorist attacks.
DOD continues to work with other agencies to ensure that the unique
assets and capabilities of the Department can be made available to
support the lead agencies for terrorist. Additionally, DOD is working
with other agencies to develop safe and effective vaccines to protect
against a biological agent attack. Specifically, DOD and the Department
of Health and Human Services are leading an interagency effort to
develop the requirements for a national vaccine production facility for
biological defense vaccines.
These are some of the major challenges that are currently being
addressed. Numerous technical challenges are detailed in the reports
mentioned above. We will continue to improve our capabilities to ensure
that U.S. forces are the best protected fighting force in the world.
integration into the acquisition program
3. Senator Byrd. I think the main problem here is that the Pentagon
seems to be buying whatever new product is offered to it. First we
ought to know what something is supposed to do, before we even begin
testing it, much less purchasing it.
Do you intend to integrate the intelligence agencies into your
acquisition program to make sure we get the right equipment to protect
out troops from the very real threat of chemical and biological
weapons?
Dr. Klein. The Department of Defense Chemical and Biological
Defense Program (CBDP) has always, and will continue to, require
Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) validated chemical and biological
threat assessments as outlined in the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff Instruction 3170.01A (10 August, 1999). Warfighter requirements
for the acquisition of chemical and biological defense capabilities
(medical and non-medical) are focused on the DIA validated chemical and
biological threat list. In order to ensure that the DIA threat list
that supports the CBDP is current, the Deputy Assistant to the
Secretary of Defense (Chemical and Biological Defense) in March 2001
requested the production of an updated chemical and biological warfare
agent threat document. Just recently, DIA published a comprehensive
threat document entitled the ``Chemical and Biological Defense Capstone
Threat Assessment'' (Reference DIA product DI1650-83-01).
The CBDP also recognizes the need to ensure coordination and
integration of the Intelligence Community with the user and acquisition
communities. Currently, the Joint Service Integration Group (JSIG),
which has responsibility for the integration and oversight of service
and CINC requirements for chemical and biological defense RDT&E and
initial procurement, is in the process of establishing a sub-group that
will be composed of representatives from intelligence, user, and
acquisition communities. This JSIG sub-group for addressing existing
and emerging chemical and biological threats will ensure coordination
and integration among all stakeholders.
equipment standardization
4. Senator Byrd. The program has worked to standardize the
protective equipment used by the military, so that an Army soldier can
use the same gas mask as a Navy sailor. This makes sense, under most
circumstances. But I cannot understand how the program developed a
protective suit for the Navy special operations personnel that was
damaged by salt water.
What are your thoughts on standardizing this type of equipment, as
opposed to having specialized equipment for unique purposes?
Dr. Klein. Standardization of equipment is a common sense and cost
effective approach toward supporting the operational needs and missions
of our joint forces. However, there are instances where specialized
equipment may be necessary to facilitate mission accomplishment.
The Joint Service Lightweight Integrated Suit Technology (JSLIST)
is the standard joint chemical and biological (CB) suit being fielded
to soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. As such, JSLIST was
developed with the general needs of joint forces in mind. However, a
design specific to special operations needs and requirements was also
developed. Both provide salt water CB protection to the wearer, but not
as much as a dry JSLIST garment.
Again, it should be emphasized that no CB suit technology exists
which provides complete CB protection (including salt water exposure).
The JSLIST Program Office continues to seek new and promising CB suit
technologies, even as the current JSLIST is being fielded. Until such
time as a new technology is identified, developed, and thoroughly
tested, JSLIST remains the best overall material solution to providing
CB protection to our joint forces.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Jack Reed
cooperative threat reduction program
5. Senator Reed. If confirmed, will you look at potential areas of
future cooperation with Russia through the Cooperative Threat Reduction
Program to ensure the U.S. is doing everything possible to safeguard
Russian nuclear materials and weapons?
Dr. Klein. The Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) Program has a
number of ongoing projects with the Russian Ministry of Defense to
enhance the safety and security of Russian warheads in storage and
during transport. Although not involved with the dismantlement of the
nuclear weapons themselves, the CTR Program also has an ongoing project
with the Ministry of Atomic Energy to construct a Fissile Material
Storage Facility to provide centralized safe, secure, and ecologically
sound storage of up to 50 metric tons of weapons-grade plutonium and
200 metric tons of highly enriched uranium removed from nuclear
weapons. We continue to be concerned with the potential theft or
diversion of Russian nuclear weapons, and, therefore, we will continue
to look at potential areas of future cooperation to further safeguard
nuclear materials and weapons.
6. Senator Reed. Are there additional opportunities to do research
with Russia through the Cooperative Threat Reduction program with the
nuclear scientists and engineers in the Russian nuclear weapons
complex?
Dr. Klein. The DOD Cooperative Threat Reduction Program is no
longer engaged in employing Russian nuclear weapons scientists and
engineers in cooperative research. The Department of Energy, through
the Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention and Nuclear Cities
Initiative, and the Department of State, through the International
Science and Technology Center in Moscow, undertake this task.
stockpile stewardship program
7. Senator Reed. You stated in your answers to pre-hearing
questions that you support the Stockpile Stewardship Program to keep
the nuclear weapons stockpile safe and secure in the absence of nuclear
weapons testing. What are your plans to ensure that the Stockpile
Stewardship Program is closely coordinated with and supported by DOD?
Dr. Klein. The Joint DOD-DOE Nuclear Weapons Council (NWC) has the
responsibility under Section 179, Title 10, U.S. Code to conduct this
coordination. As the NWC Staff Director and as the Chairman of the
Nuclear Weapons Council Standing and Safety Committee, I plan to manage
this inter-departmental coordination. In my DOD role as the ATSD (NCB),
I plan to work closely with the Joint Staff, Commanders in Chief
(CINCs), military services and the Office of the Secretary of Defense
staff to identify and ensure DOD requirements are met by the Stockpile
Stewardship Program.
8. Senator Reed. How will you ensure that the Stockpile Stewardship
Program meets both long term science goals as well as the near term
goals of supporting the ongoing life extension programs?
Dr. Klein. My first priority must be to the stockpile and to the
refurbishments necessary for the safety and reliability of each nuclear
weapon system. I will work with the military services, Joint Staff,
CINCs, appropriate civilian defense officials, and the National Nuclear
Security Administration (NNSA) to ensure our near-term safety,
security, and reliability requirements are met. I also understand the
value of increasing our understanding for weapons-related science and I
will examine and support the NNSA Campaigns that have the potential to
enhance safety and reliability in the future.
dod strategic systems
9. Senator Reed. Over the past several years I have been concerned
that the requirements placed on the Department of Defense to maintain
certain types and numbers of nuclear weapons are out of sync with the
delivery system requirements at DOD. In other words there are far more
nuclear weapons than delivery systems. If confirmed would you commit to
review this apparent disconnect?
Dr. Klein. Yes.
10. Senator Reed. Should this also be something that could be
addressed in the context of the ongoing Nuclear Posture Review?
Dr. Klein. Yes.
nuclear posture review
11. Senator Reed. Do you know what your role will be in the Nuclear
Posture Review process if you are confirmed?
Dr. Klein. No. However, I plan to be engaged in all issues
addressed by the Nuclear Posture Review.
maintaining technically qualified people
12. Senator Reed. Maintaining technically qualified people at DOE
and DOD to meet your various responsibilities will be a challenge. How
can you work with DOE and the military services to make sure the
necessary people are available, recruited and retained?
Dr. Klein. I will review the recommendations of the Chiles Report
on maintaining nuclear weapons expertise within DOE and the recent
joint DOD/DOE report on maintaining nuclear qualified people. With
their recommendations in mind I plan to work closely with General
Gordon at the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) as well
as with key military and civilian leaders within DOD to assist them in
their efforts to recruit and retain technically qualified people. I
believe both DOD and DOE need to establish better long-term
relationships with universities so the graduates are aware of the
exciting career opportunities with these Departments. In addition, the
services need to examine how they structure advancement within their
career programs to ensure critical positions are filled with
experienced, motivated and technically qualified people.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Akaka
excess plutonium
13. Senator Akaka. You have written on the importance of securing
and disposing of both Russian and U.S. fissile material that is left
over when nuclear arsenals are reduced. While Russia agrees that
surplus plutonium must be secured from terrorists, Russia also regards
this material as a valuable energy source and commodity. In your
opinion, how important is each aspect of excess plutonium to your
Russian counterparts?
Dr. Klein. In my opinion each aspect of excess plutonium is very
important to the Russians. I believe they realize the extreme
importance and priority of safeguarding plutonium from terrorists.
However, they also understand the resources that were invested to
produce the plutonium in question, and, therefore, place a high value
on the use of their plutonium. The Russians must strike a balance on
their use of plutonium compared to other energy sources while providing
supreme protection of this plutonium from terrorists.
14. Senator Akaka. Is the terrorist proliferation concern
overwhelmed by the potential financial gain of this material?
Dr. Klein. No. I believe Russia understands the need to safeguard
their plutonium; however, their financial resources devoted to this
endeavor do merit monitoring.
15. Senator Akaka. Has this balance shifted since the events of
September 11?
Dr. Klein. I believe that the events of September 11th have
heightened Russian awareness of the paramount need to protect this
plutonium from terrorists.
russian nuclear weapon infrastructure
16. Senator Akaka. How important are programs that deal with the
critical personnel issues relating to the Russian nuclear weapon
infrastructure?
Dr. Klein. In my view programs that deal with critical personnel
issues relating to the Russian nuclear weapon infrastructure are very
important in that they help prevent trained scientists and engineers
from leaving Russia and selling their expertise to potential
proliferants. The DOD Cooperative Threat Reduction Program is no longer
engaged in employing Russian nuclear weapons scientists and engineers
in cooperative research. The Department of Energy, through the
Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention and Nuclear Cities Initiative,
and the Department of State, through the International Science and
Technology Center in Moscow, undertake this task. Also, I believe it is
vital that the Russians retain the critical personnel so that Russia
can effectively dismantle and dispose of the excess Russian nuclear
weapons and the resulting material in a safe and secure manner.
One critical personnel issue that the DOD Cooperative Threat
Reduction Program has dealt with is personnel reliability. We have an
ongoing project to enhance the Russian Ministry of Defense's personnel
reliability program by providing a capability for drug and alcohol
screening and evaluation of personnel who have access to nuclear
weapons.
The DOD program does contract with Russian nuclear weapons
institutes to develop equipment to enhance safety and security of
nuclear weapons and materials.
17. Senator Akaka. Do you feel that US CTR programs have placed
enough attention on the ``brain drain'' and the risks of internal theft
and diversion of nuclear material?
Dr. Klein. The ``brain drain'' issue is very important and is
handled by the Departments of State and Energy. The Cooperative Threat
Reduction (CTR) Program works closely with the Ministry of Defense to
protect against internal theft and diversion of nuclear warheads. These
efforts include equipment and assistance in establishing a personnel
reliability program to screen and test workers at the warhead
facilities. It also includes equipment, services and training on
security in the transport, handling, and storage of the weapons as they
are withdrawn from operational use and are eventually dismantled. We
would like to provide more assistance to Russia's Ministry of Defense
but are hindered by Russia's laws that prohibit foreign personnel
access to their weapons storage areas. This is a problem we are trying
to resolve with Russia.
The DOD program does contract with Russian nuclear weapons
institutes to develop equipment to enhance safety and security of
nuclear weapons and materials.
18. Senator Akaka. Many of the problems faced by domestic chemical
weapons disposal facility planners, namely local opposition, and
environmental safety concerns, are shared by planners of Russian
chemical weapons disposal facilities. Would you consider sharing
lessons learned and best practices regarding chemical weapon
destruction with your Russian counterparts?
Dr. Klein. The DOD CTR Program shares a very special, on-going and
cooperative relationship with our Russian counterparts for the
destruction of chemical weapons. We share a common goal of destroying
chemical weapons stockpiles. As part of this working relationship, we
routinely share information, lessons-learned and best practices
pertaining to the safe and efficient destruction of chemical weapons.
The U.S. Army's Chemical Weapons Destruction program office provides a
rotating manager to assist in sharing these lessons with Russian
counterparts. Additionally, our Russian colleagues have visited
Johnston Atoll and other U.S. Chemical Disposal sites and have met with
local officials to discuss common problems. We will continue this
practice as we work with our Russian partners towards building a nerve
agent destruction facility in Shchuch'ye to eliminate these weapons and
the threat of their proliferation, and in other areas that enhance U.S.
national security goals. The complete, rapid and safe destruction of
both the Russian and U.S. chemical weapons stockpiles is a goal of high
importance to both our nations.
chemcal weapon disposal facilities
19. Senator Akaka. How would you plan on improving any of the
concerns raised in a recent GAO report about some U.S. chemical weapon
disposal facilities?'
Dr. Klein. Subsequent to the GAO Report Chemical Weapons Disposal--
Improvements Needed in Program Accountability and Financial Management,
the Department made changes in the DOD Chemical Demilitarization
program to improve overall program management. First, the Department
re-categorized the program to an Acquisition Category (ACAT) ID
designation, which provides more senior-level program oversight
consistent with the size, scope, and international importance of this
mission.
Next, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology
and Logistics directed a series of Defense Acquisition Board (DAB)
program reviews be held on the entire Chemical Demilitarization
Program. The DAB program review is being used to streamline the overall
program, establish realistic schedule and cost estimates, and determine
alternative technology methods for two remaining sites.
Finally, the Army has responded by consolidating its management
structure within a single chain of command at the headquarters level.
This was done to reduce duplication of efforts and improve overall
management of the program.
20. Senator Akaka. One objective of DOD's CTR Programs is to
eliminate and prevent the proliferation of biological and chemical
weapons and associated capabilities. CTR programs provide collaborative
research for chemical and biological weapon scientists, enhance
security and safety at former Soviet biological research centers, and
consolidate and dismantle infrastructure associated with biological
weapon production or research. Which of these objectives do you feel is
the most urgent in the current international climate?
Dr. Klein. First and foremost, we seek to destroy weapons of mass
destruction and their means of delivery. If it's not possible to
destroy such weapons, then we will seek to consolidate and secure them.
Further, we seek to prevent weapons of mass destruction, materials, and
knowledge from leaving the former Soviet Union.
The Biological Weapons Proliferation Prevention aspect of the DOD
CTR program is of exceptional, and increasing, importance. The priority
there is to consolidate and enhance the security of dangerous pathogens
at former Soviet biological research and production facilities. On the
chemical weapons front, we also are concerned with the threat of
chemical weapons proliferation and we are troubled by inadequate
security and safety measures currently being maintained on stocks of
chemical agents, and we have a program that is addressing this concern.
Please note, while the DOD CTR Program is involved in targeted
collaborative research with biological weapon scientists on dangerous
pathogens to enhance U.S. bio-defense capabilities, the DOD CTR program
is not involved in similar collaborative research with chemical weapons
scientists--the Department of State engages in this area.
21. Senator Akaka. Do you feel these programs have the resources
and attention needed to accomplish their goals?
Dr. Klein. Currently, between unobligated funding and the budget
request, there is both the funding and management flexibility to deal
with this challenge. The Department in conjunction with the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) will notify Congress if requirements for
additional funds arise.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Jeff Bingaman
22. Senator Bingaman. Will the Department look to you as the
nominated official for oversight of acquisition programs concerned with
weapons of mass destruction and our nuclear arsenal?
Dr. Klein. Yes
23. Senator Bingaman. Will you work to insure the Nuclear Weapons
Council is an active decision making body so that the Department of
Energy receives timely guidance and requirements in their Stockpile
Stewardship Program?
Dr. Klein. Yes.
oversight for counter-terrorism
24. Senator Bingaman. How will the Department perform oversight for
counter-terrorism with weapons of mass destruction when the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict
(ASD/SO/LIC) is the official responsible for counter-terrorism and this
position is responsible for weapons of mass destruction?
Dr. Klein. One of my responsibilities as the Assistant to the
Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and Chemical and Biological Defense
Programs (ATSD(NCB)) is countering the proliferation of nuclear,
chemical, and biological (NCB) weapons of mass destruction and their
means of delivery. These responsibilities include: the development of a
counterproliferation (CP) acquisition strategy; the research,
development, and acquisition related to CP; development of systems and
standards for the administration and management of the approved plans
and programs for CP; review and evaluation of programs for carrying out
approved policies and standards; coordination, cooperation, and mutual
understanding on CP policies, within the Department of Defense (DOD)
and between DOD and other Federal agencies; and advisor to the Defense
Acquisition Board for review of systems for CP programs.
Another of my responsibilities is that of Executive Secretary for
the congressionally-mandated Counterproliferation Program Review
Committee (CPRC) and Chair of that organization's Standing Committee.
The CPRC is chaired by the Secretary of Defense, with the Secretary of
Energy as the vice-chair, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and
Director of Central Intelligence also participating. Serving with me on
the CPRC Standing Committee is the National Nuclear Security Agency's
Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, the Joint
Staff J-5 Deputy Director for Strategy and Policy, the Central
Intelligence Agency's Director for Weapons Intelligence,
Nonproliferation and Arms Control, and the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict (ASD(SO/
LIC)).
The ASD(SO/LIC) has overall responsibility for the counterterrorism
mission. My responsibilities, CP duties, and CPRC congressional mandate
make me responsible for countering that subset of the NCB aspects of
paramilitary and terrorist threats. In this capacity, I work closely
with the ASD(SO/LIC) both directly and within the forum of the CPRC to
ensure that our efforts are coordinated and that we capitalize on any
opportunities to exploit possible synergies to ensure that we
thoroughly address this issue.
low-yield nuclear weapons
25. Senator Bingaman. What is your position on the development of
low-yield nuclear weapons as a deterrent against hard and deeply buried
targets?
Dr. Klein. The Department of Defense recently submitted the
congressionally-mandated Report to Congress on the Defeat of Hard and
Deeply Buried Targets (HDBTs), which responds to Section 1044 of the
Floyd D. Spence Department of Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2001. I support the report's initiatives for finding, locating, and
attacking HDBTs in a timely manner.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Strom Thurmond
stockpile stewardship program
26. Senator Thurmond. Maintaining a safe and reliable nuclear
weapons' stockpile is of supreme national interest to the United
States. In the absence of nuclear testing, our Nation relies on the
Stockpile Stewardship Program as the primary means of ensuring the
safety and reliability of its nuclear deterrent. What are your views
regarding the Stockpile Stewardship Program's effectiveness in ensuring
the safety and reliability of the weapons under the control of our
Armed Forces?
Dr. Klein. My perception at this point is that the Stockpile
Stewardship Program to date, and the excellent Cold-War era legacy of
nuclear weapons scientists, engineers, and production workers, has
worked to ensure the safety and reliability of the stockpile. The
ability of the program to continue to do so is uncertain. The
effectiveness of the program will ultimately be measured by its ability
to deliver refurbished safe and reliable weapons in a timely manner to
meet operational requirements. We have not yet reached that point.
role in stockpile stewardship
27. Senator Thurmond. In your response to the advance policy
question on major challenges facing you if confirmed, you indicated
that one challenge will be ``maintaining the safety, security and
reliability of our aging nuclear stockpile.'' In your view what
specific role will you have in ``maintaining the safety, security, and
reliability of our aging nuclear stockpile''?
Dr. Klein. Specifically, I view myself as the principal OSD focal
point for the safety, security, and reliability of our nuclear weapon
stockpile. As the Nuclear Weapons Council (NWC) Staff Director, as the
NWC Executive Secretary and as the Chairman of the Nuclear Weapons
Council Standing and Safety Committee, I will manage the joint DOD-DOE/
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) activities aimed at
maintaining the safety, security and reliability of our aging nuclear
stockpile. As the ATSD (NCB), I am chartered as the principal contact
with the DOE/NNSA on all atomic energy matters. I am directly
responsible to the Secretary of Defense to develop plans for nuclear
weapons safety and security. I plan to work closely with the Joint
Staff, Commanders in Chief, Military Services, civilian defense
officials, the DOE/NNSA in carrying out these responsibilities.
chemical demilitarization
28. Senator Thurmond. The United States has an aggressive, but
expensive Chemical Demilitarization Program. What will be your specific
role in the execution of this program?
Dr. Klein. As the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for
Nuclear, and Chemical and Biological Defense Programs, I will provide
oversight of the Army Chemical Demilitarization Program and the
Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment (ACWA) Program. One of my primary
goals is to foster improved cooperation with the Army to help expedite
the destruction of our chemical weapons in a safe, treaty-compliant and
cost-effective manner.
29. Senator Thurmond. Further, what are your views on how the
program is progressing toward meeting the 2007 deadline for the
destruction of the stockpile?
Dr. Klein. As of December 2001, the Department reports that 24
percent of the original chemical weapons tonnage has been destroyed.
Thus, we have achieved the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) 20 percent
destruction milestone well before the April 29, 2002, deadline. As part
of this destruction effort, all chemical weapons at Johnston Atoll (6.4
percent of the original inventory) were finally destroyed during 2001.
Closure operations at Johnston Atoll are currently underway.
Results from the September 2001 Defense Acquisition Board (DAB)
review of the Army Chemical Demilitarization program show us that we
will not be able to meet the Chemical Weapons Convention 2007 deadline
for complete destruction of our national stockpile of chemical weapons.
However, a provision in the convention allows for an extension to 2012.
The Department is looking at adopting efficiencies that will help us to
condense the overall schedule to within the 2012 timeframe without
compromising strict safety and environmental standards.
A second and third phase of the DAB program review will occur in
March and June 2002, respectively. During these reviews, destruction
technologies to be used at the Pueblo, CO, and Blue Grass, KY, chemical
depot sites will be determined. Based on the technologies chosen for
these sites, the Defense Acquisition Executive will approve the final
destruction schedule estimates accordingly.
______
Question Submitted by Senator James M. Inhofe
chemical and biological detection devices
30. Senator Inhofe. Dr. Klein, there is a company in Tulsa,
Oklahoma called Airborne Technologies, that has done some great things
regarding chemical/biological detection using an airborne platform for
detection. They are actively involved in project SAFEGUARD, which was
developed by ERDEC in response to needs identified during the Gulf War.
Today, SAFEGUARD is our country's only operational, field proven stand-
off detection sensor capable of locating, tracking, and identifying the
airborne plume produced by chemical weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
SAFEGUARD functions by flying over enemy territory on a BQ-145 UAV
utilizing its on-board sensors to identify chemical/biological
particles.
In 1995, a blue ribbon panel was directed to study SAFEGUARD and
the results were overwhelmingly positive. Many of the panel members
have written me to express how this program could be of great value due
to the recent terrorist events. My office has been working with DTRA to
highlight how SAFEGUARD could assist the United States and our allies
in these tense times since the attack of 11 September. However, the
progress has been slow with DTRA due to bureaucracy.
Dr. Klein, I would like for you to study this issue and report back
to me with your findings. I think you will find that the SAFEGUARD
program has merit.
Dr. Klein. I am currently not aware of the details of the SAFEGUARD
program, but will certainly work to gain familiarity with this issue.
My general understanding is that research involving the SAFEGUARD
program was completed in fiscal year 2001 and the hardware was
transitioned to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for
application and further development. In the interim, the Department
focused on investigating unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) deployment for
other standoff and point detectors. This issue bears looking into and I
will commit my efforts to that end and report back to you.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Wayne Allard
chemical demilitarization
31. Senator Allard. There has been much discussion about impact
fees for communities that have chemical weapons destruction facilities.
Where would the money for these proposed impact fees have to come
from, and how could it affect the chemical demilitarization programs
for these sites?
Dr. Klein. In accordance with House Report 106-945, Section 152, p.
647, the Department tasked the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA) to
conduct an independent assessment on ``the impact of the Department of
Defense Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction program on the
communities in the vicinity of the chemical weapons stockpile storage
sites and associated chemical agent demilitarization activities'' at
the eight chemical depot facilities located within the continental
United States.
Based on the findings of the report, which reveal an overall
positive economic impact at the state level resulting from
demilitarization operations at all eight sites, the Deputy Secretary of
Defense, in a September 25, 2001, memorandum to Congress, did not
recommend economic assistance to the communities. Therefore, based upon
this determination, there are no effects to budgets or programs.
32. Senator Allard. What do you see as your biggest challenge in
meeting the international deadline for the destruction of our chemical
stockpile as directed by the Chemical Weapons Convention?
Dr. Klein. Results from the September 2001 Defense Acquisition
Board review of the Army Chemical Demilitarization program show us that
we will not be able to meet the 2007 Chemical Weapons Convention
deadline for complete destruction of our national stockpile of chemical
weapons. However, a provision in the Chemical Weapons Convention allows
for an extension request to 2012. The Department is looking at adopting
efficiencies that will help us to condense the overall schedule to
within the 2012 timeframe without compromising strict safety and
environmental standards. Therefore, our biggest challenge will be to
identify and incorporate such efficiencies that will help us maintain
treaty compliance without compromising safety and environmental
standards.
33. Senator Allard. Will we meet the deadline?
Dr. Klein. The Defense Acquisition Executive (DAE), during a
September 2001 Defense Acquisition Board program review, approved a new
schedule for completion of chemical weapons destruction. Based on the
new schedule, we will not complete chemical weapons stockpile
destruction before the 2007 deadline.
However, a provision in the Chemical Weapons Convention allows for
an extension request to 2012. The Department is looking at adopting
efficiencies that will help us to condense the overall schedule to
within the 2012 timeframe without compromising strict safety and
environmental standards.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Tim Huthinson
vaccine production facility
34. Senator Hutchinson. The National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2002, passed by the Senate on October 2, 2001, provides
authority for the Secretary of Defense to design, construct and operate
on an installation of the Department of Defense a Government-owned,
contractor-operated vaccine production facility. The Senate provided
this authority following a comprehensive review by the Emerging Threats
and Capabilities Subcommittee of this committee, as well as the work of
other congressional committees. In addition, an advance recommendation
of the Gilmore Commission on Terrorism recommends a Government-owned,
contractor-operated vaccine production facility. I encourage you to
review the work of this committee and other congressional committees,
as well as the work of the Gilmore Commission.
Dr. Klein, should the Secretary of Defense utilize the authority
provided to him by Congress, I expect that your office will execute his
instructions.
Will you assure the committee that the site selection process for a
Government-owned, contractor-operated vaccine production facility will
be fair and transparent?
Dr. Klein. Yes, the acquisition process will follow established
policies and provisions of the National Environmental Protection Act,
local and State permitting, Federal Acquisition Regulation, and the
Defense Acquisition Regulation Supplement.
35. Senator Hutchinson. Dr. Klein, will you assure the committee
that as the criteria is established for site selection, that this
committee be briefed on that criteria and that, before site selection
is made, the committee receive a briefing?
Dr. Klein. As I stated during my confirmation hearing, I intend to
work closely with Congress on all critical national security issues
germane to my portfolio in a spirit of openness and frankness. As soon
as site selection criteria are established for the vaccine facility, I
assure members of this committee that I will inform you of these
criteria and brief you on our selection process, and progress made up
to that point on establishing a vaccine production facility.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Jeff Sessions
status of the cb defense detection program
36. Senator Sessions. Dr. Klein, if confirmed you will be leading
an office with an extremely important mandate. The bio-terrorist
attacks using anthrax have shown us the need to be able to rapidly and
accurately detect biological, chemical and radiological weapons. We
need this technology, not only for the soldier in the field, but for
the post office worker and in airport security offices. Indeed we need
this technology wherever large numbers of people congregate.
Can you tell this committee the status of the Department of
Defense's efforts to develop an accurate system, or systems, to detect
biological, chemical, and radiological weapons with extremely low false
alarm rates?
Dr. Klein. The mission of the Chemical/Biological (CB) Defense
Program is primarily focused on the ``classical combat'' environment.
This environment requires that the false alarm rate be taken into
consideration with the response time, sensitivity, and other parameters
that impact on the suitability of the products to the soldier in the
field. The technology used in CB Defensive equipment has the potential
for other environments, i.e. post offices and airports, but would
require testing and evaluation of their effectiveness in those
environments and forces various performance parameters to be re-
balanced for the specific environment. The capabilities to accurately
detect biological, chemical, and radiological materials with extremely
low false alarm rates are in various stages depending on the nature of
the material. This assessment is focused on a select subset of
biologicals and chemicals (i.e. warfare materials) and not the entire
list of toxic industrial materials.
The status of the identification of biological materials in a
localized environment (i.e. next to the detector) is adequate but
requires the use of multiple tests to provide the level of confidence
needed for a presumptive identification of the biological materials.
Efforts are currently underway to enhance this capability to identify
with fewer tests. The status of the identification for early warning is
inadequate; the current capability is to provide an inferred warning
that something might be out there thus triggering the use of other
assets to provide additional information. For this area, technology is
the current limiting factor.
The status of the identification of chemical materials is adequate
in both the localized environment and for early warning. There are
still some areas of improvement (i.e. size, weight, and increased
sensitivity while maintaining low false alarm rates) that are desired
and are currently being addressed within the development community.
The status of the identification of radiological materials is
adequate in the localized environment. There are a number of commercial
sources that can provide this capability since it is widely needed
within the civilian sector (i.e., hospitals, etc.).
status report of dod's research efforts
37. Senator Sessions. Please provide this committee with a status
report on DOD's research efforts, and let us know if you need any more
support from Congress.
Dr. Klein. The Department appreciates the strong support provided
by Congress over the past several years towards improving our Nation's
chemical and biological defense research efforts.
In regard to medical chemical and biological defense research, the
Department's mission is to preserve combat effectiveness by timely
provision of medical countermeasures. A key research initiative to
improve chemical and biological defense medical readiness includes
enhanced medical diagnostic capability for diseases and injuries caused
by chemical and biological warfare agents. Diagnostic research efforts
are currently conducted within the Defense Technology Objective (DTO),
Common Diagnostic Systems for Biological Threats and Endemic Infectious
Diseases. The Chemical and Biological Defense Program (CBDP) utilizes
DTOs to focus on more mature medical technologies for advancement
through the acquisition process.
Recent bioterrorism incidents with anthrax spores have heightened
our interest in improving our diagnostic capabilities, particularly
with regard to biological warfare agents. A key objective of our
current biological diagnostic research is to develop deployable, state-
of-the-art systems, including reagents, protocols, training and devices
to be used by medical personnel to confirm a clinical diagnosis of
infection with any biological threat agent or endemic infectious
disease of military importance. The scope of this effort includes
evaluating the advanced medical diagnostic research being conducted by
the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) with a
consideration for transitioning the most promising technologies into
the Department's CBDP to support the warfighter.
With regard to chemical medical diagnostic capabilities, our
overall objective is to diagnose, to determine a prognosis for, and to
manage the joint service warfighter exposed to chemical warfare agents.
This research objective involves developing effective, field-deployable
diagnostic equipment, skin and wound decontamination products,
pharmaceutical treatments, and practical clinical strategies to aid in
the clinical management of chemical warfare agent casualties.
In addition to our efforts to enhance medical chemical and
biological defense diagnostic capabilities, the Department conducts
significant research in developing pre-treatments and post-exposure
therapeutics.
Currently, there are three medical chemical defense and seven
medical biological defense DTOs. The medical chemical defense DTO
research efforts focus on (1) the development of medical
countermeasures against vesicant injury (i.e., post-exposure
therapeutic); (2) the development of a chemical agent prophylactic
(i.e., pre-treatment); and (3) the development of an active topical
skin protectant (i.e., pre-treatment). The medical biological defense
DTO research efforts focus on the development of vaccines against a
variety of pathogens. The medical biological defense DTO research
efforts address vaccine development. For example, there are individual
DTOs for the development of vaccines against anthrax, plague,
encephalitis viruses, and Brucellae. There are also DTOs for the
development of a multiagent vaccine delivery approach that could be
used to immunize concurrently against a range of agents, as well as a
needle-less alternative to the injection of recombinant protein-based
vaccines. Finally, there is a seventh biological medical defense DTO to
develop state-of-the-art technologies capable of diagnosing biological
warfare agents in clinical specimens.
DOD's Non-Medical Science and Technology (S&T) Program conducts a
number of research efforts in technologies for detection, warning, and
identification of biological and chemical threat materials. The
principal focus is battlefield-related scenarios; however, the research
readily leverages into solutions for domestic and homeland defense
detection applications.
Current and near-term fielded technologies for biological
identification rely on antibody-based, single use assays in various
implementations from hand-held to automated multiassay environmental
diagnostics. The non-medical research program is investigating several
approaches to expand the number of agents detectable in unattended
hardware formats while reducing overall logistical burdens.
Identification of biological materials is limited by burden of
time, requiring tens of minutes. Rapid detection technologies providing
indication of biological materials in the environment within timeframes
less than a minute have been evolved from the S&T program and are under
development for fielding.
Detection of aerosolized particulate threats relies upon efficient
air sampling techniques. Research is being conducted to develop more
efficient and smaller air samplers for incorporation with future
smaller chemical and biological detection devices.
The detection and identification of water-borne chemical and
biological threats is being investigated under the DTO, Chemical
Biological Agent Water Monitor. Candidate technologies for
investigation have been downselected and are currently being evaluated
against threat materials. As with the genetic discrimination technology
mentioned above, these technology investigations will soon be entering
technology demonstration phase. Investigations of technologies for
detection and identification of food-borne chemical/biological (CB)
threats are initiating this year.
The investigation of early warning, standoff detection technologies
continues with increased emphasis. Passive chemical detection
technologies which rely upon ambient radiation to provide the necessary
discrimination data are investigated under the DTO, Chemical Imaging
Sensor, which will produce a candidate technology proving chemical
content information at a range of several kilometers with improved
mapping capability over current and near-term fielded approaches.
Active standoff detection technologies, which utilize a laser to probe
the atmosphere at significantly greater ranges, are being investigated
to provide improved biological detection capability at ranges to tens
of kilometers. Investment into standoff approaches, which address both
chemical and biological detection in a single hardware configuration,
is being increased.
Studies of improved detection capabilities occur in the context of
an improving understanding of the nature and impact of the threat.
Investments have increased in the current fiscal year toward
understanding of both chemical and biological threats, the fate of
chemical threats in the environment (DTO entitled Environmental Fate of
Agents), and operational endpoints under low-level chemical threat
conditions via operational toxicology studies. The assimilation and
fusion of data from multiple sensors to provide enhanced CB awareness
over wide areas is the focus of an increased battle management thrust.
Development of improved models to predict the evolution of CB hazards
is occurring within the Joint Effects Model program recently moved into
technology demonstration phase. Development of models to understand and
mitigate impacts of CB threats on operations is moving into technology
demonstration phase this fiscal year through the Joint Operational
Effects Federation.
Significant research is also being conducted into the technologies
required for response to CB events in the areas of individual and
collective protection and decontamination.
Finally, our Chemical and Biological Defense S&T Program is being
coordinated with those of DARPA, the Department of Energy Chemical
Biological National Security Program, and the intelligence community
under the auspices of the Counter Proliferation Review Committee to
optimize leverage of national CB community efforts across the broad
spectrum of technology application scenarios. A significant investment
in the technology demonstration element of the DOD CBDP S&T Program is
applied to support the evaluation and maturation of technologies
evolving from the efforts of other government agencies.
To summarize, I would like to say that the Department has a robust
program and we are making significant strides in several areas. We
appreciate the support we've received from Congress, and if further
financial support is needed we will certainly return.
______
[The nomination reference of Dr. Dale Klein follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
October 18, 2001.
Ordered, that the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Dr. Dale Klein, of Texas, to be Assistant to the Secretary of
Defense for Nuclear and Chemical and Biological Defense Programs, vice
Harold P. Smith, Jr., resigned.
______
[The biographical sketch of Dr. Dale Klein, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Dr. Dale Klein
Since 1977, Dr. Klein has been a professor in the Department of
Mechanical Engineering (Nuclear Program) at the University of Texas at
Austin. He has been the Vice-Chancellor for Special Engineering
Programs at the University of Texas System since 1998. Dr. Klein also
serves as the Chairman and Executive Director of the Amarillo National
Research Center (ANRC), during which time he has overseen over $45
million of funding concerning plutonium research and nuclear weapon
dismantlement issues.
Dr. Klein has held other positions during his tenure at UT Austin:
Director of the Nuclear Engineering Teaching Laboratory; Deputy
Director of the Center for Energy Studies; and Associate Dean for
Research and Administration in the College of Engineering.
In addition to his duties at UT and the ANRC, Dr. Klein is an
active member of several Department of Energy national committees,
including the Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee in July 2000.
He has been honored with the distinction of Fellow of the American
Society of Mechanical Engineers and the American Nuclear Society. Dr.
Klein has also received many awards, including the Joe J. King
Professional Engineering Achievement Award by UT Austin and Engineer of
the Year for the State of Texas by the Texas Society of Professional
Engineers. Having received his Ph.D. in nuclear engineering from the
University of Missouri-Columbia, Dr. Klein has been honored with the
University of Missouri Faculty-Alumni Award and the University of
Missouri Honor Award for Distinguished Service in Engineering.
Since joining UT Austin, Dr. Klein has received over $50 million in
research funding, equipment, and educational support. He has published
over 100 technical papers and reports, and co-edited one book. He has
made over 300 presentations on energy and has written numerous
technical editorials on energy issues that have been published in major
newspapers throughout the United States.
______
[The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
form that details the biographical, financial, and other
information of the nominee. The form executed by Dr. Dale Klein
in connection with his nomination follows:]
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Room SR-228
Washington, DC 20510-6050
(202) 224-3871
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation
of your answer applies.
Part A--Biographical Information
Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.
1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
Dale E. Klein.
2. Position to which nominated:
Assistant to the Secretary of Defense (Nuclear, Chemical, and
Biological Defense).
3. Date of nomination:
October 18, 2001.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
5. Date and place of birth:
July 6, 1947; Clarksburg, Missouri.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Rebecca Anne Klein (maiden name Armendariz).
7. Names and ages of children:
N/A.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
1961-1965, Tipton High School; graduated.
1965-1970, University of Missouri, Columbia; 1970 B.S. Mechanical
Engineering.
1970-1971, University of Missouri, Columbia; 1971 M.S. in
Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering.
1973-1977, University of Missouri, Columbia; 1977 Ph.D. in Nuclear
Engineering.
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
1977 to Present, The University of Texas at Austin, Professor of
Mechanical Engineering (Nuclear Program), Austin, TX.
1994 to Present, The University of Texas System, Vice Chancellor of
Special Engineering Programs, Austin, TX.
10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative,
honorary or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State,
or local governments, other than those listed above.
TRAB, Texas Radiation Advisory Board, Chairman.
DOE, Department of Energy, Nuclear Energy Research Advisory
Committee, member.
TCET, Texas Council on Environmental Technology, volunteer
appointment by Governor Rick Perry.
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
ARDT, Advocates for Responsible Disposal in Texas, Board Member.
CSIS, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Consultant.
Blue Ridge Technologies, Consultant.
UT System, Vice-Chancellor.
UT Austin, Professor.
UT Austin, Radiation Safety Committee, Chairman.
UT Austin, Nuclear Engineering Teaching Lab, Interim Director.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
ASME, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, member and fellow.
ANS, American Nuclear Society, member and fellow.
ASEE, American Society for Engineering Education, member.
NSPE, National Society of Professional Engineers, member.
TSPE, Texas Society of Professional Engineers, member.
IC2, Innovation, Creativity, and Capital, member and Centennial
fellow.
Pi Tau Sigma, member.
Tau Beta Pi, member.
Omicron Delta Kappa, member.
Pi Mu Epsilon, member.
Phi Kappa Phi, member.
TRAB, Texas Radiation Advisory Board, Chairman.
ARDT, Advocates for Responsible Disposal in Texas, Board Member.
DOE, Department of Energy, Nuclear Energy Research Advisory
Committee, member.
TCET, Texas Council on Environmental Technology, volunteer
appointment by Governor Rick Perry.
13. Political affiliations and activities:
(a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or
any public office for which you have been a candidate.
None.
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5
years.
None.
(c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $100 or more for the past 5 years.
George W. Bush.
J. ``Jake'' Pickle
PACE, Political Action Committee for Engineering (Texas).
14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals, and any other special
recognitions for outstanding service or achievements.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
16. Speeches: Provide the committee with two copies of any formal
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have
copies of and are on topics relevant to the position for which you have
been nominated.
I have given numerous talks on Nuclear Energy and Nuclear
Dismantlement. Most of these are general information with no
``official'' prepared remarks. See first paragraph (Oral Presentations)
on List B.
17. Commitment to Testify Before Senate Committees: Do you agree,
if confirmed, to appear and testify upon request before any duly
constituted committee of the Senate?
Yes.
______
[The nominee responded to the questions in Parts B-F of the
committee questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set
forth in the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to
Parts B-F are contained in the committee's executive files.]
------
Signature and Date
I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate,
and complete.
Dr. Dale Klein.
This 4th day of October, 2001.
[The nomination of Dr. Dale Klein was reported to the
Senate by Chairman Levin on November 8, 2001, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on November 8, 2001.]
----------
[Prepared questions submitted to Peter B. Teets by Chairman
Levin prior to the hearing with answers supplied follow:]
November 5, 2001.
The Hon. Carl Levin,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Enclosed herewith are the answers to the advance
questions the Senate Armed Services Committee asked me to complete.
Sincerely,
Peter B. Teets.
cc:
The Honorable John Warner,
Ranking Member.
______
Questions and Responses
defense reforms
Question. Almost 15 years have passed since the enactment of the
Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and
the Special Operations reforms.
Do you support full implementation of these defense reforms?
Answer. Yes.
Question. What is your view of the extent to which these defense
reforms have been implemented?
Answer. My understanding is that these reforms have been
institutionalized and made part of the daily operations, oversight, and
management of the Department of Defense in general and the U.S. Air
Force in particular. I am aware that the sweeping changes produced by
Goldwater-Nichols require continued diligence to ensure full compliance
with the intent of the legislation.
Question. What do you consider to be the most important aspects of
these defense reforms?
Answer. Goldwater-Nichols has been remarkably successful in getting
the services to work together as a joint team. For a decade and a half
now, they've been a much more effective instrument of national security
policy due, in part to the clearly defined position and authority of
the Chairman, Vice Chairman, and combatant commanders.
Question. The goals of Congress in enacting these defense reforms,
as reflected in section 3 of the Goldwater-Nichols Department of
Defense Reorganization Act, can be summarized as strengthening civilian
control; improving military advice; placing clear responsibility on the
combatant commanders for the accomplishment of their missions; ensuring
the authority of the combatant commanders is commensurate with their
responsibility; increasing attention to the formulation of strategy and
to contingency planning; providing for more efficient use of defense
resources; and enhancing the effectiveness of military operations and
improving the management and administration of the Department of
Defense.
Do you agree with these goals?
Answer. Yes, I support full implementation of the Goldwater-Nichols
reforms and agree with its goals. The enactment of Goldwater-Nichols
significantly improved the organization of the Department of Defense,
focused the joint warfighting capabilities, enhanced the military
advice received by the Secretary of Defense, and increased the
integration of service capabilities.
Question. Recently, there have been articles which indicate an
interest within the Department of Defense in modifying Goldwater-
Nichols in light of the changing environment and possible revisions to
the national strategy.
Do you anticipate that legislative proposals to amend Goldwater-
Nichols may be appropriate? If so, what areas do you believe it might
be appropriate to address in these proposals?
Answer. Fifteen years of experience under Goldwater-Nichols has
meant significant changes in the way the Defense Department operates. I
am certain that legislative changes could provide further improvements.
However, I would prefer reserving judgment on this until, if I am
fortunate enough to be confirmed, I have studied any specific proposals
and acquired some experience as the Under Secretary of the Air Force.
At that time, I would be pleased to share my thoughts with the
committee as appropriate.
duties
Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
the Under Secretary of the Air Force?
Answer. The Secretary of the Air Force, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 8013
and Secretary of the Air Force Order 100.1, is responsible for and has
the authority necessary to conduct all affairs of the Department of the
Air Force. Subject to the Secretary's direction and control, the Under
Secretary is authorized to act for and with the authority of the
Secretary of the Air Force on all matters for which the Secretary is
responsible. In addition, the Under Secretary of the Air Force will
serve as the Director of the National Reconnaissance Office (DNRO), and
will have Milestone Decision Authority for Department of Defense (DOD)
Space Major Defense Acquisition Programs and designated space programs
as described in Secretary Rumsfeld's memorandum of October 18, 2001, on
the subject of National Security Space Management and Organization.
Question. What background and experience do you possess that you
believe qualifies you to perform these duties?
Answer. As president and chief operating officer of Lockheed Martin
Corporation, I was responsible for a broad range of defense programs
for all the services from 1997 through 1999. I have an extensive
background and experience in space systems, having started working on
the Titan III Space Launch Vehicle in 1963 for Martin Marietta
Astronautics in Denver, and serving as president of the Denver
Operation from 1985 to 1993. In addition, I served as president of
Martin Marietta Space Group prior to its merger with Lockheed Martin in
1995. In all of these roles I have had the opportunity to develop
excellent working relationships with talented career military
personnel, civilian Air Force and DOD personnel, and a broad range of
industrial counterparts. As a result, I feel well qualified to take on
the unique challenges associated with this position of Under Secretary
of the Air Force.
Question. Do you believe that there are actions you need to take to
enhance your ability to perform the duties of the Under Secretary of
the Air Force?
Answer. A complete understanding of current Air Force and Defense
Department issues is essential to my ability to discharge these
important duties. I pledge to diligently study the broad national
security issues that will require my attention if I am confirmed.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what duties and functions do
you expect that the Secretary of the Air Force would prescribe for you?
Answer. If confirmed, I expect the Secretary to prescribe for me
duties that will assist him in carrying out his responsibility to
conduct all affairs of the Department of the Air Force. A central focus
will be on space activities as designated by the Secretary of Defense,
consistent with my planned role as DNRO.
Question. In carrying out your duties, how will you work with the
following officials:
The Director of Central Intelligence.
Answer. If confirmed, I intend to work closely with the DCI, and in
my role as DNRO to ensure national and Defense intelligence programs
are planned and executed to achieve optimal end-to-end capabilities.
Question. The Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology
and Logistics).
Answer. If confirmed, I will closely work with the Under Secretary
of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics) to carry out the
designated role of the Department of the Air Force as the Executive
Agent for Space within the Department of Defense, with Department-wide
responsibility for planning, programming, and acquisition of space
systems. I will serve as the Acquisition Executive for Space within the
DOD, with Milestone Decision Authority for all Space Major Defense
Acquisition Programs and designated space programs.
Question. The Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Acquisition).
Answer. If confirmed, and in the absence of the Secretary, I would
have full authority over the Department of the Air Force pursuant to
the successorship of duties as indicated in 10 U.S.C. Section 8017. In
that event, all the Assistant Secretaries, including Acquisition would
report to me. If confirmed, in my role as being responsible for space
acquisition, I will work closely with the Assistant Secretary for
Acquisition to ensure interoperability where appropriate, and to make
efficient use of Acquisition resources.
Question. The other service acquisition executives regarding
management of their space-related programs.
Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Department of
Defense and our Service counterparts to ensure space acquisition
planning, programming and budgeting activities are properly coordinated
and implemented, and I will serve as Milestone Decision Authority for
all Space Major Defense Acquisition Programs and designated space
programs.
major challenges and problems
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will
confront the Under Secretary of the Air Force?
Answer. If confirmed, the major challenge will be to provide
leadership for all National Security Space activities. This will
involve active participation by multiple organizational elements
including DOD, Air Force, Army, Navy and NRO organizations.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. If confirmed as the next Under Secretary of the Air Force,
I will work closely with each of the organizations involved in National
Security Space activity to first understand their unique goals,
objectives and challenges and then to build a solid, integrated plan
for the future that is embraced by all constituents.
Question. What do you consider to be the most serious problems in
the performance of the functions of the Under Secretary of the Air
Force?
Answer. I believe that the most serious problems include developing
an integrated vision and plan for National Security Space, cultural
integration of organizational elements, and span of control.
Question. If confirmed, what management actions and time lines
would you establish to address these problems?
Answer. If confirmed, I would work diligently to have a National
Security Space Program Assessment for the 2003 President's budget and a
National Security Space Plan for the 2004 Program Objective Memorandum
(POM) cycle.
priorities
Question. If confirmed, what broad priorities would you establish
in terms of issues which must be addressed by the Under Secretary of
the Air Force?
Answer. I believe that we must build an integrated National
Security Space Plan embraced by diverse constituencies while
maintaining a focus on Mission Success and Program execution for near
term activity.
managing a wider span of control
Question. If confirmed, you will serve two critical functions
having to do with national security space policy and programs, one in
the Air Force, and one as part of the Intelligence Community.
Traditionally, the official serving in the position of the Assistant
Secretary of the Air Force for Space has focused primarily on directing
the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) and the Assistant Secretary of
the Air Force for Acquisition has been largely responsible for managing
acquisition of Air Force space programs. In addition, the individual
serving as the Under Secretary of the Air Force has been fully engaged
in running the day-to-day activities of the corporate Air Force.
If confirmed, how would you intend to undertake all of these duties
and responsibilities?
Answer. For the Under Secretary of the Air Force to serve in both
an official Air Force capacity as well as the appointed position of
Director, National Reconnaissance Office, is not without precedent.
Since 1961, the Air Force Under Secretary has been dual-hatted as the
Director, NRO for four separate periods totaling 18 years. In addition,
the Secretary of the Air Force has been dual-hatted as the Director,
NRO three times over a period of 4 years. The management span of
control is a challenge, but well within the capacity of the Air Force
and NRO organizational structures.
In his 18 October memo, the Secretary of Defense stated his intent
to designate the Air Force as the DOD Executive Agent for Space, to
include Milestone Decision Authority for DOD space programs and
appointment of the Under Secretary of the Air Force as the Service
Acquisition Executive for Space. If confirmed, I will work closely with
the Secretary and Chief of Staff to implement organizational
realignments within the Air Force to effectively execute those
responsibilities. Also I will work closely with the Office of the
Secretary of Defense (OSD) to carry out the Secretary of Defense's
direction and guidance. For example, I understand the Director of Space
and Nuclear Forces (SAF/AQS) and the Program Executive Officer for
Space will be realigned under the Under Secretary of the Air Force
(USECAF) office and will support all space-related acquisition
activities. In addition, the National Security Space Architect (NSSA)
will be reassigned under the USECAF office and help develop long range
space vision and architectures, assist in developing an integrated
national security space plan, and participate in annual assessments of
the intelligence and defense space programs and budgets. The NRO will
also report directly to the USECAF, and if confirmed, I would plan to
use the best practices of both the Air Force and NRO to deliver the
most capable and affordable national security space program possible. I
believe the Deputy Director of the NRO will continue to serve a key
role in the daily operation of NRO activities.
air force space vision
Question. The Air Force has been articulating a future vision in
which space plays a much more significant role in terms of
organization, planning, and operations.
In your view, what changes need to be made in the near-term to
expedite this conversion?
Answer. I have been briefed that the Chief of Staff's vision for
the future, Global Vigilance, Reach and Power centers around four key
Air Force roles: Global Strike, HUMRO (Humanitarian Relief Operations),
Homeland Defense, and Coalition Building. Space will provide six key
enabling roles. They include Information Superiority, Robust
Communication Infrastructure, Skilled Space Professionals, Modern
Equipment, and in the future, Full Spectrum Space Capabilities. When
horizontally integrated with other core Air Force transformational
capabilities, and those of the other Services and Agencies, Air Force
space will enable fulfillment of CSAF's vision.
Question. In your view, over what period of time should this
transformation occur?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Air Force activated a
Directorate of Space Operations and Integration (AF/XOS) just last
year. As the Secretary of Defense defined responsibilities for the
USecAF/DNRO solidifies and the Air Force matures in its role as the
Executive Agent for Space in DOD, in my view space will be on the
strong path for making significant contributions in the near term.
support to the warfighters
Question. Do you believe that the NRO is providing adequate support
to the Theater Commanders in Chiefs (CINCs)?
Answer. Although I have not had the opportunity to study the
details, I believe NRO systems give the Theater CINC a tremendous
advantage over our adversaries. Additionally, I believe that NRO
representatives to the theaters are working with their Intelligence
Community and U.S. Space Command counterparts to give the Theater
CINC's and their staffs the knowledge to fully exploit the complex
technical capabilities of NRO systems. These NRO technical
representatives ensure that the full capabilities of our Nation's
investment in satellite reconnaissance are exploited to meet the
Theater CINCs' needs.
Question. If you are confirmed, what changes would you intend to
make to further improve that support?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work to focus the tremendous technical
innovation found in the NRO and its industry partners to give our
National leadership and Theater CINC's the information to deter
conflict, and when necessary, to win in war.
nro reorganization
Question. The NRO Commission recommended a number of organizational
changes to the NRO.
If you are confirmed, what changes in NRO reorganization would you
propose?
Answer. I fully support the Director, Central Intelligence and
Secretary of Defense's letter to Congress in response to the NRO
Commission. If confirmed I will work hard to implement the NRO
Commission's recommendations consistent with DCI and Secretary of
Defense guidance.
nro and related acquisition programs
Question. Historically, the NRO has been effective at acquiring
intelligence capabilities that are ultimately used by sister
intelligence organizations (mission partners). The committee has been
increasingly concerned that related investments of mission partners
have not kept pace with NRO programs, resulting in inadequate end-to-
end capabilities. For example, NRO is acquiring a new system
implementing a future imagery architecture (FIA). By all accounts, the
National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) has not programmed
sufficient investment in tasking, processing, exploitation and
dissemination (TPED) system to take full advantage of the FIA program.
What is your view of how the Department has managed such major NRO
and related acquisition programs?
Answer. I believe the Department has put increasing focus, in both
the requirements and budget processes, on the interfaces and
relationships between the National Foreign Intelligence Program and the
many Defense intelligence programs. Rapid shifts in information
technology and information processes greatly complicate our ability to
anticipate and quantify these interfaces between large acquisition
programs.
Question. Are you satisfied that such programs fully consider
optimal end-to-end capabilities?
Answer. Given the dynamics of information technology and national
security needs alluded to in my answer above, I don't know that we are
fully satisfied with our end-to-end intelligence capabilities. The
close and continuing working relationship between the Secretary of
Defense and DCI will provide the leadership to ensure national and
Defense intelligence programs are planned and executed to achieve
optimal end-to-end capabilities.
Question. What changes in process, if any, would you intend to
pursue, assuming you are confirmed, to improve this situation?
Answer. If confirmed, I will collaborate with other Intelligence
Community and Defense agencies and the users of intelligence to
continuously incorporate an end-to-end approach in all of our major
system acquisitions.
dod involvement in nro requirements process
Question. One of the major initiatives undertaken by the Joint
Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) has been to conduct an in-depth
review of Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR),
requirements, capabilities and shortfalls.
If you are confirmed, would you intend to work with the JROC in the
future on this and related issues?
Answer. Yes. If I am confirmed, I will continue to work with the
JROC on this and related issues.
Question. In your view, does the NRO and Defense requirements
process support the timely development and fielding of needed ISR
capabilities?
Answer. As the Secretary of Defense and DCI have noted, the
national security challenges of this century present a far more
difficult problem for requirements and plans than the Cold War. Complex
space systems, such as those developed by the NRO, take several years
to develop. Therefore, the requirements process must provide insight
into future needs. If confirmed, I will work with Intelligence
Community and Defense requirements authorities to shape future ISR
architectures that are consistent with the strategic direction of the
DCI and Secretary of Defense.
science and technology investment
Question. The investment in the Air Force science and technology
(S&T) program has declined dramatically since the end of the Cold War.
With the proliferation of new and asymmetric threats, the importance of
revolutionary breakthroughs in the science and technology arena are
more critical today than ever.
In your view, is the current investment in the Air Force science
and technology program adequate to face these new threats?
Answer. There is always more that can be done to exploit the rapid
advance of technology to enable our forces to more effectively and
safely conduct operations. The issue is always one of balancing
priorities against available funding. If confirmed, I will do by best
to strike the appropriate balance.
Question. Does the science and technology portfolio adequately
support the warfighter of today and the future?
Answer. I understand that the Air Force science and technology
portfolio supports the Air Force vision of an Expeditionary Aerospace
Force in the 21st century and is funded at a level to achieve Critical
Future Capabilities.
Question. If confirmed, how do you plan to balance the demands of
the Air Force between near-term readiness and longer-term scientific
and technological discovery?
Answer. As with all investments, I believe that the S&T program
needs must be balanced with the systems acquisition requirements and
the operational and maintenance demands within the Air Force topline
funding allocation. If confirmed, this process of balancing priorities
will be a continuing effort involving Air Force senior leadership.
Question. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld has established an
investment goal for the defense science and technology program of 3
percent of the total defense budget.
Do you support this goal?
Answer. I am in complete agreement with Secretary Rumsfeld.
Question. If confirmed, would you set a similar goal for the Air
Force science and technology program?
Answer. Science and Technology is the Air Force's investment in the
future and cannot be forsaken. Already, potential adversaries possess
capabilities challenging our own. We cannot afford to fall behind. I
believe today's Airmen must be armed with the most advanced technology
possible.
Question. If so, what time frame would you place on reaching this
investment goal?
Answer. I would advocate reaching this goal in a reasonable time in
balance, of course, with the Air Force's other priorities.
science and technology organization
Question. In Section 252 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Congress required the Secretary
of the Air Force to conduct a review of the long-term challenges and
short-term objectives of the Air Force science and technology programs.
This review is currently being completed. One of the issues Congress
specifically intended to be addressed by the review is the interaction
of the Air Force leadership with the Air Force science and technology
executives.
If confirmed, how would you ensure that uniformed Air Force
officers are engaged in the science and technology process for
determining long-term challenges and short-term objective critical for
future defense superiority?
Answer. I firmly believe we must focus our science and technology,
and acquisition efforts, on valid warfighter requirements. If
confirmed, I will ardently work to foster continuing science/technology
and warfighter interface. The goal of this is a streamlined acquisition
and development process geared exclusively at addressing warfighter
requirements.
Question. If confirmed, would you support organizational changes to
institutionalize a direct reporting requirement from the science and
technology executive to the Secretary of the Air Force?
Answer. I don't have any specific recommendation at this time
regarding organizational changes, however, if confirmed, I plan to
devote appropriate attention to this area.
Question. If confirmed, how do you intend to facilitate
communication between the science and technology community and the
warfighter?
Answer. If confirmed, I would like to see a recurring system of
crosstalk whereby the warfighter and the science and technology
community regularly meet to discuss requirements and possible
solutions.
science and technology workforce
Question. Over the past few years, Congress has worked with the
Department of Defense to waive regulations and create new hiring and
promotion authorities so that the Department could become a more
attractive workplace for highly trained technical workers.
If confirmed, how would you recommend that the Air Force address
the issue of attracting and retaining the finest technical workforce
possible?
Answer. I support flexibility in both hiring and compensation that
will allow the Department of Defense to attract and retain highly
skilled scientists and engineers who can meet the dynamic technological
challenges of the 21st century. Such flexibility is needed to help
level the playing field with private industry. Although I have not had
the opportunity to look at specific hiring authorities in detail, if
confirmed, I will certainly focus on the challenges the Air Force
faces.
Question. Do you have specific recommendations for legislative
changes or new regulatory relief that would better enable you, if
confirmed, to compete with the private sector for these types of
employees?
Answer. I have no specific recommendations at this time.
technology transition
Question. Technology transition--the ability to rapidly transition
mature technologies out of laboratories and into the hands of the
warfighter--has been identified as a difficult hurdle for the
Department of Defense. Both the lack of adequate funding for
transitioning breakthrough technologies and the inadequate buy-in from
the user community have been cited as primary obstacles for technology
transition.
If confirmed, how would you ensure that technologies are rapidly
transitioned from the laboratory into the hands of the warfighter?
Answer. I believe valid warfighter requirements must drive our
investment in science and technology and our acquisition efforts. The
key is to foster a recurring interface between science/technology and
our warfighters with a goal of streamlining the acquisition and
development processes.
Question. Are there specific initiatives you would propose, if
confirmed, to address both the funding and user buy-in issue?
Answer. I have no specific initiatives to propose at this time.
space
Question. The Air Force will have an increasing role in the
operation and acquisition of space systems in the future.
If confirmed, what steps would you take to ensure that there is
good participation by the other military departments and services in
space programs and that their requirements are addressed and met?
Answer. The Secretary of Defense has directed implementation of
recommendations from the Space Commission that will significantly
enhance the integration and coordination of all the Department's space
activities. If confirmed, I will coordinate the actions of
organizations such as the Joint Staff, U.S. Space Command, the National
Security Space Architect (NSSA) and others. Also, I will ensure that
the equities of every member of the defense space community are
protected.
Question. If confirmed, what role do you expect to play in the
space missions of the Air Force?
Answer. If confirmed, I expect to be charged by the Secretary of
the Air Force with the authority and responsibilities to ensure the Air
Force carries out its responsibilities as DOD's Executive Agent for
Space to include organizing, training and equipping our space forces to
successfully execute the missions of the Air Force.
Consistent with Air Force responsibilities as the Executive Agent
for DOD-wide space planning, programming and acquisition, I would
expect to play an active leadership role in overseeing defense-wide
space planning, programming and acquisition to ensure the most
effective national security space program across the board.
Question. Do you agree with the organizational recommendations of
the Space Commission? Where you do not agree, please explain why and
how you would address the problems identified by the Space Commission.
Answer. I fully support the intent and specific recommendations of
the Space Commission report. Centralizing space acquisition as
specified by the Commission under the SAF/US-DNRO will allow a much
more effective national security space program in the future. The Air
Force is currently working with the NRO, OSD, the other Services and
Agencies, and the Intelligence Community to fulfill the Secretary of
Defense's implementation guidance released on 18 October, 2001.
Question. Many high priority national security space missions are
not necessarily high priority missions for the Air Force.
If confirmed, how would you ensure that the Air Forces address any
such missions if the Air Force assumes greater responsibility in the
future for space or if the Air Force becomes the Department of Defense
executive agent for space?
Answer. If confirmed, I would expect to play an active role within
the Air Force planning and advocating space capabilities to meet the
needs of both the Air Force and the Joint warfighter. Furthermore, the
national security space community is developing a National Security
Space Plan and Program Assessment to help guide and assess DOD and
Intelligence space programs. If confirmed, I will use these processes
as well as my role within the Air Force corporate structure to ensure
that the Air Force and DOD increase its focus on space missions. As the
DOD Executive Agent for space, the Air Force will assume a leadership
role in the planning, programming, and acquisition of space systems.
Our vision for the Air Force's future role in space is one that
recognizes the unique contributions and advantages space provides to
our national security. The organizational changes recommended by the
Space Commission and directed by the Secretary of Defense will lead to
streamlined acquisition, more comprehensive planning and programming,
and better capabilities for the warfighter. The Air Force believes
space will be a critical ``center of gravity'' in all future conflicts
and that we must fully integrate space capabilities into current and
future warfighting missions.
bomber force structure
Question. If confirmed, would you commit to study the bomber fleet
and ensure that the Air Force plans for the future of the bomber fleet
permit the fleet to meet all potential future missions that might be
identified in either the Nuclear Posture Review, the Quadrennial
Defense Review, or the National Security Strategy?
Answer. I understand the Air Force is currently updating the bomber
roadmap and that an initial draft is currently in coordination. If
confirmed, I expect to support the Secretary of the Air Force as the
Air Force examines the future needs and options for the bomber force.
nuclear force structure
Question. Do you support repeal of section 1302 of the 1998
National Defense Authorization Act?
If confirmed, would you support retirement of the W-62 warhead when
the Peacekeeper ICBM is retired?
Answer. Yes. I understand the Air Force has programmed the
retirement of the MK12/W62 warhead from the active ICBM warhead fleet.
The Safety Enhanced Reentry Vehicle (SERV) program will provide the
design and equipment to place the MK21/W87 warhead, (being removed from
the Peacekeeper) on the MMIII as a replacement for the W62.
unmanned air vehicles
Question. In the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2001, Congress set a goal that, within 10 years, one-
third of U.S. military operational deep strike aircraft would be
unmanned. In addition, Congress invested an additional $50 million
above the President's budget request in the Air Force Unmanned Combat
Air Vehicle (UCAV).
Do you support the 10-year goal of one-third of U.S. military
operational deep strike aircraft being unmanned?
Answer. Yes. Based on my understanding I fully support the AF/DARPA
project that is underway and that was chartered to achieve that very
goal. I understand that the focus today is on developing UCAVs for the
Suppression of Enemy Air Device (SEAD)/Strike mission. Other potential
UCAV roles being explored include directed energy, electronic attack,
and Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) missions.
officer personnel
Question. The Air Force has in the past acknowledged problems in
its officer personnel processes, including promotions, early retirement
boards, and similar actions. Recently, a case involving allegations of
reverse discrimination in a selective early retirement board was
settled before trial.
What is your opinion as to the health of the officer personnel
system of the Air Force? Do you believe that significant change is
needed? If so, what changes would you recommend?
Answer. I have no detailed understanding of these particular
issues. However, if confirmed I will work with my staff and this
committee to review the existing promotion processes and make
improvements when required.
enlisted promotions
Question. The Air Force has long used a system in which enlisted
personnel undergo standardized testing for promotion to E-5 through E-
7. Recently, allegations have been made that this system is not an
effective way of testing competence in specialties involving manual
skills. It has also been alleged that it unfairly penalizes minority
members. Lastly, there are sporadic problems reported regarding
cheating on the tests, for which group study is prohibited.
What are your views about the Air Force's reliance on this system?
Answer. I have no detailed understanding of these particular
issues. However, if confirmed I will work with my staff and this
committee to review the existing promotion processes and make
improvements when required.
encroachment
Question. On November 27, 2000, the Senior Readiness Oversight
Council identified several ``encroachment'' problems confronting the
Department of Defense including protection of endangered species,
unexploded ordnance and other constituents, commercial demand for
bandwidth and frequency, sustainability of the maritime environment,
demand for use of airspace, protection of air quality, abatement of
airborne noise, and growth of urban areas. At a March 20, 2001, hearing
before the Readiness and Management Support Subcommittee,
representatives of the military services expressed concern that this
encroachment was hindering their legal responsibility under Title 10,
United States Code, to train the forces.
If confirmed, what actions would you propose to address these
problems?
Answer. I believe there must be a balance between test, training,
and readiness requirements and responsible stewardship. If confirmed, I
will foster the development and maintenance of partnerships with our
sister services, civilian government agencies, tribal governments, and
other stakeholders that serve to address areas of mutual interest in
order to sustain our required access to ranges and airspace.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as the Under Secretary of the Air
Force?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings and
other communications of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Question Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Akaka
encroachment
1. Senator Akaka. I am interested in your thoughts about
encroachment. I am pleased to learn of your intent to develop
partnerships with the other services, civilian government agencies,
tribal governments, and other stakeholders. By other stakeholders, I
would hope you mean the communities surrounding the training ranges and
installations where we face encroachment challenges.
Do you have any specific thoughts regarding how you plan to address
encroachment issues as the Under Secretary of the Air Force?
Mr. Teets. This is an important issue not only for the Air Force
and the Department of Defense, but also for all Americans. The core of
our military readiness is realistic testing and training conducted on
military lands and in the special use airspace over our Nation and
overseas. I believe that, as a Nation, we owe our men and women in
uniform the best equipment and training possible. I also believe that
if we do not work this issue aggressively, we may see a reduction in
combat proficiency from less realistic testing and training. A key
solution to the encroachment challenge is effective 2-way
communication. The AF actively seeks to communicate and form
partnerships of the type you mentioned. If confirmed, I will continue
to work with the other services, Federal and State agencies and local-
communities to help fully meet this challenge.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Strom Thurmond
defense of space systems
2. Senator Thurmond. Although increased intelligence collection on
our adversaries' intention against our space platforms is critical, it
seems to me that the Nation has to be prepared to defend our space
systems.
What priority should the Nation place on developing anti-satellite
systems to protect our critical space platforms?
Mr. Teets. Protection of our critical space systems should clearly
be a high national priority. We must recognize that our adversaries
could attack our systems. No single approach will ensure protection
against all potential threats. We must be able to detect and
characterize attacks against any element of our space systems, and then
be prepared with appropriate measures to withstand and respond.
An anti-satellite capability could potentially deter and counter
space-based threats, should such threats emerge. The priority given to
developing anti-satellite systems to support protection will depend on
the level of national concern about the space-based threat. If
confirmed, I will work to ensure our critical space platforms are
protected.
space program
3. Senator Thurmond. Early in the manned space program the United
States decided that the program should be a civilian program. We have
continued in that tradition through several administrations. As we
begin this new century and face new challenges, some individuals
propose that we should initiate a military manned space program.
What are your views regarding a military manned space program?
Mr. Teets. To my knowledge, the Air Force has no requirements for
manned space flight.
future space program
4. Senator Thurmond. A key factor in providing for our national
security hinges on our ability to control space. We currently have the
space systems to provide for that security. My concern is that we may
not have those systems in the future.
In your opinion, what are the types of space systems that the
Nation must focus on to insure our continued control of space?
Mr. Teets. To ensure that our national security space systems
continue to provide the strategic advantage, we'll pursue a range of
improvements to our space control capabilities: Key focus areas
include:
(1) Space situational awareness. We must improve our capabilities
to understand which objects are threats and what they are doing. Space
situational awareness is the critical enabler for timely defensive and
offensive responses against space threats.
(2) Negation. The need to be able to deny adversaries their use of
space systems and services for purposes hostile to U.S. national
security interests.
(3) Space control infrastructure. A space range and credible
``Space Aggressor'' emulation of foreign threats should be developed to
provide the opportunity to test, train, and exercise for space control
in an operationally realistic environment.
If confirmed, I will work to ensure these improvements are
implemented.
installation readiness
5. Senator Thurmond. At the Readiness Subcommittee hearing on
military construction, General Robbins, the Civil Engineer of the Air
Force, testified that the Air Force current backlog in restoration and
modernization exceeds $5.6 billion. Although this backlog is less than
the other services, it has a significant impact on readiness and
quality of life in the Air Force.
As the Under Secretary of the Air Force, you will have a
significant role in determining the allocation of resources. What
priority will you place on reducing this significant backlog in the
sustainment of Air Force installations?
Mr. Teets. I concur that this backlog impacts both the mission and
the quality of life of the men and women in our Air Force. Besides
obvious mission impacts due to degraded airfields and deficiencies in
key operational facilities, the quality of the facilities where our
troops and their families work, live, and play is a key element that
affects our airmen's preparedness to focus on the mission. I recognize
that their welfare, whether they are hard at work at their home base or
deployed to a variety of locations around the world, especially during
these troubled times, is critical to the readiness of the force. If
confirmed, I will give full consideration to allocating the necessary
resources to reduce this backlog and thus improve mission performance
and the quality of life in our Air Force.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Bob Smith
inherent conflict of interest
6. Senator Smith. Today, the Air Force and the other Services
submit their budgets to the Secretary of Defense for him to assess and
adjust. In the future, under plans, the Air Force will submit its space
budget to itself, creating what I see as an inherent conflict of
interest.
If for example, you felt that the Air Force corporate decision to
delay the Space Based Radar program was wrong, from a DOD perspective,
how could you both support the Air Force budget submission and conduct
a fair and honest assessment for all DOD?
Mr. Teets. The Air Force's role as Executive Agent for Space
includes providing space capabilities for the DOD and working with all
services and agencies to integrate space into joint warfighting. If
confirmed, I will work closely with all the Air Force leadership to
ensure DOD space requirements and programs have full attention and
priority throughout the AF budget process. I believe the end result
will be a balanced approach to air and space programs. Should budgetary
constraints limit space programs I believe are vital, I will work with
DOD leadership to advocate fixes and the resources to remedy them.
Regarding the space assessment, we expect this to be an open and
inclusive process, involving all services and agencies, which will
compare DOD-wide space programs and budgets against approved
requirements, plans and guidance. This process will provide an
objective means to develop and advocate space capabilities across the
DOD.
joint vs. autocratic
7. Senator Smith. I understand the Secretary of Defense is still
working on changes to your potential job description, and soon he will
be delegating new defense-wide authorities to the Under Secretary of
the Air Force to oversee all DOD space activities (consistent with the
Space Commission recommendations).
How would you, as and Air Force leader, handle that new authority?
Mr. Teets. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Secretary of
Defense, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology,
and Logistics (AT&L), and the other senior Service Secretaries and
Chiefs to implement the recommendations of the ``Report of the
Commission to Assess U.S. National Security Space Management and
Organization.''
A major responsibility of the Under Secretary of the Air Force will
be to serve in both an official Air Force capacity as well as the
appointed position of Director, National Reconnaissance Office. This is
not without precedent. Since 1961, the Air Force Under Secretary has
been dual-hatted as the Director, NRO for four separate periods
totaling 18 years. In addition, the Secretary of the Air Force has been
dual-hatted as the Director, NRO three times over a period of 4 years.
A complete understanding of Air Force, Defense Department, and
Intelligence Community issues is essential to my ability to discharge
all the authorities conferred on the Under Secretary of the Air Force.
I pledge to diligently study the broad national security issues that
will require my attention if I am confirmed.
8. Senator Smith. Would you make decisions jointly with your sister
services or would you dictate the way ahead?
Mr. Teets. If confirmed, I would pursue the recommendations of the
``Report of the Commission to Assess U.S. National Security Space
Management and Organization.'' As a first step, I would begin work
toward a National Security Space management process that would include
members of both defense-wide and intelligence organizations. I would
expect the other services to be full partners in that process.
merging dod and intelligence
9. Senator Smith. According to the Secretary of Defense's plan, the
Under Secretary of the Air Force will also become Director of the
National Reconnaissance Office (NRO).
Would you build on efforts to align space authority within DOD and
also integrate DOD and Intelligence space activities?
Mr. Teets. Aligning space authority within the DOD was recently
initiated and is progressing. I support the Secretary of Defense's
approach in his October 18, 2001 memo on National Security Space
Management and Organization and will build upon these implementation
actions.
The integration of DOD and Intelligence space activities depends on
an array of requirements and technical and programmatic variables. If
confirmed, I will support the Secretary of Defense and the Director of
Central Intelligence to plan, and develop space systems that best
achieve our national security space goals, respecting the equities of
all space users.
10. Senator Smith. Would you merge your DOD and Intelligence space
management teams or keep them separate?
Mr. Teets. If confirmed, I will implement guidance already provided
by the Secretary of Defense, and the Director of Central Intelligence
on space organization and management issues. This guidance directs
sharing of ``best practices'' between NRO and Air Force programs, which
I fully support. Further merger or integration of DOD and the
Intelligence community space management teams will need to be evaluated
based on all space users, and the effective, efficient management of
space programs.
aerospace vs. air and space
11. Senator Smith. The new Air Force Chief of Staff, General
Jumper, took his job and immediately changed the long-standing Air
Force vision from an ``Aerospace Force'' (implying seamless continuity)
to ``Air and Space Force'' (emphasizing the distinction between the
two).
What is your vision for the Air Force regarding this terminology?
Mr. Teets. The Air Force's vision is Global Vigilance, Reach, and
Power. It remains a concise and accurate description of the capability
the Air Force provides the Joint Forces Commander to fight our Nation's
wars.
In choosing the words ``Air and Space'' Force versus ``Aerospace''
Force, General Jumper is acknowledging the findings of the Space
Commission. The Space Commission report does not use the term
``aerospace'' because it fails to give the proper respect to the
culture and to the physical differences that abide between the
environment of air and the environment of space. General Jumper feels
we should respect those differences.
One way we respect those differences is by understanding we need to
develop space warriors--those trained in the planning and execution of
space-based operational concepts. At the same time, these warriors are
still Airmen who work in our Air and Space Operations Centers,
integrating space capabilities with air and surface forces. Air and
space capabilities have to work together to bring the right warfighting
effect to the right target at the right time. We will accomplish this
transformational marriage of air and space capabilities through the
horizontal integration of our manned, unmanned, and space platforms.
Another way we respect the differences between air and space is
through the transformation of our organizations. On 1 October, 2001,
the Air Force implemented a key Space Commission recommendation when we
realigned the Space and Missile Systems Center under Air Force Space
Command. The result is a clear operational focus on the development of
our space capabilities and the acquisition of space systems.
America's airmen--our air and space warriors--whose job it is to
leverage both air and space, will combine their skills and their
talents to bring the greatest asymmetrical advantage to those
commanders whose job it is to win America's wars, not only the war we
are in today, but every war.
space integration
12. Senator Smith. I don't think there is anything wrong in
recognizing the differences between the air and space communities
within the Air Force, as long as space is fully integrated with air
operations and land and sea operations. I had the opportunity to meet
with General Mike Hamel late last spring. General Hamel's job in the
Air Force is to facilitate that integration. I think he is fighting a
good fight, but we are still losing the battle. For example, our
strategic B-2 bomber does not have the satellite communications it
needs when it dies away from the base around the world--that does not
make sense.
What would you do to help someone like General Hamel ensure space
systems get integrated onto our warfighting capabilities?
Mr. Teets. Space systems already are very much integrated into our
warfighting capabilities right now. We're building on our current
capability by aggressively testing new and emerging space capabilities
and incorporating them into our vision of the 21st century air and
space force. If confirmed, I will continue to ensure these efforts
continue.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Jeff Sessions
future aircraft procurement
13. Senator Sessions. Mr. Teets, the Quadrennial Defense Review was
recently published and it emphasizes the need for forward basing. The
wisdom of this is clearly apparent from our current conflict in
Afghanistan.
Given the fact that we have had difficulty in obtaining basing
rights for our Air Force's tactical aircraft fleet and have had to rely
on our long range bombers and Naval Aviation, what is your vision for
future aircraft procurement?
Mr. Teets. Bomber modernization is critical to maintaining our
ability to project air power around the world. The Air Force will
continue upgrading bomber lethality, survivability, and responsiveness.
In addition, we are engaged in studies to identify what our next long-
range strike capability should be and when it needs to be fielded. If
confirmed, I look forward to working with the Secretary of the Air
Force and his staff to integrate the lessons learned from OPERATION
ENDURING FREEDOM into our future long-range strike procurement plans.
joint strike force (jsf) and f-22 employment
14. Senator Sessions. If the Air Force had the JSF and F-22 today
could you tell me if they could be fully employed in Afghanistan today?
Mr. Teets. Yes. The JSF will eventually replace the F-16 and the F/
A-18A/C/D, currently in use in Afghanistan today. The JSF will be
capable of performing the same roles and missions. The F-22 will
augment those aircraft with its inherent air-to-ground capability,
while maintaining air supremacy for coalition forces.
inter-service rivalry
15. Senator Sessions. I was very disturbed to read in the
Washington Times yesterday that the Air Force is resisting the Navy's
request for a transfer of the special kits to turn dumb bombs into
smart bombs.
I hope this is not true, but if it is I want your promise that if
confirmed you will immediately put an end to this ridiculous inter-
service rivalry, which can only help Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and see
to it that the Air Force deliver to the Navy any assistance the Navy
might need to support Central Command's combat efforts.
Mr. Teets. I assure you this is not true. The day prior to the
article Air Force and Navy representatives had already worked a
transfer of munitions, including these special kits, to support our
warfighters. This was the second such transfer, and the fact is, that
all of the services are working together to support the warfighters
whether they are Navy, Army, Marine, or Air Force. As both the Chief of
Naval Operations (CNO) and the Chief have publicly stated, our services
have never worked closer. If confirmed, I will ensure all services work
together to support our national goals.
heavy lift procurement
16. Senator Sessions. We have all heard of the enormous quantity of
food supplies the Air Force has delivered to the Afghan refugees. I
suspect the current operational tempo has tested our heavy airlift
fleet.
Give us a status report on our C-5 and C-17 fleet. Has our recent
experience given you any new insight into the direction of our heavy
lift procurement plans?
Mr. Teets. The Air Force's heavy-lift modernization plan calls for
both the modernization of the C-5 fleet and procuring additional C-17s.
This plan has been proven by Operation Enduring Freedom, with both the
C-5s and C-17s unique and complementary capabilities making outstanding
contributions to the war effort.
heavy lift needs
17. Senator Sessions. During this period of conflict in Afghanistan
are our other regional commands' heavy lift needs still being met?
Mr. Teets. Yes. Despite enormous lift requirements we are meeting
the other regional commands' lift requirements by utilizing USAF and
commercial assets. If confirmed I will work to ensure our heavy lift
needs are met.
______
[The nomination reference of Peter B. Teets follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
October 30, 2001.
Ordered, that the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Peter B. Teets, of Maryland, to be Under Secretary of the Air
Force, vice Carol DiBattiste.
______
[The biographical sketch of Peter B. Teets, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Peter B. Teets
Peter B. Teets is the retired president and chief operating officer
of Lockheed Martin Corporation, a position he held from 1997 through
1999. Teets previously served as president and chief operating officer
of the Corporation's Information and Services Sector, a post he held
since the Lockheed Martin merger in 1995. Prior to the merger, he was
president of Martin Marietta Space Group.
Teets joined Martin Marietta in 1963 as an engineer in flight
control analysis and held progressively responsible positions since
that time. From 1970 to 1975, he managed the integration of a new
inertial guidance system to the Titan IIIC launch vehicle. Between 1975
and 1980, Teets served as program manager of the Transtage project and
later as the director of Space Systems. From 1980 until 1982, he was
vice president of Business Development for Denver Aerospace and from
1982 to 1985, he was the vice president and general manager of Denver
Aerospace's Strategic and Launch Systems division. In 1985, he was
named president of Martin Marietta Denver Aerospace, which became
Martin Marietta Astronautics Group in 1987.
Born in Denver in 1942, Teets received his bachelor and master of
science degrees in applied mathematics from the University of Colorado,
which also presented him with an honorary doctor of science degree in
1990. In addition, Teets was named a Sloan Fellow and received a
master's degree in management from the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology.
He is a Fellow of the American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics and the American Astronautical Society and was inducted
into the National Academy of Engineering in 1999. Teets is also a
member of the Board of Directors of the Charles Stark Draper
Laboratory.
______
[The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
form that details the biographical, financial, and other
information of the nominee. The form executed by Peter B. Teets
in connection with his nomination follows:]
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Room SR-228
Washington, DC 20510-6050
(202) 224-3871
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation
of your answer applies.
Part A--Biographical Information
Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.
1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
Peter B. Teets.
2. Position to which nominated:
Under Secretary of the Air Force, and Director, National
Reconnaissance Office.
3. Date of nomination:
October 30, 2001.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
5. Date and place of birth:
February 12, 1942; Denver, Colorado.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Vivian Brearley Teets.
7. Names and ages of children:
Karen K. Avery, 36; David E. Teets (Deceased, 2001); Jennifer L.
Teets, 32; Kevin J. Teets, 31; Matthew L. Teets, 19; Christopher K.
Teets, 17.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
East Denver High School, Sept. 1956-June 1959, High School Diploma.
University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, Sept. 1959-June 1963, B.S.
Applied Mathematics.
University of Colorado, Denver, CO, Sept. 1963-June 1965, M.S.
Applied Mathematics.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, June 1977-
June 1978, M.S., Management.
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
President and COO, Lockheed Martin Corporation, Bethesda, MD; July
1997-February 2000.
President and COO, Information and Services Sector, Lockheed Martin
Corporation, Bethesda, MD; March 1995-July 1997.
President, Martin Marietta Space Group, Martin Marietta
Corporation, Bethesda, MD; May 1993-March 1995.
President, Martin Marietta Astronautics, Martin Marietta
Corporation, Denver, CO; June 1963-May 1993.
10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative,
honorary or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State,
or local governments, other than those listed above.
None.
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
Director, The Draper Laboratory, Cambridge, MA.
Director, PRWT Services, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.
Director, Alumbre Technologies, Inc., Rockville, MD.
Member of Executive Committee, Next Gen. Capital Fund II, Fairfax,
VA.
Trustee, Immediate Family Trusts.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
Member, Potomac Presbyterian Church, Potomac, Maryland; since 1993.
Member, First Presbyterian Church of Littleton, Colorado; 1983-
1993.
Member, Cherry Hills Country Club, Englewood, Colorado; since 1988.
Member, Columbia Country Club, Chevy Chase, Maryland; since 1996.
Member Congressional Country Club, Bethesda, Maryland; since 1997.
Member, Phi Gamma Delta social fraternity since 1960; and President
of Beta Kappa Chapter in 1962.
Member, Tau Beta Pi Engineering Honorary Association since 1963.
Member, Republican Party since approximately 1980.
Member, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics since
1960, and a Fellow of the Institute since 1993.
Member, American Astronautics Society since 1980, and a Fellow of
the Society since 1985.
Member, National Academy of Engineering since 1998.
Member, CATO Institute since 2000.
Member, Conquistadores de Cielo since 1998.
Trustee, Falcon Foundation since 1980.
Member, National Western Stock Show Association since 1986.
13. Political affiliations and activities:
(a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or
any public office for which you have been a candidate.
None.
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5
years.
Member, Republican Party.
Member, Republican National Committee, 2001.
(c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $100 or more for the past 5 years.
2/18/99, $1,000 to Friends of Conrad Burns (Sen. MT).
7/19/00, $1,000 to Republican National Committee.
10/10/00, $1,000 to Republican National Committee.
1/3/01, $1,000 to Republican National Committee.
1996 thru 1999, $1,040 per year to Lockheed Martin Political Action
Committee.
14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals and any other special recognitions
for outstanding service or achievements.
Tau Beta Pi; Engineering Honorary Association.
Fellow, AIAA.
Fellow, AAS.
Member, National Academy of Engineering.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
Technical Articles in Journals prior to 1980.
16. Speeches: Provide the committee with two copies of any formal
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have
copies of and are on topics relevant to the position for which you have
been nominated.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
17. Commitment to Testify Before Senate Committees: Do you agree,
if confirmed, to respond to requests to appear and testify before any
duly constituted committee of the Senate?
Yes.
______
[The nominee responded to the questions in Parts B-F of the
committee questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set
forth in the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to
Parts B-F are contained in the committee's executive files.]
------
Signature and Date
I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate,
and complete.
Peter B. Teets.
This 31st day of October, 2001.
[The nomination of Peter B. Teets was reported to the
Senate by Chairman Levin on December 6, 2001, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on December 7, 2001.]
NOMINATION OF MAJ. GEN. CLAUDE M. BOLTON, JR., USAF, TO BE ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF THE ARMY FOR ACQUISITION, LOGISTICS, AND TECHNOLOGY
----------
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 4, 2001
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:40 a.m. in room
SR-222, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator Carl Levin
(chairman) presiding.
Committee members present: Senators Levin, Landrieu, E.
Benjamin Nelson, Warner, Smith, Inhofe, and Bunning.
Committee staff members present: David S. Lyles, staff
director; Christine E. Cowart, chief clerk; Gabriella Eisen,
nominations clerk; and Bridget M. Whalan, special assistant.
Majority staff members present: Daniel J. Cox, Jr.,
professional staff member; Evelyn N. Farkas, professional staff
member; Maren Leed, professional staff member; Gerald J.
Leeling, counsel; Peter K. Levine, general counsel; and Arun A.
Seraphin, professional staff member.
Minority staff members present: Judith A. Ansley,
Republican staff director; Brian R. Green, professional staff
member; William C. Greenwalt, professional staff member; Mary
Alice A. Hayward, professional staff member; Ambrose R. Hock,
professional staff member; George W. Lauffer, professional
staff member; Thomas L. MacKenzie, professional staff member;
Suzanne K.L. Ross, research assistant; Scott W. Stucky,
minority counsel; and Richard F. Walsh, minority counsel.
Staff assistants present: Dara R. Alpert and Daniel K.
Goldsmith.
Committee members' assistants present: Andrew
Vanlandingham, assistant to Senator Cleland; Marshall A. Hevron
and Jeffrey S. Wiener, assistants to Senator Landrieu; William
K. Sutey, assistant to Senator Bill Nelson; Mark Salter,
assistant to Senator McCain; John A. Bonsell, assistant to
Senator Inhofe; George M. Bernier III, assistant to Senator
Santorum; Robert Alan McCurry, assistant to Senator Roberts;
Charles Cogar, assistant to Senator Allard; and Derek Maurer,
assistant to Senator Bunning.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN, CHAIRMAN
Chairman Levin. Good morning everybody. The committee meets
today to consider the nomination of Major General Claude
Bolton, Jr. to be the Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology. General Bolton, on
behalf of the entire committee I would like to welcome you and
your family to the Armed Services Committee. We have a
tradition here of asking our nominees to introduce any family
members that they have with them. If you have family here,
please introduce them at this time, if you would.
General Bolton. Mr. Chairman, good morning, and thank you
very much for that pleasure. I would like to introduce my wife
of almost 33 years, Linda, who is with me today. We have two
lovely daughters. Our older daughter lives in Manhattan, New
York, and is unable to be with us today, but our younger
daughter, Jennifer, who lives in Virginia, is with us this
morning. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Levin. Well, perhaps you could wave at us and we
will wave back at you. Nice to have you all with us.
We always make it a point to thank family members for the
support that they give to the nominee. It makes a huge
difference. You are truly serving your country as well as the
nominee by giving him the kind of support that he needs in this
position, and I know you have done that for a long time in his
military career, so that will be nothing new to you.
General Bolton has worn the uniform of this Nation for some
32 years, most recently as Commander of the Air Force Security
Assistance Center at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio,
where he manages Air Force foreign military sales in the Air
Force Materiel Command's international cooperative programs. He
has served as the program executive officer for Air Force
fighter and bomber programs, the first program manager for what
became the F-22 office, a test pilot, and a decorated veteran
of Vietnam combat missions.
If confirmed as Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology, General Bolton will
oversee the Army's complex acquisition contracting procurement
and logistics systems. He will be responsible for assuring that
our soldiers are equipped with the most advanced tools and
technologies in the quickest, most cost-effective manner
possible. He is well-qualified for this position. We look
forward to asking questions of him.
I would also note for the members and staff that are here
that, following this open session, we will be moving to
executive session to discuss a number of military nominations
which have been pending before this committee.
Is there an opening statement that you have, Senator
Inhofe, Senator Bunning, Senator Warner?
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN WARNER
Senator Warner. Mr. Chairman, I will put my full statement
in the record. I had a very nice interview with this
distinguished nominee, and one of the areas we discussed was
how the President and the Secretary of Defense persuaded him to
come back to public service. I am not sure, but he said his
family could explain it better than he. I welcome you, sir, you
have had a quite a distinguished career.
[The prepared statement of Senator Warner follows:]
Prepared Statement by Senator John Warner
Thank you, Senator Levin.
I join you in welcoming General Bolton and his family. I note that
there have been a series of nominations by Secretary Rumsfeld and the
Bush administration that place well-qualified nominees with background
in one particular military service into senior positions in another
service. While this may appear curious at first glance, I think our
Secretary of Defense is sending the message that the best people and
ideas will thrive in any service. I am convinced after meeting with
General Bolton last week that he is the right person, at the right time
for this job.
General Bolton has had a remarkable career of military service.
Commissioned in 1969, he qualified as a fighter pilot and, over the
course of his distinguished career, he compiled over 2,700 flying hours
in more than 30 different types of aircraft. During the Vietnam war, he
flew 232 combat missions, including 40 over North Vietnam.
General Bolton has also had a very impressive acquisition
background, serving as the first program manager for the Advanced
Tactical Fighter Technologies Program, which evolved into the F-22
System Program Office. He went on to serve as the Deputy Program
Director for the B-2 System Program Office; Program Director for the
Advanced Cruise Missile System Program Office; and from 1998 to 2000 as
Program Executive Officer for the Air Force fighter and bomber programs
within the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for
Acquisition.
General Bolton is nominated at a time of new emphasis on
transformation. The recently completed Quadrennial Defense Review
concluded that terrorism, chemical and biological weapons, cyberattacks
and missile threats--so-called asymmetric threats--would transform the
strategic landscape. The tragic events of September 11, sadly,
confirmed that view.
The Department of Defense needs a responsive and capable
acquisition system to develop the capabilities required to counter
these emerging threats. Secretary Rumsfeld has repeatedly identified
the need to streamline acquisitions practices and policies to promote
the more rapid development and acquisition of cutting-edge
technological capabilities.
The Department of the Army is no stranger to transformation with
its vision of moving to a force that is more strategically responsive
and dominant across the full spectrum of military operations. General
Bolton's extensive background will surely assist the Army in its many
challenges of balancing readiness and modernization against investment
in future capabilities.
General Bolton, I congratulate you on your nomination and look
forward to working together to ensure we have the best possible
equipment and forces for our Nation.
Senator Levin.
General Bolton. Thank you very much, Senator Warner.
Senator Warner. I remember your service very well. You
might share with the committee your wife's response at an
appropriate time in the hearing.
General Bolton. Yes, sir, I will. Thank you, and it is good
seeing you again.
Chairman Levin. Well, I guess you wanted to sample the
Army----[Laughter.]
General Bolton. Yes, sir.
Chairman Levin.--after all those years in the Air Force,
right? You want to figure out what is going on over there.
At this time, I would like to include Senator Thurmond's
complete statement in the record, as he is not able to be here
today.
[The prepared statement of Senator Thurmond follows:]
Prepared Statement by Senator Strom Thurmond
Mr. Chairman, I join you in welcoming General Bolton as we consider
his nomination to be the Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology. I am pleased that we are
considering an individual with his superb qualifications at the time
the Army is transforming its forces to meet the challenges of this
century.
General Bolton, congratulations on your nomination. Your biography
reflects a career that spans a period of great turmoil in our military.
This background will serve you well as you take on the challenges
facing our Army as it transforms from a force to fight on the plains of
Europe to the force that can fight all spectrums of conflict. Your
extensive experience as a program manager is especially noteworthy. It
makes you uniquely qualified for the position and will allow you to
quickly take charge of the Army's acquisition program. I support your
nomination and wish you success.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. The committee has received the required
paperwork on General Bolton, and will be reviewing that
paperwork to make sure it is in accordance with the committee's
requirements. There are a number of standard questions that we
ask every nominee who comes before the committee. General
Bolton, in your response to advance policy questions you agreed
to appear as a witness before congressional committees when
called, and to ensure that briefings, testimony, and other
communications are provided to Congress. You have already made
those commitments, and I will now ask you a series of
questions.
Have you adhered to applicable laws and regulations
governing conflict of interest?
General Bolton. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have.
Chairman Levin. Have you assumed any duties or undertaken
any actions which would appear to presume the outcome of the
confirmation process?
General Bolton. No, Mr. Chairman, I have not.
Chairman Levin. Will you ensure that the Department
complies with deadlines that are established for requested
communications, including prepared testimony and questions for
the record in hearings?
General Bolton. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I will.
Chairman Levin. Will you cooperate in providing witnesses
and briefers in response to congressional requests?
General Bolton. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Finally, will those witnesses be protected
from reprisal for their testimony?
General Bolton. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. General Bolton, do you have any opening
remarks that you would like to make at this point?
STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. CLAUDE M. BOLTON, JR., USAF, NOMINEE TO
BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY FOR ACQUISITION, LOGISTICS,
AND TECHNOLOGY
General Bolton. Mr. Chairman, I do. I have some prepared
remarks that I would like to read and then offer them for the
record.
Chairman Levin, Senator Warner, members of the Armed
Services Committee, I am deeply honored and privileged to
appear before this committee. I am also extremely grateful to
the President and to the Secretary of Defense for the
confidence and trust they have shown in me by nominating me to
serve in this important position. If confirmed, I am fortunate
to have had other valuable experiences in the Air Force that
will allow me to bring a thorough knowledge of the Department
of Defense and an understanding of best business practices to
the very important responsibilities of the office for which I
have been nominated.
During the confirmation hearings, both Secretary Rumsfeld
and Secretary White described the President's national security
goals and key objectives of the Department of Defense and the
Army. I am fully committed to these goals and objectives. If
confirmed, I will work hard to support Secretary White's key
goals to invest in people, to assure readiness, to transform
the Army, and to adopt sound business practices. If I am
confirmed, I will do all that I can to keep our Army the most
effective fighting force in the world, and to ensure it is
prepared to meet our important responsibilities for the
security of this Nation in the new century.
I intend to work closely with the Department of Defense
leadership and Congress, including all members of this
committee, as we work together to meet the great challenges
facing the Army in balancing today's readiness and tomorrow's
modernization requirements within allowable resources.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for the opportunity to
testify, and for the committee's consideration of my
nomination. Let me close by saying once again how honored I am
to have been nominated by President Bush for this position. If
confirmed, I pledge to do my utmost to fulfill the trust and
confidence placed in me by the President, the Secretary of
Defense, the Secretary of the Army, and the men and women of
our Army.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am ready for your questions.
[The prepared statement of Major General Bolton follows:]
Prepared Statement by Maj. Gen. Claude M. Bolton, Jr., USAF
Chairman Levin, Senator Warner, members of the Armed Services
Committee, I am deeply honored and privileged to appear before this
committee. I am also extremely grateful to the President and Secretary
of Defense for the confidence and trust they have shown in me by
nominating me to serve in this important position.
If confirmed, I am fortunate to have had other valuable experiences
in the Air Force that will allow me to bring a thorough knowledge of
the Department of Defense and an understanding of best business
practices to the very important responsibilities of the office for
which I have been nominated.
During their confirmation hearings, both Secretary Rumsfeld and
Secretary White described the President's national security goals and
the key objectives of the Department of Defense, and the Army. I am
fully committed to these goals and objectives.
If confirmed, I will work hard to support Secretary White's key
goals: to invest in people, to assure readiness, to transform the Army,
and to adopt sound business practices. If I am confirmed, I will do all
that I can to keep our Army the most effective fighting force in the
world, and to ensure it is prepared to meet our important
responsibilities for the security of this Nation in the new century.
I intend to work closely with the Department of Defense leadership,
and Congress including all the members of this committee, as we work
together to meet the great challenges facing the Army in balancing
today's readiness and tomorrow's modernization requirements within
available resources.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to testify today and
for the committee's consideration of my nomination. Let me close by
saying once again how honored I am to have been nominated by President
Bush for this position. If confirmed, I pledge to do my utmost to
fulfill the trust and confidence placed in me by the President, the
Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Army, and the men and women
of our Army.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, General Bolton. We will start
with a 6-minute round. General Bolton, you are still on active
duty in the Air Force. I understand that, if confirmed, you
will resign from the Air Force before the formal appointment is
signed by the President for this position, is that correct?
General Bolton. Mr. Chairman, that is correct.
Chairman Levin. You spent your entire career in the Air
Force, and now you are looking to be an important part of the
Army. Can you tell us how you plan on doing that, what
challenges you think that raises which may be novel or unique,
given your Air Force experience, or whether that experience may
help you in some ways?
General Bolton. Mr. Chairman, I think the experience that I
have gained over the past 25 years in this endeavor is very
transportable to the Army. The time that I spent as a test
pilot, as a program manager on three major programs for the Air
Force, as an inspector general, as an educator, and as a
program executive, give me the background and experience in the
various processes, the tools that are available to manage
weapons system programs, as well as to look after the
sustainment of those weapons systems and, of course, the
science and technologies that go into them.
In addition, the one thing I have had, I guess I have been
fortunate throughout my career, is good health--a lot of
energy, zest, and a sense of purpose, and I bring that as well
to this important position. The bottom line has always been for
me, and now, if I am confirmed in the Army, to make sure that
our fighting force, in this case the Army, remains the most
capable, the most powerful, and the most respected Army that we
have ever seen. I look forward to that, sir, if confirmed.
Chairman Levin. Thank you.
General Bolton, the Army's transformation effort involves
modernizing the existing legacy force to maintain current
operational readiness, fielding an interim force capability,
and conducting a robust research and development effort that is
needed to create a lighter and more mobile objective force by
the year 2012. Could you tell us what, in your opinion, are the
highest priority modernization programs that the Army has?
General Bolton. As I understand it, under the banner and
the initiative of transformation of the Army there are some key
programs and priorities, not the least of which is the
cornerstone of the major combat systems that will be required
in order to make the Army lighter, faster, at least as lethal,
if not more so.
From a technology standpoint, I see that a logistics system
will have to be more agile and perhaps get away from what we
have done in all the services, and that is to have redundancy
en masse and get into mobility and situation awareness. I
believe, from what I have been told, the Army is moving in that
direction. It is making strides, (1) to get on with the interim
as well as the objective force, and (2) working very hard on
its key initiative, its key programs associated with the major
combat systems. I think those things are important if you are
going to transform the Army.
Chairman Levin. Based on your long experience in the Air
Force, particularly in the acquisition part of the Air Force,
do you have any specific recommendations on how the Army can
streamline the acquisition process?
General Bolton. From what I have been told, and obviously
if I am confirmed I would have to look at this in greater
detail, I think the Army is responding first of all to how it
is doing its requirements process and streamlining that, and
reducing, or increasing the stability in the requirements
process.
I think that is key for any development in any system
program. If we do not get the requirement right, we cannot
write it down. If we do not do it in a disciplined fashion then
I do not care how good a program is, you are going to run into
some problems, and I think the Army is taking strides to do
that. In addition, I understand that if I am confirmed, the
office I would be going into has also been reorganized with an
aim toward streamlining and putting into essentially one
office, or one person, the entire life cycle of a weapons
system if you will, from the cradle to the grave. I think that
is a step in the right direction, and then aligning the various
authorities and responsibilities. I think those are all
important, to get the requirement right, to get the
organization right.
There are some other things that I believe the Army is
doing that we may want to touch on later, that revolve around
the people and how they are trained, educated, recruited and
retained, and then the industrial base. But I believe the Army
is moving in the right direction and, if confirmed, those are
the things that I will be looking at to make sure they are
streamlined and supportive of the Army of the future.
Chairman Levin. Do you have any specific recommendations,
General, on how the Air Force and the Army can cooperate more
closely in the development of combat capabilities?
General Bolton. Yes, sir, and I think we have seen some
examples of that. Plugger, for example, which is a lightweight
GPS produced by the Army, bought by the Air Force some years
ago, took what was then acquisition reform initiatives, with
the help of Congress and this committee, given some relief. We
were able to take a unit that basically was well over $3,000
per unit and get it down to $400 or $500, $800 the initial lot.
I think there are plenty of opportunities, if not for the
weapon systems per se, certainly for the technologies. When we
look at how we get systems, how we work together, how we
communicate together, how we use information technology, I
think all of those things are transferable between not only the
Air Force and the Army, but all the services, and in fact a
good share of industry as well. If confirmed, those are the
types of things I will be looking for. I do not believe--I know
it has been my experience, I do not have all the answers. My
service does not have all the answers. You go where you have to
to get the right answers to do the right thing at the right
time.
Chairman Levin. Senator Warner.
Senator Warner. Mr. Chairman, I will defer to my colleagues
now and do a wrap-up later.
Chairman Levin. Senator Bunning is next on an early bird
basis. I should have announced we are going to go by the early
bird rule, as always.
Senator Bunning. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
welcome you, General.
General Bolton. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Bunning. I used to have a very good friend that was
the commanding officer at Wright-Pat, General Earl O'Laughlin.
I do not know if you know him.
General Bolton. Yes, sir, I know him.
Senator Bunning. He was the logistics commander for a long
time.
General Bolton. Yes, sir.
Senator Bunning. He is a good golfer. [Laughter.]
He took money away from me on that course at Wright-Pat.
That is how I know that.
General Bolton. He could probably take a lot of money from
me as well, Senator.
Senator Bunning. We are glad that you have decided to come
back again to serve your country with the Army.
General Bolton. Yes, sir.
Senator Bunning. I cannot believe that an Air Force man
would come back with the Army, but I will do it.
Let me ask you just a couple of questions from some of your
testimony that you have written. You have had considerable
acquisition experience. Based on that experience, are there any
problems that you saw in the acquisition process that are not
being addressed by the Department's restructuring plan and, if
so, what are they, and how would you address them?
General Bolton. It may be a little premature for me,
particularly in terms of why we are here, for my confirmation,
because I just do not have enough details or information with
regard to what the Army is doing. But what I have seen from my
own service and seen from other services from afar, I think we
are moving in the right direction.
This is a period of change. Secretary White has indicated
that. All the services are in a transformation, and I think
doing as well as we can, to transform ourselves into a fighting
force that can meet not only the interim threats that we have,
current and interim, but also future threats, and stay within
the resources constraints that we have.
Senator Bunning. In your responses to the advance questions
you were given, you highlighted the importance of integrating
the programs earlier into the development process. This will
streamline the acquisition system without reducing the testing
necessary to ensure a full, capable system. What reorganization
do you believe will be needed to accomplish that fact?
General Bolton. Senator, I do not believe reorganization is
needed. There may be from time to time emphasis needed to
ensure that testing starts, literally from day one in the
requirements process, through the development, and certainly
into what we traditionally think of as tests, and development
testing, and initial operational testing and evaluation and
follow-on. But I believe it ought to be an integral process,
done from the beginning of the program. In addition, we must
remember what test is all about. Test, in and of itself, I
think, is not the wisest thing to do, and it is a waste of time
and money. But tests used to reduce risk on a program, and used
as a tool, that is what test is all about, and I think you can
well integrate that throughout a program life cycle.
Senator Bunning. In your responses to the advance questions
you mentioned that the infrastructure for the DOD test range
and the Army's instrumentation needs to be upgraded and
replaced, to keep in place with advancements of the systems
being tested. What is the Army's plan to support that
instrumentation, and do you believe it is adequate to meet the
requirements for testing of the future combat systems the Army
is currently developing?
General Bolton. Senator, I have not been privy to, nor do I
understand what support the Army will give in the future in its
budgets. I simply have not seen that.
My indication from some of the initial briefings are that
the infrastructure could stand recapitalization, as I think is
true for all services--it certainly is true for mine. If
confirmed I believe that is well within my job description, to
understand what tests and structure we have, and to make sure
that we have appropriate infrastructures to do the testing of
the future. That testing in the future will revolve more and
more around systems and systems within and between services,
and perhaps even with other countries, and certainly have heavy
emphasis on information and information technology, and how
best to go about doing those tests. So if confirmed I look
forward to seeing what our baseline is, and then advising the
leadership of the Army where we need to go in the future with
resources.
Senator Bunning. Last question. Are any of these testing
ranges suffering reduced capability as a result of encroachment
either from the civilian population or from the environmental
restrictions and, if so, how do you plan to deal with it?
General Bolton. To my knowledge, sir, that is true for all
ranges.
Senator Bunning. All ranges?
General Bolton. All ranges that I am aware of. I do not
know the specific ones for the Army, but it has been my
observation in looking at this over the years that it has been
an issue. I do not think there is a simple solution across the
board, one solution for all the issues that I am sure are
there. But if confirmed I intend to look at each one of those
to see how best we can use the ranges and to use other ranges,
i.e., other services, and other agencies.
Senator Bunning. Fort Knox has that specific problem. That
is why I am asking.
General Bolton. Yes, sir, I have heard that. I simply do
not know the details on that, but my intention is, if
confirmed, to work with you, with other members, and certainly
with the Army leadership to see what we can do to arrive at
solutions that are in the best interests of the Army, the best
interests of the American citizens--we live around those
ranges--and for the taxpayers at large.
Senator Bunning. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I have an opening statement I would like to
put in the record also. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Senator Bunning follows:]
Prepared Statement by Senator Jim Bunning
Thank you Mr. Chairman. General Bolton, I would like to welcome you
and your family and thank you for coming before us today. We all
appreciate your continued willingness to serve your country,
particularly during this time of great crisis.
The job you have before you would be difficult during normal times.
As we all know, these are not normal times. I look forward to working
with you to ensure that our Army has the best equipment possible.
Senator Bunning. Thank you very much, General.
General Bolton. You are welcome.
Chairman Levin. Senator Landrieu has yielded to Senator
Inhofe.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I am
looking forward to our visit that is coming up. We have not had
a chance to do that yet, but I know you by reputation, and I am
very excited about the new position you are going to be
assuming. I kind of like the idea of getting someone from a
different service. This administration, you will be the third
one they have done this way.
General Bolton. Yes, sir.
Senator Inhofe. I think you offer a different perspective.
Many things are the same. General, we have undergone a very
serious problem for the last 10 years, underfunding in every
area, RPM accounts, modernization, and it has taken its toll in
terms of retention, and I see us turning that corner now. You
have suffered through the last 10 years, and now you are going
to be in on the rebuilding, very similar to what we found
ourselves in 20 years ago.
We had a hearing the other day and I had a man that was up
here from Oklahoma. His name is Charles Sudlett. He had the
same kind of parallel career in the Air Force that you had, and
something occurred to me. I remember I singled him out--he was
in the audience, and I said--he had flown about the same number
of missions in Vietnam that you had in the same kind of
vehicles, and I said, all during the time that you were in at
that time, people questioned, perhaps, the war, the motivation,
but in terms of equipment, we had the best of everything,
whether it was the F-100s, the F-105s, the F-4s, and the Navy
had the A-4s and the A-6s, and they were better than anything
that the other side had, and he agreed with that.
Today, that is not true. We are dealing now with
equipment--our best air-to-air is the F-15, our best air-to-
ground is the F-16, and yet the SU-27s in terms of detectable
range and other areas are superior in some ways, and the SU-
30s. Now they are coming in with the advanced equipment.
You are going to find, I am sure you agree with that, that
we have gotten to a point where we do not have the best of
everything today in the Air Force, and that same thing is true
in the Army. I remember back when I was in the Army, many, many
years ago, we did have the best artillery. We had the best that
there was, and that is something that has kind of been our
hallmark ever since World War II.
Well, it is not true today, and if you take one vehicle
that we have in the Army that you are going to be dealing
directly with probably as much as anything else, it is going to
be the Crusader. Right now, our Paladin is inferior in terms of
rapid fire and range, to artillery pieces that are made in four
different countries. So no matter who the adversary is, the
likelihood is that they are going to have something better than
we have in terms of an artillery piece.
So the first question I would like to ask you is, do you
agree with the Secretary of the Army, General Shinseki, and all
of the rest of them that when we have asked this question as to
the necessity of getting into the Paladin as quickly as
possible? I am sorry, into the Crusader, and upgrading that
capability?
General Bolton. I certainly would defer to their judgment
on that, since they have much more than I currently do. I am
not experienced on that program. I have not been thoroughly
briefed on that program.
To your comments on capability, I certainly agree that we
need to increase our capabilities across the board in all the
services.
Senator Inhofe. The point I want to make, General, is we
have always had the best of everything.
General Bolton. Yes, sir.
Senator Inhofe. We have had our kids over there and we have
tried to give them the best training and the best equipment to
use, and as of this moment today, they do not have the best of
everything, so as you get into the ground end of our military,
I hope you will do that, and actually start with the Crusader,
because I think each nominee that we have asked who has been
before this committee for the last 3 or 4 years has said, if
you could single out one crown jewel that we really need to
advance on, it would be--or where we are the furthest behind,
it would be in our artillery capability.
I make it a point to get around to a lot of the
installations of all the military. I was at Fort Lewis,
Washington, during the August recess, and they showed me the
interim armored vehicle that we are talking about having the
side by-side test in with the existing M-113. Now, I know you
have not had time to get into some of the details of this, but
it is my understanding that we are going to do two brigades,
but before we go to the third brigade, we are going to have
this side-by-side competition. It is my understanding that will
cost about $28 million.
Well, I can save you $28 million, General, because I have
already done the competition. I have been in both vehicles, and
it is my understanding that as of yesterday there seems to be a
change. People are recognizing the fact that the IAV is going
to be something that is far superior, something we need to get
into and not delay, and not spend a lot of money making that
decision.
I would like to ask you first of all if you have any
thoughts about that, getting into that modernization, and
second, if not, would you go to Fort Lewis and do what I did,
and take a ride in both of them?
General Bolton. Well, Senator, let me see if I cannot do
both. [Laughter.]
Senator Inhofe. All right.
General Bolton. First of all, I do agree with the notion of
modernization, whether it is the IAV, or the other programs,
weapons systems that are under consideration and development by
the Army. If confirmed, those are cornerstones, jewels, if you
like, that I will spend a good deal of time understanding the
capability we are looking for and how best to get it, and how
quickly we can get it, and so I look forward to getting into
the details, working with the leadership and working with you
and other members here in this committee and with Congress to
get the capability of the Army needs and wants very quickly.
I, too, was at Fort Lewis. My wife and I were on vacation.
We left on 10 September, and obviously when the attacks
occurred on the 11th we were not able to get back. We were just
a few miles from Fort Lewis, and we had an opportunity to go
out to that post and view what was going on there. There were a
lot stories, as you might imagine, on the interim force and
what was going on in the prototype phase at Fort Lewis, so I am
very anxious to get back and understand what is going on there.
If confirmed, I will be up there.
Senator Inhofe. I appreciate that.
Mr. Chairman, I know my time has expired. I would like to
ask him one question just so he can answer it for the record,
because it is going to be a rather lengthy answer, and it has
to do with our depot capability. I know that you are more
familiar, as am I, with the depots and air logistics, and the
depots in the Air Force, but some of the problems are the same
in the Army depots that we have.
They are a very viable part of our fighting force in terms
of the public depots function and mission, but they are very
antiquated, poorly designed, poorly equipped, and I would like
to have you for the record--not today, but for the record give
me a pretty in-depth answer as to what you believe the future
of our public depots are, and then, if it is to continue as we
have in the past, what plans we have to bring them up to date
so that they can do the job that they were--many of them were
operating with the same technologies and the same equipment
they were using back in World War II, so if you could do that
for the record I would appreciate it, and I look forward to
serving with you in this capacity.
General Bolton. If confirmed, I will be more than happy to
take that for the record and provide you that answer.
[The information follows:]
Future of Army Depots
Our depots are a vital link in our ability to support the Army in
transition as well as the future Objective Force. We see our depots not
only supporting the long term strategic readiness of our weapons
systems, but becoming a full time partner supporting the near term
readiness of the transforming Army and the Objective Force. The Army
will maintain an organic depot base with multi-functional and multi-
capable facilities and personnel trained and equipped to work on the
systems that will be in the force between now and beyond 2025. This
multi-functional approach will provide us with a built-in surge
capability that will be responsive to the needs of our more capable
force.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you.
General Bolton. I look forward to it as well, sir. Thank
you.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you. Senator Landrieu.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I
would like to request that my full opening statement be
inserted in the record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Landrieu follows:]
Prepared Statement by Senator Mary L. Landrieu
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for conducting this hearing today. General
Bolton, it is nice to see you here today, and you are certainly a well
qualified nominee. The Armed Services Committee must confirm scores of
nominations to serve key posts within the Department of Defense, but
few are as vital as the position before us at this time--the Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology
(ASA(ALT)).
As the chair of the Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee,
I am most interested in seeing that those in charge of acquisition,
logistics, and technology are highly qualified and competent. After
all, the primary aim of the Assistant Secretary is to ensure that the
Army best uses ever-changing science and technology to obtain the
necessary capabilities for warfighting and protection of our Nation's
security. As you stated in your responses to the committee's questions,
the ASA(ALT)'s ``primary duties are to ensure the Army's soldiers are
provided with the most capable and sustainable equipment and to wisely
shepherd all available resources to provide that capability in the most
cost effective manner.'' Therefore, our men and women in the Army are
truly dependent on the Assistant Secretary for their safety and to have
a competitive advantage against any possible enemy they may face on the
battlefield.
I am encouraged to see that you are an advocate for the Army's
transformation. I appreciate your statement, ``The Army must leverage
new science and technology programs and initiatives to capitalize on
emerging trends and breakthroughs. The Army must ensure it transforms
into a force that will have the ability to respond effectively not only
against today's terrorism and force protection threats, but also
tomorrow's unknown threats.'' For too long those in the Department of
Defense have beheld antiquated notions of management and warfighting,
but the time has come to make a paradigm shift. I have lauded General
Shinseki for his vision and commitment to transforming the Army to make
it a leaner, swifter, and more lethal force capable of victory against
the unknown enemies we will face in the 21st century. As this committee
deliberated the Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2002, the
Secretary of Defense argued for a delay in transforming the Department
of Defense in fiscal year 2002. We must avoid further delays and make
necessary changes to improve our Nation's defenses.
Not only do I see a need for the ASA(ALT) to be an advocate for
transformation, but the ASA(ALT) must champion each day the
transformation push for tangible and cognizable changes in the way the
Army operates. The ASA(ALT) must show a dedication to science and
technology. With such a devotion, the ASA(ALT) must see that this
science and technology are truly catalysts for the research,
development, test, and evaluation process and the procurement process.
Pragmatism must win out so that worthwhile ideas receive the funding to
become the next generation of weapons and equipment, while white
elephants are sent out to pasture. Procurement must be streamlined so
that those new ideas that are successful can get into the field faster.
It takes entirely too long for new equipment to reach the field. Too
often, new concepts and innovations are scuttled in favor of the status
quo. Where the status quo imposes a danger to our soldiers or our way
of life, we must shake the trees at the Pentagon to eliminate out of
date and out of touch operating procedures.
In conclusion, I concur in your vision that the Army's
transformation and move toward modernization ``will enable the Army to
field a force that is more responsive, deployable, agile, versatile,
lethal, survivable, and sustainable.'' I hope those in positions higher
than yours share your thoughts. Should you be confirmed, I also hope
you understand and grasp both the enormity of the task ahead and the
opportunity you have to leave a lasting and meaningful impression on
the Army for years to come.
Senator Landrieu. General Bolton, congratulations on your
nomination.
General Bolton. Thank you, ma'am.
Senator Landrieu. I look forward to working with you in a
variety of capacities, but particularly in regards to my
chairmanship of the Emerging Threats and Capabilities
Subcommittee. In our subcommittee we are very focused and very
interested in all aspects of acquisition for research and
development, particularly in protecting us in these new
asymmetrical threats.
Let me say that I was particularly impressed with your
opening statement. You said the Army must leverage new science
and technology programs and initiatives to capitalize on
emerging trends and breakthroughs. You go on to say, the Army
must ensure it transforms into a force that will have the
capability to respond effectively not only against today's
terrorism and force protection threats, but also tomorrow's
unknown threats, and I appreciate that emphasis, and want to
work with you.
But one question I have regarding that is the conflicting
information I am receiving about a peacekeeping vehicle that
has performed extraordinarily well, and that is our armored
security vehicle (ASV). When General Shinseki testified before
our committee not too long ago, I asked him a question in
regards to this particular vehicle and its continued
production. General Shinseki replied that the Army does not
have plans to terminate the ASV program at the end of 2002. The
current plan is to continue to field the armored security
vehicle to Military Police (MP) units.
Then, however, we read in Jane's Defense Weekly in
November, ``the Army has canceled the ASV vehicle used by
military police.''
Now, this is my question. Can I count on the statement that
General Shinseki made before this committee? Can I count on
your support and, if not, what are you going to recommend as a
proper substitute for the only vehicle in the Army that can
protect, to my knowledge, our forces in a hostile peacekeeping
situation?
General Bolton. Senator, I wish I could give you an answer
this morning. I simply do not have the information, other than
what you know, about the cancellation of that program. If
confirmed, and if you still desire, I certainly will take that
for the record and provide you an answer. At the moment, I just
do not know. I am sorry.
[The information follows:]
Yes, you can count on the support of General Shinseki and myself.
Regarding the status of ASV, the Army is currently procuring the ASV
under a 5-year multiyear contract with Textron Marine and Land Systems.
The fiscal year 2002 President's Budget includes funding for the fourth
year of the contract. The Army's intent is to support the ASV through
to the conclusion of the multiyear at the end of fiscal year 2003.
Senator Landrieu. Well, I would like to call to the
chairman's attention and to our ranking member that to my
knowledge, the ASV is the only vehicle fit for the MPs. That is
why this is a very serious issue, not simply because its
production line is in Louisiana. My staff has researched this
pretty thoroughly, and in the Army's whole procurement line
there does not seem to be a comparable vehicle. I mean, HMMWVs
are, of course, something that our Army uses, but they have a
relatively open driver's compartment. Our forces need the
proper protection in a peacekeeping environment.
This particular vehicle not only has four-wheel drive
capability, a 50 caliber machine gun, and a 40mm grenade
launcher, but it can withstand the direct impact of a land
mine. If the wheels are shot out by a rifle, it has new
technology that continues to inflate the tire and keep our
forces in the fight. I would argue that with these new and
emerging threats, the back end of these conflicts are going to
be as important as the front end. We are going to need a
vehicle, either this one or something very similar, to complete
our mission.
So I bring that to your attention, and I am going to be
working very closely with you. If you can produce something
else that is better, then I would be the first to say, well,
let us save money where we can, but to take out something that
seems so essential, to try to find other essential things just
is not the way we should be going.
So I will leave it at that, but I want to work closely with
you on that.
General Bolton. Yes, Senator.
Senator Landrieu. Second, since your position will have
oversight over Army science and technology (S&T) programs, do
you feel the Army is currently investing enough in research and
development (R&D)? If not, what are some of your specific
plans, and would they include a goal similar to the Secretary
of Defense's goal of 3 percent for the DOD budget overall?
General Bolton. The goal of 3 percent I think is
appropriate. Certainly, if I am confirmed, that is what I would
recommend to the leadership of the Army. I am led to believe,
and looked at some of the figures over the last few years, that
the request that the Army has made has been increasing in this
area. It is certainly not close to the 3 percent we would like
to have, but if confirmed, that is what I believe should be
done, and that is what I will support.
Senator Landrieu. Finally, the Army plays an important role
in performing vital medical, chemical, and biological research
for our country. It has been most evident, of course, with our
recent anthrax attack--Fort Detrick in Maryland has been a real
leader working with us on this attack. How will you work to
ensure the Army's expertise is available to our first
responders, the Center for Disease Control, and the Office of
Homeland Security? Do you have any specific ideas on the
subject as you have been thinking about your confirmation
process?
General Bolton. Well, not only for the subject that you
have just indicated, but for our entire workforce. As you may
know, over the next 2 to 5 years, 50 percent of our civilian
workforce is eligible to retire, including those in the area
that you just addressed. If confirmed, that is one of my
priority areas, to look at how we go about recruiting,
retaining, training, motivating, and challenging that
workforce.
It is not just true for the Army. It is true across the
Department of Defense, and I think that is very important. I
will work that very, very hard, and I look forward to working
with you and other members here to see what we can do about
that.
Senator Landrieu. Did you just testify that 50 percent of
that workforce is near retirement?
General Bolton. Yes, ma'am, that is true.
Senator Landrieu. Within what, 5 years?
General Bolton. 2 to 5 years.
Senator Landrieu. 2 to 5 years, OK.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Landrieu.
Senator Warner.
Senator Warner. Mr. Chairman, I am going to put my
questions into the record. Also, I am going to put into the
record excerpts from the Congressional Record when the Senate
considered the nomination of General Bolton. The committee
examined the allegations with regard to the cruise missile
program over which you were the manager at one time. That
matter was thoroughly explored by the committee. Comments by
Chairman Nunn very clearly indicate that it was the committee's
finding that there was no culpability on your part whatsoever.
[The information referred to follows:]
(Senate--October 8, 1994)
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
General Bolton. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Warner. These records sometimes are examined by
others and in the years to come someone might make reference to
it. This is a matter which you and I discussed in our meeting
together, and I think the record should reflect the findings of
the committee on this issue.
General Bolton. Thank you very much.
Senator Warner. I just wanted to share a few thoughts with
you philosophically. Senator Levin and I had the real privilege
of visiting with our troops during the course of Thanksgiving
in the AOR about Afghanistan. We are coming up on December 7
soon, and I am old enough to remember a good deal of that
period. There is a story I think may be partially true that
within a week after Pearl Harbor the Army Chief of Staff
ordered 20,000 horses and 10,000 mules to gear up for the next
conflict. There may be some truth in it, because the cavalry
really dominated the Army in those days in terms of promotions
and one thing and another.
As we visited over there, I looked at these special
operations teams going in and we met with them. You could not
tell, of course, from the uniforms what their mission was or
what their specialties might be. They were dressed in a certain
appropriate way for the operations they were about to perform.
I cannot talk about it in open session, but what I observed was
all the services coming together, one officer and a dozen
sergeants. They just have performed magnificently. I think some
in the Army still may linger on the dream of every West Point
graduate and others, that some day they will be a corps
commander, and will have a command post. They envision a battle
with two divisions up and one division in reserve, and all of
that history.
I do not think this Nation and the world is going to
revisit those chapters of military history, but our future
configuration of the Armed Forces have to move in the direction
of the extraordinary heroism and ingenuity and technology that
is being employed at this very minute in that AOR.
Now, I would hope, since you are going to, I am certain, be
confirmed by the Senate, that you will push the technology that
our distinguished chairwoman of the Emerging Threats and
Capabilities Subcommittee just alluded to, and grapple with
that mentality which still lingers in the Department of the
Army, and try and move them more and more, and help those in
the Army.
Try and move them into more and more innovation and away
from the concept of having so many divisions. They have to move
toward the direction of where these young Army officers and
sergeants are performing brilliantly in this conflict today.
General Bolton. Yes, sir.
Senator Warner. They have to rely less and less on the
concept of two up and one back in every fight to come, and the
ability to coordinate with the air and the sea elements, all
pulling together in this particular conflict.
General Bolton. Absolutely.
Senator Warner. You are a man of vision, and this cross-
pollenization of the Secretary of Defense and others that are
putting the Army with the Navy and the Navy with the Army, I
thought was somewhat unusual in the beginning, but I am
beginning to think it is a darned good idea, so go for it.
General Bolton. Yes, sir, I will. Thank you.
Senator Warner. Just think, a fighter pilot amidst all of
those men who spent their lives, most of them, running around
knee deep in the mud or snow somewhere. Good luck to you.
General Bolton. Thank you, sir.
Senator Warner. Thank you, and thank you for the support
that your family is giving you as you undertake another great
challenging chapter in your distinguished career.
General Bolton. Thank you, Senator Warner, I appreciate
that.
Senator Warner. The questions that I put in the record,
just go ahead and drop me the answers as soon as you can.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General Bolton. Thank you.
Chairman Levin. Senator Warner, when you started off
recounting that story about horses and mules, I thought you
were going to lead to the point we could have used some of
those horses in Afghanistan. [Laughter.]
Senator Warner. You are absolutely right.
Chairman Levin. That is where I thought you were going with
that, you were going to ask whether he had any experience in
the acquisition of horses.
General Bolton. No, sir, not in the Air Force.
Chairman Levin. That is part of the ingenuity that Senator
Warner was talking about, though, that those special forces,
some of them learning how to ride, literally, on the job,
learning how to ride.
Senator Warner. We have to share a story--I have forgotten
whether it was you or Judy, but someone asked the question: how
many of you have had any experience riding? They all had taken
a crash course, and one sergeant stood up and he really had a
scar laid right down across his forehead. He said, yeah, this
is testimony that I know how to ride now, but I did not know
how a month or so ago.
Chairman Levin. Calling in air strikes from horseback is
not in any manual I know about at any rate.
Senator Ben Nelson is next.
Senator Ben Nelson. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I always
enjoy welcoming nominees to the Armed Services Committee, but
particularly when they are graduates from the University of
Nebraska.
General Bolton. Yes, sir.
Senator Ben Nelson. I understand your wife, Linda, is from
Alma, which is near my hometown on the Republican River in
Harlan County. I would like to extend my welcome to both of you
and your family for being here.
General Bolton. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Ben Nelson. As a distinguished graduate of the Air
Force ROTC program at the University of Nebraska, I know that
you received an excellent education and a good start in the Air
Force, and you have been able to take that good start and have
a very strong career in the Air Force. As I was looking over
your resume in anticipation of this hearing this morning, there
was just one question that I have that I think you might be
able to help us with, and that is in the area of science and
engineering.
As an electrical engineer, I think you not only have the
experience that it takes in this field, but you may have some
serious thoughts about what we can do to solve one of the
problems. I notice that you mentioned that one of the
challenges which the Army faces is, in your words, impending
loss through retirement of a significant percentage of resident
expertise and corporate knowledge in the science and
engineering workforce, and the shortage of younger S&Es to whom
this experience would normally be transferred through training
and monitoring.
I wonder if you can address this challenge, and also what
impact, if any, this could have on the Army's goal of the
transformation, especially of Future Combat Systems, as you
take on your new duties.
General Bolton. Well, Senator, if I could answer those
maybe in reverse. First of all, the impact of not having these
people. It has been my observation over the years that the
reason the United States is a great country, the greatest
democracy, the greatest economy, the greatest military, has
absolutely nothing to do with what I call natural laws. It has
everything to do with people, people who have vision, energies,
abilities, capabilities, bringing those together to reach those
visions. In our military, that has certainly been the case. The
reason we are as good as we are is because of the people who
had the ideas, who could write requirements, who could
transform those into technology challenges, and then meet those
challenges, put those into weapons systems, field those weapons
systems, and sustain those weapons systems.
Now we are going to lose those people. I am told--and this
is not only true for the Army, it is true for the Air Force,
and I presume it is true for the other services--in the
civilian workforce we could lose as many as 50 percent between
now and the year 2005 or 2006. I am told the Army has a number
of programs. If confirmed, I am going to look at those
programs, personnel and recruitment programs, to see how we go
about enticing people to come in to replace those who are
leaving, how to keep the workforce that we have, and how to
shape that workforce.
That is going to require a lot of energy on the part of the
Army leadership, as well as working with members of Congress
and certainly this committee to make that happen. But I see
that as a short-term solution, short-term being 5, 6, maybe as
long as 10 years.
The longer-term is, how do you do the things that need to
be done, but with fewer people? We do not know how to do that
yet, but we are going to have to figure that out 10 or 15 years
from now, because the pool we are drawing from is the same
talented pool that industry is drawing from, and particularly
the commercial sector. So they, too, are trying to figure out
how to do it with fewer people. We need to do the same thing.
But in the interim, I do not see how we can do that. We
simply have to work through the personnel programs and make
that work for us.
Senator Ben Nelson. We have to be competitive, is what I
hear you saying, and innovative as circumstances change.
General Bolton. Yes, Senator.
Senator Ben Nelson. I appreciate very much what your
commitment will be to that endeavor, and I am very encouraged
by someone of your caliber being nominated for this position. I
look forward to your serving in the role. Thank you very much.
General Bolton. Thank you.
Chairman Levin. Senator Nelson, thank you.
Senator Smith.
Senator Smith. No questions, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Smith. I just have a few
additional questions. Senator Inhofe made reference to the
interim armored vehicle, the IAV. I have a couple of questions
relative to what has been decided on that, which is to do a
low-rate initial production (LRIP) of that vehicle, but about
50 percent of all the vehicles to be built would be included in
that low-rate initial production, which is not really low-rate.
My question is, do you have any concerns about such a large
initial production of the IAV? I also would ask relative to the
testing of the IAV, the initial production will not be subject
to the initial operational test and evaluation until after
three of the interim brigade combat teams are fielded, and I am
wondering if you see risks in that, and if so, how we could
mitigate those risks.
General Bolton. Senator, obviously I do not know all the
details on that. There are risks involved. If confirmed, I
intend to understand the full details of what the risks are and
how well our risk management program is addressing mitigating
those risks.
There are always a number of reasons why we want to
increase the quantities under LRIP. I am not familiar with the
Army's rationale yet, so I cannot tell you whether or not that
is a good rationale, but I can assure you that, if confirmed,
we will look at the details. We will figure out whether or not
we have the adequate testing, the information, the data to
convince you and other members, as well as ourselves, whether
or not it is a wise thing to do, whether this version of the
acquisition strategy for that vehicle is the wise thing to do.
Chairman Levin. When you become familiar with those issues
which I have just identified, would you get us a report or a
letter to this committee about that subject?
General Bolton. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I will.
Chairman Levin. After you are familiar with it. Even with a
transformation effort, the Army is going to continue to require
a heavy counterattack corps, including combat support vehicles
such as the Grizzly, the obstacle breacher, the Hercules, the
recovery vehicle, and the Wolverine heavy assault bridge. All
those programs historically have been underfunded, subject to
cancellations, and frequent changes that have undermined those
programs. Will you take a good look, a hard look at each of
those programs and report back to us on how you intend to
address the problems that I have just identified, the funding
permutations, cancellations, and restarts in those three
programs?
General Bolton. Mr. Chairman, if confirmed I will, indeed.
Chairman Levin. OK, thank you.
I think Senator Bunning is next. Senator Bunning.
Senator Bunning. I have no more questions.
Chairman Levin. Thank you.
Senator Landrieu, any more questions? Senator Smith?
Senator Nelson?
Senator Ben Nelson. No more, thank you.
Chairman Levin. OK. I think we are all set. Thank you again
for your service. Congratulations on your appointment. Thanks
to your family for their support, and we hope that we can get
this to the floor very quickly.
General Bolton. Mr. Chairman, thank you again, and to each
and every one of you, the best of the season's greetings from
the Bolton family.
Chairman Levin. Thank you.
General Bolton. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Levin. I remind colleagues and staff, we are going
immediately into executive session.
[Whereupon, at 10:32 a.m., the committee adjourned.]
[Prepared questions submitted to Maj. Gen. Claude M.
Bolton, Jr., by Chairman Levin prior to the hearing with
answers supplied follow:]
November 29, 2001.
Honorable Carl Levin, Chairman,
Committee on Armed Services,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I respectfully forward for your consideration my
responses to the advance policy questions put to me by the committee. I
look forward to appearing before you when the committee considers my
nomination to be Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition,
Logistics, and Technology.
Sincerely,
Maj. Gen. Claude M. Bolton, Jr.
Copy furnished:
Honorable John Warner,
Ranking Member.
______
Questions and Responses
defense reforms
Question. Almost 15 years have passed since the enactment of the
Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and
the special operations reforms.
Do you support full implementation of these defense reforms?
Answer. Yes, I fully support the Department of Defense
Reorganization Act of 1986 and related special operations initiatives
for defense reform.
Question. What is your view of the extent to which these defense
reforms have been implemented?
Answer. From what I have learned to date, these defense reforms
have been implemented and have achieved the desired results. Having
said that, I believe it is important, and consistent with the intent of
the reform legislation, that the Army continues to assess and modify
its operations and internal procedures to meet the challenges of a
dynamic security environment.
Question. What do you consider to be the most important aspects of
these defense reforms?
Answer. The most important aspects of these reforms were
strengthening civilian control; streamlining the operational chain of
command, improving the efficiency in the use of defense resources,
improving the military advice provided to the National Command
Authorities, clarifying authority for combatant commanders, and
enhancing the effectiveness of military operations.
Question. The goals of Congress in enacting these defense reforms,
as reflected in section 3 of the Goldwater-Nichols Department of
Defense Reorganization Act, can be summarized as strengthening civilian
control; improving military advice; placing clear responsibility on the
combatant commanders for the accomplishment of their missions; ensuring
the authority of the combatant commanders is commensurate with their
responsibility; increasing attention to the formulation of strategy and
to contingency planning; providing for more efficient use of defense
resources; and enhancing the effectiveness of military operations and
improving the management and administration of the Department of
Defense.
Do you agree with these goals?
Answer. I fully support the congressional goals reflected in the
Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and other related
defense reform legislation.
Question. Recently, there have been articles that indicate an
interest within the Department of Defense in modifying Goldwater-
Nichols in light of the changing environment and possible revisions to
the National strategy.
Do you anticipate that legislative proposals to amend Goldwater-
Nichols may be appropriate? If so, what areas do you believe it might
be appropriate to address in these proposals?
Answer. I am not aware of any current proposals to amend Goldwater-
Nichols. It is too early for me to comment without additional
evaluation and insight to address any proposals.
duties
Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and
Technology?
Answer. The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition,
Logistics, and Technology's (ASA(ALT)) primary duties are to ensure the
Army's soldiers are provided with the most capable and sustainable
equipment and to wisely shepherd all available resources to provide
that capability in the most cost effective manner. The ASA(ALT) serves,
when delegated, as the Army Acquisition Executive, the Senior
Procurement Executive, the Science Advisor to the Secretary, and as the
senior research and development official for the Department of the
Army. The ASA(ALT) also has the principal responsibility for all
Department of the Army matters related to logistics. In these
capacities, the ASA(ALT) advises the Secretary on all matters relating
to acquisition and logistics management, and executes the acquisition
functions and the acquisition management system of the Department of
the Army. He appoints, manages, and evaluates program executive
officers and direct-reporting program managers and managing the Army
Acquisition Corps and the Army Acquisition Workforce. The ASA(ALT)
executes the DA procurement and contracting functions, including
exercising the authorities of the agency head for contracting,
procurement, and acquisition matters pursuant to laws and regulations,
the delegation of contracting authority; and the designation of
contracting activities. He oversees the Army Industrial Base and
Industrial Preparedness Programs and ensures the production readiness
of weapon systems. The ASA(ALT) oversees all DA logistics management
functions, including readiness, supply, services, maintenance,
transportation, and related automated logistics systems management.
Question. What background and experience do you possess that you
believe qualifies you to perform these duties?
Answer. I bring nearly a quarter century of relevant experience as
a successful test pilot, program manager of three major Air Force
programs, an educator, an Inspector General and a Program Executive
Officer. I fully understand the key processes employed within the
Department of Defense, particularly in programmatic discipline,
planning, resource allocation and acquisition. This in-depth
understanding is derived from knowledge and experience, both in theory
and in practice. I have successfully demonstrated this at all levels of
government and industry, domestically and globally.
I have an excitement of purpose, untiring energy, and a keen desire
to continue to serve my country in this important capacity. If
confirmed, my priority will be to ensure that the United States Army
continues to be the most powerful, capable, and most respected Army the
world has ever seen.
Question. Do you believe that there are actions you need to take to
enhance your ability to perform the duties of the Assistant Secretary
of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology?
Answer. I am unaware of any actions that I need to take at this
time.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what duties and functions do
you expect that the Secretary of the Army would prescribe for you?
Answer. If confirmed, I expect the Secretary of the Army will
delegate to me and expect me to fully perform the functions of the Army
Acquisition Executive, as well as the full complement of
responsibilities previously described.
major challenges and problems
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will
confront the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition,
Logistics, and Technology?
Answer. I believe that a successful transformation strategy and
execution is one of the most significant challenges that faces the Army
today. We must ensure that we meet the Army's needs to develop,
acquire, and field the critical elements of the Objective Force,
particularly its cornerstone, the Future Combat Systems (FCS). While
this continues, the Army must maintain and sustain its current and
near-term capability to meet contingencies. Another major challenge for
the Army is posed by the impending loss, through retirements, of a
significant percentage of resident expertise and corporate knowledge in
the scientist and engineer (S&E) workforce, and the shortage of younger
S&Es to whom this expertise would normally be transferred through
training and mentoring.
I agree with the Secretary of the Army that the greatest challenge
the Army faces is change. The challenges the Army faces are similar to
those of the other services as the Army collectively repositions
organizations to overcome the threats our country faces. I feel that
the Army must manage and maintain the momentum of the changes it has
undertaken to assure its international preeminence in the 21st century.
This will ensure America's ability to deter threats and defend our
National security interests and to do it within the joint community.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. With regard to transformation, I believe that a focused,
productive science and technology program is a prerequisite. The Army
must maintain an adequately funded S&T program to focus on achieving
the Army's transformation to the Objective Force. I understand that the
single largest investment in S&T is for Future Combat Systems (FCS)
with the goal to field FCS by the end of this decade. I have no
preconceived plans for addressing these challenges. However, if
confirmed, I will work closely with the Secretary of the Army, the
Assistant Secretaries, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD)
in a unified effort to transform the Army to meet America's future
security needs. This includes attracting, training, and retaining
America's best and brightest. It also mandates that we provide for
their quality of life and well-being. The Army must assure its daily
readiness, while transforming itself into an Army capable of dominance
along the full spectrum of military operations in the 21st century.
Question. What do you consider to be the most serious problems in
the performance of the functions of the Assistant Secretary of the Army
for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology?
Answer. If confirmed, I would evaluate the specific roles and
functions within the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology. It is premature to identify
potential problems at this time.
Question. If confirmed, what management actions and time lines
would you establish to address these problems?
Answer. If confirmed, I will need to evaluate the specific issues
and work with the Army staff and Secretariat as well as DOD to
establish time lines as appropriate.
priorities
Question. If confirmed, what broad priorities would you establish
in terms of issues, which must be addressed by the Assistant Secretary
of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology?
Answer. I see three very broad priorities. Clearly, Army
transformation is the keystone to maintaining and improving the Army's
warfighting capability in the 21st century. That is the Army's
paramount consideration. Within the transformation the Army must
leverage new science and technology programs and initiatives to
capitalize on emerging trends and breakthroughs. The Army must ensure
it transforms into a force that will have the ability to respond
effectively not only against today's terrorism and force protection
threats, but also tomorrow's unknown threats.
Underpinning this effort is the Army's Acquisition Corps. It must
stand ready to assist in the transformation by developing new systems
and capabilities in a timely manner while recapitalizing the Legacy
Force. This will assure that the Army is able to project an ever-
improving full-spectrum combat capability. Critical to the Army's
ability to effect this transformation is the health of the Army's
Acquisition Corps. If confirmed, I must work to ensure the Army
recruits, trains, and retains the required expertise, both military and
civilian, that will support the transformation plan while positioning
the workforce to successfully meet the challenges of the 21st century.
I think the Army must also closely examine the continued viability of
the United States industrial base to ensure that it does and will
continue to meet current and potential wartime requirements.
army acquisition system
Question. The Army recently approved a plan to reorganize its
acquisition structure to centralize oversight of all Army program
executive officers and program managers under the military deputy and
the Army Acquisition Executive.
What is your opinion of the Army plan to restructure its
acquisition system? Do you have any specific concerns with the intended
changes?
Answer. I have only received an initial briefing on the acquisition
reorganization plan, but I am pleased with the approach. One of the
primary goals is to ensure a single manager is assigned to develop,
produce, field, and sustain all systems in the Active and Reserve
components, and to realign programs along commodity lines. For
instance, the PEO for aviation will be responsible for the life cycle
management of all aviation assets--not just those in active
development. This focuses fiscal and manpower resources to develop and
manage the fleet in the most cost effective manner. This appears to be
a healthy approach to streamline the overall process and reduce
redundant reporting and oversight layers in management. I have no
specific concerns with the intended changes, and if confirmed, would
continue to develop and refine the process.
Question. Given your experience with other services' systems, would
you, if confirmed, anticipate making any specific recommendations for
further changes? If so, what changes would you recommend?
Answer. I have a broad base of experience in the DOD acquisition
process and major system acquisitions. If confirmed, I intend to apply
that experience across the board, where it makes sense, to improve the
Army processes and take advantage of other service successes, but at
this time I have no specific recommendations for changes.
streamlining the acquisition process
Question. Both Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Under
Secretary of Defense Pete Aldridge have indicated that they believe
that there is a compelling need to streamline the acquisition process
to further reduce the fielding time for new weapons systems and
capabilities.
In your view, what role should realistic testing play in the
acquisition process prior to any decision to enter into high-rate
production?
Answer. I am concerned with the length of time that it takes to
field new equipment. I agree that the acquisition process has to be
streamlined. Likewise the way in which we integrate test and evaluation
into this process must be improved. The way to accelerate acquisition
programs is to integrate testing earlier in the development of new
systems. In essence, we need to make testing part of the development
process and not an addendum that scores the results of completed
programs. Testing must be designed to examine design options, reduce
risk and help move systems forward to successfully accelerate fielding.
At each step in a progressive test process, the test conditions
should be as realistic as possible consistent with the test objectives.
Many years of experience attest to the fact that there is no substitute
for realistic operational testing by real soldiers in a combat-like
environment. This is what has led us today to an Army that has the best
ground combat systems in the world. I understand the Abrams tank, the
Bradley Fighting Vehicle and the Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS)
are successes because the Army shook out the design and manufacturing
problems in realistic operational tests before the systems went into
full-rate production.
Question. If you are confirmed as the Assistant Secretary of the
Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology, how would you propose
to achieve an appropriate balance between the desire to reduce
acquisition cycle times and the need to perform adequate operational
testing?
Answer. I do not see a conflict between reforming the acquisition
process to accelerate fielding and the need to conduct realistic
operational testing. A careful look at past programs will show that the
conduct of operational testing consumes only a very short period in the
development and fielding process. All early testing goes on concurrent
with other development activities, and only the initial operational
test and evaluation (IOT&E) must wait for a fully production-
representative system. With carefully laid out acquisition programs,
operational testing need not cause delays in transitioning from low-
rate initial production to full-rate production.
Question. How would you assess that the balance achieved is the
appropriate one?
Answer. I am not sure that a precise balance can be found, but I
would measure the rates at which problems are being found. The degree
to which problems are found early and do not occur later is the degree
to which we are improving on the balance. If the occurrence of problems
accelerates later in the program development, then we are clearly
missing the mark.
While we will never abandon realistic operational testing, we also
know that we must fully integrate technical testing, modeling and
simulation and other data sources to resolve as many issues as possible
before we get to the IOT&E. If confirmed, I would try to leverage early
and continuous testing and evaluation to make sure that systems are
properly postured for success long before they are ready for fielding.
Question. In comparison to other services with which you are
familiar, do you believe that the Army has adequately funded its
testing activities?
Answer. It is premature for me to comment on the funding adequacy
of the Army's comprehensive testing activities but I am aware that the
funding profile for T&E in the Army has improved in the past 10 years.
The infrastructure for DOD test ranges and much of the Army's
instrumentation is aging and needs to be upgraded or replaced.
Instrumentation must keep pace with the complexity and technical
advances of the systems being tested. New instrumentation and test
tools are needed to adequately test today's complex systems. Almost
every major system now operates in a complex system of systems
environment. This means that more sophisticated tests are required to
truly create a ``realistic'' operational environment for validating
system capabilities. We are relying heavily on models and simulations
to help us create the realistic environments for these tests, but these
new tools all take resources to develop and maintain. Balanced against
its other priorities, I believe the Army is resourcing T&E as well as
the other services.
comanche
Question. Press reports indicate that the Army has decided to
restructure the RAH-66 Comanche helicopter program, delaying initial
operational capability by 2 years. If these reports are true, what is
your understanding of:
The new schedule?
Answer. I understand that recent reviews of the Comanche
Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) program indicated that
the program was experiencing both cost and schedule problems. I am told
that the Army is currently in the process of developing alternatives
that would implement a block upgrade strategy, maintain Objective Force
linkages and address these concerns. Although adjustments to the
program are imminent, I understand the Army leadership has not yet
decided on a course of action, and remains firmly committed to the
success of the Comanche program. I agree that it is a critical
component in the Army transformation and the Objective Force.
Question. The programmatic reasons for such a restructure?
Answer. I am told the EMD contract is experiencing difficulties
driven by system concurrency, system integration challenges, and
underestimation of risk.
Question. Any additional costs involved, and how the Army will pay
for those costs?
Answer. As stated previously, I understand the cost of the Comanche
program adjustments may be resourced from within the current approved
Comanche funding by using the delay in the production program to fund
the increased development effort.
I look forward to reviewing and contributing to this critical
program, if confirmed.
future combat system
Question. The Army currently has four teams working on the Future
Combat System (FCS) under concept design agreements. The Army has
announced its intention to solicit for a single lead systems integrator
to take the system to a fiscal year 2006 production decision.
In your opinion, what are the advantages and disadvantages of the
Army's new acquisition approach for FCS?
Answer. I understand there are two facets to the new acquisition
approach--accelerating Milestone B by 3 years from fiscal year 2006 to
fiscal year 2003, and placing the effort under Lead Systems Integrator
(LSI) management. I agree that the major advantage of the program
acceleration is that the Army may be able to field revolutionary new
capabilities by the end of the decade. The FCS LSI will provide the
Government with a capable industry partner, having total systems
integration responsibility for designing, developing, producing,
fielding and supporting the FCS system of systems.
I agree that the disadvantage of program acceleration is that it
may limit the Army's technology options for the Block I concept and
increase program risk, but I believe this disadvantage can be mitigated
by an iterative upgrade plan, providing enhancements for lethality,
survivability, and so on. A potential disadvantage in having a single
LSI is that the selection of an LSI can limit competition for new ideas
from other major defense contractors in later phases of the program. I
understand DARPA and the Army are addressing this issue by requiring a
rigorous best value competition process for the selection of systems
and subsystems, with government access to all data and concurrence in
decisions.
Question. In your opinion, how much risk is involved in such an
acquisition schedule?
Answer. DARPA and the Army have, in effect, asked the firms
pursuing the Lead Systems Integrator role to balance technical and
schedule risk in their proposed concepts in order to achieve an IOC
within this decade. The winning LSI's concepts will mature in parallel
with the evolving Operational Requirements Document to provide
acceptable risk at MS B and beyond. If none of the answers meet the
needs of the Army transformation, the Army should reconsider the Army's
requirements.
Question. If confirmed, how would you propose to divide the
responsibilities for the FCS program between yourself and the Director
of the Objective Force Task Force?
Answer. The responsibilities of the Objective Force Task Force are
spelled out by the Secretary of the Army--I do not believe there is
duplication. ASA(ALT) is responsible for overall execution of the FCS
acquisition program, to include science and technology efforts. The
task force integrates, coordinates, and assesses efforts in concepts
and requirements, S&T (including DARPA), and acquisition. Task force
findings are provided to ASA(ALT) for consideration and action. If
confirmed, I propose to continue, develop, and refine this
relationship.
logistics reform
Question. The 2001 Report to the President and Congress stated that
logistics reform must move toward performance-based support and must
link modern warfighting and business practices. To accomplish this
fundamental transformation, the Department has developed a long-term
logistics reform strategic plan, established a logistics architect to
help guide the transformation effort, and begun the process of
implementing new business strategies.
In your view, what are the key factors shaping Army logistic
modernization?
Answer. The Army is in the process of transformation. As the Army
moves toward an Objective Force, logistics modernization will enable
the Army to field a force that is more responsive, deployable, agile,
versatile, lethal, survivable, and sustainable. Army logistic
modernization is a key component of that transformation process. The
Army is changing the paradigm of a logistics system built on redundancy
of mass to one based on velocity, mobility, and situational
understanding. I understand three objectives drive the Army's
modernization process. The first is to enhance strategic responsiveness
to meet the time lines outlined in the Army vision. This is key to the
Army's future relevance. The second is to reduce the size of the Combat
Support/Combat Service Support footprint in the combat zone; this will
enable Joint Force Commanders to maneuver without being tethered to a
large supporting structure. Third, the Army must reduce the cost of
logistics without reducing warfighting capability or readiness.
Decreasing logistics demand is a major element of cutting cost and
improving flexibility. The Army should consider efficiency,
reliability, and deployability key performance parameters as the Army
designs and fields new combat systems. The application of information
and communications technologies to weapon systems design and logistics
business processes is a key component in the Army's effort to create a
more responsive logistics system. As the Army looks at the magnitude of
the Army's business from installation to foxhole these are significant
challenges but I think the Army has a duty to get it done.
Question. In your view, what commercial market logistics practices
should the Department of the Army consider in its logistics
modernization program?
Answer. There are many. Nothing drives innovation like a
competitive market and we can learn a great deal about efficiency and
effectives from the commercial sector. Several promising practices do
come to mind: the Army has to use a longer-term business model in the
acquisition process; the Army has to invest up front in reliability and
predictability to reduce the cost of maintaining Army systems; the Army
has to look at the total life-cycle cost of equipment when it is
designed. While the Army has really improved its supply chain
management with the Single Stock Fund program, the addition of
commercially available automatic identification technology can pay big
dividends in efficiency. The Army needs to leverage commercial sector
transportation efficiencies, particularly the use of multi-modal
systems that can reduce repackaging, material handling, and en-route
damage as well as the costs associated with them. The commercial sector
is doing some exciting things with embedded diagnostics and prognostics
that really save equipment repair costs. The list goes on, but I think
we can learn a lot from the commercial market and I will continue to
look to world-class businesses for their logistics lessons, if
confirmed.
Question. In your view, is the privatization of the Army's
logistics function a viable alternative?
Answer. I think there is value in privatizing some of the Army's
logistics functions but I'm hesitant to endorse it as a rule. I firmly
believe that we must preserve a National Military Capability in
critical logistics functions. Here again, you have to take a business
view. While there are many functions and services the private sector
can provide at a lower cost, that's not the entire equation. In many
instances, the Army owns infrastructure just for the purpose of
performing those same functions and services. When we add the cost of
maintaining that to the lower privatized cost, we don't always see a
savings. You have to have a plan to divest that infrastructure prior to
outsourcing. We have to ask two questions when we move to the private
sector. First, is readiness retained or improved? Second, is the total
Army cost reduced? If the objective answer is yes to both questions,
privatization is an alternative that should be considered.
munitions programs
Question. The Army is considering the cancellation of several
munitions programs including the TOW missile, the Hydra-70 rocket, the
Remote Area Denial Artillery Munition, and the antipersonnel land mine
alternatives.
Given that the replacement systems to many of these programs are
not yet fully developed and may not be available for many years, how
would these cuts, if approved, impact the Army's ability to execute the
National Military Strategy?
Answer. I understand the Army's ability to execute the National
Military Strategy will not be impacted should any of these programs be
cancelled. I am told the RADAM and APL-A programs do not provide an
enhanced warfighting capability above and beyond when the Army has
today. I understand the Army will continue to produce the Hydra-70
rocket in sufficient quantities to meet training requirements until the
Advance Precision Kill Weapon System starts production in fiscal year
2005. I also understand the Army has begun a dedicated stockpile
management program to retain sufficient TOW 2B in the inventory under
the Common Missile program which begins production later this decade.
army acquisition system
Question. If confirmed as the Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology, you will manage the Army
Acquisition Corps and Army Acquisition Workforce.
In your view, what steps should the Army take to improve overall
management of its acquisition personnel?
Answer. Simply put, I believe that we must refine the Army's
existing management system to ensure the dedicated, professional
members of the Army Acquisition Corps are fully trained, constantly
challenged to innovate and streamline, rewarded for their efforts, and
secure in their belief that we care about them and their families. We
are all aware that this workforce has been significantly reduced over
the past few years. While that was necessary and productive it also
created a set of new challenges. For instance, I am concerned with the
number of personnel that are or will be retirement eligible in the
immediate future (2-5 years). In some career fields over 50 percent of
the personnel fit this category. While the Army cannot say with
certainty how many will actually retire, the potential loss of
experience and expertise is enormous. This problem is further
complicated because potential replacement personnel are reluctant to
enter the Acquisition Corps because of the history of reductions. To
answer these challenges, I understand the Army is working to stabilize
the workforce, overcome the fear of further mass reductions, attract
new employees from industry and academia, and, probably most important,
enhance the training opportunities and professional growth of the
current workforce. Lastly, in concert with DOD and the other services,
I am gratified that the Army is developing a comprehensive strategic
plan to address current problems and prepare the Army's acquisition
workforce for the challenges of the 21st century.
Question. How do you plan to ensure that the Army recruits, trains,
and retains an acquisition workforce that will be able to operate in a
21st century environment?
Answer. The Army has numerous programs that provide advanced
training and education opportunities for the current workforce. If
confirmed, I intend to review these and, in concert with the Defense
Acquisition University, training managers, and private institutions,
ensure these existing programs are providing the right focus, right
perspective, and right tools required to support the fundamental tenets
of acquisition excellence. This will ensure the Army Acquisition Corps
is poised to support Army transformation and continually improve the
Acquisition System.
We need to ensure that the Army's employees are working in a
professional, safe and productive environment that enhances their
desire to come to work. The Army, and indeed all the services, have an
incredibly professional and dedicated workforce that continuously
answers the call to public service. If confirmed, I intend to ensure
the Army has the plans and programs that enhance skills, provide for
the most effective and efficient use of resources and, most
importantly, makes the Army's employees proud to be members of the U.S.
Army.
I understand the Army Acquisition Corps has already begun to
develop a comprehensive program to attract new military and civilian
employees with the necessary skills to support transformation and lay
the foundation for the Army of the 21st century. If confirmed, I will
do my best to ensure that the program is fully resourced and
complemented by a responsive management system that allows us to
swiftly react to changing priorities and technological evolution.
interservice relationships
Question. In your view, are there areas in which the Department of
the Army and the United States Marine Corps should more closely
cooperate in the development of land and air capabilities?
Answer. I am not familiar with all functional areas where the Army
and Marine Corps are able to cooperatively develop capabilities, but I
am aware of several cooperative successes. This October the Army began
procuring the Marine Corps developed M107, 50 caliber, Sniper Rifle.
Both marines and soldiers are using this rifle in Afghanistan. An
excellent example of ongoing cooperation between the marines and Army
is the development of the Joint Lightweight 155mm Towed Howitzer. In
this program, the marines are developing the basic Howitzer while the
Army develops the digital fire control for the Howitzer. A memorandum
of agreement governs the program with the Navy and Army sharing
management responsibility. The Navy Acquisition Executive is the
milestone decision authority while the Army functions as the head of
contracting agency. Additionally, the Marine Corps product manager is
located at the Army's Picatinny Arsenal and oversight is shared by the
Army Program Executive for Ground Combat Support and the Marine Corps
Systems Commander. This has been a successful arrangement for both
services.
Question. If confirmed, what actions would you take to increase
Army and Marine Corps joint program development?
Answer. If confirmed, I would build on the relationship with the
Navy Acquisition Executive and the Marine Corps from the Joint
Lightweight 155mm Howitzer and Sniper Rifle and proactively review
similar requirements across the other services to identify additional
areas for cooperation.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as the Under Secretary of the
Army?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings and
other communications of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu
armored security vehicle (asv) program
1. Senator Landrieu. General Bolton, on July 10, 2001, I asked
General Shinseki if media reports were true that the Army intended to
terminate the armored security vehicle program at the end of fiscal
year 2002.
General Shinseki replied, ``The Army does not have plans to
terminate the ASV program at the end of fiscal year 2002.'' Further, he
stated, ``The current plan is to continue to field the ASV to MP
units.''
On the other hand, the November 21, 2001, issue of Jane's Defense
Weekly reported that the ``Army canceled . . . the armored security
vehicle, used by military police.''
General Bolton, should I simply not trust everything I read from
the British press; has the Army supplied me with improper information;
or is this a sudden change of plans by the Army to finance the push
toward transformation?
General Bolton. The Army is currently procuring the ASV under a 5-
year multiyear contract with Textron Marine and Land Systems. The
fiscal year 2002 President's Budget includes funding for the fourth
year of the contract. The Army's intent is to support the ASV through
to the conclusion of the multiyear at the end of fiscal year 2003. It
would appear that the source of the data for the British Press was
inaccurate in their understanding of Army leadership's decision
relative to ASV.
2. Senator Landrieu. What is the reason for the inconsistency?
General Bolton. The Army's senior leadership has been consistent
with Congress when asked its position concerning the ASV program--no
contracts have been canceled.
science and technology funding
3. Senator Landrieu. The Army's transformation will be strongly
dependent on science and technology (S&T) and the new capabilities that
emerge from those programs.
Since your position will have oversight over Army science and
technology programs, do you feel that the Army currently invests enough
in research and development (R&D)?
General Bolton. The Army has adequately funded its S&T program to
focus on achieving the Army's transformation to the Objective Force.
The Army's fiscal year 2002 budget request for S&T is $1.58 billion.
This is an 18 percent increase over the fiscal year 2001 request and
clear evidence of the Army's commitment to achieve Objective Force
capabilities.
4. Senator Landrieu. Secretary Rumsfeld has established a goal for
science and technology investments Department-wide at 3 percent of the
total DOD budget.
Would you support the establishment of a similar goal for the Army?
General Bolton. I support the DOD guidelines that have a goal of
budgeting S&T as 3 percent of the overall DOD budget by 2007. The Army
is committed to its transformation vision and S&T is at the center of
our efforts to achieve Objective Force capabilities.
interagency coordination
5. Senator Landrieu. The Army plays an important role in performing
vital medical, chemical, and biological research for our country. Your
researchers at Fort Detrick, Maryland, have been key players in the
ongoing anthrax investigation.
How will you work to ensure that the Army's expertise in these
important scientific areas is available for our first responders, the
Center for Disease Control, the Office of Homeland Security, and other
Federal and local Government agencies?
General Bolton. The Army coordinates with other Department of
Defense, Federal, and local government agencies across all echelons.
Army medical and scientific personnel are members of numerous response
teams and interagency working groups. During the ongoing anthrax
investigation, the scientists and command staff of the U.S. Army
Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick
actively participated in an interagency group formed to address the
issues at hand. In addition, that organization and other Army
laboratories have specific agreements with agencies such as the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation to provide expertise or perform analyses. Individual Army
scientists routinely interact with colleagues throughout the scientific
community by engaging in collaborative research efforts and
participating in national and international scientific conferences. The
Army medical community has been actively engaged in providing expertise
to other agencies and to first responders through training and
education courses such as the satellite broadcast of ``Biological and
Chemical Warfare and Terrorism: Medical Issues and Response.'' Over the
past several years, Army experts have served on intergovernmental teams
to provide training and support to local authorities for major events
such as the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta, Georgia, presidential nominating
conventions, and others. The Army will continue appropriate
participation in numerous interagency groups, and provide its
outstanding support and expertise to other agencies.
moving critical medical technologies through regulatory processes
6. Senator Landrieu. The Army invests in a significant amount of
research on new medical technologies--including bandages, drugs,
vaccines, and decontamination agents. Some of these are especially
critical as we work to improve our ability to respond to the threats of
weapons of mass destruction. Unfortunately, many of our best
technologies get caught up in slow and expensive regulatory processes
established by the FDA and the EPA.
How will you work to ensure that Army investments in critical new
medical technologies can be moved quickly through these regulatory
processes, so they can be used by our troops and the general public as
soon as possible?
General Bolton. The Army continues to emphasize the need to comply
with FDA and other governmental agency regulatory guidance within its
programs. These agencies provide a necessary and important quality
control function that the Army both respects and demands. We do not
want policy or perception to lead the American public to believe that
soldiers are an experimental population. Rather, we strictly wish to
enforce the same health and safety standards for soldiers. Only in a
time of warfare and extreme need do we willingly take the calculated
risks of using non-fully approved products, although we still gain FDA
guidance for clinical protocols and informed consent.
The best method to ensure we move quickly through the regulatory
process is to communicate frequently with those agencies. The FDA is
now a more open agency that supports frequent dialog. Through early
discussions, such as pre-investigational new drug meetings, we can
discuss our plans and trial methods with the FDA and modify them
accordingly. This is especially important for products, such as
critical chemical-biological defense drugs and vaccines that will rely
on animal data and indirect measures, because human efficacy cannot be
ethically obtained through clinical trials.
Another means to increase the speed of the process is to team with
industrial partners with greater experience in developing medical
products. In the aftermath of September 11, 2001, the increased market
potential for many of our medical product lines may provide greater
financial incentive to more firms to develop and produce our products.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator John Warner
missile defense programs
7. Senator Warner. General Bolton, the Ballistic Missile Defense
Organization (BMDO) proposed to transfer the Patriot PAC-3 and Medium
Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) programs to the Army and the Navy
Area Defense to the Navy. Congress is likely to allow such transfers
only after the director of BMDO establishes appropriate criteria to do
so.
Do you support the transfer of PAC-3 and MEADS to the Army?
General Bolton. Yes. The Army is excited about the opportunity to
manage the Patriot PAC-3 program. This represents a significant
enhancement to the fielded Patriot system. Passing management of the
program to the Army is the right thing to do at this point in the
program's lifecycle. One of the benefits of the PAC-3 program is the
use of the PAC-3 missile as the missile for the MEADS program. By doing
so, we reduce the risk of the MEADS program and take advantage of PAC-
3's very capable and mature technology. However, the program must be
fully funded before a transfer to the Army takes place. Specifically,
the program must be funded to upgrade 10 active component Patriot
Battalions and the Southwest Asia Patriot assets to the PAC-3
configuration. Currently, the program is funded to upgrade 7 active
component Battalions and the Southwest Asia Patriot assets.
Additionally, the program must be funded to procure the required 2200
PAC-3 missiles versus the 1159 for which the program is currently
funded.
Transfer of the MEADS program to the Army at this time is not
recommended. The MEADS program is currently insufficiently mature in
its acquisition cycle, does not have an approved program baseline, is
an unstable international program and likely will incur significant
cost growth. However, once the program has successfully accomplished
Milestone C and begins entering operational testing, the program should
begin the transfer to the Army and be fully funded to procure the
required number of fire units and missiles.
8. Senator Warner. What criteria would you recommend to the
director of BMDO to guide such transfers in the future?
General Bolton. The BMDO should continue management and development
for programs in the areas of spiral/evolutionary development, technical
insertion, reliability improvements and sustainment initiatives (i.e.,
reducing the logistical footprint) and provide a coordinated investment
plan to Congress prior to transfer.
BMDO, in coordination with the Army, should establish criteria for
transition of programs to the services. Based upon cost, schedule, and
technical risk/performance, BMDO should submit an agreed upon BMDO/Army
transition plan to Congress prior to transfer. In the plan, BMDO should
identify and fund any cost risk associated with the program.
directed energy weapons
9. Senator Warner. The Army has been the lead agency in the
development of the tactical high energy laser (THEL). Space and Missile
Defense Command has expressed interest in pursuing a mobile version of
THEL for air and missile defense, but the Army has not funded either
THEL or a mobile THEL program.
In your view, how important are directed energy weapons to the
future of the Army?
General Bolton. I believe that directed energy (DE) weapons have
the potential to provide significant technological opportunities for
the warfighter. These opportunities may allow the warfighter to achieve
new and improved capabilities across a broad spectrum of missions that
support the Army transformation strategy. The Army is currently
exploring the potential of DE weapons to meet the future United States
Army needs and joint service requirements from both ground and airborne
platforms. These needs may include space control, special operations
(ultra-precision engagements), military operations on urban terrain,
countermine operations, destruction of unexploded ordnance, improved
lethality for artillery projectiles, disruption of command and control
systems, survivability of ground and air systems, and the suppression
of enemy air defense.
The Army has strategically invested in DE technologies that support
our mission areas. We have developed a program plan to fund the follow-
on effort for a mobile version of the THEL demonstrator with Israeli
cooperation. We have funded a solid-state laser effort to demonstrate a
15-kilowatt high average power solid-state laser by 2004 and 100
kilowatt by 2007 that experienced a congressional cut this year. The
Army is also funding efforts to develop high-powered microwave systems
for non-lethal, countermine, and weapons application. These efforts
provide significant developmental milestones for DE weapons technology
candidates to meet the Future Combat Systems and other Objective Force
requirements.
10. Senator Warner. Is Army investment in this area adequate?
General Bolton. Directed energy (DE) technologies have the
potential to provide the Army with dramatic leap-ahead capabilities
that support many of the joint and Army visions and warfighting
concepts of the 21st century. We strive within the current Army budget
constraints and priorities to develop and exploit DE technologies
consistent with our other priorities for the Objective Force.
science and technology investment
11-12. Senator Warner. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld has
established an investment goal for the defense science and technology
program to reach 3 percent of the total defense budget.
If confirmed, would you set a similar goal for the Army science and
technology program?
If so, what time frame would you place on reaching this investment
goal?
General Bolton. I support the Department of Defense's guidelines
that have a goal of budgeting S&T as 3 percent of the overall
Department of Defense budget by 2007.
future combat systems
13. Senator Warner. The Army is currently partnering with DARPA to
conceptualize, develop, and field the Future Combat System. The Army
recently accelerated the FCS effort by 2 years with the goal of
equipping the first unit by fiscal year 2008.
Is there adequate investment in the S&T program to meet this
accelerated goal?
General Bolton. Since the Army's decision to accelerate FCS post-
dated the President's Budget, additional S&T funds are required to meet
the aggressive accelerated schedule. In order to determine the
technical and financial impact of the FCS acceleration, my Deputy for
Research and Technology has had an Independent Technology Assessment
performed by technical experts from government, academia, and industry.
The assessment concluded that more funds are needed in fiscal year 2002
and 2003 to develop and mature critical technologies to achieve the
initial capability desired (Block 1) for the First Unit Equipped in
2008. The Army is reviewing all options to fund those shortfalls.
comanche restructuring
14. Senator Warner. The Army recently announced that it has decided
to restructure the Comanche helicopter program because the program
encountered ``unacceptable risk'' and may be underfunded by as much as
$1.5 billion. As a result, the initial operating capability will be
pushed back to December 2008, about the same time as the Army intends
to field the Future Combat System. This also coincides with the
projected fielding of the Crusader System. The fielding of all of these
systems will obviously stress the Army's ability to fund these
programs.
If confirmed, how will you deal with the Army's apparent funding
shortfalls in these areas?
General Bolton. This is probably the hardest question Secretary
White and General Shinseki have to deal with in terms of balancing
priorities. This is going to be a significant challenge for not only
the Army, but also for the Department of Defense, because we are going
to be competing with the other services for resources. I will work
closely with the Army senior leadership to ensure we maintain a balance
of our priorities that will permit the Army, to the greatest extent
possible, to continue with the investments required to meet our future
fielding commitments. It will be a significant challenge for the United
States Army to achieve the balance of current readiness with the
investments required for that future force. The Army must be prepared,
with the support of Congress, to make those investments.
army transformation (future combat system)
15. Senator Warner. The Future Combat System (FCS) will be the
centerpiece of the Army's Objective Force. Four industry teams are
currently designing concepts and conducting technology assessments for
FCS. Until recently, the Army was considering retaining two of the four
teams to continue the design work and to build models until fiscal year
2006, when one team would be awarded a contract for development. Now,
the Army has released a draft solicitation for a lead systems
integrator to continue the work of the four industry teams.
Do you agree with this approach?
General Bolton. Yes, I agree with the approach. The Army's decision
to develop a new acquisition strategy and FCS solicitation was based on
the need to accelerate transformation and field the FCS in 2008. The
Army, through its memorandum of agreement with Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency, is seeking a lead system integrator to
execute this accelerated program.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Strom Thurmond
comanche helicopter program
16. Senator Thurmond. General Bolton, a problem with the
modernization of our Armed Forces is the time it takes to bring a new
system into the inventory. A prime example is the Army's Comanche
helicopter program which recently underwent its sixth major revision
since they awarded the contractor the development contract in 1991.
What are your views regarding the Department's acquisition process
and why does it take so long to bring a new system on line?
General Bolton. The previous Under Secretary of Defense
(Acquisition, Technology and Logistics), Dr. Gansler (among others
within the Defense community), was also concerned about the length of
time that it takes to bring a new system on line. To that end, in the
latter half of 1999 he directed a complete rewrite of our Defense
acquisition policies as contained within the Department of Defense
(DOD) 5000-series set of documents. That effort took almost 2 years. It
was completed in June 2001 with the final approval of the regulation,
DOD 5000.2-R.
Historically, it has taken all the services longer than anyone
would wish to bring major systems to the field. However, given the
initiatives (e.g., blocked requirements, evolutionary acquisition, and
the use of more mature technology) incorporated in the new defense
acquisition polices, I believe that we will begin to see a substantial
improvement in those fielding times.
industrial base
17-18. Senator Thurmond. The United States' defense industrial base
has undergone a significant reduction since the end of the Cold War
era. This shrinkage has occurred not only in the major weapons systems
such as aircraft, but also in the small arms production base which now
consists of only two major producers.
Do you consider the decline of our defense industrial base an
acceptable risk?
What steps, if any, should we take to protect our industrial base?
General Bolton. Yes, the consolidation has been necessary. The
post-Cold War defense budget drawdown of the 1990s resulted in a
significant consolidation of the U.S. defense industry--fewer prime
contractors, rationalization of capacity in the industrial base, and
substantial cost savings for the Department of Defense. The central
tenet of my industrial capabilities-related policy is to seek to
maintain a sufficient number of capable defense firms in core market
sectors to ensure the competition critical to providing affordable,
innovative defense products that meet the needs of the 21st century
warfighter. It is a continuing challenge to meet this goal in today's
smaller and more concentrated defense industrial structure. Prudent
steps include a wide variety of actions. Examples include vigilant
buying practices like limiting the use of restricted-source
competitions. Instead we seek to attract more suppliers through reduced
military specifications and use of broad market surveys. We can also
oppose contractor teaming and formal business combinations, if that is
in our best interest. On a case-by-case basis, when a thorough analysis
supports it, we can intervene to protect critical, defense unique,
endangered suppliers.
buy america provisions
19. Senator Thurmond. What are your views on the role of the ``Buy
America'' provisions in protecting the industrial base?
General Bolton. Any preclusion of foreign firms from competing for
Army contracts should only take place when U.S. national security
interests would truly be threatened by foreign participation. We have
adequate means to do this now on a case-by-case basis using exceptions
to our requirements for full and open contracting. ``Buy American''
restrictions may invite retaliation and harm our industrial base.
Finally, in all cases, I want to ensure that we access the very best
technology for our soldiers.
technology development
20. Senator Thurmond. Whenever the Army focuses on technology
development, it is on the major weapons systems and not on the
individual soldier's combat systems.
What will be your focus regarding equipping the individual soldier
to meet future threats?
General Bolton. The Army vision recognizes that the soldier is the
centerpiece of our transformation to the Objective Force. As such, we
have focused our soldier system developments on integrating emerging
new technologies into a multi-function capability. The result will be a
soldier more lethal, sustainable and survivable, with significantly
less weight to carry. Less weight also means increased soldier
mobility, another desirable outcome. Our developments will aggressively
address both future threats as well as the soldier's currently large
logistics tail. Included in the above are the modeling and simulation,
human science, and manpower and personnel integration efforts to ensure
that the human factors aspects are considered in the design from the
beginning. The Army's warrior systems modernization strategy (WSMS)
integrates program planning to connect the entire Army's research and
development (R&D) investment (including Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency leveraging) related to soldier systems across all
phases of the R&D life-cycle.
The Army strategy is highlighted by the Land Warrior (LW), a first
generation integrated fighting system for the individual soldier that
bridges to the Objective Force Warrior (OFW). The LW is an Acquisition
Category II program designed to enhance the soldier's battlefield
capabilities through the development and integration of a variety of
Army components and technologies into a single ``system.'' The LW
includes: a computer/radio subsystem; a global positioning system
receiver; VHF and UHF radios; video capture capability; an integrated
helmet assembly subsystem with heads-up display and image intensifier
for night operations; a weapon subsystem with thermal weapon sight,
close combat optic, video camera, laser rangefinder/digital compass,
and an infrared laser aiming light; and protective clothing and
individual equipment subsystem with load carrying equipment, body
armor, a chemical/biological mask, and a laser detector.
Emerging concepts for the Objective Force and the Future Combat
Systems (FCS) recognize the soldier plays a central element in the FCS
Unit of Action. The intent of OFW is to develop a formidable warrior in
an invincible team, demonstrating unsurpassed individual and squad
lethality; survivability; communications; and agility. The OFW science
and technology program will provide the next generation of capabilities
beyond LW. The OFW program uses a systems engineering, integrated
approach to achieve new capabilities without overburdening the soldier.
The program will develop a lightweight, stealthy soldier survivability
system, integrated with multi-functional sensors, weapons and proactive
medical capabilities. The OFW will have connectivity to other
dismounted personnel and robotic air/ground platforms for improved
situational understanding and effects. The OFW will be fully integrated
with FCS. Additional benefits from applying a systems engineering
approach to the soldier system are: shortened product development
cycles; lower acquisition costs; and reductions in size, weight, and
power requirements.
The integration of continuous technology advances in command and
control, tactical mobility, intelligence capabilities, and
survivability will enable full-spectrum dominance at the individual and
small unit level. These efforts support the Army vision to field a
force that is responsive, deployable, agile, versatile, lethal,
survivable, sustainable, and dominant at every point along the spectrum
of operations, anywhere in the world.
army depot system
21. Senator Thurmond. The Army maintains a significant depot system
to maintain aging weapons systems and equipment. As more equipment
comes due for recapitalization, will the depots be able to handle the
increased workload?
General Bolton. Yes. The Army Recapitalization Program is a key
enabler of Army transformation that will allow us to transition to the
Objective Force while maintaining a capable Interim Force to meet the
Army's non-negotiable contract with the American people. Our organic
base is up to the mission assigned to it. Depot capacity was one of the
many factors reviewed when presenting the fleet recapitalization
options to the senior Army leadership.
22. Senator Thurmond. Would you consider transferring some of this
work to the private sector?
General Bolton. Those decisions have already been made. The VCSA
directed early on in the Recapitalization Program to consider
partnerships with industry. With public/private partnering, we get the
best of both sectors, maintaining a viable industrial base in support
of our weapon systems. Based on the end state capability required for
the recapitalized systems and the time line needed to field the
systems, public-private partnership arrangements were exploited and in
some cases decisions were made to use the original equipment
manufacturers. Some illustrative examples are the Bradley Fighting
Vehicle and the Heavy Mobility Tactical Truck. Bottom line: the
Recapitalization Program will aid in maintaining our skill levels in
our depots, produce a stabilized workload, and foster sound government-
industry partnerships.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Bob Smith
dod/gao investigations
23. Senator Smith. Your promotion to Brigadier General was held up
by Congress because of apparent procurement irregularities which were
examined by both Department of Defense (IG) and GAO investigations.
Can you comment on the results of both of those investigations, the
issues at stake, your role in the controversy, what lessons you have
drawn from this experience, and how this will affect your heading the
Army procurement system?
General Bolton. Much has been said about the allegations concerning
my performance as the System Program Director of the Advanced Cruise
Missile (ACM) System Program Office (SPO). During my Brigadier General
Officer confirmation, an allegation was made that I had violated the
Anti-Deficiency Act (ADA), and therefore should not be promoted to
Brigadier General. Those allegations were made on the floor of the
Senate in April/May 1993 and in several newspapers around the country.
I became aware of this about the same time. It was alleged in a
Department of Defense Inspector General (DOD IG) report and later by a
member of the United States Senate, that I had violated the ADA. The
report stated that when the ACM Program determined it would not have
sufficient funds to complete the program, as planned several years in
the future, it was antideficient. The Air Force did reclama the IG
report and stated no ADA violation took place since the existing
contract was fully funded for current activity and would be rebased for
budget realities. The response was not accepted by the DOD IG.
Shortly after the allegations were made, in 1993, the Air Force
General Counsel was asked to render an opinion on this matter. Each
General Counsel involved in this review quickly dismissed the
possibility of an ADA violation. Further, the rendered opinion
documented that the DOD IG explanation and interpretation of the
alleged ADA violation was in error. From that point until my
confirmation hearing on October 8, 1994, the focus of two Air Force,
one GAO and one Comptroller General investigation were not so much the
review of an ADA violation (the original and only formal allegation),
but an examination of virtually every decision I made in the ACM
Program during my 3-year tenure. The results . . . Nothing! No ADA, no
improprieties, nothing. While I was pleased with the eventual outcome,
I was very disappointed in what the reports did not say. Few Government
Program Managers (PM) had undergone such a review, and to have such a
finding is extraordinary. The reports failed to note that perhaps this
PM and in particular, his staff should be praised for what they did. In
one year this Government/contractor team took a severely poor
performing program, one directed by Congress in law to be terminated if
it did not drastically improve, and turned it completely around. When
all was said and done, the program met all cost, schedule and
performance requirements. This team provided the warfighters the most
advanced, most accurate, most survivable cruise missile in the world.
The ACM, I am led to believe, remains so today. Since none of the
investigative reports recognized these achievements let me say at this
time I am proud to have had the opportunity to lead such a fine team;
both Government and contractor personnel. This team worked tirelessly
to take a troubled program and turn it into a world-class military
capability. It also demonstrated an age old lesson learned; namely,
give good people a vision and the tools to reach it and anything is
possible. Their effort is a model for the entire Department of Defense,
and the reason I am where I am today. They are the finest, most
dedicated and most professional people I have ever known. They and
countless others like them throughout our acquisition, logistics and
technology community, are the reason our United States Military remains
the world's most capable, most powerful and most respected fighting
force on the planet. It was my pleasure to serve them. I have continued
to manage and lead as I did while in the ACM Program. I intend to do
the same in the future for the Army.
interservice experience
24. Senator Smith. Have you had any interservice experience with
the Army?
General Bolton. I have been briefed on the current Army
organizations and the ongoing reorganization. If I am confirmed, I will
of course work closely with all of the Army in all facets as I perform
my duties. To do that effectively will require I understand the
relationships implied.
25. Senator Smith. Do you have any knowledge of the relationships,
policies, and organizational relationships existing today in the Army?
General Bolton. I commanded the Defense Systems Management College
at Fort Belvoir, Virginia for 3 years. I have gained good insight into
the existing Army structures along with those of the other services and
industry.
program executive office (peo) air and missile defense (amd)
26. Senator Smith. It is my understanding that the Army is
considering double-hatting the PEO for Air and Missile Defense (PEO-
AMD) as well as the Deputy Commander of Space and Missile Defense
Command (SMDC).
Does this require a waiver of DOD regulations and has a waiver been
granted?
General Bolton. On 3 December 2001, General Shinseki approved the
assignment of Brigadier General John Urias to the Program Executive
Office for Air and Missile Defense in the position of Program Executive
Officer, Air and Missile Defense/Deputy Commanding General for
Research, Development and Acquisition, United States Army Space and
Missile Defense Command. This was done in coordination with the acting
Army Acquisition Executive and the Military Deputy; the Director,
Ballistic Missile Defense Organization; and Commanding General United
States Army (USASMDC). Due to the direct interdependency on USASMDC by
PEO-AMD programs, this special arrangement was deemed to be in the best
interest of both organizations. To help streamline his acquisition role
as PEO, Brigadier General Urias' chain of supervision was designated as
the ASA(ALT) MILDEP and ASA(ALT) (the normal rating chain for an Army
PEO) with only letter input from the Commanding General, USASMDC. At
the time, there was unanimous agreement that this assignment did not
violate any statutory requirements, but there were varying opinions as
to whether a waiver of Department of Defense (DOD) regulations was
required. Having seen that this question still remains, I intend to
formally seek DOD concurrence with this special arrangement.
27. Senator Smith. Does this imply that the PEO-AMD is not a full-
time job?
General Bolton. No. If anything it shows the complexity of the
duties associated with being a PEO who has ultimate responsibility for
the acquisition programs assigned.
28. Senator Smith. Will other Army PEOs be assigned additional
responsibilities?
General Bolton. Today's acquisition programs are directed, funded
efforts designed to provide a new, improved, or continuing materiel,
weapon or information system capability, or service, in response to a
validated operational or business need. To facilitate decentralized
decisionmaking, execution, and compliance with statutory requirements,
the PEO structure aligns program management by weapon platform,
recognizing customer base, equipment pairing and ultimate support to
Army transformation. All PEOs are ultimately responsible for the life-
cycle management of all the programs assigned to them. This encompasses
a myriad of responsibilities and duties. I do not consider these as
``additional'' duties. They are all interconnected and required for a
PEO to successfully manage his systems. However, under the Secretary of
the Army's Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA) realignment
initiatives, the objective of aligning missions and functions,
streamlining decisionmaking, and passing HQDA responsibilities to the
field, may require the assigning of additional responsibilities to all
Army PEOs.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Wayne Allard
army green ammunition program
29. Senator Allard. General Bolton, the Silver Cartridge Company of
Arvada, Colorado, and the Army have had discussions regarding the
Army's Green Bullet program. I would like to hear again your assurance
that the Department of Defense will properly deal with the Green Bullet
patents and any private sector companies.
General Bolton. The Army met with representatives of the Silver
Cartridge Company in August 2001. It is Army policy to deal fairly with
all contractors and subcontractors. The Army has reviewed the Silver
Cartridge Company patents and claims, has met with legal counsel
representing the Department of Energy (the independent materiel patent
holder), and has conducted an independent patent infringement study.
Information regarding submission of claims of patent infringement has
been provided to Silver Cartridge Company.
During prior meetings with Silver Cartridge Company and its legal
counsel, Hogan and Hartson, Silver Cartridge Company agreed to forward,
in writing, to the Army, specific information concerning alleged patent
infringement. Once received, the Army will analyze that information,
make new findings, and respond appropriately to Silver Cartridge
Company.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Carl Levin, on behalf of Senator Richard
J. Durbin
internal defense industrial capabilities
30. Senator Durbin. General Bolton, do you believe that there is a
minimum industrial capability that must be retained in-house so that
the Defense Department can quickly respond to deployed forces and to
provide the internal expertise to evaluate contractor proposals for
industrial type work?
General Bolton. The Department of Defense is authorized by law to
retain a minimum essential nucleus of government-owned plants and
production lines. The Army has been reducing this number since peaking
during World War II. The Army will continue the review of its ordnance
manufacturing centers to ensure we retain optimal capability.
industrial mobilization capacity
31-32. Senator Durbin. The Industrial Mobilization Capacity budget
line acts as a premium on a mobilization capability ``insurance
policy'' at Army arsenals. Last year's Defense Authorization Act
directed the Army to budget fully for Industrial Mobilization
Capability. In spite of this legal requirement, the fiscal year 2002
budget request did not fully fund Industrial Mobilization Capability.
Do you support fully funding the Industrial Mobilization Capability
budget line?
Will you work to follow the public law in this matter and ensure
this line is fully funded?
General Bolton. I understand the requirements of section 342 of the
Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year
2001, and I will comply with the law. I will ensure the Department of
the Army properly budgets for the unutilized and underutilized plant-
capacity costs of those facilities and equipment required for
mobilization.
lightweight 155mm howitzer
33. Senator Durbin. The joint Army/Marine Corps lightweight 155mm
Howitzer program is in the development phase. Two consecutive reports
by the General Accounting Office have shown that this program is
overbudget, behind schedule and beset by serious technical problems.
The Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) guns have been
determined not to be suitable for operational testing. Will you commit
to review this program to see if you agree that it is time to pursue an
alternative strategy, to include a side-by-side competition of existing
Howitzers that offer a better chance of providing our fine soldiers
with indirect fire power in a timely and cost effective manner?
General Bolton. The Joint Lightweight 155 Millimeter Towed Howitzer
is being developed in conjunction with the Marine Corps. Under the
agreement between the two services governing this development program,
the Marine Corps is responsible for development of the basic Howitzer
and leads in procurement and the Army is responsible for developing and
integrating the digital fire control onto the Howitzer and follows in
production. Additionally, under the joint agreement, the Navy
Acquisition Executive is the Milestone Decision Authority during the
development. Because the Marine Corps is responsible for and solely
funds the development of the basic Howitzer and decision authority
resides with the Navy, I believe this question is more appropriately
addressed by them.
arsenal act
34. Senator Durbin. I am concerned that some recently drafted Army
regulations (AR 700-90) may violate the Arsenal Act. I ask that you
commit to investigate this issue and report back to the committee and
to me within 2 months following your confirmation on whether the Army's
regulations are in accordance with the Arsenal Act.
General Bolton. All Army regulations undergo legal review before
publication to ensure compliance with all statutory requirements, to
include the Arsenal Act, Title 10. Pursuant to your request, I will
look into the specific issues associated with the draft revision to AR
700-90 and report back to you within 2 months.
m67 grenades
35-37. Senator Durbin. A few months ago, the Army Material Command
awarded Rock Island Arsenal a contract for M67 grenades. That award has
now been put on hold while the Army Secretariat reviews this
procurement. I believe this decision may violate both the spirit and
intent of the Arsenal Act. What is the basis for this review and when
do you think it will be resolved?
What process and data will be used to make this decision?
Do you favor awarding this contract to Rock Island Arsenal?
General Bolton. The Army is in the process of determining the
appropriate method for obtaining M67 grenade metal bodies to meet its
requirements. This part has not been manufactured since 1993. In
accordance with the Arsenal Act, the out of pocket costs for making
this part at Rock Island Arsenal will be compared to the price the Army
would pay for industry to provide them. Neither Rock Island nor
industry currently has a contract for this item. It is anticipated that
the Army will be able to compare a neutrally developed independent
Government cost estimate portraying Rock Island Arsenal's costs to
those being offered by industry in response to an existing solicitation
for the Marine Corps in late January 2002. At that time, if confirmed,
I will provide you with an analysis and the Army's intent.
120mm mortar
38. Senator Durbin. We understand that the Marine Corps is testing
an existing rifled 120mm mortar system. We believe this new mortar
would offer the new Army interim brigades more firepower combined with
a much better shoot and scoot capability. Would you review this with
the Marine Corps to see if you should change the currently planned
mortar for the Army interim brigades?
General Bolton. We completed our review with the Marine Corps and
found the existing rifled mortar system did not meet our requirements.
39. Senator Durbin. Would you inform Congress of the results of
your review not later than February 1, 2002?
General Bolton. Yes.
______
[The nomination reference of Maj. Gen. Claude M. Bolton,
Jr., follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
November 8, 2001.
Ordered, that the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Maj. Gen. Claude M. Bolton, Jr., of Florida, to be an Assistant
Secretary of the Army, vice Paul J. Hoeper.
______
[The biographical sketch of Maj. Gen. Claude M. Bolton,
Jr., which was transmitted to the committee at the time the
nomination was referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Maj. Gen. Claude M. Bolton, Jr.
Claude M. Bolton, Jr., nominated by the President to be Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology,
served over 32 years on active duty with the United States Air Force. A
command pilot with more than 2,700 flying hours in more than 40
different aircraft, Mr. Bolton flew 232 combat missions in the Vietnam
War, 40 of them over North Vietnam. He was a test pilot for the F-4, F-
111 and the F-16. Among his decorations are the Defense Distinguished
Service Medal, the Legion of Merit, the Distinguished Flying Cross with
oak leaf cluster, and Air Medal with 16 oak leaf clusters.
Mr. Bolton's last assignment was Commander, Air Force Security
Assistance Center, Headquarters, Air Force Materiel Command, at Wright-
Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, where he managed foreign military sales
programs exceeding $60 billion that supported more than 80 foreign
countries. His responsibilities also included managing the command's
international cooperative programs and its foreign disclosure policy.
Prior to commanding the Air Force Security Assistance Center, he
was the program executive officer for Air Force fighter and bomber
programs in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for
Acquisition, where he served earlier in his career as a special
assistant to the Assistant Secretary. Mr. Bolton was the first program
manager for the Advanced Tactical Fighter Technologies Program which
evolved into the F-22 System Program Office. His other acquisition
assignments have included service as program director for the Advanced
Cruise Missile System Program Office; deputy program director for the
B-2 System Program Office; F-16 program element monitor and division
chief, Low Observable Vehicle Division in the Office of Special
Programs; AFMC director of requirements; and AFMC inspector general. A
graduate of the program manager's course at the Defense Systems
Management College, Mr. Bolton also served as its commandant.
Mr. Bolton graduated from the University of Nebraska in 1969, where
he majored in electrical engineering and was a distinguished graduate
in the Air Force ROTC program. He later earned a master's degree in
management from Troy State University. He is a 1986 graduate of the
Naval War College where he later earned a master's degree in national
security and strategic studies.
Mr. Bolton is married to the former Linda Roll of Alma, Nebraska.
They have two lovely daughters, Cynthia and Jennifer.
______
[The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
form that details the biographical, financial, and other
information of the nominee. The form executed by Maj. Gen.
Claude M. Bolton, Jr., in connection with his nomination
follows:]
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Room SR-228
Washington, DC 20510-6050
(202) 224-3871
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation
of your answer applies.
Part A--Biographical Information
Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for
public inspection prior to the hearing and will also be published in
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.
1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
Claude M. Bolton, Jr.
2. Position to which nominated:
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and
Technology.
3. Date of nomination:
November 8, 2001.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the
committee's executive files.]
5. Date and place of birth:
December 13, 1945; Sioux City, IA.
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Linda I. Roll.
7. Names and ages of children:
Cynthia J. Bolton, 31; Jennifer A. Bolton, 28.
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
University of Nebraska, 1964-1969, BS, Electrical Engineering.
Troy State University, 1975-1978, Masters, Management.
Naval War College, 1985-1986, Masters, National Security and
Strategic Studies.
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
October 2000 to Present: Air Force Security Assistance Center
Commander, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH (Major General, USAF).
June 1998 to October 2000: Program Executive Officer for Air Force
Fighter and Bomber Programs, Pentagon, Washington, DC (Major General,
USAF).
June 1996 to June 1998: Director of Requirements, Wright-Patterson
AFB, OH (Major General, USAF).
March 1996 to June 1996: Special Assistant to Assistant Secretary
of the Air Force for Acquisition, Pentagon, Washington, DC (Brigadier
General, USAF).
March 1993 to March 1996: Defense Systems Management College
Commandant, Fort Belvior, VA (Brigadier General, USAF).
September 1992 to March 1993: Inspector General, HQ Air Force
Materiel Command, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH (Colonel, USAF).
August 1989 to September 1992: System Program Director, Advanced
Cruise Missile Program, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH (Colonel, USAF).
10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative,
honorary or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State,
or local governments, other than those listed above.
No additional.
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
Member of the Board of Trustees for Girls' and Boys' Town (The
Original Father Flanagan's Boys' Home), Omaha, NE.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
None.
13. Political affiliations and activities:
(a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or
any public office for which you have been a candidate.
None.
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5
years.
None.
(c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $100 or more for the past 5 years.
None.
14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals, and any other special
recognitions for outstanding service or achievements.
Professional--Sigma Tau.
Honorary--Eta Kappa Nu, Pi Mu Epsilon, Phi Eta Sigma, Innocents
Society.
Kappa Alpha Psi--Social.
Distinguished AFROTC Graduate.
Defense Distinguished Service Medal with oak leaf cluster.
Legion of Merit.
Distinguished Flying Cross with oak leaf cluster.
Meritorious Service Medal with two oak leaf clusters.
Air Medal with 16 oak leaf clusters.
Vietnam Service Medal with three service stars.
Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross.
Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal.
Chuck Jones Development Planner Award winner, Wright-Patterson AFB.
Macolm Baldrige Quality Award/Finalist, Educational Pilot, Defense
Systems Management College.
``Masters'' Honoree, University of Nebraska, 1999.
Hall of Fame Inductee (first inductee), AFROTC, University of
Nebraska.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
Program Managers Magazine, Defense Systems Management College,
Commandant's Commentary.
16. Speeches: Provide the committee with two copies of any formal
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have
copies of and are on topics relevant to the position for which you have
been nominated.
None.
17. Commitment to Testify Before Senate Committees: Do you agree,
if confirmed, to respond to requests to appear and testify before any
duly constituted committee of the Senate?
Yes.
______
[The nominee responded to the questions in Parts B-F of the
committee questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set
forth in the appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to
Parts B-F are contained in the committee's executive files.]
------
Signature and Date
I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate,
and complete.
Maj. Gen. Claude M. Bolton, Jr.
This 9th day of November, 2001.
[The nomination of Maj. Gen. Claude M. Bolton, Jr., was
reported to the Senate by Senator Ben Nelson on December 6,
2001, with the recommendation that the nomination be confirmed.
The nomination was confirmed by the Senate on December 20,
2001.]
APPENDIX
Committee on Armed Services Questionnaire on Biographical and Financial
Information Requested of Civilian Nominees
------
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Room SR-228
Washington, DC 20510-6050
(202) 224-3871
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation
of your answer applies.
Part A--Biographical Information
Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for
public inspection prior to the hearing and will also be published in
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.
1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
2. Position to which nominated:
3. Date of nomination:
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
5. Date and place of birth:
6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
7. Names and ages of children:
8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative,
honorary or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State,
or local governments, other than those listed above.
11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
13. Political affiliations and activities:
(a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or
any public office for which you have been a candidate.
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5
years.
(c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $100 or more for the past 5 years.
14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, military medals and any other special recognitions
for outstanding service or achievements.
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.
16. Speeches: Provide the committee with two copies of any formal
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have
copies of and are on topics relevant to the position for which you have
been nominated.
17. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree,
if confirmed, to appear and testify upon request before any duly
constituted committee of the Senate?
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
FINANCIAL AND OTHER INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
Instructions to the Nominee: Information furnished in Parts B
through F will be retained in the committee's executive files and will
not be made available to the public unless specifically directed by the
committee.
Name:
Part B--Future Employment Relationships
1. Will you sever all business connections with your present
employers, business firms, business associations or business
organizations if you are confirmed by the Senate?
2. Do you have any plans, commitments or agreements to pursue
outside employment, with or without compensation, during your service
with the government? If so, explain.
3. Do you have any plans, commitments or agreements after
completing government service to resume employment, affiliation or
practice with your previous employer, business firm, association or
organization?
4. Has anybody made a commitment to employ your services in any
capacity after you leave government service?
5. Is your spouse employed and, if so, where?
6. If confirmed, do you expect to serve out your full term or until
the next Presidential election, whichever is applicable?
Part C--Potential Conflicts of Interest
1. Describe all financial arrangements, deferred compensation
agreements, and other continuing dealings with business associates,
clients or customers.
2. Indicate any investments, obligations, liabilities, or other
relationships which could involve potential conflicts of interest in
the position to which you have been nominated.
3. Describe any business relationship, dealing or financial
transaction which you have had during the last 10 years, whether for
yourself, on behalf of a client, or acting as an agent, that could in
any way constitute or result in a possible conflict of interest in the
position to which you have been nominated.
4. Describe any activity during the past 10 years in which you have
engaged for the purpose of directly or indirectly influencing the
passage, defeat or modification of any legislation or affecting the
administration and execution of law or public policy.
5. Explain how you will resolve any potential conflict of interest,
including any that may be disclosed by your responses to the above
items. (Please provide a copy of any trust or other agreements.)
6. Do you agree to provide to the committee any written opinions
provided by the General Counsel of the agency to which you are
nominated and by the Attorney General's office concerning potential
conflicts of interest or any legal impediments to your serving in this
position?
Part D--Legal Matters
1. Have you ever been disciplined or cited for a breach of ethics
for unprofessional conduct by, or been the subject of a complaint to
any court, administrative agency, professional association,
disciplinary committee, or other professional group? If so, provide
details.
2. Have you ever been investigated, arrested, charged or held by
any Federal, State, or other law enforcement authority for violation of
any Federal, State, county or municipal law, regulation or ordinance,
other than a minor traffic offense? If so, provide details.
3. Have you or any business of which you are or were an officer
ever been involved as a party in interest in any administrative agency
proceeding or civil litigation? If so, provide details.
4. Have you ever been convicted (including a plea of guilty or nolo
contendere) of any criminal violation other than a minor traffic
offense?
5. Please advise the committee of any additional information,
favorable or unfavorable, which you feel should be considered in
connection with your nomination.
Part E--Foreign Affiliations
1. Have you or your spouse ever represented in any capacity (e.g.,
employee, attorney, business, or political adviser or consultant), with
or without compensation, a foreign government or an entity controlled
by a foreign government? If so, please fully describe such
relationship.
2. If you or your spouse has ever been formally associated with a
law, accounting, public relations firm or other service organization,
have any of your or your spouse's associates represented, in any
capacity, with or without compensation, a foreign government or an
entity controlled by a foreign government? If so, please fully describe
such relationship.
3. During the past 10 years have you or your spouse received any
compensation from, or been involved in any financial or business
transactions with, a foreign government or an entity controlled by a
foreign government? If so, please furnish details.
4. Have you or your spouse ever registered under the Foreign Agents
Registration Act? If so, please furnish details.
Part F--Financial Data
All information requested under this heading must be provided for
yourself, your spouse, and your dependents.
1. Describe the terms of any beneficial trust or blind trust of
which you, your spouse, or your dependents may be a beneficiary. In the
case of a blind trust, provide the name of the trustee(s) and a copy of
the trust agreement.
2. Provide a description of any fiduciary responsibility or power
of attorney which you hold for or on behalf of any other person.
3. List sources, amounts and dates of all anticipated receipts from
deferred income arrangements, stock options, executory contracts and
other future benefits which you expect to derive from current or
previous business relationships, professional services and firm
memberships, employers, clients and customers.
4. Have you filed a Federal income tax return for each of the past
10 years? If not, please explain.
5. Have your taxes always been paid on time?
6. Were all your taxes, Federal, State, and local, current (filed
and paid) as of the date of your nomination?
7. Has the Internal Revenue Service ever audited your Federal tax
return? If so, what resulted from the audit?
8. Have any tax liens, either Federal, State, or local, been filed
against you or against any real property or personal property which you
own either individually, jointly, or in partnership?
(The committee may require that copies of your Federal income tax
returns be provided to the committee. These documents will be made
available only to Senators and the staff designated by the Chairman.
They will not be available for public inspection.)
Signature and Date
I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate,
and complete.
----------------------------------.
This ---------- day of --------------------------, 20------.
______
Committee on Armed Services Questionnaire on Biographical and Financial
Information Requested of Certain Senior Military Nominees
------
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Room SR-228
Washington, DC 20510-6050
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES FOR
CERTAIN SENIOR MILITARY POSITIONS
Instructions to the Nominee:
Complete all requested information. If more space is needed use an
additional sheet and cite the part of the form and the question number
(i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation of your answer applies.
If you have completed this form in connection with a prior military
nomination, you may use the following procedure in lieu of submitting a
new form. In your letter to the Chairman, add the following paragraph
to the end:
``I hereby incorporate by reference the information and commitments
contained in the Senate Armed Services Committee form
`Biographical and Financial Information Requested of Nominees
for Certain Senior Military Positions,' submitted to the
Committee on [insert date or your prior form]. I agree that all
such commitments apply to the position to which I have been
nominated and that all such information is current except as
follows: . . . .'' [If any information on your prior form needs
to be updated, please cite the part of the form and the
question number and set forth the updated information in your
letter to the Chairman.]
Part A--Biographical Information
Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.
1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
2. Position to which nominated:
3. Date of nomination:
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.
Also include your office telephone number.)
5. Date and place of birth:
6. Marital Status: (Include name of husband or wife, including
wife's maiden name.)
7. Names and ages of children:
8. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative, honorary
or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State, or local
governments, other than those listed in the service record extract
provided to the Committee by the Executive Branch.
9. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative,
or consultant of any corporation, firm, partnership, or other business
enterprise, educational, or other institution.
10. Memberships: List all memberships and offices held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and
other organizations.
11. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
society memberships, and any other special recognitions for outstanding
service or achievements other than those listed on the service record
extract provided to the committee by the executive branch.
12. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree,
if confirmed, to appear and testify upon request before any duly
constituted committee of the Senate?
13. Personal views: Do you agree, when asked before any duly
constituted committee of Congress, to give your personal views, even if
those views differ from the administration in power?
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
FINANCIAL AND OTHER INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
Instructions to the Nominee: Information furnished in Parts B
through E will be retained in the committee's executive files and will
not be made available to the public unless specifically directed by the
committee.
Name:
Part B--Future Employment Relationships
1. Do you have any plans, commitments or agreements to pursue
outside employment, with or without compensation, during your military
service. If so, explain.
2. Has anybody made a commitment to employ your services in any
capacity after you leave military service?
Part C--Potential Conflicts of Interest
1. Describe all financial arrangements, deferred compensation
agreements, and other continuing dealings with business associates,
clients or customers.
2. Indicate any investments, obligations, liabilities, or other
relationships which could involve potential conflicts of interest in
the position to which you have been nominated.
3. Describe any business relationship, dealing or financial
transaction which you have had during the last 10 years, whether for
yourself, on behalf of a client, or acting as an agent, that could in
any way constitute or result in a possible conflict of interest in the
position to which you have been nominated.
4. Explain how you will resolve any potential conflict of interest,
including any that may be disclosed by your responses to the above
items. (Please provide a copy of any trust or other agreements.)
5. Do you agree to provide to the committee any written opinions
provided by the General Counsel of the agency to which you are
nominated and by the Office of Government Ethics concerning potential
conflicts of interest or any legal impediments to your serving in this
position?
6. Is your spouse employed and, if so, where?
Part D--Legal Matters
1. Have you ever been disciplined or cited for a breach of ethics
for unprofessional conduct by, or been the subject of a complaint to
any court, administrative agency, professional association,
disciplinary committee, or other professional group? If so, provide
details.
2. Have you ever been investigated, arrested, charged or held by
any Federal, State, or other law enforcement authority for violation of
Federal, State, county or municipal law, regulation or ordinance, other
than a minor traffic offense? If so, provide details.
3. Have you or any business of which you are or were an officer
ever been involved as a party in interest in any administrative agency
proceeding or litigation? If so, provide details.
4. Have you ever been convicted (including a plea of guilty or nolo
contendere) of any criminal violation other than a minor traffic
offense?
5. Please advise the committee of any additional information,
favorable or unfavorable, which you feel should be considered in
connection with your nomination.
Part E--Foreign Affiliations
1. Have you or your spouse ever represented in any capacity (e.g.,
employee, attorney, business, or political adviser or consultant), with
or without compensation, a foreign government or an entity controlled
by a foreign government? If so, please fully describe such
relationship.
2. If you or your spouse has ever been formally associated with a
law, accounting, public relations firm or other service organization,
have any of your or your spouse's associates represented, in any
capacity, with or without compensation, a foreign government or an
entity controlled by a foreign government? If so, please fully describe
such relationship.
3. During the past 10 years have you or your spouse received any
compensation from, or been involved in any financial or business
transactions with, a foreign government or an entity controlled by a
foreign government? If so, please furnish details.
4. Have you or your spouse ever registered under the Foreign Agents
Registration Act? If so, please furnish details.
Signature and Date
I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate,
and complete.
----------------------------------.
This ---------- day of --------------------------, 20----.